Defensive democracy

Populists create the impression that elected officials are allowed to abolish fundamental democratic rights and institutions. This impression is misleading. Rather, democracy is founded on inalienable rights and institutions, including the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches (English Bill of Rights 1689, Virginia Bill of Rights of the USA 1789, Article 20 of the German Basic Law). Anyone who seeks to abolish these rights and institutions is thus opposing democracy.

Why should opponents of democracy be allowed to participate actively or even passively (as candidates) in democratic elections and thus potentially govern the democratic state? Because otherwise, democracy would lose legitimacy vis-à-vis its enemies? Because every exclusion would open the door to mutual exclusion? Or because general legal equality, and thus also electoral equality, is one of the foundations of a constitutional democracy?

All of these objections have merit and should therefore be carefully examined; however, they do not change the need for a resilient democracy: only a democracy that can effectively defend itself against its enemies can survive – a challenge whose management or failure to manage is likely to have long-term consequences.

Accordingly, we should assess US Vice President J.D. Vance's public attacks on democracy in Europe and counter them with arguments: General freedom presupposes mutual commitments, and thus jointly recognized democratic institutions. This connection between individual freedom and mutual commitment is protected in European democracies; in the US, however, it has already been severely damaged and is threatened with complete destruction. We should soberly and clearly reject attempts by the Trump administration (Trump, Musk, Vance) to now also damage European democracies and the EU.