Protecting human dignity is at the heart of Germany’s Basic Law

Two years after the Basic Law was proclaimed in Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court commenced its work in Karlsruhe in 1951. Ever since, its job has been to monitor compliance with the German constitution. The legal expert Andreas Voßkuhle was the court’s president from 2010 to 2020. In our interview, he talks about the special features of Germany’s Basic Law, constitutional patriotism in Germany and global threats to democratic constitutions. 

Professor Voßkuhle, what in your opinion distinguishes the Basic Law? 

The German constitution is a successful combination of stability on the one hand and flexibility on the other. From the outset, it was defined broadly enough to be able to react to new challenges. At the same time, it was at its heart so unequivocal that it could create a stable foundation. 

What characterises this stable foundation?

The character of the Basic Law is determined by Article 1 Section 1: “Human dignity shall be inviolable.” This central idea is the leitmotif of the entire Basic Law. What this actually means is perhaps even better expressed by the draft of the Constitutional Convention at Herrenchiemsee from 1948. In this draft constitution, which served as the basis for the Parliamentary Council’s work on the Basic Law, Article 1 reads: “The state is there for the sake of the people, not the people for the sake of the state.” 

When the Basic Law was adopted in 1949, it was deliberately designed to be provisional on account of Germany’s division. Since reunification in 1990, it has applied to the whole of Germany. What is the secret of the success of this formerly provisional arrangement? 

Even 75 years ago, the Basic Law was already a modern constitution. This is particularly true of the great protection it affords to basic rights. Furthermore, an institution was created in the form of the Constitutional Court that could enforce these basic rights in practice. In addition, the Basic Law laid down the foundation for the principle of a militant democracy in which for example a party ban could be used to fight the enemies of democracy. The constitution was also oriented towards Europe from the outset. 

Constitutional patriotism is often talked about in Germany. What is meant by this, and how has the Basic Law influenced German society over the past decades? 

Following the moral failure during the period of National Socialistrule, the Basic Law presented an opportunity to voice support for democracy, human rights, European integration and a just political system based on the rule of law. Furthermore, the Federal Republic of Germany already has a very plural society thanks to itsfederalist system. In such a society, a basic consensus is needed to allow diversity to thrive. And this consensus was and remains the Basic Law. 

Which threats do you see the Basic Law and other democratic constitutions as facing nowadays?

I see a risk of the prerequisites for democracy being undermined. Democracy is not only about elections. It should guarantee that the minority has a realistic chance of becoming a majority. This requires among other things opposition rights, protection of minorities, basic rights such as freedom of assembly and opinion, strong constitutional courts and independent media. 

In many countries in Europe and across the world we are seeing that althoughelections are not being abolished, the prerequisites for a functional democracy are being eroded with the aim of enabling permanent rule by one party. This has not yet happened in Germany, but it would be naive to think that we are living on an “isle of the blessed”. 

You are the chairman of the association “Gegen Vergessen – Für Demokratie”. What can citizens do to help protect and strengthen democracy? 

Above all, it is a question of the so-called silent centre or invisible third. These are people who are not in the right-wing radical camp - which in Germany is currently estimated to account for between five and eight percent of the electorate - but have to some extent rejected democracy, be it out of disappointment, anger or disinterest. It is important to win these people over again. Democracy begins on one’s own doorstep, in conversations with neighbours, work colleagues or friends at the pub. That’s when we can explain that our democratic system, though not perfect, is the best way to protect the freedom of everyone. As an association, we therefore attempt to get into conversations about democracy, for example by training democracy mentors in schools or the police force, and by establishing cafes as forums for discussion.

Such conversations can be very difficult. 

Yes, it is a tiring business. But democracy requires engagement. It’s just the same as when you want to go for a jog in the morning but it’s raining. Even when it comes to campaigning for democracy I sometimes have to force myself to get involved in a conversation that I’m not in the mood for and to deal with awkward questions. And we need to relearn how to listen better. I have the feeling that people in general talk too much and listen too little. 

How do you envisage the future of democracy in view of the current challenges? 

I am worried by the developments that I have outlined. There is no guarantee that our liberal democratic constitutional order will survive long-term. Democracy needs democrats who fight for it. However, the large-scale protests against right-wing radicalism that took place in Germany in early 2024 show that many people are willing to do this. That gives us reason to hope.