extremism

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article or paragraph presents the situation in Germany . Help us to describe the situation in other countries.

Since around 1973 , authorities in Germany have referred to political attitudes and endeavors as extremism , which they assign to the farthest edges of the political spectrum beyond the free democratic basic order . In the official language, the term replaced the radicalism that had been in use until then , which is now used for political attitudes on the fringes - but still within - the democratic spectrum. The term, also in the form of extremism theory, is controversial in political science.

definition

The attributes "extreme" and "extremist" are derived from the Latin word extremus , the superlative of "outside" ( exterus ).

For the German constitution protection authorities , the term has a normative and derogatory function. It is not legally defined . In 2000, the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution defined extremism in the form of a definitio ex negativo as a “fundamental rejection of the democratic constitutional state ”. This included all efforts directed against the core of the Basic Law or the FDGO as a whole.

These terms - "democratic constitutional state", "core of the Basic Law" & "Freedom-Democratic Basic Order (FDGO)" - lead here synonymously to the definition in the SRP prohibition judgment of October 23, 1952 (1 BvB 1/51) - the first party -Ban in the Federal Republic of Germany - to:

2. Freedom, democratic basic order within the meaning of Art. 21 II GG is an order which, excluding any violence and arbitrary rule, represents a rule of law based on the self-determination of the people according to the will of the respective majority and freedom and equality. The basic principles of this order are at least to be counted: respect for the human rights specified in the Basic Law, above all the right of the individual to life and free development, popular sovereignty, the separation of powers, the responsibility of the government, the legality of the administration, the Independence of the courts, the multi-party principle and equal opportunities for all political parties with the right to the constitutional formation and exercise of an opposition.

Uwe Backes defines extremism as “political discourses, programs and ideologies which, implicitly or explicitly, are directed against fundamental values ​​and procedural rules of democratic constitutional states”.

The definition and application of the term established in political science are controversial. The extent to which it is suitable as a generic term for left-wing extremism and right-wing extremism is particularly discussed .

Origin of terms and delimitation

This term extremism is derived from the KPD ban of 1956. In this decision of the Federal Constitutional Court , the principles of the “ controversial democracy ” of the Basic Law were specified and the concept of the free democratic basic order , which was mentioned several times therein, was implemented. These are to be protected:

“If, on the one hand, the Basic Law still follows the traditional liberal-democratic line, which demands fundamental tolerance towards the political parties , then it does not go as far as to forego the establishment and protection of one's own value system out of sheer impartiality. From the pluralism of goals and valuations that have taken shape in the political parties, it takes certain basic principles of state formation which, once approved in a democratic manner, should be recognized as absolute values ​​and therefore resolutely defended against all attacks; If, for the purpose of this defense, restrictions on the opponents' freedom of political activity are necessary, they will be accepted. The Basic Law consciously attempted a synthesis between the principle of tolerance towards all political views and the commitment to certain inviolable basic values ​​of the state order. "

- BVerfG, judgment of August 17, 1956, Az. 1 BvB 2/51, BVerfGE 5, 85, 141

“Extremism” is derived from the requirement profile of the judgment and used as a working term for administrative practice. It first appeared in this form in the 1973 report on the protection of the constitution .

In terms of the history of ideas, it comes from the context of totalitarianism theories and was taken up in the 1970s by federal German government agencies in order to better understand possible anti-constitutional efforts. Today most of the political parties represented in parliament use it , as do the state institutions of the Federal Republic. It is also referred to in legal texts.

Previously, right and left radicalism had been spoken of in this context. Since then, the term “extremism” has largely supplanted that of “ radicalism ” in state usage. The former Minister of the Interior Werner Maihofer justified the change in concept by pointing out that political efforts are not unconstitutional simply because they pose radical questions. It is true that the terms are still not precisely delimited in scientific literature and are often used synonymously . In the official terminology, however, it makes a considerable difference whether a conviction or organization is classified as “radical” or “extremist”, since it depends on whether it is assessed as still constitutional (radical) or unconstitutional (extremist).

Since this so-called “normative term extremism” contains a deviation from the social norm and at the same time evaluates this deviation negatively, groups referred to in this way generally do not call themselves “extremist”. Rather, they see this attribute as a disparaging attribution and exclusion of their political positions from the spectrum of democratic opinions and social discourse.

Extremist thinking

The majority of research on political extremism focuses on the question of whether a political grouping is extremist or not. The normative, evaluative perspective is used. In this, extremism is negatively conceived as an antithesis to the democratic constitutional state. The following criteria are relevant:

"The ethos of fundamental human equality, human and civil rights, constitutionalism with the principle of the separation of powers and the protection of the individual's personal sphere of freedom, rule of law, the majority principle combined with minority protection, an understanding of democracy in the sense of competition theory, a political and social one Pluralism and the representative principle "

A second perspective defines political extremism positively. The question is what characterizes extremist thinking. In its positive definition of the term, the claim to absoluteness is the decisive criterion for identifying extremist thinking. According to Uwe Backes, this consists of certain "core statements about the world" that extremists claim are based on "objective" findings and are absolutely true. Uwe Backes opposes “totalitarian thinking” with the concept of ambiguity: According to this, extremist thinking results from the unwillingness to allow ambiguity in the evaluation of political phenomena.

Tom Mannewitz and Fabian Fischer similarly contrast the psychological concept of ambiguity tolerance, i.e. being able to endure ambiguity and the coherence-dominated thinking of extremist actors. A "coherent system of thought" serves to avoid "ambiguity and contradiction" and thus to resolve cognitive dissonances . According to Fischer, the democratic response to an extremist enemy image is not “a 'correct' reality, but rather the pluralism of perspectives and interpretations of the complex social world”.

According to Fischer, the radical claim to truth by extremist actors results from the added value that ideologies offer people. This includes identity creation, group cohesion and the externalization of problems in the form of simple monocausal explanatory models. In the extremist worldview, phenomena that are perceived as negative usually arise from just one cause, be it “the Jews”, “America” or “capital”. This works because people are susceptible to simple cause-and-effect relationships. According to Fischer, there are recurring, anti-liberal motives in the defensive ideologies of extremist ideologies. There is always talk of “identity disintegration and cultural decay”, the danger of “community destruction” and “motives from dark forces”. The drivers of extremist thinking can be deduced from these recurring motives. In particular, this included fears and protection needs in a changing and increasingly complex world.

Main species

Example of Muslim extremism: Protesters in the Maldives demand the introduction of Sharia law with the poster: “Democracy is a failed system”

A subdivision common in both government and social sciences distinguishes the following main types of extremism:

  • the left-wing extremism : This was through the terror of the Red Army Faction in the 1970s in Germany as the main danger to the constitutional state. The authorities include very different political directions that want to overcome capitalism : on the one hand autonomous and anarchists , on the other hand K-groups and parties that strive for forms of communism . The classification as left-wing extremism often relates more to programmatic goals than to actual politics.
  • the right-wing : This was in the 1990s as the main danger and source of high violence. Here, too, different groups and parties are classified in a common spectrum “to the right of” the democratic conservative parties. The main difference to left-wing extremism is stated that right-wing extremism rejects the "ethos of fundamental human equality". Since the assassination attempt in Solingen , the assassination attempt in Mölln , the riots in Rostock-Lichtenhagen and the riots in Hoyerswerda, such currents have generally been assessed as more violent and aggressive than left-wing extremism. Since the " uprising of the decent " proclaimed by former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and the failure of the NPD ban proceedings , however, attention in the media and among authorities has decreased again. The topic of right-wing extremism received more public attention since November 2011, after the right-wing extremist terrorist organization National Socialist Underground (NSU) was responsible for a series of murders against foreigners (2000 to 2006), the nail bomb attack in Cologne (2004) and the murder of the police in Heilbronn (2007) became public. As a result of the attack in Hanau in 2020 , Interior Minister Horst Seehofer ( CSU ) declared that right-wing extremism “is currently the greatest security threat to the Federal Republic”.
  • of Islamist extremism, its representatives in various forms a fundamentalism represented, whose interpretation of Islam the freedom and Emazipationsversprechen the Enlightenment is diametrically opposed and always directed against Jews. It can be found, for example, with the Muslim Brotherhood , Al-Qaida and IS . Ever since, in the case of Al-Qaeda, with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks increasingly carried out in western countries too, it has also posed a threat to internal and external security here. Among the actors here are people from the Middle East and Central Asia also those from the second or third generation of immigrants or those who have converted to Islam who reject the Western value system on the basis of “religious, social, cultural or psychological factors” are the focus of science and the protection of the constitution. These act in groups with contacts to Islamist structures abroad, as well as in small groups or as individuals and are often ideologically close to Al-Qaeda and, since the mid-2010s, ISIS.
  • The so-called " foreign extremism " by the constitution protection authorities , which records foreign extremist activities in Germany, is not understood as a separate type of extremism.

In sociology, the not uncontroversial concept of center extremism was introduced as early as the late 1950s . As a result, not only the right and left “fringes” of a party system tend towards dictatorship , but also the parties in the center. Since the beginning of the 1990s, the term has been used increasingly to draw attention to intolerant tendencies within the political center , which could form a “sounding board” for the spread of extremist world views .

Criticism of the term

Against the background of the origin and use of the terms “radicalism” and “extremism”, it is also controversial in extremism research itself whether and to what extent the demarcation from “radical” or “extremist” tendencies can serve to defend democratic positions. Critics emphasize: Since the “power of definition” lies with the political institutions of the state, there is a risk that other ideas of democracy will be ignored and minority positions will tend to be equated with illegitimate political objectives.

The use of such terms serves to summarize groups or individuals who are hostile towards the state and who may represent different goals and content based on certain ideal-typical characteristics and to classify them in a "drawer". In this way, according to the prevailing opinion, characteristics can be determined that are common to all extremisms ( claim to sole representation , rejection of pluralistic democratic systems, dogmatism , friend-foe thinking and fanaticism to which every means leading to the goal appears legitimate). In the opinion of critics, however, the content-related divergences between the various “extremists” are ignored or at least not sufficiently taken into account.

On the other hand, supporters of the classic term extremism argue that the different (and possibly also morally differently assessed) objectives of different extremist groups are relatively irrelevant if the explicitly or implicitly favored end goal is dictatorial, personal, despite the individually different political contents and ideals Freedom-abolishing regime or the threat of such a scenario is at least accepted. “The common term 'extremism' means nothing more or less than that the movement aims at the establishment or maintenance of a dictatorship.” Therefore, representatives of the classical concept deny that the established terminology is fundamentally unsuitable. Even within the established extremism concept, a clear distinction is made between the ideologies of right-wing extremism and left-wing extremism. The fact that this distinction is based on the assumption of its own set of values, which is rooted in the democratic constitutional state, is not denied: "The extremism approach is not faithful to the state or system, as it is accused from time to time, but democratically."

The dispute about the justification of the normative term extremism makes it clear that the use of the generic term “extremism” by state authorities and courts in the context of the protection of the constitution is seen and handled much less problematically than in research and science .

In this context, Gero Neugebauer takes the position that independent empirical research on extremism in the true sense of the word can hardly be spoken of so far. The relevant literature primarily summarizes the results of other research areas and classifies them under the term extremism, divided into left and right-wing extremism. Although there has been considerable research in relation to right-wing extremism, this is not the case in the area of ​​left-wing extremism. To make matters worse, the assignment to a political spectrum can be subject to changes over time. Because of its “one-dimensionality” and “fixation on the democratic constitutional state”, the normative concept of extremism hardly does justice to the complex socio-political reality.

The term is one-dimensional because of the idea of ​​an "axis" on which the political spectrum is grouped from left to center to right. This construct would give rise to various problems of allocation and delimitation and thus considerable room for interpretation. Extremism always marks the outermost edge of the spectrum, the middle of which is a political evaluation. From this normative view, a term extremism is derived that includes all attitudes, behavior, institutions and ideas that are in any way directed against the democratic constitutional state. However, this does not make the normative conception of terms the basis for robust empirical research that can satisfactorily take into account the heterogeneity of political attitudes.

Proponents of the prevailing normative definition also emphasize that although there is a common ground in the rejection of the “democratic constitutional state”, there are also fundamental differences between extremist groups. For example, Uwe Backes and Eckhard Jesse emphasize :

"There are considerable divergences between right and left extremisms, anarchists and communists, monarchists and neo-national socialists, so that right-wing and left-wing extremists not only fight each other, but also often violently."

Steffen Kailitz explains similarly :

“Of course, there is no uniform extremist ideology. Not only that left and right-wing extremists do not have a common ideology. As a rule they are spider enemies of each other. "

For Neugebauer, the normative term extremism therefore has overall strengths and weaknesses: It is particularly suitable for “identifying opponents of the free democratic basic order and, if necessary, sanctioning their behavior”. For the research interests of the social sciences that go beyond this, Neugebauer rejects the use of the “one-dimensional” axis model as “sub-complex” (in other words, not appropriate to the complexity of the relationships described). Left-wing extremism is politically and ideologically much more inhomogeneous than right-wing extremism. Therefore, right-wing extremism research in the social sciences has established itself, but no left-wing extremism research, and the extremism approach has not been able to establish itself in social sciences research. In the context of official executive measures and the protection of the FDGO , the term retains its justification for Neugebauer.

Claus Leggewie accuses the offices of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution with a lack of precision as well as an activity of the authorities that was shifted far into the run-up to political communication:

“Precisely because at the core of the accusation there is no objectively assessable behavior, but political communication: the advocacy of goals that are only supposed to be wrong and harmful because their content collides with an ideally formulated basic order. In other words: enmity against the constitution is justified with offensive attitudes and opinions. Here, at the center of the ideological protection of the constitution, it takes revenge that the term local extremism is not linked to violent behavior, but that a purely politically determined (and ideology-prone) definition is sufficient. From a practical point of view, the usual ostracism of extremists in this country is nothing more than the political ideology of a center that has and governs the “free democratic basic order”. The fact that a democratic government is fundamentally not allowed to monitor individual deviants as extremists or to allow unpopular opposition parties to infiltrate does not occur to the adepts of the 'controversial' ideology. Nor is it noticeable that unpopular opposition is discriminated against with the help of a formula that expressly postulates 'equal opportunities for all political parties'. The hypertrophic prevention of 'arguable' democracy works like this in this country: The right to opposition is protected by forbidding certain opposition parties that could one day impair the right to opposition. "

- Claus Leggewie and Horst Meier : Sheets for German and international politics

The focus should therefore not be on a preliminary investigation of potential and suspected extremists within the framework of a “West German special path that does not exist in any other western democracy”, but only on the determination of violent behavior or political crimes.

literature

Concept emergence
  • Carl Joachim Friedrich : Theory of totalitarianism. In: Alfred Söllner u. a. (Ed.): Totalitarianism. A history of ideas from the 20th century. Akademischer Verlag, Berlin 1997, ISBN 3-05-003122-0 .
  • Uwe Backes : Political extremes. A conceptual history from antiquity to the present (= writings of the Hannah Arendt Institute for Totalitarian Research . Vol. 31). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2006, ISBN 3-525-36908-5 .
research
Germany
  • Uwe Backes, Eckhard Jesse: Political extremism in the Federal Republic of Germany. 4th edition. Bonn 1996.
  • Kai Arzheimer: Elections and right-wing extremism. In: Federal Ministry of the Interior (Ed.): Extremism in Germany. Appearances and current inventory. Berlin 2004, pp. 56–81.
  • Steffen Kailitz : Political Extremism in the Federal Republic of Germany: An Introduction. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2004, ISBN 3-531-14193-7 .
criticism

Web links

Wikiquote: Extremism  - Quotes
Wiktionary: extremism  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations
Wiktionary: Extremist  - Explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Petra Bendel : Extremism. In: Dieter Nohlen (Ed.): Lexicon of Politics, Volume 7: Political Terms , CH Beck Verlag, Munich 1995, p. 8384.
  2. ↑ Steffen Kailitz : Political Extremism in the Federal Republic of Germany: An Introduction. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften , Wiesbaden 2004, p. 212; see. also Armin Pfahl-Traughber : Political extremism - what is it anyway? In: Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (ed.): Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. 50 years in the service of internal security. Cologne, 2000, p. 213.
  3. ↑ [1]
  4. ↑ DFR - BVerfGE 2, 1 - SRP ban. Retrieved February 28, 2020 .
  5. ↑ a b Uwe Backes: Shape and meaning of intellectual right-wing extremism in Germany. In: From Politics and Contemporary History (B 46/2001), Bonn 2001, p. 24.
  6. ↑ Petra Bendel: Extremism. In: Dieter Nohlen (Ed.): Lexicon of Politics, Volume 7: Political Terms , CH Beck Verlag, Munich 1995, pp. 8384–8387.
  7. ↑ BVerfG, judgment of August 17, 1956, Az. 1 BvB 2/51, BVerfGE 5, 85, 141. Accessed on December 8, 2018 .
  8. ↑ See for example Section 18a of the Residence Act or Section 27 of the Act on the Documents of the State Security Service of the Former German Democratic Republic (StUG)
  9. ↑ Gero Neugebauer: Extremism - right-wing extremism - left-wing extremism: Some comments on terms - research concepts, research questions and research results. In: Wilfried Schubarth, Richard Stöss (Ed.): Right-wing extremism in the Federal Republic of Germany - A balance sheet, Opladen 2001. P. 17 ( Text online; PDF, P. 3. ( Memento from February 24, 2007 in the Internet Archive ))
  10. ↑ a b c Fabian Fischer: Identity, Community and Dark Forces. Central motives in defensive ideologies of political extremism . In: Sebastian Liebold, Tom Mannewitz, Madeleine Petschke, Tom Thieme (eds.): Democracy in troubled times. Festschrift for Eckhard Jesse . Nomos, Baden-Baden 2018, ISBN 978-3-8487-4194-6 , pp. 195-207 .
  11. ↑ Armin Pfahl-Traughber: The term extremism in the political science discussion - definitions, criticism, alternatives . In: Uwe Backes, Eckhard Jesse (Ed.): Yearbook Extremism & Democracy . tape 4 , no. 4 . Nomos, 1992, p. 67-86 .
  12. ↑ Uwe Backes: Political Extremism in Democratic Constitutional States. Elements of a normative framework theory . Opladen 1989.
  13. ↑ Uwe Backes: "Totalitarian Thinking" - Concept history, characteristics and effects on rulership . In: Religion-State-Society . Volume 2, 2002, pp. 41-56 .
  14. ↑ Tom Mannewitz: “A really beautiful brand new world” . In: Journal of Politics . 2013, p. 32-47 .
  15. ↑ Fabian Fischer: The constructed danger. Enemy images in political extremism . Nomos, Baden-Baden 2018, p. 65 .
  16. ↑ The greatest danger in Germany comes from the right - derStandard.at. Accessed February 21, 2020 (Austrian German).
  17. ↑ Michael Kiefer : Islamism . In: Wolfgang Benz (Hrsg.): Handbuch des Antisemitismus. Volume 3: Concepts, ideologies, theories. De Gruyter Saur, Berlin 2008, ISBN 978-3-598-24074-4 , pp. 137 ff. (Accessed via De Gruyter Online); Samuel Salzborn : Global Anti-Semitism. A search for traces in the abyss of modernity. Beltz Juventa, Weinheim 2018, p. 117 fuö.
  18. ↑ Matenia Sirseloudi: Radicalization Processes in the Diaspora. In: From Politics and Contemporary History , No. 44/2010, pp. 39–43 (online).
  19. ↑ Federal Ministry of the Interior (ed.): Verfassungsschutzbericht 2010. p. 202 (PDF). ( Memento of the original from August 18, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bmi.bund.de
  20. ↑ Federal Ministry of the Interior (ed.): Article: Terrorism (accessed on February 8, 2020)
  21. ^ For example, Christoph Butterwegge: Right-wing extremism , Herder-Verlag, Freiburg im Breisgau 2002, pp. 106 ff.
  22. ↑ a b c d Steffen Kailitz: Political Extremism in the Federal Republic of Germany. VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2004, p. 16.
  23. ↑ Gero Neugebauer: Extremism - right-wing extremism - left-wing extremism: Some comments on terms - research concepts, research questions and research results. In: Wilfried Schubarth, Richard Stöss (ed.): Right-wing extremism in the Federal Republic of Germany - A balance sheet, Opladen 2001. pp. 13–37.
  24. ↑ Uwe Backes, Eckhard Jesse: Political Extremism in the Federal Republic of Germany. (Series of publications by the Federal Agency for Civic Education, Volume 272). 4th edition. Bonn 1996, p. 45.
  25. ↑ Gero Neugebauer: Extremism - Right-Wing Extremism - Left-Wing Extremism: Some Notes on Terms - Research Concepts, Research Questions and Research Results ( Memento of February 24, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF), here p. 2.
  26. ↑ Claus Leggewie, Horst Meier: Protection of the Constitution - About the end of a German special path . In: Sheets for German and international politics
  27. ↑ Claus Leggewie, Horst Meier: About the end of a German special path. In: Sheets for German and international politics