INTERVIEW: "We need more constructive political debate"

As part of a European research consortium, a team led by Fulda democracy and Europe researcher Professor Dr Claudia Wiesner is investigating the basics and rules of social coexistence. Together with researchers from eleven EU and non-EU countries, the research group is developing future scenarios for how current social contracts can be made more politically and socially resilient in the face of the major challenges of our time.

Professor Dr Wiesner, what is a social contract?
This is precisely the question we are addressing in the project - at Fulda University of Applied Sciences, I am working on this with Zhylien Kaja, Muriel Pluschke and Dr Jessica Schmidt. A social contract is certainly not the same as a constitution. My working definition is that a constitution is part of a social contract, i.e. the formal written basics and the legal framework. Other elements are then added, including at least the feeling of cohesion and the acceptance of common rules. A social contract then describes the membership of citizens in this society and their mutual acceptance as members of society, the responsibility of the rulers for society and finally the support of citizens for the state and its principles. It therefore also includes people's practices and actions. What do they do to maintain the social contract or to attack it? This is what we want to look at in the project.

You are concerned with the continuous construction of resilient social contracts. What does that mean?
We assume that a social contract is continuously constructed. In other words, it is created anew every day or attacked anew every day - through the actions of citizens, i.e. through our actions.

Can you give an example to illustrate this?
The attack in Solingen is a painful example. It is an attack on the German social contract, and at several neuralgic points. Firstly, anyone who carries out a terrorist attack is violently attacking the rules of a social contract that not only does not include open violence, but excludes it and makes it a punishable offence. Anyone and everyone, including a so-called "bio-German" assassin, would therefore be abusing their position as part of the social contract by carrying out a terrorist attack. Secondly, the attack took place at a town festival, which is actually intended to celebrate local social cohesion and diversity. Thirdly, the terrorist attack in Solingen was carried out by a refugee - as someone who has been granted protection, he is attacking the society that has given him this protection. And fourthly, this is happening while the extent to which our social contract should include the acceptance of refugees is being debated. All of this was immediately taken up in the political debates.

Each side used the terror attack in Solingen for their arguments. Here we can see how terror has an impact on networks of meaning and attributions - one is almost tempted to say: it strikes. We have also seen such discussions and attacks about and on meanings of the social contract in TikTok and Instagram videos about the European elections, which we initially looked at in the project.

How exactly is the social contract attacked here?
The videos are generally about provoking and inciting. Alice Weidel, for example, almost always implicitly appeals to the social contract by dividing it into "we" and "the others". In Weidel's case, the "we" are the good German citizens from whom "the others" are taking something. The aim of such arguments is to increase the pressure in society, the conflicts and thus the pressure on the social contract. To this end, it is pretended that there are simple solutions to complex problems. But this is not true, on the contrary: throughout Europe, far-right parties generally stand out because they either have no solutions or pursue a very brute, de-democratising policy. This can be seen in Hungary, where civil liberties and the separation of powers are being severely restricted, or in Italy, where freedom of the press is being massively curtailed. The ruling actors are thus also restricting the basics of social contracts.

What is the impact of the questioning of the social contract in this country?
The reactions to the terrorist attack in Solingen showed people losing trust in the state, and that has to be taken very seriously. In other places, too, people feel that the state cannot protect them or cannot cope with certain problems. It is important to emphasise that such discussions are often an expression of perceptions or emotions, but they do not reflect facts. And, as I have just described, they are actively fuelled by polarisation entrepreneurs such as Alice Weidel. For example, the current discussion about the citizen's income - without wanting to assess it normatively - expresses conflicts about the social contract.

The factual basis here is not very dramatic: there are indeed a few loopholes that allow a small number of people to receive citizens' income even though they might be able to work. However, statistics show that the abuse of citizens' income is minimal. So the real problem exists, but it is very small. Nevertheless, some people have the perception that a lot of people are abusing the citizen's allowance. This certainly has something to do with envy. But there is probably also a feeling of injustice behind it and the perception that burdens are not distributed properly. Certain people, certain groups seem to have the feeling that they have to bear an above-average amount of the burden.

Again, I have to say that this feeling is actively fuelled. The feeling of having to do more than others is then again at odds with the social contract, because burden sharing is one of its fundamental principles. The underlying assumption is that those who can pay and achieve more should do so. Conversely, the principle of burden sharing also means that it is perfectly legitimate to say that everyone should contribute. This is the ideal basis of the social contract - and if some people then get the impression that a lot of people are not contributing even though they could - and again, this is a perception, not a fact - the basic feeling can arise that it is not fair if someone does not want to work even though they can. Right-wing extremist parties capitalise on such feelings. The centre parties are clearly not succeeding at the moment. This accumulates in statements such as: 'The other parties aren't doing anything for me.

So it's about perceptions?
You have to distinguish between two things: What is it like empirically, what are the facts? And how do people feel? At the end of project, we are looking at both, with the empirical indicators forming more of a backdrop. Let's take social inequality: it has risen rapidly in Germany over the last 15 years. People with low and medium incomes are under economic pressure, they are feeling the inflation hard. When this fact comes up against the perception that others are being given something, it can create dissatisfaction. At the end of project, we are trying to get to the bottom of the "why" behind such developments. We will manage focus group discussions and interviews with citizens.

They will look at how social contracts can become more resilient. How could that work?
We are still in the middle of investigating this. If you can attack social contracts, then you can also strengthen them. Political debates can contribute to this. But society would probably first have to get used to debates again and practise debating. Many people find it difficult to engage in controversial but constructive debate. It seems to be easier at the moment to escalate fronts.

Even among my students, I often see a reluctance to engage in controversial discussions. It's about what we describe with the nice technical term "tolerance of ambiguity": The world is becoming more complex, crises are becoming more challenging, truths are becoming fewer. There have never been any absolute truths anyway. All of this has to be tolerated somehow, and not only that: in a representative democracy, we have to be able to talk about it. It is perfectly natural for people to disagree on crucial issues. But these controversies can be dealt with in a civilised manner. However, many politicians report how they are attacked and insulted, and how it is currently difficult to get people into conversations at all, let alone into debates. Not only as a scientist, but also as a political person, I say that constructive social and political debates are necessary. Social controversies must be fought out in public.

How can everyone strengthen the resilience of social contracts?
Through tolerance, debate and participation. And through democratic activity of all kinds - from coaching
in a football club to organising a food bank or being a student mentor. You can simply start by listening to people. After the national football team was knocked out of the European Championships, the national coach gave a speech in which he called for people to help their neighbours and support each other. It was a plea for community and for having the courage to try out solutions together.