Where does democracy begin – and where does it end?

This discussion was triggered by an event in Cyprus: After an election broadcast, a television presenter came under criticism. A politician publicly expressed doubts about the neutrality and professional working methods of the journalist. What followed was not so much a debate about the content of the criticism – but rather a debate about whether journalists should be criticized in this form at all.

Politicians and parts of public life reacted with clear words and focused on the protection of press freedom.

But this is exactly where a bigger question begins – a question that no longer concerns only Cyprus.

After all, the discussion about where freedom of expression ends and where democracy begins is now being held in almost all European countries.

In many countries, there is an increasing impression – at least from the point of view of critics – that the public debate space is changing.

In Germany, there has been controversial discussion for years about new instruments such as reporting offices, stricter regulation of content, the handling of so-called disinformation and legal disputes between politicians, the media and political opponents. Critics see this as a danger of restricting open debates, while supporters see these measures as protection of democratic processes and social cohesion.

In Great Britain, too, there are regular discussions about how the state deals with protests, assemblies and social conflicts. Critics sometimes speak of an increasingly harsh crackdown on certain forms of protest, while governments justify this with public safety and the rule of law.

In Romania, political developments and court decisions around electoral processes and candidates last year sparked Europe-wide discussions about democratic standards, trust in institutions and the role of state intervention by the EU.

And in Germany, too, there is a controversial discussion about how to deal with opposition forces – for example, about demarcation, observation of individual groups or the question of how democracies should deal with parties that are judged to be hostile to the constitution. Other voices, on the other hand, warn against excluding political competition across the board, because this could damage trust in democratic processes.

All these examples lead to the same basic question:

Is democracy only the rule of the majority?

Or does democracy mean above all that minorities, opposition and uncomfortable opinions also have their place?

A functioning democracy needs rules. Without rules, chaos, abuse of power and arbitrariness ensue.

But a democracy also needs contradiction.

If only one political direction is considered morally acceptable, there will no longer be democratic competition – but a corridor of opinion.

Historically, democracy has never been successful because everyone had the same opinion.

It worked because different camps – to put it simply, left and right – were able to publicly represent their positions, criticized each other and compromises were reached in the end.

The decisive limit should therefore not be whether an opinion is uncomfortable.

The line should run where violence begins, where human rights are violated or where lies and manipulation are deliberately

In between lies the space of democracy.