We are observing current developments in cultural policy with growing concern, as they extend far beyond individual cases: the exclusion of three bookstores from the German Bookstore Award, allegations against the Bremen cultural center “Kukoon,” and the announcement by Minister of State for Culture Wolfram Weimer that he intends to expand the application of the “Haber procedure” and incorporate it into funding decisions.

What is emerging here is a paradigm shift: toward a creeping restriction of the freedom of art guaranteed by the Basic Law, toward the erosion of minimum standards of the rule of law, toward the establishment of political litmus tests—and, not least, toward the narrowing of free public spaces for discourse, which are indispensable as the foundation of a
pluralistic and vibrant democracy.

Freedom of artistic expression is unconditionally guaranteed in Article 5, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law. What constitutes art is determined by the discourse within the art world itself—not by government agencies or security authorities. To undermine this principle jeopardizes the very foundation of our democratic culture.

We strongly endorse the criticism voiced by numerous institutions: decisions regarding funding and awards must be transparent, verifiable, and based on professional criteria. Procedures whose foundations remain secret and that deny those affected the opportunity to comment contradict the minimum standards of the rule of law.

We view the inclusion of inquiries from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution in cultural funding as highly problematic. It amounts to a form of ideological screening and opens the door to a practice of political pre-selection. Such a development would cause lasting damage to trust in state cultural policy.

Particularly alarming is the prospect of expanding these procedures while simultaneously creating lists of jury members. Even if this is formally justified on grounds of transparency, it creates the impression of structural control and potential influence. The independence of juries—a central prerequisite for art’s autonomy from the state—must not be undermined, either in fact or in appearance.

Anyone who retroactively corrects or politically overrides jury decisions not only undermines the legitimacy of individual proceedings but also attacks the sanctuary of free art as a whole. We firmly oppose any form of ideological screening and a culture of suspicion and non-transparent scrutiny. Art and cultural venues are not security risks, but spaces for open—and even controversial—exchange. Their role
is not to smooth over social conflicts, but to make them visible.

Of course, all cultural institutions operate within the framework of the Basic Law. However, the evaluation of their work must be based on their cultural contribution—not on sweeping generalizations or secret assessments.

Bremen stands for a diverse, international, and open cultural landscape. Against this backdrop in particular, procedures that are perceived as non-transparent, counterproductive, and damaging to reputation are unacceptable.

We demand:
– unrestricted respect for artistic freedom,
– an end to non-transparent review processes and secret evaluations,
– no ideological screening in cultural funding,
– the consistent preservation of jury independence,
– and the safeguarding of the autonomy of cultural institutions.

When government agencies begin to filter cultural practice according to political expediency, the principle of art independent of the state is undermined. Democracy, however, thrives not on conformity but on open debate: art creates public discourse—and public discourse requires freedom, dissent, and a diversity of voices.

In times of profound social change, it is precisely the open, unregulated spaces of art that provide orientation. Protecting these spaces is a central task of democratic politics.

Share