No Freedom for the Enemies of Freedom? – Target Conflicts of Defensive Democracy

No tolerance toward intolerance

Karl Popper, one of the classics of modern liber­alism, called for zero tolerance toward the intol­erant. This gave rise to the concept of a “militant democracy,” which can be summed up in the phrase “no freedom for the enemies of freedom.”

That democ­racies should restrict political freedom for the enemies of political freedom, was a response to the experience that fascists and commu­nists – the dedicated enemies of liberal democracy on the right and on the left – used the consti­tu­tional rights of liberal democracy to attack it. Hitler and his gang made no secret about their cynical approach to democracy: “We will use its oppor­tu­nities and ultimately abolish it after we succes­fully seized power.”

AfD-ban would be a sign of democracy’s weakness rather than its strength

Today, there is once again a heated debate inside Germany about whether to ban the party “Alter­native for Germany,” which is at least in part right-wing extremist. I am critical whether this would be the right step – I argue that banning the party would rather be a sign of weakness of democrats than a sign of strength. And it would be political fodder for populists who are already talking about a “sham democracy” in which critical opinions are suppressed by the ruling elites.

I‘m more of an advocate of an Anglo-Saxon kind of liber­alism with its very broad under­standing of political freedom: The freedom of speech is always being measured by the freedom of those who think differ­ently. Those who want to defend freedom of speech must also defend the right to be wrong. That must include opinions that are funda­men­tally opposed to our own convic­tions. To give an example: We should fight with all our might against positions that justify Russia’s war of aggression, but we should not ban them.

No naivety toward hostile instru­ments of power

Of course, we should not be naive. We know all too well that the Kremlin and other author­i­tarian powers are waging an infor­mation war against Western democ­racies, a constant barrage of disin­for­mation and propa­ganda to divide our societies and strengthen the radical fringes.

It was a right step to revoke Russia Today’s television license in Germany and most European countries, at the latest after Russia’s large-scale attack on Ukraine. But here we are speaking about banning a state broad­caster, i.e. an instrument of state propa­ganda for a hostile power – we are not talking about restricting journalism.

However, the high value of freedom of expression is not a license to be abused at will. Like other political freedoms, it must be balanced against other legal interests. In Germany, personal Insults, inciting hatred against minorities, antise­mitic propa­ganda and calling for violence are all punishable offenses. But we should be careful not to increas­ingly restrict freedom of expression. The government is not the authority that should decide on the truth of public state­ments and the legit­imacy of certain political opinions. That would lead us down the slippery slope of censorship.

The red line: The call for violence

The most important red line we must draw against the enemies of liberal democracy is the call for and the use of violence. If necessary, non-violence must be enforced by the police and the judiciary. Non-violence is the dividing line between civil political conflict and civil war.

This, of course, applies to the domestic sphere of liberal democ­racies with free and fair elections and guaranteed citizens’ rights. In a dicta­torship, the use of political violence against the ruling power is a different, more compli­cated issue. Instead of seeking refuge in repression, we should focus primarily on democ­ratic education and active counter-infor­mation – and on convincing, effective policies that deprive extremists of their support base.  We must find ways to defend a liberal society using liberal methods.

No answers yet toward the new challenges brought about by digital media

However, the problem is greatly exacer­bated by the radical change in political commu­ni­cation brought about by the internet and social media. The digital media have opened the flood­gates to a deluge of disin­for­mation, hatred, and radical propa­ganda. The use of AI, bots, fake videos, and manip­u­lated images further amplifies these effects. If we are honest, we have not yet found adequate responses to this. I suspect that we will have no choice but to use the tools of AI ourselves to defend against disin­for­mation and hostile propaganda.