A firewall can be considered the categorical imperative of all those who call themselves democrats. While this is very pointed, it carries a serious message: democracy is not obliged to share power equally with every political force, especially not with those that fundamentally question democratic principles. No one can be forced into cooperation. The so-called firewall – that is, the consistent refusal to form coalitions with anti-democratic forces – is not a violation of democratic rules, but rather a legitimate act of self-defence.

Whether the firewall is effective in practice – in Germany, for example – remains to be seen. I believe the causes behind the success of populist parties are too complex to be explained or solved by any single measure, but that is not the issue at hand. What is at stake here is the democratic legitimacy of the firewall.

A commonly cited counter-argument claims that those who win many votes, but lack absolute majority, should still be allowed to participate in government. It should be mentioned that the counter-argument misrepresents the essence of democratic systems. Democracy is more than just majority rule. It is a system grounded in unwavering principles: the rule of law, the separation of powers, the protection of minorities, respect for human dignity, and our daily participation in it regardless of origin, religion or sexual orientation. We, especially we – in academia, science, and public discourse – are beneficiaries of this order.

From a democratic theory perspective, this stance is well-founded. Karl Popper warned of the paradoxical danger posed by boundless tolerance:

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, the tolerant will be destroyed – and with them, tolerance.”

The act of tolerance does not carry the duty of indulging in those who seek to dismantle liberal values. Yet, it encompasses dissent, provocation and criticism – but it ends when those freedoms are weaponised to destroy the openness of society itself. Rejecting intolerance is not the suppression of opinion, but the protection of the very framework that enables diversity of opinion in the first place. It is, after all, a firewall – not a wall of silence.

History shows just how vital this is. Nazis exploited democratic mechanisms to systematically hollow out the Weimar Republic. They were never a normal political party, but rather a movement with the explicit goal of abolishing democracy. Their success was due, in part, to the fact that they were not opposed decisively enough.

The necessity of such a protective measure as the firewall becomes clear when looking at the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in Germany – the party defended by US Vice President JD Vance in his recent speech at the Munich Security Conference. The AfD openly opposes the foundations of democracy: it systematically seeks to delegitimize institutions, disparages the constitutional protection agency as a “system institution”, attacks independent courts, and smears critical media from left to right as the “lying press”. Criticism – harsh or soft – against everybody is, of course, legitimate. Deliberately sowing distrust in all forms of democratic oversight, spreading misinformation on issues such as migration, tax policy, or topics where opinion is merely obsolete – because the climate changes, regardless of what we wish or say –  is a different matter entirely. It is a targeted attempt to undermine democratic structures, science, and fact-based arguments.

Added to this is a rhetoric of radicalism: Höcke’s call for a “well-tempered cruelty” against  “non-homogeneous Volkskörper (National Body)”, Gauland’s wish to “dispose of” certain German-Turks “in Anatolia”, talk of a “friendly face of the national socialists”, and the ever-continuing trivialisation of Nazis and their crimes. These are not slips of the tongue, rather a part of a deliberate strategy – Or why would one frame Hitler as a Communist? (Alice Weidel in her podcast with Elon Musk).

And yet, it is often claimed that the firewall disregards the will of the voters. But elections alone do not define democracy – at least not the kind of complex democracy enshrined in so many constitutions. Democracy is more than counting votes. A party may be elected into parliament, but without an absolute majority, this does not automatically entitle it to participate in government. Coalitions are based on shared values and mutual responsibility, not on obligation.

When all other parties decide, on clear and justifiable grounds, not to collaborate with another force – be it moderate or extreme – how is this undemocratic, reciting the one dimensional definition of democracy being just about election-arithmetics? Over 80 % of votes in Germany go to parties that explicitly reject cooperation with the AfD. This is neither a refusal of dialogue nor “undemocratic” by their definition – it is a political statement. In our case, against those who fight the very foundations of our democratic order.

This is where the dilemma of a liberal democracy becomes particularly clear – and with it, a thought formulated by the constitutional scholar Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde as early as the 1950s:

“The liberal, secularised state lives by conditions which it cannot itself guarantee.”

What Böckenförde meant was this: democracy depends on values such as trust, tolerance, respect, and a sense of responsibility, but it cannot enforce these values. It relies on a shared foundation that it cannot produce on its own, yet it expects from its citizens. That is precisely why it is so legitimate for democratic parties to actively safeguard these foundations if necessary and effective, through clearly drawn boundaries towards those who seek to dismantle them.

Naturally, politics requires compromise. But compromises must not destroy the very foundation on which democracies are made. A coalition with a party whose programme and rhetoric fundamentally contradict democratic principles is not a compromise – it is an open door to the erosion of democracy itself.

Democracy is not a suicide mission. It has the right and the duty to defend itself. And every democratic measure remains legitimate.

Written by: Lukas Barcherini, Edited by: Lukas von Reichenbach von Thüngen

Photo credit: Markus Spiske (uploaded March 23, 2023) on unsplash