This sentence has been attributed to Fyodor Dostoyevsky for years. However, it does not come from him. Neither in his novels nor in his letters or other surviving writings can it be proven. 

According to research by fact-checkers, it probably spread as a Russian-language Internet meme from 2019 onwards and was only later given Dostoyevsky's name. The great writer serves as a retrospectively mounted seal of approval. Fact-checkers therefore rightly assess the attribution as false.

But a false author does not make the question raised in it meaningless: What happens to a society when it can no longer distinguish between tolerance and submission, consideration and prohibition of thought, respect and intellectual cowardice?

ADVERTISING

Tolerance is one of the foundations of a free society. It protects people with different lifestyles, religions and political convictions. However, it does not mean declaring every assertion to be correct, every political demand to be reasonable or every contradiction morally reprehensible.

A democracy must also tolerate errors, impositions and radical opinions. However, its citizens must be allowed to criticize these opinions. Anyone who no longer asks for facts out of consideration for possible outrage has turned tolerance into a rule of silence. Conversely, anyone who calls every contradiction censorship confuses freedom of expression with a claim to consent.

This is precisely where the German problem lies: the political camps talk less and less with each other and more and more often only about each other. Terms such as "Nazi", "left-wing green", "fascist", "Putin friend", "traitor to the people" or "old parties" do not serve to insight. They sort people into moral pigeonholes and save them from having to deal with their arguments.

The firewall and the denied political competition

This development is particularly visible in the way the AfD is treated. In nationwide polls, the party was roughly between 27 and 29 percent in August 2026, depending on the institute. In the 2025 Bundestag election, it received 20.8 percent of the second votes. In Saxony-Anhalt, where a new state parliament will be elected on September 6, 2026, a recent ARD pre-election poll saw the AfD at 42 percent and the CDU at 22 percent. A poll is not an election forecast and 42 percent does not automatically mean an absolute majority of seats. Nevertheless, such a magnitude cannot be ignored politically. Federal Returning Officer, WDR pre-election poll

The so-called firewall is first and foremost a legitimate coalition decision. No party can be forced to cooperate with another. Democracy also includes the freedom to reject a coalition because of incompatible programmes or because of doubts about its loyalty to the constitution.

The firewall becomes problematic when it is to replace political competition. If parties limit themselves to morally excluding the AfD without dealing with the causes of its rise, demarcation becomes a strategy of refusal. Millions of voters do not disappear by excluding their party from coalitions. Anyone who dismisses their concerns as stupidity, racism or backwardness confirms exactly the feeling of contempt from which protest parties thrive.

This does not mean trivializing every position of the AfD. Even a party with millions of voters must be measured by its statements, its personnel and its relationship to the free democratic basic order. Democracy is neither an automatic clearance certificate for election winners nor a permit for established parties to administratively eliminate unwelcome competition.

legal situation is regularly distorted in the public debate. The AfD is not banned. The classification of the federal party as a suspected right-wing extremist case was confirmed by the courts. According to an urgent decision by the Administrative Court of Cologne in February 2026, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution may not use a further classification as "definitely right-wing extremist" for the time being until the main proceedings have been decided. The court continued to see anti-constitutional tendencies within the party, but did not consider the prerequisites for a corresponding overall assessment to be sufficient after the preliminary examination. Tagesschau

This means that the AfD is neither "whitewashed" nor legally established as an unconstitutional party. Only the Federal Constitutional Court decides on a party ban. The Federal Government, Bundestag and Bundesrat can only file an application. The ban is deliberately the sharpest and most difficult weapon of a well-defended democracy. Federal Constitutional Court

Anyone who equates the AfD with the NSDAP must also ask themselves whether they are blurring historical differences and trivializing the National Socialist dictatorship. Individual extremist statements and possible anti-constitutional currents must be specifically named and examined. The mere equation "right-wing equals 1933" is no substitute for evidence.

ADVERTISING

Conversely, it would be just as wrong to dismiss every examination as a political conspiracy. A constitutional state must be allowed to investigate suspicions. Transparent procedures, verifiable evidence and independent courts are decisive – not the wishes of a political camp.

The controversy surrounding Sven Hüber, the deputy federal chairman of the police union, who has since resigned, shows how quickly political self-assurance can turn into a loss of credibility.

In an article entitled "Richtig Nein sagen" (Saying no correctly), Hüber declared the AfD a "no-go" for police officers. This gave the impression that even the election of the party that was not banned could be incompatible with the oath of office. This is too sweeping from a legal point of view. Civil servants are bound by the constitution, but are allowed to vote for an approved party. The obligation to remonstrate applies to specific official orders that a civil servant considers illegal. It is not an instrument for fighting an elected government politically as a preventive measure.

After that, Hüber's past as a political officer in the GDR border troops came into focus. Serious allegations were made against him, which he denies. His service in the border troops and his activities as a political officer are documented; however, this does not automatically mean that he is personally guilty under criminal law. As long as concrete accusations are not proven, they must be described as accusations. Hüber resigned from his GdP office on 26 August 2026. GdP, Die Zeit

Politically, however, there remains a contradiction: Anyone who denies other people loyalty to the constitution on the basis of their voting decision must be particularly careful with their own biography and with constitutional standards. Moral authority cannot be acquired through the right party label. It arises from credibility, consistency and the willingness to apply the same rules to oneself as to one's opponent.

If the AfD were to become the strongest force or even achieve an absolute majority of seats, this would not be a coup d'état, but initially an election result. The party is likely to try to form a government within the framework of the state constitution. Parliaments, courts, media, opposition and federal institutions would remain in place.

An election victory does not entitle any party to disregard the constitution. But it also does not entitle its opponents to use political tricks to undermine the election result. Changes to constitutions or parliamentary procedures must not only serve to keep a foreseeable election winner away from legitimate positions of power. Protection rules must apply generally, be justified in the long term and still appear correct even if one day one's own party is affected by them.

The smarter answer to a strong AfD would be open competition: Which party offers the more convincing economic, migration, energy, social and security policy? Those who only warn against the opponent admit that they do not have a sufficient answer themselves.

The debate becomes particularly dangerous when political majorities, internal unrest and the constitutional case of tension are mixed together.

The case of tension under Article 80a of the Basic Law concerns a serious foreign policy conflict situation in which an armed attack on Germany could become likely. In principle, it must be determined by a two-thirds majority of the Bundestag and primarily activates security and precautionary laws. It is not a means of suppressing demonstrations, preventing an undesirable state government or reversing a lost election. Federal Office for Civil Protection

ADVERTISING

The claim that the political rights of citizens would be overridden across the board is also false. Fundamental rights and democratic institutions do not automatically disappear. Only in the event of a defensive case – i.e. in the event of an armed attack on Germany or an imminent attack – do further emergency rules apply. Even then, the Federal Constitutional Court, constitutional obligations and essential fundamental rights remain in place. Only under special circumstances could the Joint Committee take over tasks from the Bundestag and Bundesrat. German Bundestag

This distinction is crucial. Anyone who describes a tough election campaign as a "case of tension" is turning constitutional law into political dramaturgy and mentally accustoming society to a state of emergency.

Germany's conflict is part of a European development. In many member states, traditional parties are losing their binding power. Right-wing, left-wing and populist movements are growing because many citizens have the impression that governments are no longer capable of acting on migration, purchasing power, energy prices, housing, bureaucracy and security.

Europe will not solve this crisis with ever new moral labels. A Union that demands the rule of law must also comply with it vis-à-vis political opponents. This means no special laws against individual parties, no politically appointed bogus expert opinions and no administrative shortcuts around independent courts. At the same time, it means that governments that attack the judiciary, the media or minority rights are not exempt from criticism by referring to their electoral successes.

The rule of law is also an economic issue. Reliable courts, stable rules and effective administrations influence investment and growth. A 2026 study by the European Commission concludes that a deterioration in the quality of government and the rule of law can impair economic growth. European Commission

A permanently polarized EU would be weaker in foreign policy, more economically unpredictable and easier to influence by foreign powers. Moscow, Washington and Beijing would not have to defeat Europe militarily if its states blockaded themselves domestically.

A direct war between Russia and Germany would not be a normal foreign mission. Germany is a member of NATO. An armed attack on German or other NATO territory could trigger the alliance case under Article 5. The measures taken by the individual allies would be decided politically; the alliance case is not a mechanical button that automatically determines a specific course of war. At its summit in July 2026, NATO reaffirmed that an attack on one ally is treated as an attack on all. NATO

For Germany, however, the consequences would be drastic: mobilization of military and civilian resources, protection of critical infrastructure, possible service obligations, prioritization of energy and transport, greater state intervention in supply chains, and enormous burdens on households and companies. Cyberattacks, sabotage, disinformation and failures of communication or supply systems could affect everyday life long before a direct military attack.

Especially in such a situation, social trust would be crucial. A state whose citizens regard each other only as Nazis, communists, traitors or warmongers has little resilience. Anyone who dismisses any criticism of the government as Russian propaganda promotes mistrust. Anyone who describes any support for Ukraine as preparation for a war of aggression is doing the same.

Peace requires diplomacy and military precautions. Deterrence without dialogue increases the risk of a wrong decision; willingness to talk without a credible defence capability can be understood as weakness. A responsible government must endure both.

Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz was Chairman of the Supervisory Board of BlackRock Asset Management Germany from 2016 to 2020. It is therefore legitimate to scrutinise his decisions on financial market regulation, government spending, privatisations or arms deals particularly carefully.

However, it does not automatically follow from his previous work that he now secretly represents BlackRock's interests. Such an assertion requires concrete evidence: personal agreements, financial connections, covert influence or verifiable decisions for the particular advantage of the company. Without this evidence, it remains a conjecture.

The right demand is therefore not to declare every previous activity to be proof of corruption. What is needed is complete transparency about contacts, lobbying conversations, shareholdings and possible conflicts of interest. Trust is not created by politicians rejecting all criticism, but by disclosing verifiable information.

placed above reason A society does not fail because of too much humanity. It fails when tolerance is no longer understood as a right of the other, but as a duty to consent.

In this case, bad political decisions are not corrected because criticism is considered to lack solidarity. Companies lose competitiveness because economic consequences disappear behind moral slogans. Authorities protect their procedures more than their results. Parties defend their sovereignty of interpretation, while citizens lose trust in institutions. The public sphere disintegrates into camps, each of which only recognizes the mistakes of the others.

But the backlash can also be destructive. Anyone who declares himself a representative of "common sense" and calls all dissenters stupid has also ended the open debate. Common sense is no substitute for data, expertise and the rule of law. Sometimes the majority is wrong. Sometimes experts are wrong. Sometimes the opposition is wrong. No group has a monopoly on reason.

The decisive boundary therefore does not run between left and right, tolerant and intolerant or established and oppositional. It runs between a policy that can substantiate its claims and a policy that only distributes moral labels.

Tolerance must not prohibit criticism. Criticism must not degrade people. The rule of law is allowed to defend itself, but it must not bend its rules to suit the desired political result. And voters are allowed to make mistakes without being excluded from the democratic community.

ADVERTISING

Author. Tom Weyermann
Source: Wiki / German Bundestag / Federal Office for Civil Protection / Press / REUTERS

Disclaimer: This article does not represent the opinion or editorial position of MFRadio.de. It is a personal assessment report of the author. The assessments, conclusions and future scenarios contained therein are the sole responsibility of the author. Insofar as factual allegations are taken up, they are based on the sources available at the time of publication.