Militant Democracy as a response to subverted or corrupt government? 1st edition was a half-ass post; I ran out of steem bout half way through.
BUT, what it did do was to give us an idea that democracy CAN defend itself from tyrannical thought both legally and morally; my own thought is that the concept can be applied to effective defense against organized crime groups, as well.
So, if you haven't yet, read the 1st edition to catch up; realize that it will be rewritten due to it's incomplete nature. Again, remember that Loewenstein is focusing on facism, although the argument can be applied to all who hate liberty.
Also, look over the comments by @richq11, @openparadigm, and @nxtblg, as these comments are ALL relevant to the discussion.
Let's keep going with Loewenstein, and some of the measures that he examined that the Czechoslovakian Republic used to protect it's own Constitution
- Membership in an association with subversive aims was deemed sufficient evidence of guilt.
- Reconstitution of a dissolved party under another name or form(tarning) is unlawful
- Members of the outlawed party are ineligible for parliamentary or public office
- Active members forfeit their parliamentary or official functions
- Property of an outlawed association is to be confiscated
- Uniforms and all symbols indicating sympathy for the proscribed movement are prohibited
- Freedom of speech, press, assembly, and movement within the state for all involved in or suspected of subversive activities is heavily curtailed
- In addition,members of and sympathizers with such parties maybe subjected to close surveillance and control by the police
- In conformity with the rule-of-law principle,the final decision on the legality of an order suspending or dissolving an allegedly subversive party lies with the Supreme Administrative Tribunal
Too bad that the "Peace For our Times" cowardice exhibited by Chamberlain and France pulled the rug out from Czechoslovakia and the Germans rolled in with no opposition. Shirer notes that the anti-subversive work of the Czechoslovakians was effective despite the active aid the local Nazis received from Germany
Let's take a quick look at misuses of the principle
This is more of a brainstorming list than an analysis...the purpose is to remind us of the threat to liberty presented by governments using this concept...
- Streitbare Demokratie. Militant democracy is fully integrated into the German Constitution. One example of the misuse of the concept is the ban on burqas (Newsweek, 2017). I do not find there to be any security value on a such a ban; on the contrary, it should be up to any individual business to refuse service to someone they can not identify. Likewise, the burqa must be cast aside when issuing ID or using government services.
- Perhaps more disturbing is the use of streitbare demokratie to censor criticism of German immigration policy. The German crackdown on criticism of crime committed by immigrants (The Federalist Papers Project, 2016) is decidely against the security interest of German citizens!
- The use of charges of racism or "hate speech" have been used to justify censorship through this concept. This is an idea that meshes with subversion/corruption of government, as the concept is turned on it's head by those using it to protect their own treason (cough cough, the Deep State, or leftist pollution of the educational system)
- The fallacy of gun control; an idea that diminishes the security of the citizen, instead of protecting it
All democracies have taken legislative precaution against illicit manufacture, transport, wearing, possession, and use of firearms or of other offensive weapons of any kind, or they have strengthened already existing prohibition
(Loewenstein, 1937b)
The missed connection from Part One -Corrupted or Subverted Government
I'm calling a rain check on this item. I'm still looking for a specific article which discusses the issue of totalitarian ideologies that capture enough power in Constitutional governments to overcome the protection provided by "division of power" organization; I have this article, it's a matter of finding it and refreshing my memory ;>. I'll speak to the ideas of Deep State/leftist/globalist infestation. In the meantime, you can refer to How to be an InformationWar Activist - Part Four: What the heck IS Information War? and look to these headings:
- Indoctrination
- Institutional Control
- Subversion
A return to "government by emotion", and the importance of Information War
As Goebbels observed, “[i]t will always remain one of the best jokes of democracy that it provides its own deadly enemies with the means with which it can be destroyed.
(Sajó, 2005)
Unfortunately, we ARE emotional creatures. At this point I give you the following assigned reading from Gustave LeBon (just kidding, I am giving you the references to study if you wish, but in later installments of this series, I'll mix in LeBon's ideas)
Perhaps the thorniest problem of democratic states still upholding fundamental rights is that of curbing the freedom of public opinion, speech, and press in order to check the unlawful use thereof by revolutionary and subversive propaganda, when attack presents itself in the guise of lawful political criticism of existing institutions. Overt acts of incitement to armed sedition can easily be squashed, but the vast armory of fascist technique includes the more subtle weapons of vilifying, defaming, slandering, and last but not least, ridiculing, the democratic state itself,its political institutions and leading personalities
(Loewenstein, 1937b)
Because this is a "paradox of democracy", there tends to be a blind spot that tyrants may attack...
Many constitutional texts are inclined to disregard the possibility of disorder. But behind the denial (including denial by admissibility), these constitutions have an unarticulated, under-theorized, uncertain, but fundamental relation to
the possibility of their own destruction that comes to light when the government and security forces face politics that are based on emotionalism or permanent threat.
(Sajó, 2005)
More patently subversive is fascism's habit of publicly exalting political criminals and offenders against the existing laws -a practice which serves the twofold purpose of building up the revolutionary symbolism of martyrs and heroes and of defying, with impunity, the existing order. It is still remembered that Herr Hitler,in August,1933, when the rowdies of his party murdered, under particularly revolting circumstances,a political adversary in Potempa and were sentenced to death by the court,proclaimed his "spiritual unity" with them
(Loewenstein, 1937b)
Which reminds us of of the Democratic Party's use and support of the front group, Black Lives Matter; along with Mumia and other cop killers.
The fact,however,that a group,by its organization or aims ,intends or is prepared unlawfully to usurp functions ordinarily belonging to the regular state authorities is as a rule sufficiently indicative of its subversive character
(Loewenstein, 1937b)
Why did I define the threats as I did in Part One
This will be short but sweet, and a discussion that HAS to be returned to, because we can NOT simply call any political movement we disagree with, a "security threat".
Threats have to be clearly defined by rule of law, and not by propaganda appealing to emotion (Information War).
Leftism - At it's heart, leftism consumes the individual to protect the borg; it's economic basis is Utopian fantasy; and it mixes with reality and human nature to become the worst kind of tyranny.
Islam
In many respects, international Islamist terrorism as a form of fundamentalist violence represents (in a rationality-defying way) a fundamental challenge to democracy or any other existing stable state order that offers basic security.
(Sajó, 2005)
- Organized Crime - I think we can all look at the devastation that the narcocartels have wreaked on Mexico and the South American countries. The organized use of bribery and intimidation against government employees (*Plato O Plomo) makes rule of law decision-making ineffective.,
- Organized racist groups - I discovered the Militant Democracy concept while researching COINTELPRO. One of the groups that the FBI attacked was the Klan. IMHO, these groups do not become a security threat until they begin attacking out violently, or encouraging the use of violence.
Again, more detail and argument on each of these threats is on the writing list.
Conclusion
I am suffering from the same lack of energy that I suffered from in writing Part One. Even so, I think I have added some additional things to think about
Salvation of the absolute values of democracy is not to be expected from abdication in favor of emotionalism,utilized for wanton or selfish purposes by self-appointed leaders,but by deliberate transformation of obsolete forms and rigid concepts into the new instrumentalities of "disciplined," or even-let us not shy from the word-"authoritarian," democracy
(Loewenstein, 1937b)
Yes, we SHOULD shy away from "authoritarian" democracy, unless we are playing word games which define rule-of-law as completely "authoritarian".
Because I am not up to trying to piece together the conflicting ideas of security and liberty at this time (not even throwing in accountability and secrecy), I am going to leave Part Two unfinished (yet again) and conclude with this thought...
It is each man's responsibility to see that his rights are upheld, no matter the form of government that is in place.
...and I haven't even gone into defending the rights of those who can not (or will not) defend themselves. Women have an instinctual instinct against killing and combat (Raines)
References
German Parliament Passes Partial Burqa Ban
Loewenstein, K. (1937). Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights, II. The American Political Science Review, 31(4), 638. https://doi.org/10.2307/1948103
Sajó, A. (2005). From militant democracy to the preventive state. Cardozo L. Rev., 27, 2255.
Censoring “Rapefugees” – Facebook’s Dangerous Gamble With “Hate Speech”
Streitbare Demokratie - Wikipedia
Shirer, W. L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
My Books
