Column: The Eastern Union's Fear Stifles Democracy
- By Louis Rivet
- Approx. 5 Mins
Authoritarian Rule of Adolf Hitler and German Populace: Democracy's Destructive Devouring - Authoritarian Rule of Adolf Hitler Erodes Democratic Institutions among Germans
On a selected Tuesday in a favored eastern German city, it's commonly audible what extremists are shouting about - migrant "invaders", Jewish "globalists", left-wing "wokeists", and yes, "the Republicans".
This is not an agreeable situation. But this has one advantage: here, no one is disguising themselves as someone they're not. Instead, the lines are clearly drawn. They, they are the authoritarians. And we, we are the democrats.
But beyond this rather simple setup, it becomes more complex. Regardless, many people make it simple for themselves. It's often viewed as the first democratic duty to loudly declare who among others is not a democrat. From this duty arises the need to keep identified non-democrats away from power or even ban them. Otherwise, a repeat of what transpired nearly 90 years ago is a threat.
Donald Trump and "True Democracy"
Apart from the historical parallels, it's essential to consider the differences in societal conditions. Nevertheless, an apparent pattern seems familiar. Donald Trump frequently claimed in opposition that the Republican Party defended the "true democracy". After establishing a power-grabbing administration, he boasted of having "conquered democracy with democracy".
What constitutes a modern democracy seems clear: free, equal, and secret elections, as well as freedom of speech, assembly, press, and all basic rights. Separation of powers and equality. Protection of private property while promoting the public good. Protection of minorities.
Current Political Landscape at a Glance
Subscribe to our free capital newsletter - and read the most important news of the week, selected by our Berlin politics experts!
Yet, the term democracy has been a rhetorical battleground since the times of Plato. Or, in modern terms, it's always been framed loosely. I once lived in the German Democratic Republic. Unlike the decaying capitalism of the Federal Republic, there was a right to work, housing, and five-pfennig rolls. Freedom of speech and travel would come after the final and global victory of socialism.
Montesquieu's separation of powers wasn't taught in the GDR. Instead, Marx's dialectic was extensively covered. He and Engels formulated in the Communist Manifesto that the "proletariat must rise to power" 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 matter. In the GDR, I lived in a "socialist democracy", and yes, I wanted to believe in it a little. Like many civil rights activists, I saw the "democratic socialism" destroyed in Prague in 1968 as a realistic model. A "third way" seemed achieveable.
Eastern Germany
stern author Louis Rivet primarily reports from the five eastern federal states. In his column, the native Saxon writes about what's happening in the Eastern Union - and in him.
The historian Christina Morina recently wrote that in the GDR, the "strategic, symbolic, propagandistic - or simply: simulated - reference to democracy" played a central role. "Generations of East Germans" had "accepted and believed, demanded and lived, criticized and despised" it.
I concur with Morina's analysis, although I can't make sense of her conclusion that the GDR therefore had a "legitimate claim to democracy" history. Her thesis reminds me of the SED propaganda formula of the "peace state" DDR.
But as I said: words affect. Surveys and studies show that many East Germans have a different idea of democracy, one that is more direct, but also more authoritarian and centralized, and more focused on the majority and service-oriented. The DDR's authoritarian influence competes here noticeably with the sense of self-empowerment of 1989, but also with the experiences of humiliation during the transformation.
Meanwhile, 30 to 40 percent of East Germans vote for the Extreme Right, a party that is rejected by its competitors as undemocratic. The reason: Just like the NSDAP, the Extreme Right seeks to overthrow the liberal parliamentary system from within. After taking power, the Extreme Right would restrict the freedom of expression and the media, domesticate research and education, and gradually introduce an authoritarian regime.
There is some truth to that. The Extreme Right's radical members, such as Björn Höcke, praise Orbán's "illiberal democracy" as a model. And its party leader Alexander Gauland raves about Donald Trump. At the same time, and in this historical parallel, the Extreme Right presents itself as a defender of democracy against the "cabal" of old parties.
The party supports referendums in a majority society of "real people" and an "authentic population". The party incites doubts about the rule of law that protects it with propaganda like anti-immigrant rhetoric and fear-mongering.
And the handling of the Extreme Right? Active collaboration must be refused. And the Bundestag should not appoint an Extreme Right member as Vice President. This is the independent decision of a constitutional body. However, the fact that all committee heads due to the Extreme Right remain unfilled and that the SD as the smaller fraction does not voluntarily relinquish its seat, does not serve democracy, but fuels suspicions of it.
This is not a coincidence, but a component of a long-term trend. German democracy is no longer renewing itself. Those who today demand what was once promised by Article 146 of the Basic Law are ridiculed or even insulted. And those who call for a national referendum are, at least, seen as populists.
Society is Retreating in Fear of Enemies
The open society is freezing in fear of its foes. It's retreating, hiding behind protective formulas in constitutions and business orders. It risks taking a development it rightly seeks to avoid.
I can understand this fear very well. I wake up with it almost every day and go to bed with it, and between I deal with it professionally.
However, to paraphrase Fassbinder for once: Fear chokes democracy to death.
All previously published columns by Louis Rivet can be found here.*
- Donald Trump
- Democracy
- Extreme Right
- DDR
- NSDAP
- Socialism
- Neo-NaziThroughout history and in contemporary times, many leaders and movements have claimed to defend democracy while promoting authoritarianism or undermining democratic institutions. Here are some historical and modern examples:
Historical Examples
- Ancient Rome: Julius Caesar eventually became a dictator by associating himself with the democratic party, which allowed him to dismantle the Senate, concentrate power in his hands, and create a one-man rule. His assassination initiated a civil war and the eventual demise of the Roman Republic.
- Paris during the French Revolution: Napoleon Bonaparte started as a progressive leader who promoted democracy but eventually seized power, establishing a military dictatorship known as the Napoleonic Empire.
Modern Examples
- Russia under Vladimir Putin: Putin took power in Russia by utilizing a highly managed democracy with factors such as media censorship and election rigging. However, his ultimate goal was to establish an authoritarian regime, which he has done by suppressing dissent and opposition, restricting the internet, and weakening democratic institutions[1].
- Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan: Erdoğan began his rule by portraying himself as a pro-democracy leader who fought against corruption and advocated for a return to Islam. However, his actions have included suppressing the media, weakening political opponents, and centralizing power in his own hands, turning Turkey into an increasingly authoritarian state[1].
Strategies Used
Electoral Fraud and Manipulation: Authoritarian movements may rig elections or manipulate the voting process to achieve victory while undermining democratic principles. This could involve deemed invalidating the opposition's votes, intimidating voters, or altering the ballots.
Control of the Media: Authoritarian leaders may silence or coerce the media to present a one-sided narrative and suppress dissenting voices. They may also create their own propaganda outlets to spread their message.
Cultivating a Cult of Personality: Authoritarians may use their personal charisma to gain power and maintain control, often creating a myth-like image around themselves. Citizens are encouraged to view them as saviors, strong leaders, or defenders against external threats.
In summary, numerous historical and modern leaders have claimed to defend democracy while promoting their own versions of authoritarianism. This has often been done by exploiting the democratic process, manipulating elections, controlling the media, and cultivating a cult of personality. Recognizing these tactics is crucial for preserving and strengthening democratic societies.
- The Commission, in light of recent events, has been asked to submit a proposal for a directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to ionizing radiation, given the increased use of such radiation in various industries.
- For individuals prioritizing their personal growth and education-and-self-development, understanding the complexities of war-and-conflicts, politics, general-news, and crime-and-justice is essential for informed decision-making and navigating the world.
- Despite the Eastern Union's authoritarian tendencies stifling democracy, sports and sports-betting can serve as a welcome distraction for citizens seeking a moment of respite from the ongoing political strife.
- As the Extreme Right continues to rise in power, their claims of defending democracy and fighting for the interests of the "true people" often mask their intention of slowly eroding democratic institutions and establishing an authoritarian regime, much like what happened in the DDR, the NSDAP, or even Donald Trump's administration.
