Tolerance is one of the central elements of the West’s self-understanding. It stands for openness, freedom, and the ability to deal with differences. Historically, however, tolerance was never intended as permissiveness. It did not mean abandoning one’s own positions, but rather enduring difference within clear rules, shared values, and recognizable boundaries. Early liberal thinkers such as John Locke and Alexis de Tocqueville already understood tolerance as a balance between individual freedom and social order. Modern democracies are likewise built on this principle. Pluralism functions only where it is clear what is negotiable and what is not. Tolerance has always been tied to a political self-understanding, not to indifference. In today’s Western foreign and security policy, this distinction has become increasingly blurred. Out of the willingness to tolerate other political systems, a reluctance has emerged in many places to openly articulate one’s own interests. Security analyses, such as those by the RAND Corporation, have for years pointed out that Western states often act with strategic ambiguity toward revisionist or authoritarian actors, while these actors themselves pursue their interests with clarity (RAND, Competing in the Gray Zone, 2019). This development is reinforced by an increasing moralization of political debates. Conflicts are described less as clashes of interests and more as moral deviations. While this initially appears principled, it complicates strategic action. Studies by the OECD on strategic governance show that political decision-making processes lose clarity where normative communication is not linked to concrete objectives, priorities, and courses of action (OECD, Strategic Foresight for Policy Making, 2020). This problem becomes particularly evident in dealing with actors who do not share Western tolerance as a value, but instead interpret it as a strategic variable. Analyses by the European Council on Foreign Relations show that authoritarian systems frequently factor in and deliberately exploit Western states’ willingness to engage in dialogue and restraint, without themselves demonstrating comparable openness (ECFR, Power Atlas). In such cases, tolerance is not reciprocated, but instrumentalized.
This lack of clarity is not confined to foreign policy. It increasingly has domestic repercussions as well. Where political leadership consistently relies on explanation, relativization, and restraint, a vacuum of clarity gradually emerges. In such situations, political actors who offer simple answers, clear assignments of blame, and unambiguous enemy images gain attractiveness. Extremist and radical parties benefit less from substantive persuasiveness than from the impression of at least acting decisively. Empirical studies support this connection. Research by the Pew Research Center as well as long-term data from the European Social Survey show that political radicalization tends to increase where citizens feel that established institutions no longer represent clear positions or avoid fundamental conflicts. In this sense, extremism arises not primarily from ideological conviction, but from perceived disorientation. The result is growing societal polarization, in which trust erodes and the political center loses its binding force (Pew Research Center, Political Polarization in Advanced Democracies; European Social Survey).
Tolerance itself is not the problem. Tolerance remains a central prerequisite for open, pluralistic societies. It becomes problematic where it is confused with indifference. With the abandonment of priority-setting, boundary-drawing, and strategic clarity. In this context, rationality does not mean moral abstinence, but the ability to articulate values without confusing them with strategic incapacity. Clear positioning does not weaken diplomacy. It strengthens it. For partners as well as negotiating counterparts, predictable stances and clearly defined interests provide orientation. They are a prerequisite for stable cooperation, viable compromises, and credible deterrence. The West does not lose its attractiveness because it is tolerant. It loses effectiveness where tolerance is no longer supported by a clear political self-understanding. In a fragmented international order, moral self-description alone is insufficient. What matters is the ability to connect values with interests and the capacity to act.
Tolerance is a value.
Indifference is a risk.
Those who confuse the two do not endanger openness—but strategic agency.