This Friday, Fridays For Future is calling for a global climate strike – tens of thousands of people are expected to take to the streets in Germany. Nevertheless, the protest movement is in a difficult situation, explains sociologist Dieter Rucht in an interview with ntv.de. He expects radicalization – but not towards violence.
ntv.de: This Friday, Fridays For Future is calling for a global climate strike – it’s the first time in a long time that something like this has happened. Is this a last gasp? Has the great wave of climate protest actually already subsided?
Dieter Rucht: Overall, the wave of climate protests has not subsided. Because this also includes the last generation, which has been the focus of public interest for two years. But if I only relate your question to Fridays For Future, then the wave has indeed ebbed. The peak was in September 2019, but just a few months later a downturn was already visible during a day of action. Now the big question is what to do next. But there is no patent solution.
Do you still have an idea?
Professor Dr. Dieter Rucht from the Berlin Science Center for Social Research has been observing protest movements for decades.
The movement must become more action-oriented. Fridays For Future could broaden its spectrum and, for example, like Greenpeace, promote its own expertise and work with open-minded parties. But such work is less provocative or sensational.
How about the last generation? Their actions are causing fatigue for at least a large part of the population – to put it cautiously.
The situation is indeed strange. Four fifths of the population support more decisive climate protection. However, just as many reject these forms of protest, i.e. sticking or defacing works of art. You cannot ignore the fact that such actions alienate a large majority of the population. You can’t blame drivers as a whole for the problems. It’s certainly not convincing if you choose museum objects as your target. This cannot be conveyed.
With the exception of the AfD, all parties including the Union have now taken up the issue of climate protection and are giving it great importance. Do we even need this protest anymore?
The pressure has to be maintained, even increased. The reactions of those in power are too hesitant, although the verbal commitments to move forward more decisively are still there. I assume that there will continue to be street protests, disruptive actions and rule violations. Maybe some of it will become even more offensive, i.e. more radical.
Are you already observing radicalization?
We have already seen individual acts of sabotage, for example the attack on the railway infrastructure in Hamburg. However, I think it is unlikely that we will experience a wave of acts of sabotage or even a green climate RAF. The accusation of the climate RAF is already grossly exaggerated because the actual Red Army faction planted bombs, kidnapped and blackmailed and murdered people. The climate protectors have nothing to do with this. They draw a clear line: we will not go beyond civil disobedience. But civil disobedience is by definition non-violent.
But what does civil disobedience mean? What do you get out of this? You put your own concerns above everything else. Doesn’t this also question democracy and the rule of law? Ultimately, they say: the majorities in the Bundestag are secondary.
I do not think so. It would be inappropriate to launch acts of civil disobedience on every issue. This has to be carefully considered and measured. It is not enough to simply rely on your conscience. A dramatic problem situation must be present in order to make these forms appear legitimate. You have to seek public debate and try to convince the public. You have to justify your actions and face them. But it is part of it that the democratic legal system is recognized in principle.
Like that? You’re doing the opposite.
No, civil disobedience does not mean rejection of democracy and the rule of law. This is recognized in principle. But at certain points people invoke higher goods and say: At this point we will disregard the law. But this is not a general disregard for the legal system. Fridays For Future, for example, also refer to the Federal Constitutional Court’s ruling on climate protection.
Some people also said, for example FDP leader Christian Lindner, that you could join a party. This is how you can make a difference in a democracy.
Some of the young people do that too. But some people consciously decide against it because as a single young person in a party you can’t do much at first. This was also the case after 1968. At that time, some people said: I’m being crushed in party work, I’m just a small cog in the wheel. The bottom line was that for many people at the time, pressure from extra-parliamentary movements seemed more promising.
The student movement of the ’68 has long been legendary and shrouded in legend. Was it actually surprising to you that today’s supposedly self-centered, consumer-oriented generation has staged such a massive protest?
Yes, absolutely. I was also surprised by the professionalism and efficiency of the organization. Incidentally, the quantitative mobilization is much greater than in 1968. There were not nearly as many ’68s as one might think given the study of them. A big difference, however, is that the climate activists are demanding something that the government has already committed itself to. At that time there was a hard stance, a huge divide. Nevertheless, there is still polarization today – towards the right-wing populist, right-wing radical camp, which rejects climate protection outright. This is actually the new central front position.
They say that activists and the government want the same thing, but aren’t the older generation of politicians paying lip service when it comes to climate protection? Isn’t that the problem?
That’s the problem when we look at the majority of the population. The majority verbally support climate protection. But the majority shy away when it comes to concrete measures that could restrict their own lifestyle. This gap remains. But it gives me some hope that young people in particular are willing to change their lifestyle. For many people, a big car is no longer a status symbol. But even when looking at the younger generation, one probably has to speak of a minority. There was a boost in politicization, particularly through Fridays For Future. But it never covered the entire younger generation.
This Friday there will be another big protest event – a “global climate strike”. Is it even global?
No that’s not him. But it is international because protests are also taking place in many other countries. But they are usually very small. Often these are just groups in big cities that are connected to international communications and perhaps also speak English. But it’s not like half the world will stand up. I also find the term “climate strike” inappropriate. It’s not a strike at all, it’s an internationally coordinated demonstration.
In Germany, climate protection has reached the political mainstream, even if you believe continued protest is necessary. But isn’t Fridays For Future’s bigger task in the rest of the world?
Yes indeed. But one must also recognize that there are other priorities in many other countries. If your own children are starving, if you are threatened by disease, if you live in a repressive political system, climate protection is far down the list of problems. You can’t blame people for that. We would probably all act like that.
Volker Petersen spoke to Dieter Rucht