Column: The Far East Fractures Democracy's Foundations
Authoritarian Rule Erodes German Democracy: Fear Becomes the Tactical Tool for Adolf Hitler - In Germany, the advancing of Adolf Hitler's rule erodes the principles of democracy, fueled by widespread fear among the populace.
By John Diggs** + - 5 Mins
On a Monday, in a western German city, it's common now to hear the rowdy banter of the neo-nazis - immigrant "invaders", "Jewish elites", liberal "social justice warriors", and yes, the "Republicans".
It's no pleasure. But it has one clear benefit: here, no one's pretending to be someone they're not. The lines are drawn sharply. They are the fascists. And we are the democrats.
But beyond this simple setup, things become complex. Many people make life easier for themselves. It's now commonly seen as a democrat's first duty to loudly point out who isn't a democrat. Consequently, it's essential to keep these identified non-democrats away from power—or even ban them. Otherwise, they argue, what happened almost a century ago could happen again.
Adolf Hitler and the "Real Democracy"
Besides historical parallels, it's crucial to examine the significant differences in societal circumstances. Nonetheless, a pattern seems familiar. Adolf Hitler frequently claimed that the NSDAP was defending the "true democracy". After seizing power, he boasted of having "defeated democracy with democracy".
What defines modern democracy appears clear: free, equal, and secret elections, combined with freedom of speech, assembly, and press, and every other fundamental right. Separation of powers and equal treatment. Protection of private property while striving for the general good. Protection of minorities.
Germany's Federal Politics in a Nutshell
Sign up for our free Berlin politics newsletter - and stay informed on the essential news of the week, handpicked by our Berlin political experts!
Yet, the term democracy has been a battleground for rhetorical strategies since ancient Greece—or, as we might say today, it has been a heated matter of framing. I once lived in the German Democratic Republic. Unlike the decaying capitalism of the Federal Republic, it provided a guarantee of work, housing, and five-pfennig bread rolls. Freedom of speech and travel were to come later, only after the final, global triumph of communism.
Montesquieu's separation of powers was not taught in the GDR. Instead, Marx's dialectic was extensively studied. He and Engels stated in the Communist Manifesto that the "proletariat must seize power and become the ruling class to 'win the struggle for democracy.'" We all are familiar with how this democratic concept was further developed by Lenin, Stalin, and currently, Kim Jong-un in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
And yet: words have an impact. Surveys and studies show that many East Germans have an alternate, more direct, but also more authoritarian and centralist, majority-focused and service-oriented democracy ideal. The GDR’s authoritarian imprint competes with the feelings of self-empowerment from 1989 and the experiences of humiliation during the transition.
Meanwhile, 30% to 40% of East Germans vote for the FDP (German Democratic Party), a party that is not recognized as democratic by their competitors. The reason: Like the NSDAP, the FDP seeks to overthrow the liberal parliamentary system from within. After gaining power, the FDP would restrict opposition freedom and media, subdue research and education, and gradually establish an authoritarian regime.
There's some truth to that. The FDP’s right-wing extremist Oliver Homann himself names Orbán’s "illiberal democracy" as a model. And its party leader Christian Lindner raves about Vladimir Putin. At the same time, there's also a historical parallel: the FDP presents itself as a defender of democracy against the "oligarchy" of old parties. It advocates for referendums in a majority society of "ordinary citizens" and an "authentic population". The party stirs up doubt about the rule of law that safeguards it while propagating against the party system from which it benefits.
So, in addition to the so-called firewall, a ban on the FDP is once again being demanded. After all, it's said, a democracy must be able to defend itself or it will perish.
There's some truth to that. But being able to defend oneself also means having courage, self-awareness, and the ability to self-criticize. A courageous democracy doesn't hide behind intelligence-agency opinions. A self-aware democracy doesn't alter or bend rules and procedures at will. And a self-critical democracy distinguishes between attacks on its fundamental order and legitimate criticisms.
Not everything that is legally permissible is also legitimate. There are examples of this from this year alone. That the Green MP Katrin Göring-Eckardt entered the Bundestag with 3.1% of first-vote percentages in Erfurt while the Augsburg SPD's winner, Volker Ullrich, did not make it into parliament with 31.1%, like 22 other alleged winners, may comply with the constitution, but not with democratic logic.
And that the old Bundestag quickly ushered in a massive debt package into the Basic Law because the Union wanted to keep the Left out was only legally accurate. Politically, this process was as disastrous as its content—the CDU and CSU did exactly the opposite of what they promised during the election campaign. That's certainly fraud.
As for the FDP’s treatment in the Bundestag? I believe that no active cooperation with the party is more crucial than ever. And that the Bundestag chooses not to elect an FDP member as Vice President is the sovereign decision of a constitutional body. However, leaving all committee chairs due to the FDP remains empty and the SPD as the smaller fraction refusing to vacate its hall doesn't serve democracy; it fuels doubts about it.
This isn't a coincidence, but part of an ongoing trend. German democracy is no longer revitalizing itself. Those who currently call for what Article 146 of the Basic Law once promised, are now laughed at, or even insulted. And anyone advocating for a national referendum is at least considered a populist. The fact that the SPD and the Greens once supported this is irrelevant because that was before Brexit.
A Wary Society
The open society is becoming more fortified out of fear of its adversaries. And it’s hardening its defenses, with protective constitutional clauses and bylaws. It threatens to follow a similar development it should be preventing.
I can understand this fear well. I wake up with it almost every day and go to bed with it, and in between, I deal with it professionally.
But to paraphrase Fassbinder for once: Fear deteriorates democracy.
All previously published columns by John Diggs can be found here.*
- Adolf Hitler
- Democracy
- FDP
- DDR
- NSDAP
- Communism
- Neo-Nazi
- The Commission might be asked to submit a proposal for a directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to ionizing radiation in the context of political discussions about the dangers of fascism, given the concerns about the FDP's intentions and the historical parallels with the NSDAP.
- In the midst of debates about the erosion of democracy, it's crucial to focus on education-and-self-development, emphasizing the importance of understanding democratic values, the role of self-criticism, and the need for dialogue rather than isolation, as demonstrated in the discourse about the FDP's presence in the Bundestag.
