I am particularly pleased to be here with you today. This is my first trip abroad this year, and it is my first trip since being re-elected as Federal President.

I am grateful that this first trip is taking me here, to Latvia, to visit good friends. Our two countries are bound by many things, including our common constitutional tradition – and their two Presidents, if I may say so, are bound by a shared passion for law and the legal sciences. I certainly look forward to more years of good cooperation with you, dear Egils, and I thank you for the honour of speaking at this conference marking the anniversary of the Latvian constitution.

Three years ago, we Germans held celebrations in Weimar, in Berlin and in other cities to mark the hundredth anniversary of the Weimar Constitution. During these festivities and centenary events, my country’s first democratic constitution received a great deal of attention and recognition – and this was something new in Germany’s culture of remembrance. After the Second World War, we Germans struggled for a long time to give the constitution of 1919 the recognition it actually deserves. Supposed flaws in its construction were made responsible for the failure of the Weimar Republic and for the National Socialists’ takeover of power and, for a long time, it was commonly believed that the Basic Law of 1949 had been drawn up as an alternative to the Weimar Constitution.

Only in recent years has this perception been gradually corrected by the historical and legal sciences. The first German republic was not doomed to failure from the outset – and what is more, it was not a one-way road to barbarism. At the time, in 1918 and 1919, democracy in Germany did have the opportunity to prevail, and it owed this above all to a constitution that, in addition to being firmly rooted in European legal tradition, was also modern and poised for the future.

And that is precisely why the Weimar Constitution also served as a model for other states that, after the First World War, when Europe’s political map was being redrawn, were being formed for the first time, or refashioned as a republic. Its influence on your constitution, the Satversme, was especially strong, even though the constitutional assembly here in Riga at the time did also search for, and find, its own solutions.

The fact that interest in the Weimar Constitution has been rekindled in Germany is certainly also due to the major anniversary three years ago. But above all, it is due to our renewed concern here in Europe regarding both the future of liberal democracy and peace on our continent.

In a day and age when deep rifts are emerging in our societies and in many places trust in democratic institutions is waning; when governments in the midst of the European Union are curtailing fundamental rights and an independent judiciary; when authoritarian regimes are challenging Western democracies and threatening the borders of sovereign states in Europe – in this day and age, we have a heightened perception of the constitutions that were drawn up back then in Weimar and here in Riga, and we look more closely at the conditions linked to their success, as well as at the causes of their failure.

What we realise now is that, at the time, our democracies were not necessarily headed for disaster – and that today, in this same vein, their future is not necessarily guaranteed. This is why it is more important than ever for us, Germans and Latvians, to jointly reaffirm our European constitutional tradition – as we are doing here today in this hall. And for this reason, too, I am delighted to be at this conference of yours.

The Satversme, which was adopted here in Riga one hundred years ago yesterday, is the only republican constitution of the inter-war years that was brought back into effect following the peaceful revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe and the fall of the Soviet dictatorship. It is one of the oldest constitutions still in force in the world – yet it is neither outdated nor antiquated. Much to the contrary, it is very much a living constitution, open for social transformation, and its democratic spirit is as strongly inspirational as ever.

One hundred years of Satversme are a special anniversary in our uncertain times. I extend my warm congratulations to all citizens of Latvia on this occasion.

At the end of the First World War, after the collapse of the Russian and German Empires, people in both our countries set out on a historic journey to build democracies. Whereas in Germany, the monarchy became a republic and the old authoritarian state had to be transformed into a people’s state, Latvians were faced with the enormous task of establishing their very first own nation state while at the same time introducing democracy. And all this needed to be done when our countries still bore the scars of war and were plagued by hunger, disease and political unrest.

Back then, in the elections for their constitutional assemblies, countless Latvians and Germans – men and women – expressed their desire for a democratic republic. Subsequently, the fathers and mothers of our constitutions transformed this wish into a reality, in 1919 in our country and in 1922 in yours. Through them, both Germany and Latvia would become the first countries to enshrine the sovereignty of the people in the constitution. They interpreted the people as it truly was, in all its diversity, with its many contrasts. People from all parts of society would have the opportunity, as citizens, to truly participate in political self-determination – including women. Back then, our two countries were among the first to constitutionally guarantee women the right of suffrage – a right for which women in Europe had fought for so long.

Because the people is always a plurality, the will of the people is never unambiguous or simply pre-existent, but must be newly determined over and over again. Back then, this was a revolutionary discovery – one that we must defend again today as it comes under attack.

There should be a key place where the parties discuss and debate, balance their interests, reach compromises, and make majority decisions, and this key place should be the parliament. The Weimar Constitution and the Satversme placed strong parliaments at the heart of their respective systems of government; they also introduced proportional representation, which was still uncommon at the time, so that parliament would to the greatest extent possible reflect society’s diversity.

The Weimar Constitution is considered to be particularly progressive thanks to its second part, which laid down fundamental rights and duties that included not only the classic liberal freedoms, but also substantial social rights. Although a similar second part in a draft version of the Satversme was not adopted in 1922, the Saeima did approve a series of laws that were equivalent to these human and civil rights.

In this way, the constitutions of the Weimar Republic and the Republic of Latvia created a legal space in which democratic self-determination and individual freedom should and could unfold and be continuously rebalanced. Isaiah Berlin, this city’s son, succinctly formulated these principles by famously distinguishing between the terms positive and negative liberty, also emphasising that the two may very well come into conflict. That said, the essence and value of liberal democracy lies precisely in how it attempts to live up to both principles: the desire ... at any rate to participate in the process by which my life is to be controlled, in Berlin’s words, and the wish of a free area for action.

Like everything – nearly everything – man-made, our constitutions of 1919 and 1922 had defects. Following the liberation from National Socialism, the Parliamentary Council in West Germany drew the respective constitution-related lessons and made the Weimar ideals of freedom and democracy a more firm and fortified part of the constitutional underpinning of the Federal Republic. And after Latvia’s self-liberation in the nineties, you changed and adapted your old constitution in some places. Among the most important new elements in our countries are certainly the independent constitutional courts, which act as guardians of the constitution.

The young democracies that emerged after the First World War in Germany and Latvia did prove to be strong and viable, despite several deficiencies, and despite all the strain and enmity they were subjected to. On the basis of their respective constitutions, and in the midst of a Europe that still bore the marks of war, hunger and destruction, democrats set out to build a more just society, formed coalitions and initiated reforms.

The women and men who shaped our democracies at the time under unimaginably difficult conditions deserve both our respect and gratitude. The memory of what they accomplished one hundred years ago, under the most challenging circumstances, can after all be a source of courage and strength for us today as we tackle the tasks that lie ahead. I think this, too, is a signal that your constitutional anniversary here in Latvia can rightly send.

Nevertheless, we also know that, between the Two World Wars, fourteen democracies in Europe were hollowed out from within and replaced by authoritarian regimes – including the then-young republics in Germany and Latvia.

There are various reasons why, in that day and age, liberal democracies were intentionally destroyed. However, Germany and Latvia had one thing in common: In both our countries, there was a lack of constitutional consensus, of a republican attitude, and of willingness to assume sufficient responsibility at the level of politics, the state and society. Something Isaiah Berlin never tired of pointing out was that freedom always goes hand in hand with responsibility: Responsibility for yourself and for others, as well as for liberal democracy, without which there can be no freedom.

In Latvia, you unfortunately also witnessed how your independent republic was attacked and destroyed from outside. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 23 August 1939 stood at the outset of war and occupation; tens of thousands of people from the Baltic states were deported or resettled, and nearly the entire Jewish population was murdered by Nazi Germany. This morning, we visited the Žanis Lipke Memorial that commemorates the Latvian dockworker who hid more than fifty Jews during the German occupation, thus saving their lives. A brave and principled man – one of only a few, too few, at that time.

Remembrance of the dictatorship, the war and the Shoah is at the very foundation of German democracy. We Germans will remain aware of our historical responsibility, namely that what happened then must never be forgotten. Especially at a time when we see how some are weaponising history, it is important for us to jointly engage in remembrance in order to overcome prejudices, promote exchange and enable a more peaceful future.

It was brave people in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania who in 1989 would serve as a model for the freedom movement in East Germany. The images of hundreds of thousands forming a human chain from Tallinn to Riga and all the way to Vilnius and breaking into song, proclaiming the demise of dictatorship and oppression, encouraged many men and women in the former GDR to take to the streets as well and raise their voices.

It is thanks to the desire for freedom of the people in Central and Eastern Europe, the Atlantic Alliance and the decisive attitude of the West that we can today continue to pursue, as friends and partners in a united Europe, our democratic constitutional traditions. After the many detours and disasters of our history, Germans and Latvians have landed in the European Union, in a community of law and values in which all members have the same rights and obligations, and in which every single member has an equal responsibility to ensure cohesion of Europe.

This European Union is the institutional form of lessons drawn from war and dictatorship. The values it is built on are firmly enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union: Freedom, democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights, the rights of persons belonging to minorities – these values are binding for all member states.

The European Commission, as the guardian of the Treaties, monitors compliance with European law, and it is the Court of Justice of the European Union’s role to ensure and guarantee that the laws are respected. I do not see them as posing a danger to national constitutions. Rather, they shore up our common European values, which are an expression of our constitutional traditions, and they more firmly root these values in our national constitutions.

This strengthening is very much necessary, for in Europe we never again want to do without both aspects: democracy and liberalism, political self-determination and individual freedom. None of this is guaranteed for all eternity. Not only in the past has democracy come under attack. We see this happening today, as well – even within the family of liberal Western democracies.

In awareness of our history, we must today once again ask ourselves what we can do to preserve and win back trust in our institutions and to secure our democratic project for the future.

In recent years, we have witnessed on many occasions how vulnerable and fragile social cohesion in our societies is. Our constitutions provide the framework for the equal and peaceful coexistence of people of diverse origins, religions, cultures and political convictions. However, in daily life, we must constantly practice how to coexist, and we must above all engage in frank, peaceful, respectful and, wherever possible, rational dialogue when conflicts arise.

The constitutional consensus that we need is not a given, and it can also not be imposed from above. All of us, as citizens, must constantly re-establish it anew.

During the pandemic, we have become aware of the importance of public spaces in which we can have encounters and exchanges with different people, in which we can have disputes as well as experience ourselves as a community. Only through dialogue do we come to understand that we must balance our values and interests and search for compromises, that we can never know everything and that we might make mistakes more often than we think. We must take precautions so that decisions also remain corrigible, precisely because in a constantly changing world there is no final certainty and no definitive solution.

For democracy to succeed, we therefore need independent and high-quality media that provide balanced and reliable reporting, differentiate between facts and fake news, allow many voices to be heard and reach a wide audience. We need the scientific and academic community to be free, so that it can also investigate inconvenient truths, especially those connected to our history – so that false historical myths do not justify and stir up new conflicts. We need a state that is based on the rule of law and that takes decisive action in response to hatred and violence, racism and antisemitism, discrimination and inhumanity, no matter their origins and no matter their targets.

For democracy to succeed, we need a social welfare state that actually makes good on its promise to deliver equal opportunity. We need politicians who create good prospects also for those who are afraid of losing out during great transformations. And we need citizens who are willing to contribute to, and assume responsibility for, the common good – not least also in political parties.

For democracy to succeed in a turbulent world, it must be capable of defending itself internally and externally. Together, Latvia and Germany are championing a rules-based international order. However, the world as a whole is unfortunately still a long way away from being a community of laws in which the strength of the law has taken the place of the law of the strong. This is yet another lesson we have drawn from our painful historical experiences. But today, as democracies, we do not stand alone. We stand shoulder to shoulder, as a community with a common destiny in the European Union and as a community of defence in the form of the North Atlantic Alliance.

So when we speak of peace in Europe being under threat – and in view of the dangerous situation it is a natural thing that we are doing this, in our talks yesterday and here in this room during the press conference,– I want to say the following: It is Russia’s leadership that has been threatening peace in Europe in recent days, through its current military activities. And it is Russia’s leadership that these days is making many people in Eastern Europe, also here in Latvia, live with renewed fear, including the fear of war.

We stand firmly and decisively by the side of our partners in the European Union and in NATO. And we firmly oppose all threats and aggression. And that is why we are reinforcing our Federal Armed Forces’ contingent in the NATO battlegroup in Lithuania. The Federal Government has recently taken the necessary respective decisions.

Three days ago, following my re-election as Federal President, I said the following at the Federal Convention: We Germans stand by the side of the Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians; we stand shoulder to shoulder with Poles, Slovaks, Romanians and all Alliance partners. They can rely on us (...) We categorically stand by our commitments within this Alliance.

Here in Riga, at this event, I want to underscore this once again: Latvia can rest assured, as can its Baltic neighbours, of Germany’s solidarity and allegiance. What is more, any aggression targeting Ukraine cannot and will not remain without a collective and strong response. This is what the German Chancellor made clear once again in his talks with President Putin yesterday. We all do not want our continent to fall back into mistrust, enmity and war. We want peace and good neighbourliness throughout Europe. Serious talks, rather than speaking with weapons, are the only way that a balance of interests can be achieved. Yesterday, for the first time in weeks, we received faint signals from Moscow that there is a willingness to de-escalate. The decisive and important thing is that, in the coming days, specific and substantial deeds must follow the words that we have heard. I think this is precisely what millions of people in all of Europe are hoping for.

After all, ladies and gentlemen, democracy is never fully achieved. It will always be incomplete and subject to transformation. It is never fully guaranteed, and it must be fought for time and again. It is both a pledge and a set of expectations. It depends on citizens who are not only customers of the state, but who play a role, get involved and build up the community in the first place through this involvement. It is a demanding, challenging and yet also underestimated form of political organisation.

Especially where power is concentrated in the hands of one person, our democracies’ profusion of opinions is often viewed as a weakness. But whoever thinks that our multi-stage decision-making processes are merely a sign of our indecisiveness, or that our aim to promote welfare is proof of our naiveté, is sorely mistaken. Liberal democracies are not weak. On the contrary, they are strong – because their core idea is strong and alive! Who would know more about this than the Latvians?

So therefore, looking to the future, let us keep the spirit of our constitutions alive – in our countries, in Europe, and in the world. Let us jointly take up the cause of liberal democracy – with the republican fervour that could be felt back then when the following call rang out through this city: Lai dzīvo brīvā Latvija!