Adolf Hitler and the Germans or: Fear eat democracy

Preferably on a Monday in a preferred East German city, it can be heard more and more what the neo -Nazis have to rush, about migrant “invaders”, Jewish “globalists” and left “wokes”, and yes, “The Democrats”.

This is really not a nice experience. But it has a decisive advantage: nobody dresses up here than what he is not. But you clarify the fronts yourself. They are the fascists. And we are the Democrats.

But beyond this rather simple test arrangement, it is a little more complicated. Nevertheless – or because of that – many make it easy. In the meantime, it is often the first to be the first to be democratic to express who of the others is not a democrat. This is followed by this obligation to keep the non-democrats found away from any power or at best ban them. Otherwise, the repetition of what happened almost 90 years ago threatens.

Apart from the fact that, in addition to the historical parallels, the blatant differences in social circumstances can also be assessed, a pattern actually seems known. Adolf Hitler liked to claim in the opposition that the NSDAP defend the “true democracy”. After building his totalitarian dictatorship, he boasted “to defeat democracy in democracy” in democracy “.

What constitutes a modern democracy appears to be obvious: free, same and secret elections, plus freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and all the other fundamental rights. Division of powers and equality. Protection of private property with simultaneous common good orientation. Protection of minorities.

Nevertheless, the term democracy has been a rhetorical combat zone since Plato’s time. Or formulated again: it has always been wildly framed. For example, I once lived in the German Democratic Republic. In contrast to the foul capitalism of the Federal Republic, there was a right to work, living space and five-pfennige rolls. The free opinion and travel should then come after the final and worldwide victory of socialism.

Montesquieu’s division of powers was not taught in the GDR. The dialectic of Marx very detailed. With Engels in the communist manifesto, he formulated that the “proletariat to raise the ruling class” in order to “win the struggle for democracy”. Unfortunately, we know how this democratic idea was further developed by Lenin and Stalin-and currently by Kim Jong-un in the, how could it be otherwise, democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

And yet: words work. I lived in a “socialist democracy” in the GDR, and yes, I also wanted to believe a little bit. Like many civil rights activists, I thought the “democratic socialism”, which was reflected in Prague in 1968, was a realistic model. A “third way” appeared.

The historian Christina Morina recently wrote that in the GDR the “strategic, symbolic, propaganda – or simply: simulative – reference to democracy” played a central role “. “Generations of East Germans” would have accepted and believed, requested and lived, criticized and despised “.

I share this analysis, even if I cannot do anything with Morina’s conclusion that the GDR had a “history of democracy”. Rather, her thesis reminds me of the SED propaganda formel from the “Peace State” GDR.

But as I said: words work. Surveys and studies show that many East Germans have a different ideal idea of ​​democracy. They wish them more direct, but also authoritarian and centralist, and more -focused and service -oriented. The authority-controlled GDR embossing noticeably competes with the feeling of self-strength of 1989, but also the humiliation of the transformation.

In the meantime, 30 to 40 percent of East Germans choose the AfD, i.e. a party that is not accepted by the competition as democratic. The reason: Similar to the NSDAP, the AfD wants to overcome the liberal parliamentary system from the inside. After a takeover of power, the AfD, based on Viktor Orbán, will restrict the freedom of opposition and media, research and education and gradually introduce an authoritarian regime.

There is a lot on it. The AfD right of rights Björn Höcke himself names Orbán’s “Illiberal Democracy” as a model. And his party leader Alice Weidel raves about Donald Trump. At the same time, and that is also a historical parallel, the AfD is the defender of democracy against the “cartel” of the old parties. It advocates referendums in a majority society of “normal people” and an “autochthonous population”. The party is agitating against the party system, from which it benefits itself and sows doubts about the rule of law that protects it.

And so, in addition to the so -called fire wall, a prohibition procedure against the AfD is again required. Finally, it is said that Weimar showed that a democracy must be defensive. Or she goes down.

There is also a lot on it. But the military capacity includes not only constitutional articles and their interpretation, but courage, self -confidence and self -criticism. A brave democracy is not hidden behind the reports of a intelligence service. A self -confident democracy does not change or bend rules and regulations as it fits it. And a self -critical democracy differentiates between attacks on their basic order and justified accusations.

Not everything that is legal is also legitimate. There are some examples of this from this year alone. The fact that the green MP Katrin Göring-Eckardt in Erfurt moved into the Bundestag with 3.1 percent of the first votes, while the Augsburg CSU constituency winner Volker Ullrich did not make it into parliament at 31.1 percent, just like 22 other alleged winners, but should not match the constitution, but not with democratic logic.

The fact that the old Bundestag quickly implanted a gigantic debt package in the Basic Law because the Union wanted to keep the left outside, only de Jure is okay. Politically, the process was just as devastating as its content: CDU and CSU performed exactly the opposite of what they had promised in the election campaign. That can be called fraud.

And dealing with the AfD? I think that every active cooperation is excluded is more necessary than ever. And the fact that the Bundestag does not choose a AfD member as Vice President is the sovereign decision of a constitutional body. However, the fact that all the committee preserves are not occupied by the AfD and that the SPD does not want to move out its hall as a smaller faction is not of use of democracy, but nourishes doubts about it.

All of this is not a coincidence, but is a long -term trend. German democracy is no longer renewing itself. Anyone who demands what the Basic Law Article 146 once promised is laughed at or even insulted. And if you ask for referendum at the federal level, at least as a populist. It doesn’t matter that the SPD and the Greens were very much for it. Because that was just before the Brexit.

Open society frightens out of fear of its enemies. And it bunkered, with protective formulas in constitutions and regulations. It threatens to take a development that wants to prevent it correctly.

I can understand this fear well. I wake up with her almost every day and go back to bed with her, and in between I deal with it professionally.

But in exceptional cases, Fassbinder: Fear Eat Democracy.

You can find all Martin Debes columns published so far .