Essay: The Essence of Democracy – and Why Its Institutions Must Be Defended**
*Dipl.-Kaufmann Rainer Seiffert*
The essence of democracy is of outstanding importance to me. As a member of a family that suffered severely under authoritarian systems – from the expulsion from their Silesian homeland to the repressions under the SED regime – I know from family tradition what a precious achievement democratic conditions are. During my studies of economics I learned under which conditions economy and society can flourish: where freedom, legal certainty and limited state power prevail.
When I represented the Freemasons – and thus also the ideals of the Enlightenment – at the 300th anniversary celebration in Aachen in 2017, the Lord Mayor of Aachen sitting next to me said to me: “The Freemasons are the guardians of the Grail of democracy and have the task of defending it.” This sentence has stayed with me. That is also why I pay particular attention to the structural characteristics of democracy and to the dangers that threaten it from within and without.
### The Three System Types in Comparison
To understand the fundamental difference between democracies, authoritarian systems and totalitarian systems, political science uses a threefold typology. While democracies are based on the freedom of the individual, the other two systems restrict this freedom – though to completely different degrees and with different objectives.
**Democracy** is based on popular sovereignty. Power emanates from the people and is entrusted only temporarily to elected representatives. Characteristic features are unrestricted pluralism – a diversity of opinions, parties, media and interest groups that the state protects – the safeguarding of inalienable fundamental rights (human dignity, freedom of expression, property) and the peaceful transfer of power through regular, free, equal and secret elections. The opposition can replace the government without bloodshed.
**The authoritarian system** (historical examples: Franco’s Spain or Pinochet’s regime in Chile) primarily secures political power. It tolerates no political opposition but allows social niches: churches, entrepreneurs or associations may exist as long as they do not openly criticise the regime. The authoritarian ruler prefers not cheering masses but rather apolitical citizens who attend to their private lives. Repression is targeted and calculable: those who stay out of politics usually live relatively safely in everyday life.
**The totalitarian system** (National Socialism, Stalinism or present-day North Korea) aims to create the “new man” and radically transform society. It knows no pluralism. Economy, judiciary, culture, sport and even the family are brought into line. Passivity is regarded as betrayal; citizens must actively demonstrate their loyalty – through compulsory memberships, marches and denunciation. The terror of the secret police is unpredictable and strikes not only real opponents but serves to intimidate the entire population. No private sphere remains.
The difference can best be illustrated by the boundary between state and individual:
In a democracy the law draws a clear line – the state may not arbitrarily interfere in the citizen’s private sphere.
In authoritarianism the state respects the private sphere as long as the citizen remains politically quiet.
In totalitarianism there is no private sphere left; the state penetrates into the individual’s thinking and the most intimate family life.
It is precisely the institutional safeguarding of this boundary – above all through the separation of powers – that forms the heart of what distinguishes democracy from the other systems.
### The Separation of Powers as the Heart of Democracy – and the German Particularity
In Germany the independence of the judiciary is firmly anchored in the constitution. Article 97 of the Basic Law guarantees the substantive and personal independence of judges: they are subject only to the law. Neither the federal government nor a state ministry can instruct a judge how to decide a case. Judges cannot be removed or transferred as long as they abide by the law. The Federal Constitutional Court, as guardian of the constitution, regularly strikes down laws or executive measures when they are unconstitutional.
Nevertheless, there are practical interfaces that have been criticised by experts, the German Association of Judges and European courts. Courts are organisationally subordinate to the ministries of justice. Particularly controversial is the position of the public prosecutors’ offices. Under Section 147 of the Courts Constitution Act, the state justice ministers have an external right to issue instructions to public prosecutors. The European Court of Justice has therefore ruled that German public prosecutors’ offices, due to insufficient independence, may not independently issue certain European Arrest Warrants – the involvement of a judge is required.
Critics regard this as a structural deficit. The real danger lies less in open political commands (which would be risky because of the principle of legality and media scrutiny) than in anticipatory obedience and career dependence: the ministries of justice decide on promotions. This can lead to particular caution in politically sensitive proceedings. The mere possibility of political influence can impair public trust in an impartial judiciary.
### International Alternatives
Other democracies have resolved the relationship between politics and criminal prosecution differently. In Italy, public prosecutors enjoy the same constitutional independence as judges; appointment and promotion lie with a largely self-governing judicial council. France has prohibited individual instructions by the minister in specific cases and strengthened the role of the judicial council. In the United States many District Attorneys are directly elected, and in sensitive federal cases the instrument of the independent Special Counsel is used.
Germany retains its model because it emphasises democratic legitimacy and parliamentary accountability: those who may deeply interfere with fundamental rights should ultimately be answerable to parliament. The current reform trend aims at greater transparency: political instructions are to be documented in writing and reasoned, in order to make covert influence more difficult.
### Conclusion
Democracy is not a matter of course. It lives from the clear separation of powers, the protection of fundamental rights and the possibility of a peaceful transfer of power. My family’s experience with authoritarian and repressive systems has shown me how quickly these structures can erode when control, transparency and institutional independence are neglected.
The Masonic tradition of the Enlightenment and the lessons of economics point in the same direction: freedom and prosperity thrive only where power is limited, law is reliable and the individual is protected from arbitrary state action. Defending these principles – even in seemingly technical questions such as the position of the public prosecutor’s office – remains a permanent task. For what was laboriously achieved can also be lost again.
Rainer Seiffert's Blog 