Germany is next to Austria the only western country where peculiar services can observe political events. In another Western democracies, it is unthinkable for secret services under government to analyse and observe opposition parties.
My erstwhile colleagues in Britain, France and the United States were spinning their heads in disbelief erstwhile I told them in talks that the German Constitution Protection Office was watching the parties and making it public, which resulted in stigmatisation. In this respect, Germany is not a norm compared to another Western democracies, but a gross case in particular.
In 2013, erstwhile I was president of the national Office for the Protection of the Constitution, with the approval of the then Home Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich (CSU) I stopped watching Die Linke's party. This decision was met with the applause of the political left in the political and media environment. For a moment, I was 1 of those politically good guys from their point of view. However, the reason for stopping the reflection was not that Die Linke was no longer extremist. She was extremist then and she is still. The reason for stopping this reflection was, as I thought, that in my view the Office for the Protection of the Constitution should yet become a average European secret service, which, like all another Western services, should focus on investigating and preventing terrorism, espionage, subversive activities and cyber attacks. It should no longer be abused to observe political competition.
It seemed to me that with the withdrawal from the reflection of Die Linke organization the chapter of organization reflection conducted by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution in Germany ended, until 2016, erstwhile I was called from the political and media sphere to observe the AfD, first carefully and then more clearly. The government in Thuringia was doing peculiarly well. As a consequence of the expanding media pressure, I felt compelled to publically explain that "the Office for the Protection of the Constitution is not an auxiliary force of existing parties" to get free of unwanted political competition.
After leaving the position of president of the Constitution Protection Office in 2018, I had to realize that the German peculiar organization watch way by secret services was continuing, exclusively against AfD, alternatively than against leftist parties. It was clear that in the event of re-entry into organization reflection the first thing to be done would be to resume the reflection of Die Linke's party, as its reflection was only interrupted due to withdrawal from organization observation. Moreover, given the proximity of leftist extremist organisations and anti-constitutional statements by organization members, it would be clear that it would besides be worth looking at the Greens and their youth organisations. no of them were, of course, wanted for political reasons.
The national Office for the Protection of the Constitution announced in its Communication that it sees AfD as a "tested right-wing extremist". national Home Minister Faeser explained that this classification is ‘independent’ of the Constitution Protection Office, that it acts ‘independently’ and that it has no ‘political influence on the report’. This gives the impression that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution is simply a neutral body seeking objectivity. It's the opposite.
The Office for the Protection of the Constitution is neither a neutral body nor a politically independent body. At national level, it is subject to the national Ministry of the Interior and is bound by its instructions. Even in individual cases, the Ministry of the Interior may dictate to the Authority how it is to proceed. In any national states, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution is an average department in the Land Ministry of the Interior and is so not even organisationally separated from the Ministry of the Interior.
The management of the Constitution Protection Office shall consist of political officials. While the presidents of most national agencies are not political officials, not only the President, but besides his 2 deputies are political officials. In order to realize what this means, the legal definition must be taken into account: these are civilian servants who “must be in constant agreement with the basic political views and objectives of the government”. Even after the erstwhile president of the Haldenwang Constitution Protection Office left, 2 vice-presidents, who are political officials and know what makes their minister “act”.
The Office for the Protection of the Constitution will not put an AfD study on the minister's table as if “no substance what”. Of course, the Minister will not be amazed by the examination by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. The head of the Constitution Protection Office will, of course, know the minister's political line and will not deal with anything that encounters resentment.
Realistically, it is more likely that the decision on whether the study will be adopted first will be taken at political level and that the various stages of the work on the study have been closely monitored by the specialised department of the Ministry of Interior over the past fewer months. Of course, the head of the body regularly informed the head of the department and the Secretary of State orally about the state of work on the study and discussed it with them. Anyway, as Secretary of State, I would anticipate that from the president of the Constitution Protection Office. And as president of the Constitution Protection Office or his representative, of course, I would besides do so in my own interest not to argue outside the minister's political line and not to work for the garbage can.
Thus, the study of the Constitution Protection Office, counting over 1,100 pages, will most likely not be neutral, either nonsubjective or apolitical. For now, only the insiders know precisely what is in it, due to the fact that it is kept secret from the public, as well as from AfD. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution must not cover itself with safety regulations if it seriously harms the reputation of the organization and its members in the public opinion, but refuses to disclose the reasons. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution would gotta refrain from public disclosure if it had not been willing to supply evidence on which it based its assessment, or had to reduce the assessment of documents.
The fact that the study is kept secret from the public and from the curious party, but the writer “Der Spiegel” close to the government has drawn attention to it, allows 1 conclusion: it is not about a fair assessment of AfD. Minister Faeser wanted to discredit the political opponent by instrumentalizing the Office for the Protection of the Constitution and trying to make it appear that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution is an objectively assessing authority. It is possible, although unlikely, that Minister Faeser led to AfD's reflection without the cognition of the future CDU/CSU coalition. It is more likely that the subject was discussed in item with the CDU/CSU that they agreed to observe but did not want to politically burden it on the future Home Minister of the CSU.
This study is most likely the last scandal of this Home Secretary. Under its direction and the president of the Haldenwang Constitution Protection Office, the Constitution Protection Office was unscrupulously utilized to fight political opponents as enemies under the government's "Fight against the Right" project. Under this minister, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution has become a threat to the basic democratic order.
U.S. Vice president J.D. Vance, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and many another abroad politicians expressed concern about AfD's reflection of the Constitution's safety and restrictions on freedom of speech in Germany. They realised how dangerous the peculiar road on which Germany was located erstwhile the government had opposition parties under control observed and publically branded by secret services. There is no justification for this peculiar path.
The repeated explanation of our peculiar situation, which is due to our circumstantial German history, is not an excuse, but a inexpensive pretext for instrumentalising the Office for the Protection of the Constitution against political opponents. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau was outraged that the German government was utilizing this pretext to justify the surveillance of the opposition and censorship. He made it clear that the Americans played a crucial function in the fact that after 1945 Germany again had freedom of speech and political pluralism and that it was besides his story, due to the fact that his father ran distant from the Nazis not due to besides much freedom of speech, but due to the surveillance of opposition and censorship.
As regards the regulation of freedom of expression, the instrumentalisation of the Constitution Protection Office against opposition parties and political opponents, Germany departed from what the US brought to Germany as western values after 8 May 1945. To get there again, we request to consider whether our “special path” is the incorrect way and that we will leave it. An crucial step that would lead us out of this bad way would be to ban the Office from observing the Constitution of political parties and opposition MPs, as this would prevent further abuse of the Constitution Office by government politicians.
Hans-Georg Maassen
Former Head of the Constitution Protection Office in 2012-2018
Behind: news.de
