Читать книгу Civl society - Группа авторов - Страница 33

A radical is a person who gets to the bottom of things, develops an argument until it is absurd, drives a thesis to the utmost exaggeration, and represents a position without any sense of proportion. Radicalism is therefore equally disturbing to moderates and conservatives – and that can even be good and desirable. It is precisely radicalism that drives discourse and political projects forward and presses for those innovations that moderates and conservatives are only too happy to avoid. However, two things are essential if radicalism is not to endanger a discourse-open system. First, rules are necessary that tie radical argumentation to the imperative of logic, radical activity to the leash of non-violence, and radical politics to the chain of the rule of law. Second, it is to be desired that each form of radicalism has its counterforce, and each thesis its antithesis. That is precisely when a dialectic of progress based on trial and error can have the greatest effect.

When all of that is given, radicalism – the risk game of an open society as it were – may develop fruitfully as a ferment of social change. For example, it exists in the form of left or right radicalism, religious or anti-religious radicalism, and there is also a radicalism of liberty, equality, and justice. If, however, there is a lack of either effective rules of the game in radical discourse, or of counterforces to radical positions – and conservatism is an essential component here – radicalism can also become a threat to an open society. It would be likely to drift apart, become polarised, and end in disputes that could go as far as civil war. A stable order, on the other hand, is not only able to tolerate radicalism but also profit from it – especially if conservatives have strong arguments. Put briefly: Although many are disturbed by radicalism, it can do good; although radicalism can be ruthlessly stupid, its fundamental attitude is not reprehensible.

Extremism is a completely different matter. An extremist is a person who – for whatever reasons and no matter where – works towards the eradication of a liberal democratic basic order. According to the famous formulation given by the German Federal Constitutional Court in 1952, this is an order “that, by excluding any form of violence or arbitrary rule, represents a rule of law founded on the self-determination of the people according to the will of the respective majority and liberty and equality. The following, at least, must be counted as belonging to the fundamental principles of this order: respect for the human rights concretised in the constitution, especially the right of the individual to life and free development, popular sovereignty, the separation of powers, the responsibility of the government, the legality of the administration, the independence of the courts, the multi-party principle and equal opportunities for all political parties with the right to form and exercise an opposition in keeping with the constitution.”

Anyone who aims at doing away with this order – for the sake of human dignity or liberty – must be fought against; and that not only going as far as to forbid his political organisation or the forfeiture of his basic rights, but going even further, and using armed force if necessary, as expressly approved in Article 20.4 of the German Constitution. On the other hand, a person whose aim is not to eliminate the liberal democratic basic order, but only do away with individual regulations or institutions of a liberal, democratic state is simply a dissident, or a radical at most, who has got on the wrong track. A person of this kind can only be approached with the normal means of political discussion.

In this context, in its ruling on the prohibition of the German Communist Party, the Federal Constitutional Court expressly stated that a party, and a political position in particular, “is not unconstitutional if it rejects individual positions, or even entire institutions, of the Constitution. Rather it must reject the highest values of constitutional order, the fundamental constitutional principles, which make the constitutional order free and democratic, principles on which, at least, all parties must agree if this kind of democracy is to function meaningfully at all… [A party or political position is] also not unconstitutional if it does not recognise these highest principles of a free democratic basic order, rejects them or counters them with others. Rather, there must be an active, combative, aggressive attitude towards the existing order; it must deliberately impair the functioning of this order and, in the further course, wish to eliminate this order itself. This means that the liberal-democratic state does not act against parties with aims that are hostile to it of its own accord, but merely defends itself from attacks on its basic order. This legal construction of the elements of an offence rules out abuse of the provision in the service of zealous persecution of inconvenient opposition parties.”

The reasons a person or group has for fighting the liberal democratic basic order, or their political aims, are completely irrelevant for determining extremism if the criteria mentioned above are used. However, it serves to provide desirable information if, for example, right-wing or left-wing extremism, Islamist extremism, or “middle-class extremism” is spoken about. But the use of such a term can never take the place of investigating whether those labelled as extremists really plan to attack and eliminate the free basic order, which is recognisable by its clear criteria. By the way, when assessing the ethical and political worthlessness of opposition of this kind, the source of the motives for extremism is completely irrelevant: whether they come from the middle of society, from the upper or lower classes, from the left, or from the right, or from another edge of the political spectrum does not play a role. This is because extremism always attacks everything that makes a pluralistic democracy possible and so advantageous as an embodiment of political order.