The Green Party and its intellectual circle are gathering at the Heinrich Böll Foundation to proclaim a new republicanism. But what exactly is this supposed to look like?

It may be a coincidence that this very weekend—while all manner of politicians and intellectuals from the Green Party orbit make their way to the party-affiliated Heinrich Böll Foundation—the AfD is opening its "Democracy Congress" almost within sight. Yet the gravity of the situation could not have been underscored more aptly. And so, Ole Meinefeld—responsible for "diagnoses of the times" and discourse at the Böll Foundation—opens with a call to action: "The battle of ideas against the authoritarian Right and other alternatives to the current system has long since begun. We need a new guiding principle." The stakes are nothing less than that.

Two days of fundamental debate lie ahead. Prominent party figures are mingling in the main hall. Joschka Fischer is there, as are Ricarda Lang, Omid Nouripour, and the incumbent party chair Franziska Brantner. The mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey, is joining via video link. And with Stefan Kania—mayor of the small town of Saalfeld—there is even a CDU member on the panel. Around 400 supporters of the Green camp are bustling about the venue.

Yet, on the sidelines of the conference—during a semi-public symposium—a room full of professors is also grappling with questions of ideology. Printed position papers lie on tables, microphones circulate through the halls, men chew on the arms of their glasses, and chairs are arranged in a loose oval. The undertaking is ambitious indeed: the ultimate goal is to proclaim a "new republicanism" that can serve as a guiding star not only for the Greens but for all liberal democrats in the future. What exactly is meant by this, however, remains an open question.

There are several reasons for this fundamental debate. First, liberalism—a principle to which the Greens also subscribe—is in crisis. This is evident from the election results of both liberal and, above all, anti-liberal parties, as well as from a look at publishing lists, online debates, and newspaper pages. The diagnoses offered by critics of liberalism are remarkably similar: they hold liberals responsible for virtually every modern ill. Liberals are blamed for unequal wealth distribution and runaway capitalism; they are held accountable for the rise of right-wing extremists and socialists—and, of course, Donald Trump. Conservative Catholics have long propagated this narrative, as have socialists. New counter-strategies and new labels are therefore needed. The concept of "republicanism"—the theme of the conference at the Heinrich Böll Foundation—could provide just that.

Second, the Greens are the party in the Bundestag that has most clearly positioned liberalism at the center of its agenda since the FDP failed to clear the five-percent threshold in the spring. It is a challenging legacy to inherit, as the Free Democrats severely damaged the reputation of liberalism, according to Roman Schmidt, one of the conference organizers. In this sense, it falls to the Greens to sweep up the shards left behind by the FDP—and not for the first time. Back in 2014, shortly after the FDP had previously been ousted from the Bundestag, the Green party leadership organized a "Freedom Congress." Even then, the party—often unfairly branded as the "party of bans"—sought to become the liberal center of the Bundestag. And this time, too, party representatives are keen to emphasize that the "new republicanism" is not about distancing themselves from liberalism, but rather about revitalizing it.

This tent is a storm tent—pitched against the AfD.

For, thirdly, the aim here—drawing on the ideas of American author and podcaster Ezra Klein—is to lay the foundation for a "big tent." It is an ideological tent under whose canvas not only Greens but also conservatives and, if necessary, Social Democrats can feel at home. Speaking with the key figures behind the "New Republic" concept—many of whom worked at the Ministry of Economic Affairs under Robert Habeck—makes it clear that initial preparations are being made for the federal election due no later than 2029. This, too, appears to be part of the idea: within a space created by visionary Greens, liberal democrats from across the political spectrum are rallying their forces against the AfD. It quickly becomes apparent: this tent is a storm tent. And flying above it is the banner of the New Republic.

This immediately highlights a fundamental difference—and, by extension, an opportunity to break free from the labels typically associated with liberalism: unlike liberalism, which focuses primarily on individual freedom—even if that means the freedom to stay out of politics—republicanism emphasizes civic responsibility and a robust concept of the common good. That is the briefest of summaries; everything else is a matter of debate. And, as is the nature of such conceptual debates, even within the foundation, there is no consensus on a unified definition of the "new republicanism."

But anyone paying attention to the names mentioned during these days will discern a pattern: the new Republicans look to sociologist and former FDP politician Ralf Dahrendorf for social liberalism; from Jürgen Habermas—whose name is cited more frequently than any other—they borrow a profound respect for public debate; and from Hannah Arendt, they adopt a spirit of activism and civic engagement.

In short: Citizens are encouraged to take an active role—and not merely by performing mandatory service or voting every few years. The goal is for them to see themselves as active shapers of the democratic community, whether in clubs, neighborhoods, local communities, or political parties. Republicanism is, after all, a matter of mindset. Yet this is precisely where the first problem arises. Voter turnout and party memberships are rising, and we have just come through a decade of protest movements. People are highly politicized—not because the Greens have motivated them, but because the AfD has. Republican energy is finding an outlet, but it is doing so outside the traditional institutions of liberal democracy.

The Heinrich Böll Foundation is just as baffled by this phenomenon as everyone else. During a break in the proceedings, people out on the veranda tick off a list of potential causes: filter bubbles and algorithms, bots, conspiracy theories. The erosion of mass organizations—such as churches and political parties—makes the list, too. So do high housing costs, unreliable trains, dilapidated schools, and wealth inequality. The Greens’ moralizing, condescending communication style also comes in for criticism that day. None of these analyses is wrong. But neither are they new. And given the dire diagnosis of the crisis, the proposed solutions seem remarkably tame.