Germany has just experienced a turbulent week. Farmers protested throughout the country. The Chancellor and the President of the Farmers’ Association didn’t speak with each other until your New Year Reception at Schloss Bellevue. Should Olaf Scholz have spoken to the farmers sooner?

I believe that face-to-face talks are imperative in the current situation. Protests are legitimate, but an absence of communication between the Government and the farmers harms everyone involved.

The discontent among farmers is just the most visible symptom of the Chancellor’s problems. Confidence in his government is at an all-time low. And the AfD could win the largest number of seats at three federal state elections this year. What has the Government done wrong here?

We are in an extraordinary situation. The succession of crises we have faced have created uncertainty. But it’s also clear that if a government’s credibility falls then that is partly due to decisions not being adequately communicated or accepted, or to decisions being overshadowed by internal discord that has found its way into the public domain. It’s certainly in the Government’s interest to improve this situation.

The aftermath of the judgment by the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe on the budget almost brought about the Government’s demise. You have spoken to many senior politicians. What was your impression?

Debates in Germany have become more heated. What’s more, there is also a growing acceptance of populist positions and that makes it more difficult to govern. It creates unrest, also among political leaders. It’s therefore all the more important to find the strength to work together.

In the case of one of the key issues of the day, migration policy, such cooperation between government and opposition has failed, however. Do you regret that?

The public expects those responsible in the parliaments to recognise when so much is at stake. There have been repeated situations in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany where even after highly charged disputes government and opposition have come together – for example, Germany’s integration into the West, the Eastern Treaties or the asylum compromise in 1993. I hope that this is still possible in this current situation, too.

Who is to blame for the failure to conclude a cross-party deal on migration? Olaf Scholz or Friedrich Merz?

I’m not in a position to judge that. What matters, however, is that after almost ten years of dispute over the future of European migration policy, an understanding has now finally been reached in the European Council. That was urgently needed. And it has to be implemented quickly.

Would you try to persuade Scholz and Merz to enter into a grand coalition if this “traffic-light” coalition collapses? Or would it be better to allow new elections?

We are celebrating the 75^th anniversary of the Basic Law this year. The lesson the architects of the Basic Law learned from the Weimar Republic was that there must never again be political instability. That there should be no premature dissolution of Parliament, nor periods with no government in place. We in Germany can look back on a long period of political stability thanks to these strict guidelines.

The case you have just put forward for stability means that you would avoid early elections?

It’s not my place to speculate about the collapse of the coalition. The forthcoming decisions in the Bundestag, for instance about the budget, will reveal how stable the coalition is. This Government was elected for four years.

There has not just been a loss of confidence in the Government but also in politics in general.

It’s true that some things are indeed developing in the wrong direction. Political debate has become more aggressive, at least on social media. There is little sign nowadays of respect for those with a different opinion. Respect for democratic institutions and their representatives is also dwindling. An increasing number of people see their own interests as paramount and feel they have the right to take matters into their own hands. I’m thinking here not only of how Deputy Chancellor Robert Habeck was prevented by demonstrators on the quayside from disembarking a ferry in Schlüttsiel. I’m also thinking of some activists from the organisation Last Generation.

What conclusions should we draw from this?

We cannot simply stand back and allow this to happen. We need debates, also heated ones. However, we also need to find the middle ground and be prepared to compromise. Anyone who calls into question these basic rules on social cohesion is endangering democracy.

What will you do this year to ensure that we don’t “simply stand back and allow this to happen”?

When I took up office seven years ago, I said to the surprise of some that the focus of my term of office would be protecting democracy. I have always been aware that what we have been observing, particularly in the United States, with a degree of arrogance – the erosion of established democratic principles and practices, the growing polarisation – can also happen to us. That is why I said early on that we have to stabilise our society’s cohesion. That includes recognition for those working on a voluntary basis, as well as respect for democratic institutions. And I believe it also means that wherever alienation has taken root, for example between town and country, we should not simply acknowledge it. Rather we have to tackle it.

Is enough being done at present with regard to the farmers’ protests?

I regularly move my office out of Berlin for a few days to small towns which are not in the spotlight. Every year, I meet farmers at the presentation of the harvest crown during Harvest Thanksgiving, and members of the German Countrywomen Association in the federal states. I want to dispel the feeling: no one is interested in us, no one listens to us. It sometimes helps to go and say: we want to hear you. I therefore believe that it’s vitally important to spend more time in rural areas. What’s more, buying our food in supermarkets has estranged us from those who produce it. That may be another reason why in our country as a whole there is not enough appreciation for those responsible for producing food and preserving the quality of life in rural regions.

Will democracy be at risk if the AfD wins one or more of the federal state elections this year?

Voters have the responsibility here. And no one heading to the polling station can shirk this responsibility. I hope that everyone who votes does so not solely with a feeling of anger or frustration – but also in awareness of the consequences. After all, the investigative report published recently on the meeting of right-wing extremists shows that we have to be very vigilant.

That was a very general response.

We have lived with our democracy – as shaped by the Basic Law – very well until now. Much has been achieved in this country which others yearn for. This was possible because we were prepared to compromise – even after heated political debates. I very much hope that each and every voter takes this to heart before casting their vote. If we look back at our country’s history we see that extremists have always brought misfortune upon our country.

Andreas Voßkuhle, President of the Constitutional Court for many years, has just said that there is a risk that Western democracy could be only a short phase in the history of humanity. Was he exaggerating?

Democracy did not simply come about over night. Democracy can never be guaranteed for all eternity. It is kept alive not only by the Basic Law but also by the active participation of the people. We need this participation. After all, the quality of democracy in Germany is also characterised by the fact that hundreds and thousands of people devote their time to improving their municipality or their city. I am therefore appalled by the verbal abuse and the physical attacks that are even being witnessed at municipal level. If this leads to the resignation of those in positions of responsibility or deters people from assuming responsibility in the first place, democracy will wither from the roots upwards.

Are we approaching the situation seen in the Weimar Republic in the 1920s?

The situation today is different. One factor was the post-war situation in 1918, where there was hyperinflation and mass unemployment. We don’t have that today. Another point is that in spite of all the concerns we have about right-wing extremists, we should not underestimate two things. Today, we have safeguards in the German Basic Law, which the Weimar constitution didn’t have. And 80 percent of the German population are clearly and unequivocally on the side of democracy. That wasn’t the case in the Weimar Republic. Then, the democratic centre was trapped between radical left-wingers and right-wingers.

But now there is a growing movement against the so-called establishment.

We are familiar with that from the United States. Donald Trump declared war against the establishment in his presidential election campaign in 2015 and 2016. Many people supported him initially. But what was the outcome? That in his Republican Party all those who were less radical than he was were removed. For in the view of those who fight against the establishment, anyone who is not one of them is part of the establishment. I can therefore only warn people to be careful of all those who support radicalisation tendencies for short-sighted, party political reasons.

One person who always positions himself against the establishment is Hubert Aiwanger, Chairman of the Free Voters (Freie Wähler). He played down the events in Schlüttsiel.

In this country, too, there are those who are deluded. Anyone who promotes radicalisation will themselves ultimately be affected by the consequences.

According to a new survey, Aiwanger is more popular than Olaf Scholz, Robert Habeck and Christian Lindner.

Yes, and that might also have to do with a certain kind of media logic. We see that elsewhere, too: in Saxony-Anhalt, hundreds of volunteers helped stabilise the dams. When the Chancellor came, a handful of radical individuals hurled abuse at him. And then the evening news features the people who insulted Olaf Scholz and not the volunteers who invested their time and energy to protect people from the floods.

Will you be around in the run-up to the three federal state elections in Eastern Germany?

I began my second term of office in Altenburg in Thuringia and have often visited the Eastern German states since. This year, too, I will be paying frequent visits to places in Eastern Germany, and of course I will urge people to vote, in the hope that it bolsters the democrats. We need to be aware that radical populist parties have already mobilised a significant number of supporters, particularly among non-voters. And something has changed: in the past, when we said that democracy is under threat, people were shocked. Most people still are. But now there are those who say: so what? We cannot let them go unchallenged. I know from countless conversations outside the capital that most people are open and convinced of the importance of democracy and the rule of law.

Radical right-wingers often claim that democracy will only be fully restored when the AfD is in power.

The US political scientist Daniel Ziblatt has said that there are basic requirements for a functioning democracy. Firstly, that every party must have a fair chance of being able to participate again in the next electoral process, and secondly, that its existence should never be under threat even after a defeat. However, if a party that does not fully embrace our current democracy and calls our rule-of-law safeguards into question is successful, the other parties will no longer have a fair chance in the long term. For the very nature of this radical-populist party is such that it will not tolerate any opposition. Or that it will discredit it as treachery or conspiracy.

There are already calls to ban the AfD. Is that a good idea?

I can’t say how successful that would be. Legal proceedings would probably take a very long time. My advice is that we concentrate on what is directly possible and necessary this year. We need to be the ones with the better answers, we need to organise democratic majorities and strengthen them.

There are threats not only from within but also from outside. Defence Minister Boris Pistorius has said that Germany needs to make itself ready for war. Is that term appropriate?

I am grateful for a Defence Minister who has achieved a great deal in his ministry within a short space of time. And who is encouraging the German people to embrace its responsibilities. Firstly, Russia’s war against Ukraine is showing us that we need to do more to defend our country. Secondly, the presidential elections in the United States are looming, and any future administration will expect Europe to do more for NATO. That won’t work without Germany.

But the Bundeswehr lacks personnel as well as funding. Do you support Pistorius’ proposal for a slimmed-down form of compulsory military service in line with the Swedish model, so at least a general obligation to register for a pre-induction examination?

The Defence Ministry needs to develop ways to attract personnel. Doing this also involves looking at examples from neighbouring countries. I also see another aspect of the issue. Out of concern for democracy, I have proposed compulsory social service: everyone should, for a period, put themselves at the service of the community. That would bring together people from different walks of life and strengthen cohesion. This could also include service in the Bundeswehr.

Are you disappointed that your proposal hasn’t yet been implemented?

I was well aware that my proposal would be contentious; in our country we don’t like talking about obligations. Nonetheless, I have the impression that public support for compulsory social service has increased. And that being the case, I am surprised that the coalition hasn’t taken up the proposal. I am particularly pleased that the debate surrounding my proposal is lively and being pursued from many angles, in civil society, within charitable organisations, among foundations and parties, in business and enterprises, within technical services and the Bundeswehr. That gives me hope. I intend to keep pushing the issue.

At the start of a new year, can you also share something encouraging with the German people?

At the moment, some words of former Israeli President Shimon Peres keep coming to mind. He said that pessimism is a total waste of time. Pessimism paralyses us, when we really need a clear stance, courage and active engagement. Let’s rise to the challenges of 2024 in this spirit.