In the minds of liberals, democracy is a society that is open, tolerant, and diverse. However, history demonstrates that the most tolerant regimes occasionally have to go beyond, even if that means violating their own principles, in order to remain. This paradox is exactly what explains the concept of militant democracy: a variety of democratic self-defense that gives the right to restrict some of the rights because the main one—the democratic order—still has to be protected.
What Is Militant Democracy?
The idea of militant democracy was first discussed by a German scholar called Karl Loewenstein in the 1930s. While Loewenstein was exploring the downfall of the Weimar Republic, he claimed that democracies must not be passive if they are to survive against those who want to destroy them from within.
Within this concept, a democratic power is no longer the weak and helpless one. It may, thus, use legal and constitutional means to prevent radical parties—be they fascist, communist, or religiously radical—from abusing the very freedoms that democracy grants them to commit their acts of treason, thereby driving the democracy to annihilation.
Tools of Democratic Self-Defense
Modern-day militant democracies employ various instruments to secure their foundations:
· Prohibiting extremist parties or movements (e.g., the ban of the neo-Nazi SRP by Germany in 1952 and of the Communist Party in 1956)
· Constitutional clauses that forbid organizations if they are considered “hostile to democracy”
· Limiting freedom of expression or gathering when these are used for the propagation of hate or the establishment of an authoritarian regime
· Ensuring the loyalty of public officials towards the democratic values through monitoring of their activities
Through these tools, the democracies are the ones that are controversial with these questions of moral and political problems. Can a democracy still be accepted if it restricts participation? Does the suppression of any kind of speech in order to defend tolerance at the end of it actually lead to the loss of that?
Between Protection and Overreach
Critics point out that militant democracy may be misused. Governments might use it as an excuse not to protect democracy but, instead, to go after their opponents. The purges in Turkey after the coup are, for instance, examples of such self-preservation. However, they are considered by many to be the signs of an authoritarian regime.
The demarcation between “anti-democratic” and just “illiberal” is often very vague. The populist parties—like Fidesz in Hungary or Law and Justice in Poland—are acting within the democratic systems but openly negate the liberal norms. Should the concept of militant democracy be applied to them? And who is in charge of making this decision?
A 21st-Century Comeback
Nowadays, as authoritarianism is on the rise and there are more and more cases of disinformation, the concept of militant democracy is coming back.
- Besides the extremist groups of the right and left, Verfassungsschutz also keeps an eye on parties that they consider to be actively working against the constitutional order in Germany.
- Recently, in France and Austria, the government has decided to prohibit some Islamist organizations because they are not compatible with republican values.
- Since the time Ukraine has been waging a war with Russia, it has forbidden the pro-Russian parties on the basis of national security.
At the level of the European Union, instruments such as Article 7 and the Conditionality Regulation are a manifestation of the concept of militant democracy in a power-sharing setting—they are means of pursuing the protection of the Union’s constitutional identity through the people’s mandate within the Union.
In Romania, the candidacy of Călin Georgescu, an intellectual nationalist and a local United Nations official, became a disaster because they effectively eliminated him from the race for political office. While his presidential bid was embraced by some segments of the public, his past affiliations and unorthodox views have led to institutional resistance and public denunciation. Proponents of this view claim that elites are overreaching; on the other hand, some people see it as a safety measure to prevent the spread of the extremist ideologies that are hidden under the pop era rhetoric—thus, the example of militant democracy.
A Difficult Balance
Militant democracy is a fascinating concept because it tries to protect democracy, but at the same time it can weaken it. The experience of the Weimar Republic is a very interesting one—it shows that democracies can be destroyed from the inside, usually due to their own excessive tolerance and lack of decisiveness. This is still true today. Democracies are at risk not only from external sources but also from insiders who use democratic freedoms to destroy democracy. This paradox makes the concept of militant democracy very important, yet quite complex: it is a protective agent intended to defend democratic order, but if it is used in a wrong way, it can become the very thing that it is fighting against.
Simultaneously, to protect democracy is not supposed to turn into a justification for the expansion of authoritarianism and political repression masked as democratic defense. There is a danger of misuse—where governments turn militancy democracy instruments into weapons to repress the political opposition that is not only to limit the protests or to consolidate power—that is always there. Hence, it is necessary that these steps are taken in a just, honest, and respectful way of the law. The rightfulness of the militant democracy rests on strict control and fidelity to democratic principles, guaranteeing that the attempts to defend democracy are not those that undermine the democratic matter.
To sum up, a militant democracy isn’t about limiting ideas but rather about saving a democratic space where ideas are not only allowed but also protected by safeguards that ensure the democratic order. The idea also asks for a subtle synergy—sufficient determination to make sure that anti-democratic elements cannot trick freedoms while being open enough to keep political pluralism and healthy discussions alive. In the current era, where we have witnessed an upsurge in populism, foreign meddling, and internal rifts, this equilibrium has become more vital than ever. Tolerance can’t be boundless if democracy wants to live on; hence, there have to be conditions—very cautiously and equitably implemented—that serve as the defense of democracy against those who are plotting to conquer it from the inside.
