Ms. Ellerbrock, at the inauguration of the US President, 25,000 National Guards protected the Capitol for fear that it might be taken again. In Berlin, demonstrators recently broke the barriers to the Bundestag. There is talk of a storming of parliaments. Was it storming like the Bastille in 1789 or the Stasi objects in 1989?
A very interesting question and exciting historical comparisons that you mention. The various terms that can be used to designate such processes are interesting. What is it that we recently experienced: occupation, storm, coup?
–
Find your apprenticeship, finance your apprenticeship, continue your profession – here you will find job offers and tips in the world of work and education.
–
What do you mean?
I wouldn’t call the recent events in either Washington or Berlin a storm. That was an occupation or a siege. Calling these events a storm would only disproportionately ennoble the mob that organized it. Because what happened there is illegitimate.
Trump supporters attempt to break a barrier in front of the Capitol. © John Minchillo / AP / dpa
On the other hand, is an assault on an institution of power legitimate?
At least this suggests the common usage of the term. The storm on the Bastille is a classic example. A bourgeoisie not represented in absolutism made its voice heard there. The National Assembly that was to give France a new, democratic constitution had already met. When the impression arose that the king would boycott this democratization, the citizens stormed the prison and symbol of the old power. This storm was linked to the founding history of modern Western democracy. The occupations of the Capitol or the siege of the Reichstag building, on the other hand, were attacks on democratic institutions. The USA had just voted and the democratically legitimized parliament was supposed to meet in the Capitol. Boycotting this is a violent attack on democracy.
The assault on the Bastille was not exactly non-violent. In your opinion, is there legitimate and illegitimate violence?
Yes. The siege of the Capitol was illegitimate because a change of time with the opposite sign was to be violently initiated there. In the storming of the Bastille, however, democratic structures were fought for.
Doesn’t applicable law always have to be broken if a change of power is to be carried out?
In a democracy, that is precisely what does not have to happen. It is the outstanding sign of democratic systems that they have mechanisms to carry out changes of power peacefully. This means that they are extremely capable of reform. Here elections decide on a change of power. In the storms of the democratic parliaments in Washington and Berlin, on the other hand, a minority acted that had no legitimacy and, above all, did not use democratic procedures.
The change of power in the GDR in 1989 was largely peaceful, although the protests took place within a dictatorship. How do you classify that historically?
It is a complex event that made a peaceful regime change possible, which was part of a broad international process. In our context, it is interesting that – similar to the storming of the Bastille – the storming of the Stasi headquarters was also intended to secure a democratic reform process that was long on its way. It was a symbolic act in which people legitimately appropriated their rights to freedom and democracy. When the Capitol and the Reichstag were occupied, however, places of democratic representation were unlawfully captured.
Participants in a rally against the Corona measures are standing on the steps of the Reichstag building at the end of August 2020, numerous Reich flags can be seen. © Achille Abboud / NurPhoto / dpa
Was the occupation of the Capitol a planned coup attempt?
The coup denotes occupations that are strategically planned and carried out with the support of military units. Fortunately, things didn’t get that far in Washington. For example, a coup in Italy in 1922 was the March on Rome. Then, with the support of the old elites, Benito Mussolini took power for the fascist movement he led. This model was followed on November 8 and 9, 1923 by the Hitler-Ludendorff putsch. The aim here was to overthrow the Reich government in Berlin, to eliminate parliamentary democracy and to establish a nationalist dictatorship.
The Hitler-Ludendorff putsch failed. Wasn’t that why Hitler made his way through democratic institutions to come to power?
The coup failed because there was no broad military support. Therefore, Hitler took the route through the institutions and in doing so he succeeded in forging various alliances with the old elites, which ultimately enabled the National Socialists to seize power.
Following the logic, does a democracy enable its democratic abolition?
No, you can’t say that across the board. The Nazis managed to form an alliance with elites who were willing to form a coalition with anti-democratic forces and who underestimated their ruthlessness. This shows that there is no guaranteed democracy. It must always be worked out and defended. And it was precisely this successful defense that we just saw in Washington, which is the hopeful part of the events.
What is the goal of the Capitol Occupier?
Populist movements want their opinion to prevail, regardless of whether the majority supports them. You see yourself as the real people, the real America. You are unwilling to negotiate and compromise. This is particularly evident in their language, which demeans others, humiliates them, and produces hatred and contempt. A movement that declares its political opponent to be the enemy can no longer negotiate the compromises that are essential for democratic governance. This is different from criticism. This always enables improvement and compromise, hatred, on the other hand, is no longer ready to negotiate and prevents cooperation.
A storm that changed the world: “The storm on the Bastille 1789” – painted by Jean-Baptiste Lallemand. © INTERFOTO
Language always exists in context. If a group of society realizes that it is not being heard, then it will formulate its interests in such a provocative way that it will finally be heard. Isn’t that understandable?
Provocation or extra-parliamentary opposition is one way of expressing interests aloud. We saw that in the western world in the 1960s and 1970s. Another option is to found a new party if you don’t feel heard. But it is always important to respect the limit of fundamental human rights. In the USA, it has been very well observed in recent years that Trump has steadily crossed this limit. The ruthless hate communication dignified anyone who had only minimally divergent opinions or ways of life and no longer had any respect for democratic and constitutional rules.
The result of the French Revolution, combined with the Industrial Revolution, marked the end of the history of the nobility and the Church. A new, democratic society was born. Now we are in the phase of the digital revolution. Is it heralding a new age again? Are the occupations perhaps also an expression of a system twilight?
Further articles
–
–
–
–
–
–
We are definitely in a time of transformation in which a lot is changing. The digital revolution is part of this change, but it also includes a more consistent understanding of human and equality rights, which also rethink the protection of the environment and nature in a more radical way. That will change our society and the arguments that we observe are an expression of this change process. I cannot see a system twilight in the sense of the abolition of democracy. I don’t know of any system that works better and more fairly. At the same time, our societies will adapt and change to these new challenges, as we struggle for the best answers, in parliaments and elsewhere in this society. But always by respecting the norms, rules and procedures of democracy and that means respecting the other and not ruthlessly knocking them down.
–
