Position paper for election year 2024

Anja Besand

The election year 2024 and its challenges for political education in the federal state of Saxony

A position paper

It is mid-January 2024 and very cold. The state association of the AFD Saxony (party) has been classified as clearly right-wing extremist by the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution and last week the Correctiv research network uncovered that AFD representatives are working together with right-wing extremists and members of the Values Union on plans to prepare the mass expulsion of non-Germans or dissidents. Many who previously refused to admit it are slowly realizing what is at stake here. It is about nothing more and nothing less than the continued existence of our democracy. We have reached a turning point. Either we succeed in turning the tide now or the situation will take a serious turn for the worse. Fortunately, many people see it that way. There are demonstrations against right-wing ideas, racism and misanthropy. The demonstrations are large - huge, you could say. Calls for demonstrations are coming from private individuals, initiatives, but also from Deutsche Bahn, the savings bank association and various soccer clubs. The discourse is beginning to change. The possibility of a party ban against the AFD is being discussed again. At the same time, political education stakeholders are preparing their events for the year and, in this context, some new questions are now arising under the given conditions.

These questions are:

Should the Saxon State Center for Political Education (or other providers of political education) actually invite representatives of the AFD to what are often referred to as election forums, especially if such forums are also held in a school context? Can we in Saxony really be responsible for inviting AFD representatives to schools with the aim of giving children and young people an impression of who is running for office in this election? But vice versa, how do we deal with pupils or entire class groups wanting to take part in demonstrations that stand up for democracy and the rule of law during class time? And last but not least: how do we deal with teachers who run for office for the AFD?

Does the AFD have to be involved in election forums?

Let's start with the question of election forums. The election forums are an established format of the Saxon State Center for Political Education. However, there are also comparable events organized by other institutions. The purpose of these forums is essentially to give citizens the opportunity to get to know the candidates standing for election in the run-up to elections and thus prepare themselves for a well-founded election decision. Whether these are actually educational events or perhaps something more akin to the performance and practice of specific democratic rituals is something we will leave open for the time being. The State Center - the example of which we would like to use to discuss the case here - is a state institution that is subordinate to the Saxon State Ministry of Justice and for Democracy, Europe and Equality. As a state institution, it is particularly committed to the principle of non-partisanship. In this respect, it has hit the headlines several times in the past because, in the context of the Pegida movement, it has made great efforts to recruit stakeholders from the right-wing populist - today one would clearly say right-wing extremist - camp. The regional center sees itself as a "robust institution" that can withstand a lot and for this reason has actually prepared to invite the AFD candidates to the election forums in 2024 as well. However, this was before the Saxon state association was classified as right-wing extremist and before the machinations of various AFD stakeholders were uncovered by the Correctiv research network. What should the state office do now? The AFD enjoys a high level of support as a party in Saxony, and in some rural regions it is far ahead of the other parties. In such a context, can election forums take place without the candidates who are likely to win the election? This question can be answered from different perspectives, from a strictly constitutional or legal one, from a democratic theory or a political didactic one. With this text, I present a political didactic perspective informed by democratic theory, which can help in the debate, which will undoubtedly arise about the context and in which legal arguments will certainly be of considerable importance, not to completely lose sight of the social science and educational theory perspectives.

The Saxon State Center for Political Education and civil society stakeholders in the field of political education and democratic work have the task of developing and providing (educational) offers that contribute to the preservation and stability of democracy. Specifically, the mandate of the Saxon State Office (SLpB) is regulated in an administrative regulation, which states: "With its activities, the State Office pursues the goal of contributing to the further dissemination and strengthening of the democratic, constitutional Fundamental Principles among the Saxon population" (see Section II Tasks). In this context, great importance is attached to the fact that this work must be carried out on a non-partisan basis. The citizens of Saxony should not get the impression that the state center uses its resources to strengthen certain party-political positions in a special way. This is a very important principle of political education, especially in the federal state of Saxony, where some citizens still remember the ideological instruction they received as part of civic education very well. Democratic political education is always pluralistic and inclusive. Its task is to expand the possibilities of access and participation for all people in the political process. It is therefore not only aimed at citizens who are entitled to vote and prepares them for elections, but at all people in the federal state of Saxony. In this context, is it conceivable to exclude committed political stakeholders who are even willing to make their energies available for political office from the services offered by the state center? This question cannot be answered lightly. The trade-offs are difficult and must not be made too carelessly. Of course, political education must also address positions that do not correspond with the attitudes and norms of the people who design the educational programs. Positions that are absurd and perhaps even poorly justified. But there are indeed limits, and these limits can be found precisely where pluralistic values are called into question. After all, what kind of downright vulgar understanding of democracy would we be talking about if the word democratic only referred to majorities and votes? In a democracy, we are not obliged to participate in our own abolition by referring to majorities.

In this context, one could argue with one of the doyens of German political science, Ernst Fraenkel, who introduced the distinction between a non-controversial and a controversial sector, and this can serve as a guide for us here (cf. Fraenkel 1991, 326ff.). According to Fraenkel, the controversial sector comprises all those questions and problems that can be discussed in different ways within the framework of the democratic Fundamental Principles. The non-controversial sector, on the other hand, comprises all those positions that are not compatible with the values of the Basic Law. In concrete terms, this means that we do not have to discuss human or gender inequality. Forums about deportation are simply excluded. We must not provide a platform for the dissemination of nationalist ideas. But how does the State Center for Political Education in Saxony intend to prevent this from happening in its election forums? How does it intend to react if it were to talk about the displacement of significant parts of the population - even and especially if it were to succeed in inviting a diverse audience to these forums? But even if it does not succeed and we assume that the public election forums will most likely be attended almost exclusively by people who have long since made up their minds about their election decision - how should we imagine election forums in school contexts in which young people with very different biographies come together? How should we imagine these debates and how do we protect children in this context who are directly threatened by the AFD's fantasies of expulsion?

Yes, it is true: The exclusion of positions from public discourse must not be done lightly and must be justified normatively within the framework of the democratic constitutional order. In fact, this is often very difficult. But not in this case. Here the whole thing is quite clear, because democratic institutions are not obliged to support positions whose interest is clearly directed towards their abolition in this way. On the contrary, they must defend themselves against non-democratic attitudes, programs and positions, and a defensive democracy certainly provides opportunities to do so. In this sense, it is important to make it clear to strengthen the certainty of action of the stakeholders involved (in this specific case, the State Agency for Civic Education, but at the same time also the schools hosting the events, often represented by their school principals) that they are in no way obliged to invite representatives of the Saxon AFD to election forums or panel discussions. And if they do so anyway, the responsible stakeholders should ensure that inhuman positions are not left uncritically in the room. Looking back at comparable events, however, it can already be said that this is very rarely the case.

Demonstration participation in class

As if all this were not enough, school stakeholders in particular are also struggling with a second question, and this question is: Are pupils allowed or should they participate in demonstrations - after all, the current demonstrations are about democracy and the rule of law? Quite a few children and young people are currently looking for a way to express their concerns about the AFD's plans to expel their family members, classmates and friends. Taking part in demonstrations would possibly help them to overcome feelings of powerlessness and feel effective again. Answering this question may seem easier at first glance - but there are pitfalls here too. So let's take a closer look here too.

Of course, students are allowed to take part in demonstrations - if they do so in their free time. But what happens when this is done in closed class groups, is compulsory and is accompanied by teachers? We know from political didactics research that young people can really learn a lot in the context of political actions and movements (cf. Kenner 2021). On closer inspection, however, it becomes clear that the learning processes that have been observed in this context are so productive because they are self-education processes. It is more than questionable whether self-education processes such as those described by Kenner can be initiated centrally by the institution of school. From a political didactic perspective, I therefore do not consider it necessary to oblige pupils to take part in a demonstration during lesson time and in a closed class group. In our democracy, it is obvious and plausible to interpret participation in a demonstration as an expression of interest and political support for the concerns of the demonstration. This applies to the central mobilization motives that were published for the event and not necessarily to the statements or information stands that later become visible in the context of the demonstration carried by different stakeholders. Nevertheless, in a democracy, people - especially young people - must not be forced to express very specific interests. And even if the initiative to attend the demonstration comes from the students themselves, it is not easy for a teacher to ensure that the entire class really shares this desire in the institution of school, which is permeated by power structures and relationships of dependency.

Nevertheless, it would be wrong to infer from the statements formulated up to this point that teachers may never, under any circumstances, attend demonstrations with their students during class time. From a political didactic perspective, they are certainly allowed to do so if it is ensured that participation in this school event can NOT be understood as an expression of interest. Pupils can, under the guidance of their teachers, take part in demonstrations as part of explorations and social-empirical projects. That sounds like a quibble. But it is not.

Perhaps the best way to explain this is with an example. In the fall of 2017, a tenth grade class from the Pestalozzi Gymnasium in Dresden, accompanied by their social studies teacher, visited both the Pegida and No-Pegida rallies on several Mondays. The pupils prepared extensively for these visits. They had developed questionnaires, which they had with them on clipboards and which they used to systematically interview participants from both demonstration groups. They positioned themselves between the two political camps, wearing white coats (from chemistry class) to identify themselves as researchers, and focused their attention on one side and then the other. Following the explorations, demonstration participants were also invited into the classroom. I consider this to be an absolute prime example of successful civics lessons in the city of Dresden. While quite a few teachers have given the topic of Pegida a wide berth, a detailed and critical discussion took place here. What is important in this context, however, is a) thorough preparation and follow-up, b) visible positioning and marking of the exploratory group as observers and c) support from the school management and school administration. If the attendance of demonstrations in the classroom is excluded under all circumstances with an exaggerated formulation, such projects will not come about.

Extreme right-wing teachers

We come to the third and final question: How do we as a society deal with the problem that more and more teachers are making themselves visible as AFD members? In this case, making themselves visible means that they campaign for the AFD, in some cases run for office and - largely unnoticed by the public, but often very clearly for pupils - also represent the perspectives of this party in the classroom?

Dealing with this question is particularly painful. As a society, we assume that our children have valuable learning experiences at school. The state constitution and the Saxon school law stipulate that young people should be prepared in school for their future role as committed, tolerant, cosmopolitan and, above all, democratic citizens. Article 101 [Educational goals] of the Saxon constitution reads in this sense: "Young people are to be educated in reverence for all living things, love of neighbor, peace and preservation of the environment, love of homeland, a sense of moral and political responsibility, justice and respect for the convictions of others, professional skills, social action and a liberal democratic attitude."

Teachers can and should be role models as guiding adults. Civic education is not neutral (see Besand 2018; 2020). This means that teachers can, of course, get involved in political parties, be nominated as candidates and thus become visible in election campaigns. This does not happen often, but it does happen time and again. For teachers exposed in this way, it is not trivial - especially if they teach the subject of social studies - to convey to their students that the political position they visibly prefer has no preference or priority in their lessons. At the same time, however, it would also be naïve to assume that this challenge only arises when teachers have made their political stance visible through party membership, candidacy or office. Most teachers have political preferences, and making them visible can even be helpful in terms of creating transparency for balanced educational processes. Teachers (especially those who teach social studies) have also been prepared for this challenge. It is part of their professionalism to look for ways and means to ensure that an open political debate can also be conducted in school environments (cf. Autorengruppe 2015). The Beutelsbach Consensus is a well-established and proven tool for this.

But what about teachers who are members of a political group that has been classified by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution as demonstrably right-wing extremist? A group that, in secret meetings, is also considering driving away large sections of the population (especially the younger ones)? This question requires a thorough assessment in terms of civil service law and not just political didactics. It can be assumed that the assessment of these cases under civil service law is challenging - at least as long as the AFD has not been banned as a party. Nevertheless, as a thought experiment, I suggest imagining how we would deal with this in Saxony if a teacher were to become a committed and visible member of a group that is considered by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution to be clearly Salafist and therefore religiously motivated extremism, but is not banned? What do you think would happen then?

If they are civil servants, teachers have a special obligation to the constitution. For this reason, I believe that in the case of the AFD candidates in Saxony, the question must be asked as to whether this would have consequences under employment law. But even if we leave aside service law here and concede that considerations relating to the opportunities to pursue professional activities are far more serious decisions than the decision NOT to invite a group of people to educational events, the question certainly arises from an educational perspective as to how pupils can be protected in such a case (cf. Behrens et al. 2021).

Just last week, there were public reports about the case of a school in Ravensburg in which pupils used graffiti to make it clear that they felt pedagogically harassed by a teacher who is committed to the AFD and publicly spreads the right-wing extremist thesis of a planned population exchange (cf. Müssigmann 2024).

The case makes two things clear. Firstly, the pupils in Ravensburg are already reacting to the information published by the research network Correktiv that members of the AFD are making plans to expel large parts of the population. With this publication at the latest, the AFD loses its bourgeois/conservative appearance and becomes visible as a radical right-wing organization. This worries students - especially if they are taught by a teacher who visibly sympathizes with this party and its ideas. This means that we will have to deal with more and more of these conflicts in schools in the near future. School principals and education administrators must prepare for this!

Secondly, the Ravensburg case also shows very well how such cases are usually handled within schools:

Phase 1: The students often make a problem visible in a relatively desperate manner that up to this point could only be negotiated in a closed classroom. In this specific case, this takes the form of graffiti sprayed on the wall next to the school entrance. "AFD lessons no thanks" can now be read there. It is not uncommon for the affected pupils to turn to other teachers, sometimes even to the school management, before such acts of publicity. As a rule, however, appeasements are made in advance. Teachers often see little opportunity to intervene in the lessons of other teachers.

Phase 2: After the complaints have been made public, the school management is called upon. However, they too often see no scope for action. The reasoning used by the Ravensburg school management is typical in this context. A teacher's political commitment is a private matter as long as they are involved in a democratically electable party. Every teacher has the right to engage in politics as a private individual as long as this engagement is not directed against the constitution. Democratically electable or within the framework of the liberal democratic constitution are, as already explained, two different things. However, it is clear here that the decision on how to proceed with the teacher is not at the discretion of the school management. It continues to demonstrate helplessness for the students. If it can be proven that political influence has taken place in the classroom, the school authorities can hold a meeting with the teacher in question. This brings us to phase 3, everything continues as usual.

The school, which we like to think of as a polis and hope that our children can gradually gain democratic experience, is proving to be a rather toothless tiger here. I say this in full recognition of the work of the teachers, who should not be afraid to express themselves at school, to hold lively political debates in which their own value judgments and attitudes may also become visible. I say this with respect for the head teachers, who often do not actually have to decide whether a teacher should continue to be employed or not. Even from a school administration and ministerial perspective, such cases are not easy.

However, I would like to emphasize one point very clearly: When such conflicts become apparent in the school environment, they must not simply be allowed to fizzle out. Pupils' concerns must be taken seriously and must be listened to and at least dealt with pedagogically. Schools will not be able to do this without support.

A party ban procedure would be supportive. But even without such a procedure, a clear stance must be visible in the ministries that helps the affected pupils and teachers as well as their head teachers to actually conduct the challenging debates that need to be held in this context on the ground. Because this much we can say with certainty from our research at TU Dresden: there are a great many schools where students in Saxony have such experiences (cf. Behrens et al. 2021) and so far they are largely alone in this. It's January 2024 in Saxony, it's very cold.

Sources

Group of authors on subject didactics (2015): What is good political education? Guidelines for social science teaching, Schwalbach.

Behrens, Rico/Besand, Anja/Breuer, Stefan (2021): Politische Bildung in reaktionären Zeiten - Plädoyer für eine standhafte Schule, Frankfurt.

Besand, Anja (2018): Beutelsbach as a weapon. On the intimidation attempts from the far right and how schools, the state and teachers can respond, in: SOWI Online. accessible online here.

Besand, Anja (2020): Politische Bildung unter Druck - Zum Umgang mit Populismus in der Institution Schule, APuZ 14-15/2020, pp. 4-9. accessible online here.

Fraenkel, Ernst (1991): Structural analysis of modern democracy. In: Germany and the Western democracies, Frankfurt a.M., pp.326-359.

Kenner, Steve (2021): Civic education in action. A qualitative study on the reconstruction of self-determined educational experiences in political youth initiatives. Wiesbaden.

Müssigmann, Lena (2024): Protest against teachers with AFD party membership in: Schwäbische Zeitung from 17.01.2024, page 17.

VwV Sächsische Landeszentrale für politische Bildung. accessible online here.

Schneider, Alexander (2017): Class trip to Pegida, in Sächsische Zeitung from 13.10.2017.