Different Countries, the Same Reflex

The reasons invoked in each case are, of course, very different, as are the countries’ cultures and democratic traditions. Yet the pattern is strikingly similar.

Across Europe, established parties are increasingly turning to the courts to sideline unwelcome rivals. In countries such as Hungary and Poland, both major political camps resort to such maneuvers. Democratic culture appears to be steadily eroding.

The development is particularly troubling in Germany, where efforts are under way at every level and through a wide range of methods to thwart the AfD’s success by legal means.

A network of parties, NGOs, academic institutions, media outlets and cultural organizations is working determinedly to keep a party polling at 29% out of power in any form. Even senior German politicians make no secret of their search for ways to bar AfD candidates from standing for office, even without a ban on the party itself.

This is, of course, nothing less than a backdoor ban, circumventing Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court, which has set a high bar for outlawing political parties for good reason.

How the System Closes Ranks

The methods used by the established parties are clearly illustrated by the case of Martin Sichert.

As a first step, Lower Saxony’s Social Democrat-Green state government amended the municipal electoral law in April. The change created a procedure for examining whether candidates for senior local administrative office are loyal to the Constitution.

It is now enough for “justified doubts about a candidate’s commitment to the Constitution” to be raised for such proceedings to begin. What constitutes a justified doubt is determined by local politicians who may themselves belong to the Social Democrats or the Greens.

A self-sealing system is taking shape. Parties of the left, such as the Greens and the Social Democrats, define what may be considered democratic and constitutionally loyal – which, when in doubt, means left-wing ideology. Authorities dominated by party members or sympathizers then establish the necessary administrative framework and initiate the proceedings.

The pretext is always the same: protecting democracy. Yet it is obvious that this approach does more damage to democracy than the AfD ever could.

The Right to Stand for Election

German constitutional scholars have also expressed serious doubts. Sichert’s posts on X, which are now being cited against him, may have been harsh and polemical, but they did not call human dignity, the rule of law or democracy into question, according to Volker Boehme-Neßler, a professor of public law at the University of Oldenburg.

Other constitutional lawyers have pointed out that any interference with a citizen’s right to stand for election requires an especially compelling justification.

In this case, Sichert is accused of trivializing National Socialism. The evidence cited is a post in which he opposed flying the rainbow flag outside German government buildings.

“The last time the flag of a particular ideology was flown outside German town halls, millions of people subsequently died”, he wrote.

The comparison may be excessive, since it draws an association between the Pride movement and National Socialism. On the other hand, it could also be argued that Sichert was merely objecting to ideological symbols being flown outside government offices.

He also wrote: “Only the flags of the municipality, the state and the federal government belong outside town halls – not the flags of any ideology.”

In other words, Sichert’s intention is obvious and not without justification. His historical comparison may be open to dispute. But to construe it as an attempt to trivialize National Socialism, and then use that interpretation as grounds for depriving him of the right to stand for election, is scandalous.

When Accusations Become Reality

More damaging still is the fact that Germany’s traditional parties are behaving precisely as some in the AfD accuse them of behaving.

Sichert has also been criticized for using terms such as “cartel parties” and “bloc parties”. In communist East Germany, “bloc parties” referred to the nominally independent parties that had been brought into line and subordinated to the ruling Socialist Unity Party in order to simulate parliamentary democracy.

When parties accused of forming a bloc or cartel behave exactly as though they were one, the damage to democracy is immense. Polemic then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Democracy once meant rule by the people. Throughout history, there have been very different answers to the questions of what constituted “the people”, who belonged to it, who was entitled to vote and whether popular sovereignty should be exercised directly or indirectly.

One principle, however, was always clear: whoever belongs to the demos – the electorate – has the right both to vote and to stand for election.

What is undemocratic is to divide the electorate into acceptable and unacceptable candidates and impose an ideological preselection before voters are allowed to decide. A democracy that behaves in this way has lost its bearings.

A Crisis Beyond Germany

The fact that this malaise is not confined to Germany is both reassuring and alarming.

It is reassuring because the phenomenon is plainly not an expression of some peculiarly German disposition. It is alarming because a development affecting the entire Western world cannot be dismissed as the product of superficial discontent. It can only be the result of deep historical upheavals that no one can control.

What can and should be avoided, however, is inflicting further damage on democracy. Yet that is precisely what Europe’s defenders of the status quo are doing when they resort to underhanded tricks and legal sleight of hand to discredit the will of the people.

It is hardly surprising that parliamentary democracy, a product of the 19th century, should face challenges in an age of digitalization and globalization. The greatest mistake in such a situation is to raise the drawbridge and retreat behind the thick walls of the familiar.

That has never worked. And this time, it is the very idea of democracy that would suffer.

That would be fatal, because democracy remains the best form of government we have.