In some Western democratic countries, so-called “firewalls” have become a common tool in politics for coping with certain political actors such as the Alternative für Deutschland (AFD) in Germany or the Freiheitliche Partei Österreich (FPÖ) in Austria, which are regarded as radical or controversial. The main tenet of these firewalls constitutes the outright rejection of engaging in discourse or political talks with these political stakeholders. This strategy is almost exclusively used by well-established parties which justify their conduct by classifying certain political opponents as either too extreme or framing them as posing a threat to democracy due to their alleged rejection of democratic norms all the while, labeling themselves as protectors of democracy. While utilizing this tool might be helpful to established parties in conserving their power, firewalls stand in stark contrast to the most basic democratic principles. Since any modern democracy is nourished by open debate and political competition, shunning certain political actors out of principle undermines democracy itself. Therefore, the moment that political actors deem certain of their counterparts as unacceptable for engagement, they put a glass ceiling on the democratic process itself.
Within the framework of a firewall, those who refuse engagement with others out of principle, act as gatekeepers of the political process by determining which political movements hold a legitimate political voice or not. This is not democracy. Instead, it is a tactic of exclusion which reflects the very authoritarian methods and norms that the proponents of firewalls claim to oppose. Simply put, firewalls are not about protecting democracy. They are about preserving the power of the political establishment. Hereby, the most perilous aspect of a firewall is that they are founded on the subjective branding of certain parties or politicians as “dangers to democracy.” But who gets to decide what constitutes a threat? And how can one make sure that this critical judgment is made fairly and not simply utilized as a weapon against undesired political opponents?
In fact, there is no such thing as a universal or objective way of determining which political players are acceptable and which are not. A quick glance at the history of democracy and democratic societies showcases that many political movements, once perceived as radical or dangerous to the political system have later turned mainstream and universally accepted. At the beginning of the 20th century, demanding the right to vote for women was still considered a radical position. Now it is unthinkable that women do not have the right to vote. In the United States in the 1950s and 1960s, people advocating for civil rights of African Americans were deemed a threat to the stability and cohesion of the country. Even earlier in history, political movements demanding universal (male) suffrage and abolishing feudal privileges of their aristocratic overlords were fiercely resisted by the ruling powers. All these cases exemplify the evolving nature of democracy and political ideology and show that ideas deemed unacceptable or dangerous today might become universally accepted policies tomorrow.
Henceforth, firewalls are essentially an anti-competition tool. In a functioning democracy, political parties should win votes based on policy and their ability to convince voters – not by manipulating the process against actual or potential challengers. When firewalls are enacted, they act as a structural barrier to political renewal. This could very well lead to the stagnation of the political system, preventing a dynamic process in which novel ideas can challenge established norms. Firewalls, however, do not solely pose a danger to contemporary political processes. They also threaten any potential future political discourse by creating a precedent for exclusions. If one group can be deemed unacceptable today, another can be tomorrow.
Any true democracy does not require firewalls for protective purposes. The main strength of a democracy lies in its ability to confront and challenge ideas and ideologies via open debate and competition, not via exclusion. The best way to resist political players who are deemed radical or controversial is to engage with them in public discourse, where their ideas ought to be properly scrutinized and openly challenged. This obviously does not mean that all political actors must agree to cooperate or collaborate. What it means, however, is that no one should be denied the opportunity to fully participate in the political process simply because their political rivals hold them to be radical or controversial.
A democracy that refuses to engage with certain political voices out of principle is simply not a true democracy. It is an exclusionary and restrictive system in which political power is commanded by those actors who gain most from preserving the political status quo. The only way to genuinely protect democracy is to permit every voice to participate equally in the political process, confront them in open discourse, and have faith that the democratic process is robust enough to defy any potential conflict. Firewalls do not safeguard democracy, they erode it. If we truly believe in a true democratic process, we should reject the anti-democratic practice of firewalls.
Written by: Leo Hirnschrodt
Edited by: Majbritt Rosendahl
Photo credit: Warren Sammut (uploaded January 5, 2024) on unsplash
