The real constitution is constantly changing. That’s because the real constitution is based on the principle that the one who holds actual power is the one who decides—and is subject to no constraints. The only limitation is the extent of their power, or rather, the strength of their enemies. This is the real constitution by which politicians and constitutional judges alike are guided. And since some players grow stronger, others weaker, and new ones continually enter the scene, the constitution is always in flux.
Written documents—such as the Renewed Constitution of the Lands from 1626 or the Constitution of the Czech Republic from 1992—are meant only for historians. The current holder of power would declare how he intended to govern, assuming those principles would keep him in power. A few years later, he might find that he needed to act differently, and the real constitution would change. Or it would change because the balance of power had shifted (for instance, the declining influence of domestic industrialists and the rising power of multinational corporations).
What may at first glance appear to be an unconstitutional act is often simply an expression of a new constitution. Such seemingly unconstitutional steps tend to emerge gradually. For example, the German state of Rhineland-Palatinate introduced a ban on employing members of the political opposition. It passed, and other states are likely to follow. For now, members of the AfD are barred from working in public administration, but it’s almost certain that state authorities will soon begin pressuring private companies to dismiss current and former AfD members from their workforce.
Interestingly, recent visible changes have yet to be reflected in the power structure. Young men are overwhelmingly voting for the AfD. The party likely enjoys quiet support among industrial captains. The American government is speaking in its favor. And much more. Yet, this is still not enough to bring about real change. What would such a change look like? Perhaps key politicians would begin to hear remarks in their inner circles like: “Come on, you can’t be serious.” “Aren’t you afraid this will end badly?” “This isn’t how things are done in a democratic state.” These are the subtle shifts in the atmosphere that undermine the will to power and precede major turning points.
Communist leaders heard such comments at the end of their era. But today’s elite is far better at sealing itself off from outside influence, which in turn reduces the chances that any change will happen peacefully.