By Jonas Rees and Richard Klasen

Civil disobedience has been considered a legitimate form of political participation even before Martin Luther King's famous "March on Washington". However, while creative, non-violent protest, the occupation of buildings or the disruption of events are traditional forms of left-wing resistance, we are increasingly seeing attempts by right-wing populist and far-right actors to appropriate such forms of protest for themselves. So is the concept of civil disobedience in crisis? This question arises on the occasion of today's Martin Luther King Day.

Appropriation of traditional left-wing forms of action by the New Right

Protests against environmental destruction, the blockade of Castor transports or demonstrations against the deployment of US nuclear weapons have long been a bastion of the political left, despite the right-wing roots of some parts of the peace and environmental movement. In recent years, however, it has been mainly right-wing actions that have made headlines: For example, the "Identitarian Movement" (IB) hijacked the Brandenburg Gate in 2016 and has been running a house project in Halle since 2017. However, the IB did not invent such actions: Greenpeace carried out a similar action at the Brandenburg Gate back in 2011 and setting up alternative education and youth centers is a traditional instrument of the political left. The disruption of events such as Jakob Augstein's public radio talk with theologian Margot Käßmann by right-wing activists is also modeled on the disruption of lectures by right-wing and supposedly right-wing lecturers and authors by left-wing activists. Even the classic left-wing terminology such as "political intervention" is adopted. The battle for public perception is therefore not only a battle over forms of action, but also over terms that right-wing activists want to appropriate for themselves[1].

Shift in discourse in reporting and public perception

The use of forms of civil disobedience by the far right poses challenges for the public and democratic civil society. The media report much more extensively on civil disobedience from the right than from the left. While the occupation of the Brandenburg Gate by Greenpeace was more of a topic for the local Berlin press, the media reported nationwide on the same action by Identitarians. Conversely, the numerous creative and non-violent protests by left-wing activists around the Hamburg G20 summit, from art happenings to clown and hugging actions to handing out flowers to police officers, were almost completely lost in the coverage of the violent protests[2].

Such a shift in discourse can also be observed in the agenda-setting of recent election campaigns since the rise of the AfD: While left-wing topics such as ecology or social issues have barely penetrated the media away from major events such as the TTIP demonstrations, right-wing topics such as refugee policy or internal security have received greater media coverage. When the media take up topics on the right-wing agenda in order to gain audience shares, they are playing into the hands of right-wing extremists.

This is because the competition for public perception is also about who sets the topics and determines the social discourse. Over the last few years, there has been a shift in discourse to the right: Concepts and demands from the far right have increasingly been taken up by established parties, making them socially acceptable. Left-wing and liberal positions, on the other hand, are finding it increasingly difficult to be heard. Both in the media and with regard to forms of political action, the current situation harbors the danger of a worrying "higher, further, shriller" spiral.

Those on the left who are now escalating the tone of civil disobedience, violating the personal rights of their opponents and, as in the recent case of the Höcke action by the Center for Political Beauty (ZPS), pretending to operate a "civil society constitutional protection agency"[3] to monitor disagreeable individuals, are on the one hand promoting the victim narrative of the extreme right and on the other hand possibly provoking comparable actions from the far right. This is because the extreme right shows little creativity in its actions and often copies left-wing forms of action. Such mutually reinforcing developments can be observed, for example, in the left-wing Antifa and its right-wing copy, the Anti-Antifa[4].

Another critical aspect of the ZPS action is the pseudo-state action, albeit artistically intended: Here, the ZPS consciously or unconsciously picks up on a basic attitude of the right-wing extremist spectrum, according to which the weak state can no longer be trusted and parallel structures should therefore be created. While the ZPS obviously no longer trusts the Office for the Protection of the Constitution to effectively control the right-wing fringe of our society after the NSU scandal, right-wing extremist and right-wing populist movements traditionally distrust the work of the police and the state.

Normalization of right-wing populist attitudes through institutionalization

In recent years, right-wing extremists have increasingly founded vigilante groups, such as the "German Police Aid Organization", which was founded in 2012 and has close ties to the Reichsbürger movement.[5] Right-wing vigilante groups experienced a boom across Europe after the New Year's Eve events in Cologne in 2015/2016. One example of this is the "Soldiers of Odin", founded in Finland and organized like a rocker club.[6] They have sub-groups in Germany, Sweden, Norway, Australia and the USA and are recognized as non-governmental organizations in some of these countries despite the openly right-wing extremist background of some of their leaders. Such legitimization and institutionalization is leading to a worrying normalization of right-wing populist attitudes in society.

The example of Finland shows the potential danger of an "extreme right-wing civil society" with the simultaneous electoral success of right-wing populist parties: politicians such as Prime Minister Juha Sipilä (Centre Party) and his right-wing populist coalition partner, Minister of Justice Jari Lindström (The Finns Party), initially made quite positive comments about the work of the Soldiers of Odin and similar vigilante groups. Only later did the governing parties row back, partly due to international criticism. The fact that 28% of the Finnish population were in favor of vigilante activities according to a 2016 survey reflects the overall social mood in the country.

In Germany, the "Soldiers of Odin" have been a case for the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, at least in Bavaria, since December 2017. And yet the example of Finland raises questions: Could such a "right-wing civil society" also be recognized and legitimized in Germany in the event of continued electoral success and government participation by a right-wing populist party? How should traditional liberal civil society deal with phenomena such as racist vigilante groups or civil disobedience by right-wing extremists? And how should the established parties?

There can be no such thing as an extreme right-wing civil society

One thing is clear: the growing self-confidence of misanthropic groups and their willingness to violently enforce their own positions should alarm democrats.[7] Those who act violently like right-wing extremist vigilante groups belong in the dock and not at the negotiating table. Civil disobedience in the tradition of Martin Luther King is non-violent and always committed to civil and human rights. Anyone who does not grant these rights to others and does not respect their dignity and physical integrity cannot invoke the right to civil disobedience and is by no means part of civil society. Such a clear demarcation is also urgently needed in the context of the discussion about the state of German civil society: By definition, there can be no such thing as an extreme right-wing "civil society".

The roots of the problem lie deeper: recommendations for action for a democratic civil society

What can be done? The AfD's election successes reveal developments in society as a whole that have been affecting Germany for decades: burning refugee shelters and right-wing terror are not new phenomena. The AfD slogans are merely bringing to the surface misanthropy and fears of social decline that are rooted in large parts of society. This can also be an opportunity for democratic parties and other forces to work on the causes of misanthropy - for example through political education and the reduction of social inequality.

Germany's democratic and liberal forces must recognize that far-right and right-wing populist "civil society" and parties such as the AfD often cooperate more successfully and efficiently with each other than has been the case with liberal and left-wing parties and democratic civil society in recent years. The social slashing since the Schröder era or the politically forced failure of the energy transition have alienated parties and civil society on the democratic spectrum from one another. It is time to move closer together. For this to happen, however, social democratic politics would have to become more social and green politics more ecological. Instead, we are seeing left-wing politicians adopting the demands and assertions of right-wing hardliners. Instead of adopting right-wing agendas, democratic politics and civil society should expose the far-right and right-wing populist "civil society" for what it is: an illegitimate copy. A copy because it imitates traditional left-wing forms of protest and civil disobedience. Illegitimate because it denies basic rights to social groups and does not shy away from violence.

Clear boundaries are important here in order to distinguish democratic civil society on the one hand from a "civil society" on the other, which is based on racism, anti-Semitism and other forms of misanthropy. One such boundary should be respect rather than disregard for human rights, but also disapproval rather than approval of violence. Democratic civil society must question its own patterns of action and must not act in a violent and escalating manner, even in the face of a polarizing society. Martin Luther King, one of the founding fathers of civil disobedience, already knew: "We must confront violence with non-violence."

Sources

[1] See, for example, Litschko, K. (2016). Hiding? Those days are over. Activists of the "Identitarian Movement" want to be the pop stars of the right-wing scene. They steal their radical actions from the left. taz, die tageszeitung. Available online at www.taz.de/!5341830/

[2] See, for example, Gruber, A. et al. (2017). Peaceful G20 protest: "Hate is crass, love is crasser". Spiegel Online. Available online at www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/g20-in-hamburg-die-friedlichen-proteste-am-samstag-a-1156829.html

[3] see deine-stele.de

[4] see www.demokratie-leben.de/wissen/glossar/glossary-detail/anti-antifa-aktivitaeten.html

[5] see www.zeit.de/2013/37/polizeihilfswerk-sachsen-brandenburg

[6] see www.taz.de/!5266411/

[7] s .a. Zick, A., Küpper, B., & Krause, D. (2016). Gespaltene Mitte - Feindselige Zustände: Rechtsextreme Einstellungen in Deutschland 2016. Bonn: Dietz.