Speech at the University of Warsaw: “Liberty and Law in Europe”

begin

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am delighted to be here with you today, at the greatest university of a great European country. A country whose greatness lies not just in its size or population, but in its willingness and determination to fight for liberty time and again over the centuries, against threats both internal and external. A country whose liberty has been repeatedly defended, lost and regained. And you have done so not least from this very university, throughout the two centuries of its existence, in the face of ever-changing foreign influences. I am therefore extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak to you here today.

Education, science, Polish identity and the Polish language – here, you have had to defend them all, against the authoritarian and totalitarian grip of foreign rulers and occupiers – in “flying universities”, as I have learned, hidden and underground. So as I have been preparing for this visit to your country and to you here today, one thing has become very clear to me: To talk about liberty in Poland is a bit like preaching to the choir. So I will be sure to do so with great humility.

Ladies and gentlemen,

A great motto has figured prominently in the history of your country: “For our freedom and yours!” Early on, this Polish call for freedom was a blessing to Germany in particular. In the decades leading up to the revolution of 1848, there were many thousands of Poles who, having fled their divided country, lent their support to the German quest for unity, liberty and democracy. Many poles attended the famous demonstration in Hambach in 1832. Known as the Hambach Festival, it represented a high point of civil opposition in this pre-revolutionary period.

In Hambach, the white and red flag flew alongside the black, red and gold. The Germans were enthralled by the desire for freedom displayed by the Polish rebels against the Russian Tsar. Veritable masses greeted those arriving in German cities. The phrase “Polenschwärmerei”, or “Polish infatuation”, was coined to describe this enthusiasm. Support associations were founded to help the Polish arrivals in any way they could. The Germans penned countless “Polenlieder” – songs written in honour of the Polish struggle for freedom.

In the century of revolutions, Poles fought for liberty all over Europe – and even in the American War of Independence. In fact, Poles have been deeply entwined in European freedom movements for two centuries. For the Poles have always known that freedom is indivisible. Your country may have been divided – but freedom in Europe should not be.

Poland was and remains an advocate of self-determination wherever it is absent. Poland’s history is a lesson in liberty. I don’t think we Germans are sufficiently aware of Poland’s role in freeing us from Nazism. When Stalin released Polish soldiers after Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, many of them later joined the British. They formed the fourth largest contingent when the Western Allies landed in Normandy in 1944.

“For our freedom and yours!” These words speak a truth about the importance of Poland’s history for Europe and for the principle of liberal democracy. And that was not the last time that the Polish thirst for freedom helped my country. In the 1980s, it was the student movement at this very university that drove political change in Poland. At the same time, the founding of Solidarnosc galvanised the opposition in the German Democratic Republic.

Many people in both parts of my country felt and expressed great sympathy for this new political spring. This posed a threat to the GDR, and its leaders closed the borders for GDR citizens. They hoped to shut out Poland’s yearning for liberty and democracy. But this was not successful – and it never is. The victory of Solidarnosc in June 1989, in the first free elections since the Second World War, was a beacon of encouragement to the civil movement in the GDR.

Without the Polish freedom movement, my country’s path to unification would have been inconceivable. We will never forget this. “For our freedom and yours!” The old saying is still just as relevant to your country today, as Russia wages its illegal war of aggression against Ukraine.

It was with these words in mind that in March 2022, just a few days after the start of the Russian invasion, your then Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister set off on the dangerous train journey to Kyiv with their Czech and Slovenian counterparts. Poland’s solidarity with Ukraine has remained steadfast ever since. Once again, your country has stood as a model of clarity and resolve in defence of liberty. You are an inspiration. In the name of the German Federal Government, I thank you for that, too.

And I want to assure you that our solidarity with Poland and Ukraine – as our allies and frontline states against the greatest threat to our liberty today – is unwavering. Together, we will repel Russia’s attack on liberty, justice and democracy. Poland knows what is at stake in Ukraine. Just as Putin is unwilling to accept Ukrainian freedom at the Russian border, Catherine the Great was also unwilling to accept the influence of the so-called “plague” of the French Revolution in Poland in 1792. Europe has much to learn from Poland: what liberty is and why it is worth fighting for.

The Polish love of liberty is a lasting inspiration to Europe. While we Germans have so much to thank Poland for, the other side of the coin reveals a bitter historical truth: All too often, an arch enemy of Polish liberty was my country – with horrific consequences. This is yet another reason why a member of Germany's Federal Government must show humility in Poland. And in Warsaw in particular. Of course, this also means that a member of the German Government cannot speak of “Liberty and Law in Europe” as if we Germans were the inventors, guardians or leading exponents of such a concept. You are in a much better position to say that about yourselves.

The Polish constitution of 3 May 1791 was the first modern constitution in Europe, pre-dating the first French constitution by exactly four months. This constitution of 3 May owed much to Rousseau's idea of popular sovereignty and Montesquieu's ingenious and timeless concept of the separation of powers. One of its main authors was Hugo Kołłątaj, one of Europe’s great Enlightenment thinkers. Six decades later, in 1848, the Germans attempted something similar with the Constitution of St. Paul’s Church – but failed.

Together with France, Poland is one of the pioneers of European constitutional law and liberty. Europe’s constitutional history, as we all know, has not followed a straight line; and there have always been setbacks. To this day, we in Europe would be well advised to remain vigilant in each of our own countries. Liberty and law must be constantly defended anew in every country in Europe. Today, all countries recognises the threats to the liberal order that can arise from within. Every country must resist the temptation to make life easier by diluting the sometimes uncomfortable separation of powers and mutual checks and balances.

The danger is always there: If limits are not imposed on the majority, democracies have the potential to self-destruct. This is why, ever since the American, Polish and French constitutions were adopted in the 18th century, liberal constitutions have contained a robust system of checks and balances. This includes a strong, independent judiciary that can restrain any state action that violates the constitution and breaks the law. As every country has to constantly remind itself: In a democracy, decisions are, of course, taken by the majority. But because anyone can one day find themselves part of a minority, even in a democracy unlimited power means tyranny – the tyranny of the majority. That is why democracy and liberty – liberal democracy – are only possible when there are fundamental rights and an independent judiciary to keep power in check.

The rules of constitutional states under the rule of law adhere to the principles of justice outlined by the great American philosopher John Rawls. I hope I can be forgiven a brief academic digression, as we are at a university. In any case, it is absolutely relevant. The litmus test proposed by John Rawls was this: Can you agree to a given set of rules without knowing where you will stand under those rules? In other words – when it comes to the rules governing the exercise of State power – without knowing whether you will be on the side of the minority, or of the majority; on the side of the government or of the opposition. Rawls famously argued that this “veil of ignorance” served as a test of the justice and fairness of the rules.

And, yes, by this criterion, the rules of the constitutional state are indeed fair and just. Because why would we agree to these rules and limits on power? We do so because power can change hands from one day to the next, and the rules may someday protect me, as part of a minority, from having my rights disregarded by the majority. Even a democratically elected majority cannot do as it pleases. Independent courts make sure of this. Justice and the rule of law therefore allow permanent sovereignty for us all – and they do so by limiting the rule of whichever majority is currently in place.

State power in a democracy becomes more stable in the long run if it is separated! And so, to speak of liberty and law in Europe is never to speak for or against someone. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of partiality. It is about fairness. It was in this spirit that your Prime Minister recently remarked, and I quote: “Just because we won the elections doesn’t mean we’re right about everything.” The legal channels for reviewing government decisions, he added, are open to everyone.

That is the wonderful thing about the rule of law. The fundamental rights – personal freedom, equality before the law, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly – are minority rights by their very nature. And this means that, in a constitutional state, it cannot be the majority who has the last word on these rights. This is why government decisions affecting fundamental rights can be reviewed at any time by independent courts. Such a review can be demanded by anyone.

In liberal democracies, it is also possible to change the composition of constitutional institutions and the way they interact with one another. Citizens’ self-determination is not limited to marginal issues. But it is wise to seek broad majorities in favour of these changes – and to persuade the opposition that they are needed. Because it is better for the constitution to continuously shape our ever-changing democracies, than for our ever-changing democracies to reshape the constitution every few years. Without a broad consensus, no one can succeed in permanently and robustly restructuring the constitutional state according to their own wishes.

In a liberal democracy, such attempts are ultimately thwarted by changing majorities and the scrutiny of laws by independent courts. But in order to play this protective role, the judiciary must be truly independent. However, and this brings me to my final point, political conflict can never be completely resolved – even under the institutional arrangement of the liberal constitutional state.

First of all, this is not the purpose of the constitutional state. It is simply meant to ensure that such conflict runs a productive course. But more importantly, in a state governed by the rule of law, political conflict can never be fully resolved, because even the decisions of independent courts will never be uncontroversial. Indeed, every liberal democracy has its own debate on how the constitution should be interpreted by the highest courts.

Do constitutions only say what their authors intended when they were drafted, for instance? Or should the text be re-examined according to the values of a modern world and society? The scope of the powers of review available to the constitutional courts can also vary widely. Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court, for example, emphasises – somewhat cautiously – that parliament has broad margins of discretion for the concrete application of the constitution through legislation. What I am saying is this: A liberal constitutional state requires a basic willingness from everyone involved to play their roles and perform their tasks constructively in what tends to be a highly ambiguous situation.

The liberal constitutional state demands a minimum of self-discipline, a fair culture of debate and a willingness to de-escalate from all parties. The rule of law is not an agent of dogmatism – it is the best tool we have to make the peaceful coexistence of diverse and free people more likely over time. The law is not an end in itself; it serves to ensure the stability and strength of liberal democracy.

This is the blessing of the rule of law. And so there may be moments when those responsible must once again bestow this blessing on the State – by mutual agreement, constructively and visible to all citizens. Because the goal is inner peace and freedom. And the law is the means of achieving it.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Liberty and law, popular sovereignty and the separation of powers are part of our common European heritage – one to which Poland has contributed generously over the centuries. Liberty and law are our common European mission – a mission that each European country must now live up to in its own internal disputes. Europe has set itself the objective of being a continent of liberty, security and justice. These are not empty words for soapbox speeches, but values worth striving for.

Let us work together for a European future of states united in peace, upholding and promoting liberty and the law within their own borders and broadcasting them to the world! Europe can be proud to have Poland at its centre! The spirit of Poland is the spirit of Europe! I am grateful to be a European alongside the Poles!

Thank you very much!