Guest contribution Marco Buschmann: Freedom as a political principle

Freedom is the fundamental value of our constitution.

The traditional currents of politics in the Federal Republic have always known that: The liberals carry freedom in their name.

The Christian Democracy pleaded for “freedom instead of socialism”.

And since Eduard Bernstein it was clear to the reformed social democrats: Democracy means freedom for everyone.

But anyone who speaks of political freedom today must expect different reactions.

There is talk of the “old ideological clutter” or the alleged “hyper-liberalism” of the present.

What is meant is an excess of freedom.

That seems strange, as we are experiencing a multitude of deep encroachments on freedom in the face of the pandemic.

Apparently we're getting too used to it.

The feeling of a “new normal” creeps in.

It anchors our sense of freedom at a low level.

We all want to remain what we are after the pandemic: a free, constitutional state.

So it is time to make some statements about political freedom.

Robinson Crusoe's concept of freedom is sterile

Freedom as a political principle means the freedom of the individual in living together with many. This is important. Because the opponents of political freedom like to refer to the freedom of Robinson Crusoe on the lonely island in order to immediately reduce it to absurdity or to elevate it to a place of longing. But there can be no political freedom in a place with just one person.

Because without human coexistence there can be no politics and without that there can be no political freedom.

“Zoon politikon”, as Aristotle described man, is a creature that lives in society.

Robinson Crusoe's concept of freedom is politically sterile.

It is open to the individual as an individual life plan, but not to a human community.

This is especially true for modern mass societies and especially for the global village of the digital age.

Politics regulates the freedom of the individual in coexistence with many

The individual's right to freedom means that the powerful cannot simply do what they want. In a democracy this means that the majority are not allowed to do everything they could. This is exactly where the distinction lies between what we today call with great self-confidence "liberal democracy" on the one hand and what others in Eastern Europe deliberately proclaim provocatively as "illiberal democracy" on the other.

The former accepts the limits of the majority that arise from the freedom of the individual.

The latter regards such limits as an imposition.

If the individual sees such limits violated at his expense, then in liberal democracy it is his right to defend himself against it in courts.

And if the courts then agree with him, then there are no “little judges” at work, but guardians of a fundamental principle of freedom.

Protection against presumption of false knowledge

The majority are moderated by the freedom of the individual.

She must not intervene in his freedom merely on the basis of a certain premonition.

The state is only allowed to do this if it demonstrates plausibly and objectively, based on the current state of knowledge, that legal interests of high value can actually be protected in a proportionate manner.

The liberal moderation of the majority protects against the presumption of false knowledge.

Of course, it is not just the majority that can be wrong.

The minority can do the same.

In contrast to the majority, this does not in principle result in a political problem.

Because in a democracy the minority cannot impose its error on the majority.

As a rule, the minority bears the consequences of their error according to the principle of responsibility themselves. Freedom and personal responsibility are balanced.

The responsibility of the individual

However, a highly contagious virus narrows the spaces of mere responsibility for oneself.

Those who do not wear a medical mask or who do not want to be vaccinated are not only harming themselves and their health.

It potentially contributes to the overloading of the health system and thus places heavy burdens on others' lives and health.

The freedom of the individual to coexist with many does not condemn the state to inaction.

Rather, an objective need for regulation arises here.

Freedom, however, demands that we repeatedly question whether encroachments on freedom are proportionate.

Does that speak against political freedom?

But on the contrary!

Human ingenuity, drive and willingness to cooperate flourish better in the sun of freedom than in a drought of paternalism and coercion.

This has been shown by the development of the corona vaccines.

We may never know exactly how exactly the virus spread to humans.

But there is no doubt where the first highly effective vaccines were developed: In the free societies of the West.

We owe it to free enterprise and free science.

So when it comes to dealing with a pandemic, freedom is not part of the problem, it is part of the solution.

The author is Federal Minister of Justice and belongs to the FDP.