Berlin, Germany (Weltexpress). So now it no longer exists, this category that was created specifically for the “lateral thinkers”, the “Covid deniers”, the “vaccine refusers”… but unfortunately, the mindset that led to its creation is still very much present.
When suddenly – after decades, incidentally – a new category appeared in the Office for the Protection of the Constitution’s reports, headlined ‘delegitimisation of the state relevant to the protection of the constitution’, it was more than strange. One might therefore hope that its disappearance signals a return to normality. But this impression is, once again, deceptive.
The term was perplexing because all historical experience suggests that a state can only delegitimise itself. It is always its own actions that increase or decrease citizens’ willingness to cooperate; even behind colour revolutions there is always a real conflict lurking. This concept of delegitimisation only gained wider circulation as a set of guidelines for Western authorities dealing with GDR institutions following the annexation; it was actually alien to political debate.
But during the Corona protests, a new label was needed because citizens who did not fit into the old categories suddenly found themselves motivated to protest. In the media, they were primarily described as “lateral thinkers”, yet not so long ago this word had a positive connotation, and was therefore of no use to a persecutory authority. However, as they are not particularly creative in Cologne (after all, this authority is also dominated by legal experts), the term “delegitimisation” eventually emerged. This, of course, had the advantage of being applicable to more or less any form of slightly more pointed criticism. Which was always somewhat reminiscent of the derision that, back in the 1970s, the emphasis on the ‘free and democratic basic order’ triggered in proceedings to ban people from certain professions, and the tendency, half as a precaution, half ironically, to declare that one naturally stood firmly on the ground of the free and democratic basic order …
Several state offices (after all, Germany has 17 constitutional protection agencies) immediately declared that they would retain this category. What must be borne in mind here is that this is not simply a matter of sections in the annual reports; it concerns the internal structure of the agencies themselves; the sections in the report usually correspond to specialised departments. And then one should recall how quickly the mere statement that ‘findings are available’ has consequences; most recently demonstrated to perfection by Minister of State for Culture Wolfram Weimer.
In Cologne, at any rate, the officials responsible for the ‘delegitimisers’ are now to be reassigned to other departments. Naturally, additional staff recruited in the meantime will not be made redundant or transferred to other agencies as a result.
However, things become truly uncomfortable when one recalls why this category was introduced in the first place.
“With the onset of the coronavirus pandemic and the enforcement of government restrictions to combat the situation, social debates and legitimate protests against these measures arose in Germany. In some cases, however, the opinions expressed publicly or the actions of groups and individuals went beyond such legitimate protest and showed actual indications of anti-constitutional aspirations.“
More than five years have now passed. It has been well documented that the ‘state restrictions’ were, at best, ineffective, but were fundamentally unconstitutional for precisely that reason. That the ‘vaccination’ imposed was not a vaccination at all, and that during its approval process – quite apart from the blatant corruption involving EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen – every other standard requirement for drug safety was ignored. That mortality rates never reached levels that would have justified such measures. Indeed, even the theory that the virus originated from US experiments in a laboratory in Wuhan has long ceased to be a wild conspiracy theory, and the entire field of ‘gain-of-function’ research – that is, attempts to increase the transmissibility of pathogens – is now viewed with extreme scepticism.
But what is the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution’s justification for abolishing this category? By no means that those who were under surveillance at the time were right in their views and protests. For where would we end up if that were admitted? No, the justification is simply that the relevant group of individuals has since shrunk to 1,500, and they can be monitored elsewhere.
For three years, there was massive interference in the lives of Germans. The records of the Robert Koch Institute show that the measures followed political agendas. Protests against these measures, which destroyed social bonds and left countless psychological scars, were criminalised. Being classified as subjects of surveillance by the domestic intelligence service under the heading ‘delegitimisation of the state relevant to the protection of the constitution’ was still one of the lesser evils; one need only think of the violence with which demonstrations were met, and the criminal proceedings used to prosecute their organisers.
It cannot be said often enough – in hindsight, and taking into account the details that have since come to light, the protests were legitimate, and the state’s measures were illegitimate. Measures that often carried delegitimisation within them; one need only recall how real borders suddenly emerged between districts, complete with checkpoints, whilst the borders with neighbouring countries remained open in principle. Think of the hysteria with which children were forced to learn in freezing classrooms with masks over their faces. The list of violated fundamental rights is long: it begins with human dignity, day in, day out, followed by freedom of movement, freedom to practise one’s profession, freedom of expression and assembly; even the inviolability of the home and physical integrity were declared to be at the state’s disposal.
And those who resisted this at the time – who, on behalf of all their fellow citizens, stood up for the threatened fundamental rights – are no longer classified as a separate category of enemies of the constitution today simply because, with the disappearance of the cause, many of them have ceased to protest. But essentially, people continue to act as if everything back then had been perfectly fine, from locking people up and beating them to public defamation.
The strangest thing about this is that it does not correspond to the behaviour one would expect in the event of a mistake. It may be difficult, but when a mistake is made, it is conceivable that those involved might subsequently apologise and admit to an error. That need not even mean the end of a political career (although what began in 2020 was so close to a coup that it should really be a matter for criminal law). The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution should react in the same way – not by withdrawing the classification with such a justification, but by apologising to those under surveillance and admitting that, as an authority, it was in the wrong.
That is not happening. Certainly not with the media fanfare with which, back then, the unvaccinated were declared to be like appendices and children to be deadly carriers of germs. Or indeed, all those who found this whole development a thorn in their side, to be enemies of the constitution. Without even realising that the great advantage of democracy lies in being able to change direction when it proves to be wrong. In “our democracy (TM)”, there are no more changes of direction. And certainly no admission of mistakes.
Yes, it is painful and shameful to have to admit such a mistake. But the imposition of a Covid dictatorship was still the lesser of the two evils. However, since then, things have built on that foundation; for example, the war in Ukraine has been promoted and the genocide in Gaza, and everything that emerged during the pandemic as a restriction on democracy has since been continued and further intensified. People are allowed back on the streets and to go shopping as before, but they are not allowed to write and say what they think again, and the list of punitive measures has continued to grow steadily.
That, in the end, is the crucial problem: why the conclusion of this chapter unfortunately does not signify progress or insight – only if all this was not a mistake, not a terrible error (and people are certainly capable of being not just a little, but terribly mistaken), but rather an intention; so if the attacks on fundamental rights were at least a collateral benefit, if not the actual objective, then an admission, an apology, would be impossible.
In fact, the prevailing hope seems to be that, amidst all the warlike clamour all around, it might suffice to pretend that nothing ever happened. Indeed, to this day, Germany has not even managed to grant amnesty for all the – completely unjustified – Covid-related offences, as evidenced by the ongoing proceedings concerning mask certificates. Because the animosities created back then, these ‘sharpened’ opportunists, are still needed.
Back then, it was one of the thoughts that crossed my mind when the propaganda became so loud that it could only be about mentally preparing for war. Today, six years on, this has been more than proven. Even the term ‘fit for war’ has been pulled out of the box and dusted off. And it is almost surprising that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution did not immediately replace one category with another – that of ‘refusal to be fit for war relevant to the protection of the constitution’.
