Looks like democracy
The greatest concern about the future of democracy is expressed by those respondents who also indicate a high likelihood of voting for the AfD party. This finding comes from a study by Vanessa Boese-Schlosser, Daniel Meißner, and Daniel Ziblatt, which has now been published as a WZB Discussion Paper. In a representative online survey conducted in December 2023, the researchers asked nearly 3,400 people in Germany about their political attitudes. The analytical distinction: Respondents were asked not only about their attitudes toward democracy but also how they personally define democracy.
Herein lies the key to the high level of concern about democracy among AfD supporters: Under the heading “democracy,” this group places greater emphasis on the primacy of the will of the majority over minority rights and on the direct responsiveness of political representatives. “These are elements that are advanced in the name of democracy but can conflict with the liberal principles of the German constitutional order,” explains co-author Daniel Meißner. These principles—such as the protection of minorities, political pluralism, and the free mandate of members of parliament—tend to appear more frequently in the understanding of democracy among other respondent groups.
Attitudes toward democracy (“democratic attachment”) were measured on three levels: the normative level (how important is democracy to respondents?), the evaluative level (how democratic do they consider Germany to be at present?), and the affective level (how concerned are they about the future of democracy?). Respondents were also asked about their affinity for the parties represented in the Bundestag. The importance of democracy is roughly the same across all groups. In the other two dimensions, however, AfD supporters differ significantly from all other respondents: This group rates Germany as significantly less democratic (33.9 out of 100 points compared to 62.6 for the others). And the score for concern is 6.05 on the 7-point scale, compared to 4.96 for the other respondents.
These figures could easily be misunderstood if the high levels of dissatisfaction with the status quo and concern about the future are interpreted as expressions of democratic engagement. The study’s two-pronged approach helps to contextualize such interpretations. For when the study simultaneously examines how respondents define democracy, it becomes clear that the understanding of democracy held by those sympathetic to the AfD often conflicts with the fundamental principles of liberal democracy. Members of this group may speak out in favor of democracy and champion it—but behind this lies support for authoritarian-populist tendencies. For political actors who promote such a vision of democracy, concern and disappointment become levers for mobilization.
With its multi-layered analytical approach, the study makes a significant contribution to deciphering political rhetoric. It reveals where illiberal interpretations are spreading under the guise of democratic terminology. “Democratic resilience requires public discourse on what democracy actually is,” emphasizes co-author Vanessa Boese-Schlosser. “Especially in Germany, it must be made clear time and again that liberal-democratic control mechanisms do not stand in opposition to the will of the people, but were established as a counterweight to the unchecked principle of majority rule.”
30.04.2026, GaK / MP