New report of the German Office for the Protection of the Constitution: "delegitimization of the state" as a threat to democracy
Everything is surpassed by the phenomenon area “delegitimization of the state relevant to the protection of the constitution”, which was mentioned for the first time. The new observation field was set up in April 2021 at the responsible office of the domestic intelligence service; This figure of thought was already recognizable in the report by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution from June 2021. The aim of the authority is prima facie clear: it wants to penetrate further into the political arena and expand monitoring mechanisms.
The focus is on actors who aim to "defeat essential constitutional principles or to significantly impair the functioning of the state or its institutions." express an anti-constitutional attitude.
The Office for the Protection of the Constitution works with suspicions
It becomes problematic at another point: "This form of delegitimization usually does not take place through a direct questioning of democracy as such, but through constant agitation against and contempt for democratically legitimized representatives and state institutions and their decisions." trust in the state will be shaken, which is contrary to the principles of democracy and the rule of law.
This is only partially convincing. If democracy is not directly questioned, corresponding statements fall within the realm of freedom of expression - however nonsensical they may be. If, on the other hand, democracy is demonstrably attacked, it is an effort against the free democratic basic order. This means that the new phenomenon area is actually superfluous if the Office for the Protection of the Constitution were not interested in also illuminating the gaps.
In this way, the domestic intelligence service can once again work with suspicions without having to present evidence. With this approach, they follow a well-known argumentation pattern. If, on the other hand, the authority were obliged to provide concrete evidence, i.e. if it were not allowed to fall back on "actual indications", then the report for the protection of the constitution would look very different.
It becomes problematic at another point: "This form of delegitimization usually does not take place through a direct questioning of democracy as such, but through constant agitation against and contempt for democratically legitimized representatives and state institutions and their decisions." trust in the state will be shaken, which is contrary to the principles of democracy and the rule of law.
This is only partially convincing. If democracy is not directly questioned, corresponding statements fall within the realm of freedom of expression - however nonsensical they may be. If, on the other hand, democracy is demonstrably attacked, it is an effort against the free democratic basic order. This means that the new phenomenon area is actually superfluous if the Office for the Protection of the Constitution were not interested in also illuminating the gaps.
In this way, the domestic intelligence service can once again work with suspicions without having to present evidence. With this approach, they follow a well-known argumentation pattern. If, on the other hand, the authority were obliged to provide concrete evidence, i.e. if it were not allowed to fall back on "actual indications", then the report for the protection of the constitution would look very different.
When does the "defamation" begin?
The central question is now: When does the “defamation” begin? Anyone who criticizes the "system" and does not mean the Basic Law, but means a political culture established by those in power or decisions made by government representatives, is usually not an enemy of the constitution. In the interests of freedom of expression, he must also be allowed to make sharp, even irrelevant judgments. A democracy has to endure that. The permanent repetition of criticism of the decisions of government agencies may in turn be an indication of penetrance, but not necessarily an effort against the free democratic basic order.
It is therefore at the authority's discretion to assess individual statements as "contempt". The past has shown that the domestic intelligence service does not always proceed objectively. The term “New Right” is used, although it is controversial in political science. There is still no working definition for the term “conspiracy theory”. Here the impression arises that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution has a great interest in such stretchable labels in order to be able to adjust ratings as required.
The loser is already foreseeable: freedom of expression in Germany. If individual citizens or party representatives are unsure whether criticism of the prevailing conditions might be classified as "contempt", this is likely to lead to a self-restraint in thinking and opinions. Exactly that could be a goal of the protection of the constitution. In the spirit of the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, an indirect strategy for influencing processes is chosen. Ultimately, however, such an approach does not protect state institutions, but rather the course of the federal government in terms of content.
The central question is now: When does the “defamation” begin? Anyone who criticizes the "system" and does not mean the Basic Law, but means a political culture established by those in power or decisions made by government representatives, is usually not an enemy of the constitution. In the interests of freedom of expression, he must also be allowed to make sharp, even irrelevant judgments. A democracy has to endure that. The permanent repetition of criticism of the decisions of government agencies may in turn be an indication of penetrance, but not necessarily an effort against the free democratic basic order.
It is therefore at the authority's discretion to assess individual statements as "contempt". The past has shown that the domestic intelligence service does not always proceed objectively. The term “New Right” is used, although it is controversial in political science. There is still no working definition for the term “conspiracy theory”. Here the impression arises that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution has a great interest in such stretchable labels in order to be able to adjust ratings as required.
The loser is already foreseeable: freedom of expression in Germany. If individual citizens or party representatives are unsure whether criticism of the prevailing conditions might be classified as "contempt", this is likely to lead to a self-restraint in thinking and opinions. Exactly that could be a goal of the protection of the constitution. In the spirit of the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, an indirect strategy for influencing processes is chosen. Ultimately, however, such an approach does not protect state institutions, but rather the course of the federal government in terms of content.
There has always been criticism of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution
In the report for the protection of the constitution, the new category is justified with reference to the excesses in various demonstrations against the Corona policy. In the future, however, it also says that "an increased focus on the political measures to deal with climate change by actors in the phenomenon area should be considered" in order to "disparage government agencies and those responsible for politics" is also at the discretion of the domestic intelligence service.
There has always been criticism of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, especially of the reporting of suspicions and the numerous argumentative levers it uses. What is now being brewed in Cologne should worry the citizens. There is a threat of a development that will place broad sections of society under general suspicion. One of the ironies of the current situation is that time and again government measures raise doubts about the “system”. A survey published in April 2022 shows that 31 percent of Germans now believe they live in a "sham democracy" in which "the citizens have nothing to say". What could be the reason?
In the report for the protection of the constitution, the new category is justified with reference to the excesses in various demonstrations against the Corona policy. In the future, however, it also says that "an increased focus on the political measures to deal with climate change by actors in the phenomenon area should be considered" in order to "disparage government agencies and those responsible for politics" is also at the discretion of the domestic intelligence service.
There has always been criticism of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, especially of the reporting of suspicions and the numerous argumentative levers it uses. What is now being brewed in Cologne should worry the citizens. There is a threat of a development that will place broad sections of society under general suspicion. One of the ironies of the current situation is that time and again government measures raise doubts about the “system”. A survey published in April 2022 shows that 31 percent of Germans now believe they live in a "sham democracy" in which "the citizens have nothing to say". What could be the reason?
————
Martin Wagener is a professor of political science with a focus on international politics and security policy at the Federal University for Public Administration in Berlin.
Source: Junge Freiheit
Posts
