Attempts towards “guaranteeing state” notified to the office responsible for defending the constitution

Human rights activist regards attempts toward the “guaranteeing state” as presumably anti-constitutional

19.06.2009

Today, the human-rights activist Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing has addressed herself to the federal office responsible for defending the constitution, in order to inform it about a presumable anticonstitutional ideology and about attempts of persons and within an association towards the implementation of this ideology, which have not been mentioned yet in the report of the federal office responsible for defending the constitution.

The notification deals with the ideology of the “guaranteeing state”, whose protagonists most often appear quite well-adapted. Changing the type of state to the “guaranteeing state”, however, would bring an administrational disaster to Germany, would destroy the rule of the law, and would lead up to the de-facto dissolution of the very statehood.

The ideology of the “guaranteeing state” demands to commission to private companies all tasks of the public services and of the public administration and vast parts of the national security. A magnet for conflicts of interests. The cheapest offer for running the environmental administration would probably come from the industry, for running the financial administration from the banking sector, for the residents’ registration offices the media sector, and for diplomatic services, police, army, secret service, and jails from private security and mercenary firms.

Commissioning tasks of the inner and of the exterior safety to private companies would, according to the point of view of the human-rights activist, lead to a situation like at Colombia with paramilitary as a state within a state.

This ideology even considers to taking the task of protecting the basic rights away from the courts and to give these tasks to private mediators. A part of the “guaranteeing state” ideologists even wants to allow private competitors with regard to legislating. The “guaranteeing state” ideology wants to commission the supervision over these private companies, which are, formally for a limited time, entrusted with sovereign power, to other private companies.

The human-rights activist regards as particularly dangerous the combination of the “guaranteeing state” ideology and the “governance” model (also called “horizontalization”). The latter model strives for a reduction of the material law, that means of the legally prescribed rights and duties, to the greatest possible extent. This would open a greatest possible room to negotiate between the state on the one side and the business respectively the citizens on the other one. Who has power, would be able to negotiate with the state any special conditions for himself. And this would be combined with public authorities, which would be run by private firms, so that, often, the same people would sit on both sides.d

The human rights activist regards “guaranteeing state” ideology, even though the non-violent appearance of the protagonists of this ideology, as anti-constitutional, because this ideology would significantly damage 6 out of 7 features of the free democratic constitutional structure (§4 par. 2 BVerfSchG (Law on the office responsible for defending the constitution)), and already the rejection of 1 of these features can be anti-constitutional.

This ideology would destroy the rule of the law, especially with regards to the equality before the law, to the legal clearness and legal safety, to the right of recourse to legal action, and to the protection of the basic rights.

Also democracy would be shaken to its core, because the democratically elected organs of the state would, within the “guaranteeing state”, be deprived of their supervision over the then privately run areas administration, military, police, and secret service, and be deprived of their power because of the loss of their knowledge how to run these services. The rule of the law (art. 1 par. 2+3 Basic Law (German Constitution), art. 20 Abs. 2+3 Basic Law) and democracy (art. 20 Abs. 1 Basic Law) both belong to the structure principles of our Basic Law (i.e. Constitution), which are protected by the eternity guarantee (art. 79 par. 3 Basic Law); the destruction of these structure principles would shaken the whole state.

The “guaranteeing state” would turn Germany, in addition to that, into a “failed state”, and so into a danger for Europe according to the EU Safety Strategy, because of the features abuse of power, weak institutions, and lack of accountability. There is a reason for the basic-right like right to the so-called “function reservation” (art. 33 par. 4 Basic Law): to guarantee for all inhabitants of Germany, that sovereign power is applied only by persons, whose economical existence depends on their faithfulness to the Basic Law, and not on their faithfulness to economical interests of private firms.

Most lobbyists towards the “guaranteeing state”, however, are fully aware, that the change of the type of state, which they are striving for, would dissolve the rule of the law of the Basic Law, and they see substantial legal problems with regard to democracy, but they, nevertheless, go on, even do not care of the eternity guarantee.

The biggest gateway for the “guaranteeing state” ideologists, up to now, has been the (unfortunately) broadly disseminated credulity of politicians towards to graduates and to jurists. There is, from the point of view of the human rights activist, the urgent danger, that persons, who are striving for the implementation of this presumably anti-constitutional ideology, are purposefully striving for key positions in policy counselling, media, jurists’ career networks, judiciary, and universities, respectively already have occupied some of these positions.

V.i.S.d.P:

Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Thorner Str. 7
42283 Wuppertal
Deutschland