Germany’s established political parties have themselves helped drive voters toward more radical alternatives by failing to represent public concerns, according to former Federal Constitutional Court president Hans-Jürgen Papier.
The country’s former top judge and one of its top legal scholars rejected the argument that growing support for parties on the political right and left is the principal danger to German democracy.
“I would argue almost the opposite,” he told Tagesspiegel.
“The shortcomings of our parliamentary democracy and the established parties, which have led to a stagnation of reforms and gaps in representation, have fostered radicalization. This is precisely what ultimately endangers democracy,” he said.
Papier, who led Germany’s highest constitutional court from 2002 to 2010, said large sections of the population believe the mainstream parties no longer address their interests, fears, or priorities.
“The established parties are no longer close enough to the people in many areas,” he said. “Many people no longer feel represented.”
Papier argued that representative democracy cannot function merely through formal institutions, but requires voters to believe their views are genuinely reflected in political decision-making.
According to him, this widening gap between voters and the CDU/CSU, SPD, Greens, and FDP has strengthened political movements outside the traditional center.
He said there was “cause for concern about Germany,” claiming that roughly half of the population no longer trusted the democratic system to solve the country’s problems, and claimed that this loss of confidence was the result of “years of short-sighted policies and poor political management.”
However, Papier rejected comparisons between Germany’s current political climate and the final years of the Weimar Republic.
“We are not facing a takeover by an authoritarian regime,” he said. “Such fear-mongering scenarios have nothing to do with reality. They are, however, dangerous.”
Papier has also opposed attempts to ban the Alternative for Germany, arguing that the constitutional requirements have not been established.
“Is the AfD waging a war against the free and democratic basic order? I consider that [that suggestion] unjustifiable,” he said, adding that proceedings to outlaw an entire party could not be based solely on statements made by individual officials.
Papier also defended the concept of populism, saying it should not automatically be treated as a derogatory term. “For me, populism is not necessarily a dirty word,” he said. “Populism is also about being close to the people.”
It is not the first time that Papier has been outspoken about the state of governance across Europe. In an interview with The Times last year, he criticized the expansion of European asylum case law, warning that decisions by national courts and the European Court of Human Rights were restricting governments’ ability to control immigration.
He described the growing body of rulings as a “de facto right to immigration through the back door” that was settling “like mildew” over the political authority of European states, and argued that expansive interpretations of human rights provisions had allowed courts to prevent deportations in circumstances far beyond the original scope of the Geneva Convention.
