Germany’s private security industry has criticised proposals to establish citizen patrols as an additional element of public security. The Federal Association of the Security Industry, BDSW, argues that Germany already has a professional third pillar alongside the police and municipal enforcement authorities: a private security sector employing around 300,000 people. For the industry, the debate raises a wider question about the future of security provision in Europe – whether additional capacity should be created through loosely organised volunteer structures or by strengthening regulated, trained and accountable professional services.

A debate over citizen patrols has reopened a fundamental question about Germany’s security architecture: who should provide additional security when public authorities reach the limits of their own resources?

The issue emerged in connection with an ARD summer interview with Tino Chrupalla, co-leader of Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland, or AfD. The discussion included the idea of establishing citizen patrols – sometimes described in German as Bürgerwacht or Bürgerwehr – as an additional component of local public security.

Germany’s Federal Association of the Security Industry, the Bundesverband der Sicherheitswirtschaft (BDSW), strongly rejects that approach.

Its central argument is straightforward: Germany already has a substantial professional security workforce operating alongside the police and municipal regulatory authorities. Around 300,000 people work in the country’s private security industry, protecting companies, public institutions, events, critical infrastructure and a wide range of other public and private environments.

For BDSW President Werner Landstorfer, the priority should therefore be to strengthen and integrate those existing structures rather than create a new parallel system.

“Anyone who wants to strengthen Germany’s security architecture should rely on those who already perform these tasks professionally today,” Landstorfer said.

A professional third pillar of security

The distinction between professional security services and citizen patrols is central to the association’s position.

Private security in Germany operates within a regulated framework. Entry into the guarding sector is subject to statutory requirements, while employees may need different qualifications depending on the activities they perform. Reliability checks, training requirements and additional sector-specific qualifications apply to different areas of the market.

Security companies are also responsible for organisational structures extending far beyond the presence of individual guards.

They assess risks, develop security concepts, organise deployments, assign appropriately qualified personnel and provide operational management and equipment. In sectors such as critical infrastructure protection, aviation security, events or high-risk industrial environments, this can involve highly specialised procedures and significant coordination with public authorities.

The BDSW therefore regards private security not simply as supplementary manpower, but as an established component of Germany’s wider security system.

That position reflects a broader development across Europe. As police forces and public authorities face increasing demands, private security companies have taken on a growing range of functions, from access control and event security to infrastructure protection and support for public-sector organisations.

The question is increasingly not whether private providers form part of the security architecture, but how clearly their role, responsibilities and quality requirements are defined.

Who would supervise citizen patrols?

For the BDSW, proposals for citizen patrols raise immediate questions of accountability.

Who would vet the people involved? What standards would apply to their reliability? What level of training would be required? Who would be responsible for their actions during an incident? What powers would they have, and where would those powers end?

These questions are particularly important because public-facing security work frequently involves situations in which individual rights, escalation management and the use of authority have to be handled carefully.

Professional security personnel operate within defined legal boundaries and are subject to employer structures, operational instructions and regulatory requirements. Introducing a new category of semi-formal security personnel would require comparable rules if it were to become a recognised part of the public security system.

The BDSW also points to an existing administrative bottleneck.

German authorities are already responsible for reliability checks involving employees in the private security industry. According to the association, these procedures frequently take too long. Adding a large new group of citizen patrol members requiring some form of background checking would create further administrative pressure.

From the industry’s perspective, that raises a basic efficiency question: why create another structure requiring supervision, vetting and regulation when a regulated professional security sector already exists?

The cost debate goes beyond wages

Another major point of criticism concerns proposals to compensate citizen patrol members through expense allowances rather than normal employment structures.

For the BDSW, this would send the wrong signal to a sector that has spent years attempting to move away from its reputation as a low-cost service industry.

The association argues that professional security depends on investment in qualifications, working conditions and appropriate collective-agreement wages. Companies must also cover social security contributions, management, scheduling, training, uniforms, equipment and other operational costs.

A citizen patrol operating on the basis of a comparatively low expense allowance could therefore compete with professional providers without being subject to equivalent economic or quality requirements.

Landstorfer warned that this would undermine efforts to improve standards within the sector.

The concern is not simply commercial. The pricing of security services has long been closely linked to debates about quality.

Where procurement is driven primarily by the lowest possible price, companies have less scope to invest in training, staffing levels, supervision and retention. Security associations across Europe have repeatedly argued that public and private buyers should evaluate the quality and resilience of a security service rather than treating guarding primarily as a commodity.

Creating an officially sanctioned low-cost alternative could therefore reinforce exactly the procurement behaviour the industry is trying to move away from.

Security provision depends on accountability

The controversy also illustrates a broader principle that is relevant beyond Germany.

Security is not defined solely by the physical presence of people in public spaces. Effective security provision depends on a chain of accountability: who recruits personnel, who checks them, who trains them, who supervises their work, what legal framework applies and who carries responsibility when something goes wrong.

Those questions become especially important when individuals are expected to intervene in conflicts, identify suspicious behaviour or interact with members of the public.

A visible patrol may create a sense of presence, but presence alone does not constitute a security architecture.

Professional structures are designed to create predictable standards before an incident occurs. That includes selection, training, operational procedures, escalation paths and supervision. Without such structures, additional personnel may increase visibility without necessarily increasing security.

For European security decision-makers, this distinction is significant. Many countries are confronting similar pressures: police resources are stretched, municipalities want stronger visible security and critical infrastructure operators require more personnel.

The temptation to create additional capacity quickly is therefore understandable. But any expansion of security provision inevitably raises questions about standards and responsibility.

Strengthening existing structures rather than creating new ones

The BDSW has for years advocated a stronger formal role for private security within Germany’s overall security architecture.

Its demands include binding quality standards, modernised qualification requirements, reliable background checks and public procurement rules in which quality carries greater weight than the lowest bid.

From that perspective, the citizen-patrol proposal addresses a genuine issue – the need for sufficient security capacity – with what the association considers the wrong instrument.

Germany already has a large security workforce that can supplement public authorities, but the sector argues that its capabilities need to be integrated more systematically into public-security planning.

“We do not need a new citizen militia in Germany,” Landstorfer said. “If public authorities require support, around 300,000 employees in the private security industry are available.”

The debate therefore extends beyond the political controversy surrounding one proposal.

It concerns the fundamental design of modern security systems. As threats become more complex and public resources remain constrained, governments will increasingly rely on partnerships involving police forces, local authorities, infrastructure operators and private providers.

For such models to work, however, the division of responsibilities must remain clear.

Additional security capacity has value only when the people providing it are trained, vetted, supervised and accountable. The German debate over citizen patrols therefore raises a broader European question: when security systems need reinforcement, the priority should not be to add another layer of personnel, but to ensure that existing professional structures are capable, properly regulated and effectively integrated.

This article is based on the BDWS (Germany’s Federal Association of the Security Industry) press release dated 27 August 2026