Democracy education at universities

How much “neutrality” can a university allow itself when democracy comes under pressure? For Andreas Haidvogl, political scientist from h_da, the answer is quite clear: adopting a neutral stance towards anti-democratic groups is not an option. He believes that universities have a duty to defend democracy, for example through concrete initiatives in the area of democracy education. In his view, young people must be systematically empowered to understand extremist ideologies and confront them with reasoned arguments. A conversation about the limits of neutrality, on education as a lever against extremism and why there should be a motion to ban the AfD.

Interview: Christina Janssen, 24. August 2026

impact: On 6 September, Saxony-Anhalt will elect a new state parliament. The AfD is currently polling at 42 percent. How do you feel about this election day?

Haidvogl: I am very concerned, of course. But my concerns are not limited solely to election day. We assume that the AfD will probably become the strongest party in Saxony-Anhalt. They might even win an absolute majority and be able to form a government on their own. But this election day will be just another disconcerting culmination in a development that worries me overall: for some time now, we have been seeing a massive shift to the right in Europe – in Germany too.

impact: In your research and teaching, you deal with many forms of extremism – including right-wing and left-wing extremism, Islamism, the “Tradwives” movement, conspiracy theories and fake news. From where is the greatest threat to democracy currently coming?

Haidvogl: As a rule, the greatest threats to democracies come from within and not from outside. We see the Russian attacks on Ukraine; we see forms of external violence impacting on democracies. In general, however, our observation is that democracies are weakened and disintegrate from within. In my view, the greatest threat at the present time is quite clearly right-wing extremism. Democracy is – and this now sounds very dramatic, but I mean it entirely seriously – at a crossroads and faces the greatest challenges since 1945. In my opinion, a lot of people are still not conscious of this.

impact: What role do universities play in this situation? You say that they are not allowed to maintain a neutral stance, yet at the same time the Basic Law obliges them to stay politically unbiased. Isn’t that a dilemma?

Haidvogl: No, it isn’t a dilemma because the principle of neutrality is often misconceived. In the case of the AfD, we are dealing with a party that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution has largely classified as being “confirmed” right-wing extremist. This means that there are strong movements within this party that are directed against the free democratic basic order of the Federal Republic. It is at this point, at the latest, that the neutrality of state institutions ends. That includes universities. We are obliged to uphold and protect the free democratic basic order and the Basic Law. As teaching staff – most of whom are civil servants and have sworn an oath of office to the Hessian Constitution – we, too, are bound by this obligation.

impact: How exactly can a university play an active role?

Haidvogl: I think it’s fantastic that Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences has an anti-discrimination team that organises interesting events and invites prominent guests to our university. Nevertheless, its reach is naturally limited. As a university, we have a much more powerful lever at our disposal, and that lever is teaching. After all, thousands of students attend our courses. Education is our mandate, and it is the key.

impact: Democracy education is also set down as a mandate in the Hessian Higher Education Act. It states that education should empower young people to “act responsibly in a free, democratic, social and constitutional state”. How do you personally fulfil this requirement in your teaching?

Haidvogl: I teach on the cross-disciplinary Social and Cultural Studies (SUK) programme at h_da, where I run courses on topics such as “Democracy” and “Right-wing Extremism”. These focus on how democracy is currently challenged and on better understanding right-wing extremism in both its old and new forms. Knowledge is always also the foundation for reasoning and getting involved.

impact: How can students learn to recognise extremist or anti-democratic statements when they do not manifest as blatant slogans, but are hidden in memes, social media posts, conspiracy theories or euphemisms such as “remigration” or “migration turnaround”?

Haidvogl: We look first at the basic concepts: What does “right-wing” mean, what is right-wing radicalism, what is right-wing extremism? The roots of the problem lie in extremism. Then we examine areas that are particularly relevant in this context: gender politics, identity politics and integration policy. How does the far right – and, above all, the New Right – position itself on these issues; what strategies does it employ to achieve its goals; and what can we do to expose these strategies? We watch speeches by AfD MPs in the federal or state parliaments and endeavour to identify and analyse phrases they repeat over and over again. We also investigate how the New Right attempts to convey its messages especially to young people via social media. In project work, we practise how to recognise and deconstruct these extremist messages and to develop targeted counterarguments.

impact: Your students come from a variety of disciplines. How would you describe your discussions with these young people?

Haidvogl: Our discussions are always intriguing and inspiring. What particularly impresses me is the high level of interest and commitment among my students. Many of them are politically aware and follow current social developments very closely. They greatly appreciate that the university offers formats where they can discuss issues of pressing concern to them.

impact: You say that the foundation for resistance is knowledge. In everyday life, however, we are increasingly encountering people who can no longer be reached with facts and sound arguments. For the vast majority of AfD voters, for instance, immigration is still the main issue, although the figures are constantly falling. What can help in situations where a dialogue based on facts appears futile?

Haidvogl: That is a difficult question. The voters of far-right parties form a very broad spectrum. Some of them are certainly willing to engage in democratic debate. On the other hand, however, we will presumably just have to live with the fact that there are a number of people who can no longer be reached with rational arguments.

impact: Are they lost for good, as far as democracy is concerned?

Haidvogl: I can’t give you a serious answer to that. But it is in any case difficult because so much of right-wing extremism revolves around anger and fear. This is a central mechanism that right-wing extremist populists employ – they try to instigate and fuel fear. Fear is an irrational emotion that we cannot simply brush aside with rational arguments. Perhaps, however, we shouldn’t immediately set out to convince everyone who threatens to stray from the democratic fold – or who has already left it. Perhaps it’s initially about taking a step back and saying: “No, I see things differently.” That, too, is a form of discursive resistance because it makes it clear that there are lots of people who do not share such views. To be able to put up such resistance, however, we first need a knowledge base.

impact: The aim is therefore to raise awareness among young people and encourage them to speak out?

Haidvogl: Yes, because the core strategy of the New Right is to wage a hegemonic culture war – a battle over the discursive space. What can be said, and what cannot be said? We must recognise this and speak out loudly against it from a democratic standpoint.

impact: How much of that is “preaching to the converted”? Or in other words: Do you ever have participants in your courses who hold quite different views?

Haidvogl: We know from empirical research that students are not particularly susceptible to far-right populism. Nevertheless, students are not only students. They are also friends, sons and daughters; they are members of clubs and actively involved in society. And almost all my students report that people in their social circles have voiced problematic comments from time to time. That is why it is important to learn how to demystify the populists’ phrasings and handle such situations. Our students go out into society and spread the message.

impact: What role does right-wing extremism play in your research?  

Haidvogl: My current research project examines the success of small, spontaneous resistance movements forming against right-wing extremism at the local level. I’m thinking here, for example, of “Omas gegen Rechts”, “Bündnis gegen Rechts”, “Bunt ohne Braun” or “Lorsch bleibt stabil”. Civil society is a key factor in democracy. We must not leave all the problems to politicians alone. Every one of us has a duty to stand up for the constitution and the rules of the game that make our social and democratic coexistence what it is.

impact: Would you be in favour of a motion to ban the AfD?

Haidvogl: Yes.

impact: Why are you so sure about that – despite all the risks and counterarguments?

Haidvogl: It took me quite a while to adopt such a clear stance. You cannot eradicate the actual problem just by calling for a ban. We might be able to ban political parties, but not the way of thinking. According to the latest polls, the AfD is meanwhile by far the strongest party at the national level as well. How much longer can we wait or are we willing to wait? We need legal certainty.

impact: What do you mean by “legal certainty”?

Haidvogl: Legal certainty would mean that the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe bans the AfD as a political party. The bodies at both federal and state level responsible for protecting the constitution have clear evidence regarding many sections of the AfD that it is a far-right extremist party which pursues an ethno-nationalist policy incompatible with the Basic Law and directed against the free democratic basic order of the Federal Republic. For me, these are good reasons to seek legal certainty as swiftly as possible and to initiate proceedings to ban the party. Nobody knows what the outcome might be. The worst that could happen is that a motion to ban the party fails. That is a major risk – but we need clarity.

impact: Especially the educational and cultural institutions in Saxony-Anhalt want clarity. They are very concerned about the radical changes that could follow a potential election victory for the AfD.

Haidvogl: Yes, I’m thinking above all of our colleagues at the universities in Magdeburg, Halle and Merseburg, or the cultural sector. The AfD has already announced its intention to intervene in education and cultural policy from the ground up. Just consider the unspeakable criticism levelled at the Bauhaus, or the demand that only art projects that contribute to “the search for a German identity” – whatever that is supposed to mean – should receive public funding. They are also making grotesque demands vis-à-vis higher education policy, such as the abolition of gender studies. Ultimately, this also makes the freedom of science and teaching negotiable. And not least because of that, we as a university cannot allow ourselves to rest on our laurels.

impact: You’re making a stand in this debate. Are you afraid?

Haidvogl: I see it as my duty – not only as a citizen of this country but also as a political scientist and a civil servant employed at a German university – to oppose anti-democratic movements. I’m not afraid for me personally, but I fear one day living in a country where people have to live in fear. In the darkest period of this country’s history, there was a time when many people had to live in great fear. We must do everything in our power to ensure that it never happens again.