Willem de Vlaming, January 2026
FREEDOM is the right of all people to exist and develop as authentic persons — responsible for their self steered development and social contribution — without having to fight for legitimacy or survival. Vulnerability is not personal failure but a potential risk that must be collectively anticipated and addressed, by providing sufficient physical, social and economical security and absence of dominance by others.
THE STATE regulates power-imbalances and protects those with less leverage, by containing domination overv each other in all its forms.
MILITANT DEMOCRACY: Those who deny freedom to others or seek to undermine the conditions that make freedom possible — should not have access to institutions of governance and democratic power.
Unchecked freedom of the powerful destroys freedom for the rest.
Democratic institutions and their representatives exist to safeguard and foster freedom and democratic rule of law, not to facilitate its abolition.
** 0 **
Trust endures when people know and experience the system is powerful for them, not powerful over them.
— ⓦ —
MILITANT DEMOCRACY
An effective militant (defensive) democracy is usually defined by how well a democratic system can defend itself against forces that seek to abolish or undermine democracy, without destroying democratic principles in the process. The concept comes from political theory (notably Karl Loewenstein, 1930s) and is still used in constitutional law and comparative politics.
An effective militant democracy defends democratic freedom by limiting those who would abolish it, using lawful, proportionate, and transparent means that preserve the democratic order itself.
Key defining elements include:
Constitutional Self-Defense
An effective militant democracy has legal mechanisms that allow it to protect its core democratic order, such as: Banning anti-democratic parties or movements; Restricting speech that explicitly aims to overthrow democracy; Preventing enemies of democracy from holding public office.
These tools are usually enshrined in the constitution, not improvised.
Protection of Fundamental Democratic Values
The democracy clearly defines non-negotiable core principles, such as: Popular sovereignty; Rule of law; Human rights and human dignity; Separation of powers; Free and fair elections.
Militant measures are aimed only at actors who reject these principles, not ordinary dissent.
Proportionality and Legal Restraint
Effectiveness depends on how limited and controlled the defensive measures are: Actions must be proportionate to the threat; Decisions are subject to judicial review; Clear legal standards prevent abuse by those in power.
Without restraint, militancy turns into authoritarianism.
Independent Institutions
Strong, independent bodies are crucial: Constitutional courts; Electoral commissions; Independent media; Professional civil service
These institutions ensure that militant measures are applied neutrally, not as tools against political opponents.
Democratic Legitimacy and Public Support
A militant democracy works best when: Citizens broadly accept democratic norms; Restrictions are transparent and publicly justified; Civic education reinforces democratic values;
Repression without legitimacy tends to backfire.
Preventive, Not Merely Reactive
Effective militant democracies focus on early prevention: Monitoring extremist movements; Civic education and democratic socialization; Addressing social conditions that fuel anti-democratic movements
Waiting until democracy is already collapsing is usually too late.
Historical and Contextual Sensitivity
Militant democracy must fit its context: States with histories of democratic collapse (e.g. Weimar Germany → post-war Germany) often adopt stronger safeguards; Measures evolve as threats change (e.g. digital extremism)
— ⓦ —
LIBERAL and MILITANT DEMOCRACY
Core Principles:
Democracy should tolerate all views, even anti-democratic ones <=> Democracy may restrict anti-democratic actors to survive
Freedom is the foundation of democracy <=> Freedom is conditional on preserving democracy
How much freedom can democracy allow? <=> How can democracy protect itself from its enemies?
Liberal democracy trusts political competition; militant democracy distrusts actors who aim to abolish democracy.
Extremist parties: Allowed unless they commit crimes <=> Can be banned before taking power
Hate speech: Often protected as free expression <=> Can be restricted if it undermines democracy
Democratic participation: Open to all, including anti-democrats <=> Can be denied to those rejecting democratic principles
Constitution: Neutral framework for competition <=> Defensive framework with “eternity clauses”
Rights: Broad, near-absolute protections <=> Rights may be limited to protect democracy
Judicial role: Protect individual rights <=> Protect constitutional order itself
Strengths & Weaknessess
Liberal Democracy <=> Militant democracy
Maximizes individual freedom <=> Better at preventing democratic backsliding
Strong protection of free speech and pluralism <=> Limits “democracy through democracy” paradox
Low risk of government abuse under the guise of defense <=> Protects minorities from majoritarian authoritarianism
Vulnerable to anti-democratic takeovers <=> May suppress legitimate dissent
Risk of overreach and repression <=> Slow response to existential threats
Relies heavily on democratic culture <=> Requires strong, trusted institutions
Liberal democracy prioritizes freedom and tolerance, trusting citizens and institutions to reject extremism.
Militant democracy prioritizes survival, accepting limits on freedom to defend democratic order.
(Note: The EU is best understood as a liberal order that defends itself conditionally, not a militant democracy that governs coercively.)
— ⓦ —
THE NETHERLANDS
The Netherlands exemplifies a liberal democracy that trusts tolerance, pluralism, and political culture to defend itself, whereas militant democracy relies on legal restrictions and constitutional force to neutralize anti-democratic threats.
The Netherlands is best described as a predominantly liberal democracy with limited militant elements: 1) strong emphasis on freedom of expression, association, and political pluralism; 2) historically high tolerance for radical, controversial, and anti-system speech; 3) relatively weak constitutional self-defence mechanisms compared to militant democracies.
The Netherlands have a long tradition of pillarization and pluralism, normalizing ideological diversity. This history supports a liberal confidence model, rather than a defensive one. However in recent years, the Netherlands has shown mild movement toward militancy, including: stronger counter-extremism policies; increased attention to threats against the democratic rule of law; debates about constitutional review and democratic resilience.
The Dutch constitution focuses on rights protection, not democracy defense, and there is no constitutional court with power of judicial review of Acts of Parliament. There are no “eternity clause” protecting democratic core principles. Parliament remains sovereign (classic liberal tradition). This reflects liberal democratic trust in political processes rather than constitutional militancy.
Political parties are rarely banned, it exists in law but are extremely exceptional. Even radical or anti-democratic rhetoric is usually tolerated unless it clearly violates criminal law. Focus is on criminal prosecution of individuals, not banning organizations
The Netherlands has very strong protection of free speech, including offensive or anti-democratic speech. Restrictions exist (hate speech, incitement), but courts apply them cautiously. There is a strong cultural norm of “letting speech be countered by speech”.
Democratic stability is expected to come from political culture, not coercive law: Parliamentary debate; coalition politics; independent media; Consensus-building (“polder model”)
In militant democracies, “eternity clauses” or the legal equivalent aim to protect the core principles that make democracy possible. While each country phrases them differently, there is a surprisingly consistent set of principles that almost all militant democracies (like Germany & Spain) enshrine as unamendable or “eternal.” The “common” eternal principles are almost always aimed at protecting democracy from itself — ensuring that no majority can abolish democracy, deny human dignity, or subvert the rule of law. The exact list varies, but human dignity, democracy, and rule of law are universally present.
Constitutional Identity / Eternity of Core Norms
Broader category of values considered non-negotiable.
Like: Democracy’s moral foundations (human rights, dignity); Secularism; Social welfare obligations.
This is the “catch-all” in which the rest of the eternal principles are embedded.
Human Dignity and Fundamental Rights
Often seen as the ultimate foundation of democracy.
Includes: Equality before the law; Protection of minorities; Freedom from torture or inhumane treatment.
Purpose: ensures democracy serves people, not just majorities.
Rule of Law and Separation of Powers
Ensures no branch or actor can override fundamental principles
Elements: Checks and balances; Independent judiciary; Civil service neutrality
Purpose: prevents authoritarian takeover via legal manipulation
Democratic Governance
Core feature: rule by the people through free and fair elections.
Elements typically protected: Popular sovereignty; Free, competitive elections; Multi-party system.
Purpose: prevents anti-democratic movements from seizing power through “legal” elections.
Federalism or Territorial Integrity (in some countries)
Protects the state’s structure and cohesion
Purpose: ensures decentralization or unity cannot be abolished arbitrarily