Gefahrengebiet Hamburg: „Demokratie braucht Kritik an der Polizei“ | Kultur - Frankfurter Rundschau
Hamburg threatens everywhere: The philosopher Daniel Loick manifests itself in FR interview about Hamburger danger zones, police everyday and democracy.
Mr. Loick, in Hamburg, the police days a declared danger zone . Is there such a thing really just there?
The situation in Hamburg is unique in that that is created there by the work of Ronald Schill a special staff structure to the police. The legal possibility for the police to independently establish risk areas without a judicial or parliamentary decision is a hamburger special and probably unconstitutional. At the same time, the problem is that the police penetrated not only the right, but begins to act like a separate sovereign, not uncommon, but something that also occurs in democracies over again. One example we had here last year in Frankfurt, as the Blockupy demonstration was stopped clearly from a strategic decision.
Some critics see in Hamburg for the preform of a police state. Are they right?
Hard to say. On one hand I think the fact that something like a social-democratic government is possible, extremely disturbing, also because it allows the city to some extent is to the laboratory. On the other hand, one should be careful with terms like police state. There are indeed in Germany a relatively lively press, which has reacted surprisingly vital to the establishment of the danger area. And there were in Hamburg a broad political resistance against this authoritarian police policy.
Read more
They said the police should really only be enforced by law, but often do more. Why is that?
The structural reason for this is that the law does not act directly, but the police need as the executive agent. The police must in the specific situation to decide for themselves how they interpreted the law, and since very different options are always available. Then there are many practical reasons why the police are scheduled in a special way to the right break.
One of those reasons are the prejudices of the police itself This is reflected in the racial profiling issue, but also punks or homeless get the prejudices of the police felt. The interesting thing is that police officers often respond very irritated when they are confronted with the fact that they are supposed to protect the right to find the often petty or bureaucratic. Since there is a relatively ironic rejection of the rule of law.
The police is thus also a political actor. Can it be said in general, what interests they pursued?
It's just part of the problem that police officers actually put a program and run through the. This seems to be in Hamburg in fact so, but the bigger problem is that officials act in everyday police work precisely according to their police worldview. And, that is mostly to see certain members of society as a threat. In Hamburg they wanted to in the danger areas as "relevant persons" control. Since it is obvious that to do this, namely what is a linker and how he looks just because of prejudice.
But the police is to protect security and order. Since it is but right and proper that she gets awarded certain powers.
When a company sets up a police, they will of course have to also award her certain skills. But as long as you live in a democracy, you have to check these skills just as strongly that cases where the police emancipated from the law itself and begin to set goals, be minimized. This belongs in my opinion to the essential basic elements of any democracy. All the more surprising that these considerations are often dismissed as ridiculous or unrealistic, not only by the police, but also by many political actors and the police unions that make even an extreme lobbying is.
You said that the powers of the police are in a democracy a problem. Why?
About the person
Daniel Loick is a research associate at the Institute of Philosophy at the Goethe University in Frankfurt.
In his dissertation, "Critique of sovereignty," he has dealt with police criticism.
First of all, it is so, that in a democracy the government authority should emanate from the people. That is, not the Legislature, and certainly not the executive to determine how the social life of the people looks like, but the people themselves, and therefore it is a fundamental problem that an institution giving so much power that they then directed against the human - by some very serious and violent shaped interventions. The ways to control this power, are not exhausted at the moment. An example is the labeling requirement. It should be understood in a democracy, so you can pull police accountable if they exceed their competences.
It is often said, who criticize the police, undermining their authority and attack the democracy. What do you say?
It is certainly true that you can ensure that the authority of the police undermines to some extent. But I would say that in a democracy the authority of the police should not be absolute, otherwise it would be a police state. A vital democracy therefore needs criticism of the police. Who makes sure that the police can not do anything she wants, defending democracy. The statement of justification of violence against police officers, I think is absurd. You do not justify violence, but look for the critical examination.
