Political Persecution in the Berlin Republic—Even in a Democracy
The history of political persecution in the Bonn Republic serves as a reminder of how vulnerable democracies can be: when political interests take precedence over individual rights, it becomes the duty of every citizen to uphold freedom, the rule of law, and to resist all forms of oppression. Against this backdrop, it is important to critically examine developments in the Berlin Republic (since 1990) that raise similar concerns.
Cases often cited as examples of political persecution or reprisals in the Berlin Republic include Simone Baum, a participant in the so-called “Potsdam Secret Meeting,” and critics of COVID-19 measures such as Michael Ballweg. In our view, the surveillance of political parties such as Die Linke or the AfD by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution also reflects a form of political repression.
This perspective has gained international attention. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has referred to such developments as signs of “tyranny.” U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance and public figures like Elon Musk have similarly expressed concern. In addition, violent attacks by left-wing extremist groups such as Antifa against members and events of the AfD illustrate the growing political polarization and the challenges to open democratic discourse.
Security Legislation and Civil Rights in the Berlin Republic
In the Berlin Republic, numerous laws have been enacted to combat terrorism and strengthen internal security—many of which have raised concerns about restrictions on civil liberties:
Increased Coordination Between Security Agencies: Cooperation between the Federal Police, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, and other intelligence services has been significantly expanded to target extremist groups more effectively. However, this closer coordination has sparked public debate over the limits of state surveillance and the potential erosion of fundamental rights.
Anti-Terror Legislation: In response to the 9/11 attacks, laws such as the Aviation Security Act and the Anti-Terror Database were introduced to facilitate the surveillance of suspected individuals. Critics argue that such measures pose a threat to privacy, data protection, and freedom of expression.
Defensive Democracy in the Berlin Republic
The Berlin Republic is based on the principle of a “defensive democracy,” which is designed to protect the democratic order against extremist threats:
Surveillance of Democratic Parties: Even democratically elected parties in the Bundestag, such as the PDS/Die Linke, have been monitored by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. The AfD also remains under surveillance by the agency, despite becoming the strongest political force in eastern Germany and the second strongest in the west in the federal elections of spring 2025. Critics point out that, despite years of monitoring, no concrete evidence has been presented to substantiate claims of the AfD’s alleged “hostility to the constitution.”
Banning Extremist Parties: Parties deemed to pursue unconstitutional aims—such as the far-right National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD)—have repeatedly come under scrutiny. However, efforts to ban the NPD have failed due to legal and procedural hurdles.
Monitoring Extremist Movements: Both left-wing and right-wing extremist groups are subject to surveillance by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. This includes organisations such as Antifa on the left and the Identitarian Movement on the right.
Dealing with Political Extremism and Populism
The Berlin Republic relies on a defensive democracy that protects itself against extremist endeavours:
Banning extremist parties: parties such as the NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany) have been repeatedly scrutinised for their unconstitutionality. However, a ban failed due to formal hurdles.
Monitoring left-wing and right-wing groups: Both left-wing extremist and right-wing extremist organisations are monitored by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. This applies, for example, to Antifa and the Identitarian Movement.
Even democratic parties in the Bundestag such as PDS/Die Linke were monitored by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. The AfD also continues to be monitored by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, even though it became the strongest political force in eastern Germany and the second strongest in western Germany in the federal elections in spring 2025. Despite years of observation, no concrete evidence or proof of the AfD’s feared ‘hostility to the constitution’ has been provided.
The Office for the Protection of the Constitution: Safeguard or Political Instrument?
The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) is a controversial institution that continues to attract criticism. While some view it as an essential tool for defending democracy against extremist threats, others regard it as a politically motivated instrument of repression. This ambivalence is particularly evident in the cases of the Left Party (Die Linke) and the Alternative for Germany (AfD).
Monitoring parties such as Die Linke and the AfD can be interpreted as a legitimate response to suspected anti-constitutional activities. However, critics argue that the surveillance of democratic parties undermines political pluralism and may serve to suppress political competition. This debate has intensified in light of the ongoing observation of the AfD by the BfV, which many see as politically driven. Growing calls have emerged demanding the reform—or even abolition—of what is perceived as a politically instrumentalised agency.
On 2 May 2025, the BfV officially classified the AfD as a “confirmed right-wing extremist party”—a move that, according to critics, was made without publicly presented evidence. In response, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the action as an act of “tyranny.” U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance went as far as to liken it to a “rebuilding of the Berlin Wall,” while Elon Musk called it an “attack on democracy.”
Security and Counter-Extremism Measures: A Threat to Fundamental Rights?
Security and counter-extremism measures—such as communications surveillance—have drawn criticism for infringing on fundamental rights.
One prominent example is data retention. The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled aspects of it unconstitutional, citing violations of the right to privacy. Similarly, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) condemned the practice in 2022, reinforcing concerns that such measures may overstep the boundaries of lawful state intervention in democratic societies.
Freedom of Speech and its Limitations
Freedom of speech—the right to freely express and disseminate opinions—is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 5 of the German Basic Law. However, it is not unlimited and is subject to legal restrictions, such as those prohibiting incitement to hatred, defamation, or insult.
In the Berlin Republic and across the European Union, growing tensions have emerged around the boundaries of this right. State measures aimed at averting threats (e.g. combating extremism) or enforcing the law (e.g. criminal prosecution) are increasingly perceived as criminalising legitimate criticism or peaceful protest. This has sparked debates about whether the balance between freedom of expression and public order is being maintained—or whether it is tilting in favour of state control at the expense of democratic dissent.
The Independence of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Germany
The independence of Germany’s public prosecutor’s office is a subject of ongoing debate. Formally, it is a subordinate authority bound by instructions and accountable to the respective federal or state ministry of justice. This structural dependency raises concerns about political influence over prosecutorial decisions.
- Binding Instructions: Justice ministers at the federal and state levels have the authority to issue instructions to public prosecutors—both in individual cases and in general. This creates the potential for political interference in legal proceedings.
- Hierarchical Structure: The public prosecutor’s office operates within a strict chain of command. Decisions made by prosecutors are subject to review and revision by their superiors, which further limits their autonomy.
- European Criticism: In 2019, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that German public prosecutors cannot be considered independent judicial authorities, as they remain subject to political instructions. As a result, they are no longer permitted to issue European Arrest Warrants.
- Debate on Reform: For years, there have been calls to enhance the independence of the public prosecutor’s office. Proposals include abolishing the instruction-bound structure and reforming the internal hierarchy to align it more closely with the principles of judicial independence.
Conclusion: The German public prosecutor’s office is not independent in the same way as the judiciary, but rather functions as part of the executive branch. In our view, this lack of independence is evident in high-profile and, at times, disproportionate prosecutions—such as those against coronavirus critics like Michael Ballweg or Sucharit Bhakdi, or in controversial rulings, such as the prison sentence imposed on David Bendels for sharing a meme.