[Right to demonstrate] The civil service between courage and duty Conflict situations for civil servants when giving instructions from an authoritarian-populist house leadership

"In the next few weeks there will be local elections in various federal states, and state elections in Brandenburg, Saxony and Thuringia in September. What options or even obligations do civil servants have to respond if officials of an authoritarian-populist party reach the highest administrative positions and subsequently issue legally questionable orders while on duty? As the civil service laws show, civil servants in such constellations can find themselves in legal and emotional situations of uncertainty and conflict advice that should not be underestimated…”Article by Andreas Nitschke from May 24, 2024 in the Constitution Blog and more about it:

• Obligation to remonstrate: Civil servants bear responsibility - ver.di stands by the civil servants and all employees in Saxony-Anhalt
  "The AfD became by far the strongest force in the state elections in Saxony-Anhalt. (...) The party has announced a personnel exchange deep into the public service in order to break down possible resistance and be able to govern through. In addition, a massive austerity dictate is planned in its program (...)Officials must examine the legal and factual situation and make a reasoned decision based on this, taking all the circumstances into account. If there are concerns about legality, the civil servant is then obliged to protest (Section 63 Paragraph 2 BBG or Section 36 Paragraph 2 and Sentence 3 of the BeamtStG for state or local civil servants). “I can’t stay silent or look away.” Not to be confused with: “I won’t do that”. Civil servants do not have this right because they generally have to follow instructions. Personal opinion, which may be different, does not relieve civil servants of their obligation to implement the measure.
  Process of the remonstration:
  1. Counter-statements, remonstrations, must always be addressed to your immediate superiors. (…)
  2. The form is not prescribed. (…)
  3. The person immediately in charge must then check the instructions based on the objections made. (…)
  4. If the immediate superior decides that the instruction should be maintained, then there are two options: a. The official carries out the instruction or b. goes up a level in the authority hierarchy and reiterates his concerns there. The final decision will then be made on how to deal with it. (…) The remonstration process ends here. (…)
  What consequences does a remonstrance have for civil servants?
  The remonstration process was completed in its entirety and all doubts were pointed out. Then there is no liability for the individual civil servant. There can also be no disciplinary measures because there is an obligation to protest. Subsequent claims for recourse against the civil servant are excluded. It is important that the instructions must then be implemented; this does not violate the individual's official duty. However, there is the following further restriction: If the ordered behavior is criminal or unlawful and the criminal liability and administrative offense is recognizable or if human dignity would be violated as a result, the execution of the order must still be refused. If it is carried out anyway, personal responsibility remains in full.” Legal information from ver.di from September 7, 2026 
• Obligation to demonstrate: After the deputy head of the GdP, Berlin's GEW state chairwoman is also calling for resistance to instructions from AfD heads
  • “We will not help to dismantle democratic principles”
    “In an interview, GEW state chairman Gökhan Akgün calls for resistance to instructions from AfD officials.
    [The vice-chairman of the police union has called on its members in Saxony-Anhalt not to follow illegal orders from a possible AfD interior minister. The AfD is also fighting for the top places in Berlin. What does this mean for teachers?]
    The AfD will most likely not be involved in a state government in Berlin, but it may well happen that the AfD will appoint district councilors after the election. The positions are allocated on a proportional basis. Then there is also the risk that AfD politicians will assume responsibility for schools and young people. All I can say is: Fascist and racist politics must never become normal in the public service. Anyone who believes that employees can be forced to implement a policy of exclusion, discrimination and intimidation will meet our resistance. My appeal to our members is: Be vigilant, show solidarity! Disagree! Get organized! If attempts are made to combat anti-fascist commitment or to push back democratic educational work, then no one should remain silent. This particularly affects our staff councils. They are the protective shield for our employees. These must be the ones who document processes, use the participation rights and take legal action if boundaries are exceeded. We work with children, young people and families. We defend the dignity of every human being and will not help dismantle democratic principles.
    [What does that mean specifically?]
    Resistance can mean publicly objecting, involving staff councils, organizing union legal protection, calling staff meetings and creating political publicity. But also to protest, i.e. to contradict illegal instructions and to oppose them using the means of the rule of law. When we say “Not an inch from racism,” then this also applies to our administrations, schools and youth facilities. Our story shows what happens when people just do their jobs. Democracy needs people who contradict….”Interview by Marten Brehmer from August 19, 2026 in ND online . Since November 2024, Gökhan Akgün has been chairman of the Berlin regional association of the Education and Science Union, which represents teachers, educators and scientists. The qualified educator was previously a member of the general staff council of general schools in Berlin. See background:
  • Obligation to demonstrate: Is there enough Antifa in the police?
    “The debate about how police officers deal with an AfD government shows the willingness among civil servants to defend democracy (…)
    That's why it's all the more remarkable that the deputy head of the police union (GdP)Sven Hüber, with his text “Say no correctly” decorates the front page of the union's members' magazine. In his text, Hüber deals with the rights and obligations of police officers and when, in his opinion, it is time to fulfill the obligation to remonstrate. The federal police officer uses a possible AfD government in Saxony-Anhalt as a background. »An AfD seizure of power does not relieve an officialof his oath to protect the constitution, on the contrary,” says Hüber’s text. The obligation to demonstrate should ensure that a "role of the police like that of 1933-1945 can never be repeated again." Anyone who takes their oath of service seriously cannot vote for, support or join the AfD. The GDP deputy leader positions himself clearly and is not afraid to align the AfD with the NSDAP.
    The GdP is now considered a social democratic police union, in contrast to the “German Police Union”, which is positioned much further to the right. In statements, GdP officials repeatedly express their fundamental opposition to racism, anti-Semitism and anti-queer sentiment. However, a statement as clear and accompanied by recommendations for action as Sven Hüber's text is more than unusual. This shows that the threat posed by the AfD to democracy is now being taken seriously in parts of the much-vaunted middle of society. A positive signal, especially because officials from the security apparatus have tended to lean to the right in the past. Hüber might have been able to give undecided police officers some food for thought.
    However, the debate that the text has triggered also suggests that only a few police officers share the offensive position against the AfD. After the "Bild" and right-wing media reported on the article and repeatedly emphasized that Hüber was trained in the GDR, district groups and regional associations of the GdP from all over Germany were forced to comment on the text…”Article by Sebastian Weiermann from August 19, 2026 in ND online , see also:
    • Resignation of Sven Hüber: police officer suddenly antifa. The deputy head of the police union is calling for resistance against a possible AfD state government. “Bild” started a campaign against him
      "Sven Hüber, deputy federal chairman of the police union (GdP), no longer wants to keep silent about the blue elephant in the room. Their members' magazine has made the topic the title of the August issue under the title "Is there an elephant in the room... say no correctly". It contains tips in which cases officers can, and indeed must, reject regulations. In technical jargon, the term for this is: remonstrate. Hüber has published a call to his colleagues in the magazine to resist If there is an AfD state government, he derives his obligation from the Basic Law: Article 20, Paragraph 4: All Germans have the right to resist anyone who attempts to eliminate the constitutional order of the state. Officials swear an oath to this basic law But he goes one step further in his demands. He not only sees it as an individual duty of all police officers not to vote for the AfD, he calls for them to prepare for a possible takeover of a state government by the AfD, as is feared in Saxony-Anhalt in the state elections in September (…) He says clearly: If an AfD state government violates the Basic Law, riot police from other federal states must be prepared to do so on the instructions of the Federal Ministry of the Interior To restore order in Saxony-Anhalt, for example. (…) Hüber's contribution has not only caused criticism within the GdP. Since its publication, right-wing media have been campaigning against the police unionist.“Bild” calls him a “sedition policeman,” and the right-wing portal “Apollo News” accuses him of equating the AfD with the NSDAP in his argument. (…) On Wednesday morning it was announced that Hüber had resigned from his position.” Article by Henrike Stier from August 26, 2026 in New Germany online 
• The civil service between courage and duty - conflict situations for civil servants when giving instructions from an authoritarian-populist top management
  Further out of theArticle by Andreas Nitschke from May 24, 2024 in the Constitution Blog :(…) Civil servants are subject to the so-called follow-up obligation in accordance with Section 62 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the Federal Civil Service Act (BBG)/Section 35 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the Civil Service Status Act (BeamtStG). They are then obliged to carry out the official orders issued by their respective superiors and to follow their general guidelines. Of course, this applies regardless of the political leanings of the superiors or, in general, the management staff of an authority. In the event that an authoritarian-populist party is able to fill the top positions of, for example, ministries or town halls with its party members after the elections, all civil servants would basically have to follow all of the instructions of this new leadership. (…) Although the civil service is bound by instructions in this respect, civil servants bear full personal responsibility for the legality of their official actions in accordance with Section 63 Paragraph 1 BBG/Section 36 Paragraph 1 BeamtStG. This also applies in the event that a corresponding instruction has previously been issued. As a civil servant, you shouldn't be able to simply rely on “blind obedience to orders”. In the case of unlawful instructions from superiors, the civil service laws therefore provide for the so-called remonstrance, i.e. the right - and, according to the prevailing opinion, also the official duty - of civil servants to raise concerns about the legality of official orders through official channels in the form of a counter-presentation (...). This means that any concerns must first be raised with the supervisor.If the instruction is upheld, one must contact the next higher superior authority (…) In practice, there is likely to be a major uncertainty factor: Due to the interpretation of vague legal terms, in borderline cases it is not clear whether or when exactly an instruction is really punishable, unlawful or violative of human dignity. (…) Against this background, as a civil servant, making a general claim that you are not a lawyer and/or criminal or human dignity specialist and therefore, to a certain extent, burying your head in the sand is unlikely to be a way out and is already not advisable in the light of Section 63 Paragraph 1 BBG/Section 36 Paragraph 1 BeamtStG. In view of the intensive discussion that has been taking place in the media for some time now about how to deal with authoritarian-populist parties and the potential dangers they pose to the free democratic basic order, a sensitized thinking on the part of the civil service committed to the democratic constitutional state must be expected, as well as an examination that does justice to the scenario indicated here, with the appropriate exertion of the respective individual abilities. In the event of obvious and serious violations of the law, the civil service is required. (…) The radical decision of the Federal Constitutional Court from 1975, which is still repeatedly cited by the administrative courts today, states that the free democratic constitutional state is dependent on the civil service to take sides on its behalf, especially in times of crisis and in serious conflict situations.The state and citizens must “be able to rely on the fact that the civil servant is prepared to assume responsibility for this state, for ‘his’ state (…).” The future will show whether and in what way the instrument of remonstrance has to prove itself in the scenario shown here only in rough outline.”

Basic information:

• The right or obligation to demonstrate arises from Section 36 BeamtStG (law regulating the status rights of civil servants in the federal states). It says, among other things: “Officials must raise concerns about the legality of official orders immediately through official channels.”See a call for this, for example in the dossier:Gendering with special characters is prohibited in schools in Saxony-Anhalt - other countries (want to) follow
• Overview of the right to remonstrate for teachers
  “The right or obligation to demonstrate is an important legal instrument for civil servants, especially teachers, to defend themselves against unlawful or unlawful instructions from their superiors. It serves to protect the rule of law and safeguard democracy and fundamental rights.Civil servants, and especially teachers, have an obligation to uphold the constitution and laws and to prevent anti-democratic structures and practices from entering the state apparatus. It is therefore a tool that contributes to the active defense of fundamental rights and democracy…”Work in progress on google docks (without author)

The post[Right to demonstrate] The civil service between courage and duty - conflict situations for civil servants when giving instructions from an authoritarian-populist house leadershipappeared firstLabourNet Germany.