Stephan Kramer, the president of the Thuringian Constitutional Protection Office, has sharply criticized recent demands to grant the domestic intelligence service additional powers. Speaking to the Redaktionnetzwerk Deutschland, Kramer expressed growing concern over the repeated call to transform the Constitutional Protection Office into a “real secret service”. He stressed that the service’s verifiable successes demonstrate its effectiveness as it currently is-a real, effective, and genuine domestic intelligence body.
Kramer maintained that the Constitutional Protection Office must remain an intelligence service, stating that a secret service is positioned to protect the governing authorities from their own citizens. In contrast, the office guards the fundamental pillars of the constitution and the liberal democratic order. He deemed this a completely different, and correct, self-understanding necessary for a democracy with Germany’s unique historical experiences.
Furthermore, Kramer strongly rejected the notion that new operational powers for the Constitutional Protection Office should equate to executive powers. He insisted that there is an established principle of separation of duties and a proper division of roles with the police. The office is fundamentally conceived as a domestic intelligence service and an early warning system, not as a “secret service police force”. He reiterated that the police are primarily responsible for managing risks related to violence.
While acknowledging that the struggle against cyberattacks requires refinement and updating, Kramer cautioned against changing the core mission. If the issue involves actively fighting or retaliating against cyberattacks, he suggested that consolidating competences and resources in one central body would be more effective. In the event of a defense crisis affecting the Federal Republic of Germany, the responsibility lies with the Federal Armed Forces. Any other action would constitute a back-door change to the tasks of the Constitutional Protection Office and the concept of a resilient democracy.
Finally, Kramer doubted whether the majority of the public would find such a service more palatable. He concluded by warning that such misunderstood discussions risk unnecessarily undermining the hard-won public confidence the agency has secured in recent years.
