2024 is a global super-election year: around 45% of the world’s population will be asked to vote in some 70 elections. At the same time, however, data from the Varieties of Democracy Project (V-Dem) shows that the quality of democracy is declining around the world and that autocratisation, often described as the regression of democracy, is occurring in several places. Last Tuesday, Vice-President of the European Parliament Dr. Katarina Barley, MEP Prof. Dr Sven Simon and Prof. Dr. Rainer Forst (Director of the Research Centre Normative Orders at the Goethe University Frankfurt) discussed the state of democratic regression 100 days after the European elections. The event was part of the Crisis Talks series organized by the Leibniz Research Alliance CrisEn, the Research Centre Normative Orders and the European Office of the Leibniz Association in coordination with the Representation of the State of Hesse at the EU.
After welcoming speeches by Dr. Parinas Parhisi (RS Hessen) and Dr. Stefan Kroll (PRIF), the event began with a keynote speech by Rainer Forst on the sociologically abstract concept of regression, which is essentially about authoritarian and anti-human rights actors who “invoke democracy and endanger it at the same time”. Specifically in relation to the EU, there is a “real paradox” in the fact that “parties have been elected to the Parliament that are opposed to the Parliament itself and to the principles of the EU”. This is a profound attack on the understanding of democracy that must be resisted at all costs. Democracy should never be understood to mean that political power is used to dominate minorities in such a way that they are denied the opportunity to participate. Democracy is based on “respect for the rights of every human being as free and equal”. Not only to undermine these minimum standards, but to fight aggressively against them, and thus to succeed in elections, is far from being an expression of legitimate democracy, but rather a “triumph of unreason” that must be countered.
Katarina Barley then emphasized that this reinterpretation of democratic concepts is not accidental, but rather the core of regressive strategies. In her political practice, she has repeatedly experienced how terms are adopted, twisted at their core and actually used with anti-democratic intentions. The strengthening of the right in the European elections is now leading to these interpretations being normalised and upgraded in the political process. Sven Simon shares this observation, citing the inappropriate attacks on Commission President Ursula von der Leyen as another example. However, Simon also emphasises the clear pro-European majority in the Parliament, which stands in opposition to the regressive forces.
The panel had different perspectives on the issue of migration of asylum seekers. While Rainer Forst pointed to human rights as the central benchmark, Sven Simon emphasised the legal basis of migration, such as the requirement in the German constitution that the right to asylum cannot be claimed by anyone arriving from an EU country or a safe third country. The aim must also be not only to accept people, but also to offer them integration programmes, and this is where resources are ultimately limited. But it is also important – and this builds a bridge to the sovereignty of interpretation – not to leave the definition of the challenges in the field of migration to the extremists. According to Forst, the fact that migration is always associated with concepts of threat and security also has an impact.
The final questions from the audience focused, among other things, on the possibility of extending direct democratic elements. While Sven Simon and Katharina Barley were clearly in favour of representative democracy, Rainer Forst once again emphasized the potential of democracy beyond elections – democracy is more than just 'counting ballots'.
