Taking the wind out of the sails of the EU’s right-wing opponents
Taking citizens’ concerns seriously
Firstly, one should realise that the right is just as much a part of the democratic political spectrum as the left. As mentioned, this is about the right and the left, not the far right and the far left. A second step could then be to take seriously the concerns that lead people to vote as they do. They are adults, so let us assume that they have reasons for their voting decisions that cannot be entirely dispelled by more information, political education or moral appeals. It should certainly give us pause for thought that the AfD has, at least for the time being, replaced social democracy as Germany’s workers’ party. (5) Below are the reflections of three political scientists who deserve greater attention in the public debate.
Yascha Mounk on the subject of irregular migration and democracy
One issue that has been a cause of concern for the vast majority of people for years is irregular migration. These concerns are now, albeit with a considerable delay, being taken seriously at national and European level. (6) Nevertheless, it is extremely interesting to note what Yascha Mounk (7) writes on this subject in his book ‘Das große Experiment – wie Diversität die Demokratie bedroht und bereichert’ (The Great Experiment: How Diversity Threatens and Enriches Democracy), published in 2022. (8) On pages 272–273, he writes:
“Institutional reforms can help to align diverse democracies more closely with the will of the electorate. But politicians themselves must also pay greater attention to the views of their voters once again.” One policy area where one might get the impression that they are not being listened to is immigration. “In almost all democratic states, people attach great importance to strictly controlled national borders.” Whilst the humane treatment of immigrants is non-negotiable for advocates of diverse democracies, “at the same time, they are committed to the democratic ideal that the clear will of the majority is the benchmark for action.” The fundamental principles of liberal democracy do not permit discrimination against citizens on the basis of their religion or origin. “This does not, however, mean that liberal democracies do not have the right to determine how many immigrants may enter their country and under what circumstances.” There is, in fact, a close empirical link between border security and public opinion on the subject of immigration. “Broadly speaking, attitudes towards immigration in countries that appear unable to control their own borders are often negative.” Anyone wishing to convince their fellow citizens of the benefits of relatively high immigration figures should therefore demonstrate “that they are capable of determining for themselves who enters the country.”
Schäfer / Zürn on the cosmopolitan “accent” of non-majoritarian institutions (NMIs)
The EU is the vehicle that allows Europeans to take their destiny into their own hands in a multipolar world. This view stands or falls on the extent to which citizens have a say in national and European politics. So once again, it is about democracy, but this time specifically about the tension between parliaments and non-majoritarian institutions (NMIs) such as the judiciary, central banks and international organisations (including the EU). This was the subject addressed (among others) by the two political scientists Armin Schäfer (9) and Michael Zürn (10) in their book ‘Die demokratische Regression – die politischen Ursachen des autoritären Populismus’ (Democratic Regression – The Political Causes of Authoritarian Populism). (11) On pages 92–93, two distinct developments are highlighted which are said to be “responsible for the growing dissatisfaction with existing democracies”. Firstly, “there is evidence of selective responsiveness on the part of legislative parliaments. These appear to pay particular attention to the upper strata and classes. This unequal responsiveness is one of the two generalisable causes that give rise to dissatisfaction with the ‘system’.” The second cause is that “parliaments and parties – the traditional institutions for majority decision-making – have lost relative significance over time.” “Non-majoritarian institutions bring expertise and specialist knowledge to politics.” (p.114) However, they are certainly not politically neutral: “They contribute to cosmopolitan policies being enshrined and becoming institutionally entrenched.” (p.115) “As NMIs assume responsibilities, previously political issues become depoliticised.” They shift from the realm of collective decision-making “into the sphere of what is supposedly objectively correct”. “But what is right has a recognisable accent, this time a cosmopolitan one.” This contributes to “the gap between the positions of the elites and those of the population” widening further. (p.117) The danger now lies in disappointment with the mainstream parties being compounded by disappointment with the NMIs. (p.118)
An example: The European Court of Justice’s ruling on safe countries of origin
This danger can be illustrated by a ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) – a non-majoritarian institution – dated 1 August 2025. (12) Firstly, this ruling has a distinct cosmopolitan ‘accent’: the ECJ sets tighter limits on EU states when determining safe countries of origin. ‘Furthermore, the ECJ ruled that the entire population of a country must be safe for it to be recognised as a safe country of origin, including certain groups of people, such as homosexuals.’ (13) It may be noted in this regard that even for EU Member States, ensuring the safety of all is a challenge that must be addressed on a daily basis. Yet the equal treatment of citizens is one of the foremost objectives of democracy and the rule of law. In many countries around the world, by contrast, discrimination against sections or even the majority of the population is part of the political agenda. (14) Secondly, this effectively overrules a decision by the Italian Parliament, a majority-based institution. A statement from the Italian Prime Minister’s Office stated that, when assessing safe countries of origin, the judgement of judges in EU Member States takes precedence “over the results of complex investigations by the relevant ministries, which are confirmed by the sovereign Parliament”. (15)
Taking democracy seriously
By taking citizens’ concerns seriously, democracy is also taken seriously. A broad public debate on this issue would certainly be helpful. This is not about criticising judges or denouncing specific NMI’s. It is – firstly – about the dangers inherent in the long-term depoliticisation of relevant social issues. And secondly, about the loss of trust that threatens the NMIs as a result of their politicisation. Thirdly, the NMIs could critically reflect on where the limits of their competences lie. They should pay greater attention to these when making decisions, exercise restraint wherever possible, and actively communicate this limitation to their actual remit. Thirdly, it would also be helpful to pay greater attention to the principle of subsidiarity: only those issues that member states cannot resolve themselves should be dealt with at the European level. The political parties also face major challenges in this regard. But that is a topic for another time.
Margit Reiser-Schober
Errors in the content? – Errors in the translation? – eurolandpost(at)gmx.eu
- Euro-Barometer Frühjahr 2026
https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3613
- Rechte Parteien in Europa
https://de.statista.com/infografik/31323/stimmanteile-der-staerksten--extrem--rechten-parteien-in-ausgewaehlten-laendern-bei-den-letzten-parlamentswahlen/
- Aus dem AfD-Wahlprogramm zur Europawahl 2024, S. 10:
„Angesichts der Tatsache, dass die EU nicht reformierbar ist, treten wir für die Gründung eines Bundes europäischer Nationen ein. Die Entscheidung über eine neue Form des Zusammenlebens der Völker in Europa darf in Deutschland nach Vorstellung der AfD nur durch eine Volksabstimmung getroffen werden.“
https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023-11-16-_-AfD-Europawahlprogramm-2024-_-web.pdf
- Polen:
Konföderation der Freiheit und Unabhängigkeit
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konfederacja_Wolno%C5%9B%C4%87_i_Niepodleg%C5%82o%C5%9B%C4%87
Tusk
https://euractiv.com/de/news/tusk-spiegelt-in-polen-die-agenda-der-extremen-rechten-wider
- AfD wird von Arbeitern gewählt:
https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/afd-vermeintliche-arbeiterpartei-analyse-100.html
- Heute, 12. Juni 2026, tritt das neue EU-Asylrecht in Kraft:
https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/migration-geas-2382758
- Yascha Mounk
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yascha_Mounk
- Yascha Mounk:
„Das große Experiment – wie Diversität die Demokratie bedroht und bereichtert“
https://www.droemer-knaur.de/buch/yascha-mounk-das-grosse-experiment-9783426278505?srsltid=AfmBOoo7cECvtGpWrZ-Da49dM7d49OWdb3-yFsneXqpHS-A6_oxib7jn
- Armin Schäfer
https://www.armin-schaefer.de/
- Michael Zürn
https://wzb.eu/system/files/docs/ipl/gg/20240830%20Zurn_CV_DE_1_2.pdf
- „Die demokratische Regression – die politischen Ursachen des autoritären Populismus“
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 2021, Schriftenreihe Band 10736
https://www.suhrkamp.de/buch/die-demokratische-regression-t-9783518127490
„Die schwindende Macht der Mehrheiten - Weshalb Legitimationskonflikte in der Demokratie zunehmen werden“, WZB-Mitteilungen März 2013
https://www.wzb.eu/de/publikationen/wzb-mitteilungen/legitimitaet-und-demokratie
- EuGH-Urteil vom 1. 8. 2025
https://infopoint-europa.de/de/articles/eugh-die-einstufung-sicherer-herkunftslaender-bleibt-moeglich-aber-nur-mit-gerichtlicher-kontrolle-und-offenlegung
- Tagesschau: EUGH–Entscheidung über sichere Herkunftsstaaten
https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/eugh-sichere-herkunftsstaaten-100.html
- Besonders eklatant: Frauen in Afghanistan
https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/leben-unter-den-taliban-eindruecke-aus-afghanistan-100.html
- FAZ zum Urteil des EuGH
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/eugh-setzt-huerden-fuer-listen-sicherer-herkunftslaender-110617723.html