What does Democracy Mean Today?
From the 11th and 12th of February 2025, the two iconic venues of Frankfurt’s Paulskirche and Goethe University played host to one central question: what does democratic cohesion mean, and what is its current state? Together with Goethe University’s Normative Orders’ research center, among other partners, PRIF hosted keynote speeches, panel discussions and a “Market of Opportunities”. The goal was to discuss the challenges currently facing democracy and promote dialogue among academics, practitioners, policymakers, and the public.
It’s already dark outside as the 364 guests stream into Frankfurt’s Paulskirche. The church is packed. Voices mingle, chairs are moved and coats are taken off. Frankfurt’s Head of Cultural Affairs, Ina Hartwig, steps up to the podium. She greets the audience and opens the evening. Then, she hands the floor to Hesse’s Minister of Science, Timon Gremmels. He focuses directly on the present. “Today we must ask ourselves: How secure is our democracy?” He speaks of the pressures facing the democratic order, as well as the rise of hatred, mistrust and division. “Democracy is not a given,” he warns. It must be fought for and defended daily, not only in parliaments but also on the streets, in workplaces, and in conversations with neighbors.
With these words, the stage was set. The conference on “Democratic Cohesion”, held on February 11 and 12, explored the meaning and current state of this concept. Following the public opening ceremony at Paulskirche, the second day saw the discussion continued at Goethe University, where the researchers and students gathered for a scholarly conference. Several panels discussed key questions in democracy research. The program also included a “Market of Opportunities,” where initiatives presented projects aimed at strengthening democracy.
What Does Normalization Mean?
After opening the ceremony, Jan-Werner Müller of Princeton University delivered the keynote address at Paulskirche. The topic of this address was: What Does Normalization Mean?
How do right-wing populist and far-right politics gradually come to be perceived as “normal”? Müller’s central warning was that “[o]nce normalization has taken place, it is virtually irreversible, not only among the supporters of the responsible party, but also among the general population.”
For Müller, normalization has two meanings. First, it is a breach of norms. In the past, the political rule was to not cooperate with far-right forces. When this rule is broken, the boundaries of what is considered politically acceptable change. Second, normalization involves empirical habituation. When parties adopt and constantly repeat the language and interpretive frameworks of the right, they eventually seem self-evident.
Opposition to such practices is often ineffective because scandals lose their impact when they become frequent. Political sanctions are rarely imposed. There is also a lack of internal party resistance when party members are under pressure or facing threats. At the same time, Müller argued against simple exclusion. Speaking with right-wing populists is not the same as adopting their language. He said what is crucial is repeatedly explaining democratic norms and clearly pointing out when fundamental principles are violated.
Paulskirche as a Place of Historical Significance
The conference began at Frankfurt’s Paulskirche, a site of significant historical importance. In addition to the first pan-German parliament, convened there in 1848, landmark speeches have been delivered here, including by John F. Kennedy. However, the church's history also includes controversial speeches, such as those by Ernst Jünger and Martin Walser. According to Ina Hartwig, that is precisely why it is important to talk about democracy here. The Paulskirche should be a place “for a little more togetherness and democracy.”
When Political Norms Shift
The subsequent panel discussion built on these considerations. Jan-Werner Müller, Nicole Deitelhoff, Rainer Forst (Goethe University) and Timon Gremmels addressed the central question: How stable is our democracy, and what is putting it under pressure today?
In addition to normalization, which is a creeping process of change in political norms and standards, there are also more overt forms of attack on democratic principles. Looking ahead to Donald Trump’s second term, Rainer Forst spoke of an “open attack on the principles of the rule of law” and a “politics of revenge”. He said that breaches of norms are no longer concealed, but rather, deliberately celebrated. “These are nightmares coming true,” Forst said.
The Ambivalence of Cohesion
During the discussion, the concept of “cohesion” itself also took center stage. Cohesion is often interpreted positively, yet even authoritarian systems can foster cohesion, for example, through controlled media or ideological mobilization. For this reason, the concept must always be considered in the context of democracy. Without this connection, there is a risk of reinterpreting it for political ends.
The social dimension plays an important role here. Deitelhoff and Forst emphasized that cohesion becomes fragile when people feel left behind, fall into poverty, or see no prospects for the future. It becomes particularly problematic when this insecurity leads to scapegoating that targets minority or unprotected groups. This undermines the democratic quality of cohesion.
What Is the State of Our Democracy?
The panel also discussed the wider mood of society. Many citizens are frustrated or exhausted by constant political strife. Jan-Werner Müller acknowledged the significant amount of anger and discontent. However, he said this does not yet constitute a “crisis of democracy.” One can only speak of such a crisis when elections no longer function or changes in power are prevented. At the same time, Müller warned against relativizing fundamental democratic rights. If such rights are systematically undermined, it becomes a matter not just of political conflicts, but of democracy itself.
About the Conference
The conference was coordinated by PRIF, The Research Institute Social Cohesion (FGZ), the Research Center for Normative Orders, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, and the Hessian University of Applied Sciences for Public Management and Security (HöMS). The event was part of the “Strengthening Democracy Research in Hesse” program organized by the Hessian Ministry of Science and Research, Art, and Culture (HMWK).
Rainer Forst articulated a fundamental principle: “Democracy is not a system of rule, but rather a form of government in which arguments are exchanged among free and equal citizens through processes of public justification regarding how the general order should be further developed.” While majorities may decide, they must never call fundamental rights into question.
However, as Gremmels emphasized, democracy must also be lived out in everyday life, not just at universities or in politics. At the same time, democratic processes are under growing pressure from hostility on social media, an increasingly aggressive political atmosphere, and polarized debates.
Added to this is a structural crisis in politics: many of the central challenges of our time, such as climate change, war, and global economic issues, are international in nature. However, political instruments often remain organized at the national level. This leads to frustration. While some seek international solutions, others rely on nationalist slogans such as “take back control.”
Finally, the panel opened the floor to questions from the audience. Guests joined the discussion, sharing their perspectives in line with the evening's recurring theme: democracy thrives on exchange.
Understanding and Reimagining Democracy
On the second day of the conference, the program moved to Goethe University in Frankfurt, where 124 guests attended the conference. The focus was on in-depth discussions across several panels. Unlike the previous day at Paulskirche, these discussions delved deeper into academic detail. Topics ranged from social polarization and populism to the resilience and innovation of democratic institutions today.
Democracy conference by the numbers
During the “Radicalization and Resilience” panel, participants analyzed patterns of extremism that harm democracy and discussed how democracies can respond to them. In the session titled “Institutions and Innovations,” participants presented new approaches to democratic processes designed to engage citizens more deeply. The closing panel, “Populism and Polarization,” addressed how deeply divided German society is and what forms of cooperation remain possible and necessary despite differing positions.
Shaping Democracy: Perspectives From the Field
But what does democracy actually look like in practice? At the “Market of Opportunities,” over 20 organizations, initiatives, and projects from Hesse's democratic landscape shared information about their work. They conversed with one another and with the audience. The goal was to integrate the academic and practical aspects of democracy promotion and highlight the diversity of civic engagement.
Represented were organizations involved in political education, such as the Anne Frank Educational Center and the State Agency for Political Education; counseling centers for victims of racist and anti-Semitic violence; projects to prevent extremism; and initiatives to promote integration and social participation, including Rumi-Impuls. A vibrant picture of democracy promotion in Hesse emerged. Students, in particular, took advantage of the opportunity to exchange ideas. Meanwhile, PRIF promoted the “Market of Opportunities” on social media with short video interviews of exhibitors discussing the current challenges facing democracy.
Summary: What Remains in the End?
By the end of the second day, the outcome was less of a conclusion and more of a call to action. As many speakers made clear, democratic cohesion does not arise on its own. It requires commitment, a culture of debate, and reliable structures. Nicole Deitelhoff summed it up with a tongue-in-cheek wish: “Democracy instead of Handkäs.” From Paulskirche to the campus, it became clear that promoting democracy is not a marginal issue, but rather a shared, long-term task.