Mariam Lau: The AfD may have some electoral success. But the protests against it are stronger still
The idea of banning the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party seems to me a lot like magical thinking. Outlaw them – poof, they’re gone! But the case that the entire party (rather than individual statements) represents a clear and present danger to our democracy is far from watertight. Imagine losing! And in some regions of Germany the AfD represents a third of the electorate. Excluding all of them from participating? Not a good idea.
Only a few weeks ago, the prospects for combating the far right looked pretty dismal. A year of local elections lay ahead, in which it stands to win by a large margin. The European elections in June seem poised to change the face of the EU in favour of authoritarians.
But then something very encouraging happened. The revelation that members of the AfD attended a meeting with neo-Nazis and other extremists in Potsdam last November convulsed the nation. The brutal ideas presented at this meeting were not, strictly speaking, new – especially the demand for “remigration”, a polite word meaning the deportation of irregular migrants and of many German citizens that has been heard before. What was new, and shocking to many, was the convergence of different milieus involved, from extremist activists and figures affiliated with the political centre right to businesspeople, and the brazen self-confidence they displayed by forming a concrete plan.
Hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets in the weeks since news emerged of this gathering – and not only in Berlin, Hamburg and Munich. People dared to show their faces in places where speaking out might mean not being invited to your neighbour’s birthday party, or finding dog poo on your doorstep: in Dessau, Pirna, Nordhausen – smaller cities across eastern Germany, often where the AfD has been a majority party for years.
Of course, the AfD, which claims Wir sind das Volk (“We are the people”), was quick to compare the nightly demonstrations with cellphones raised high to Nazi torchlight marches, or to regime-organised rallies in East Germany.
The opposite is true. The protests have been and will be successful precisely because, and only as long as, they remain broad-based: a citizen Antifa, with peace on our streets, lawfulness and an aversion to xenophobia pretty much the only common ground. Yes, there have been unfortunate cases of people trying to politicise the movement – and to reject the participation of the centre right, or even the red-green-and-liberal governing parties, for alleged racism. But so far, these have been singular instances of narrow-mindedness, easily overwhelmed. The ostracised came anyway. Most people knew that there were bigger fish to fry.
All of this does not mean that there won’t still be impressive electoral successes for the AfD in the autumn. And it doesn’t mean that the centrist parties that have governed the country up to now should not face some tough questions, on their handling of migration and other issues. But the AfD won’t be met by an atmosphere of depressed resignation. It will, in all likelihood, be met by a huge turnout of voters with a strong sense of the kind of Germany they want for themselves and their neighbours.
Mariam Lau is a political journalist for Die Zeit
Andreas Busch: What’s the point of having legal scope for a ban if you won’t use it?
Germany’s provision to ban extremist parties is a sharp sword, and so it must be used with great caution. The hurdle is high: a successful application needs to demonstrate both active attempts by a party to abolish the constitutional order of freedom and democracy, and that the party’s chances of success are not wholly unrealistic.
There is a reason why this instrument hasn’t been used in almost 70 years (in 1956 it was used against the German Communist party; in 1952, the Nazi successor party, the SRP, became the first party to be banned). Sceptics worry that a failed application to ban the AfD could have the opposite of the intended effect and instead enhance the party’s legitimacy. However, one may ask, what is the point of having a weapon in your armoury if you rule out using it?
Any such application would require a great amount of detailed documentation of AfD positions and actions and take several years to be decided by the federal constitutional court. It is thus no quick-fix solution for a current problem. But the debate alone could already alter behaviour – both that of likely voters (who may not want to vote for a potentially unconstitutional party), but also within the AfD itself (where more moderate forces may gain ground again). So it’s good this is being debated publicly. After the documentation has been completed, it will be necessary to carefully consider whether it is worth submitting or not – in light of the evidence collected and the situation in Germany. But to rule out an application now is to ignore an option that the basic law provides with good reason.
Andreas Busch is a professor of political science at the University of Göttingen
Cas Mudde: When extremist parties implode, the centre chases their voters with far right-lite policies
If political parties break the law, they should be punished by a court of law. And if their programme goes against the constitution, and is not changed, the party should be banned. But when it comes to the AfD, the case is not so clear. Some branches of the party in the eastern part of the country are probably unconstitutional – and have been surveilled by the German state for years now – but this is much less clear for the whole (federal) party, including its (nominal) leaders Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla. In 2003 and 2017, the German constitutional court showed its fierce independence and rejected a proposed ban of the National Democratic party of Germany (NPD), a more openly extremist party with only marginal popular support.
The AfD currently enjoys the support of roughly one in five Germans, is the second-biggest party in the country and the biggest in several states in the east. Even its softest supporters would consider an attempt to ban the AfD as politically motivated and feel strengthened in that belief should the court reject a ban. Like the party itself, they would celebrate a rejection as the court’s stamp of approval, arguing that the AfD is the only political party in Germany that is officially recognised as democratic.
But even if the constitutional court did ban the AfD, liberal democracy would not be strengthened and the threat of far-right politics would persist. With one in five votes up for grabs, both new and old parties would go after these voters with far right-lite (at best) discourse and policies – as happened in the Netherlands after the electoral implosion of the Pim Fortuyn List in 2003. It is also highly likely that political dissatisfaction would increase, as AfD supporters will feel banned too, which will only weaken German democracy. Moreover, supporters of a ban should ask themselves this question: what would the democratic legitimacy of the new state and federal parliaments be, when the first choice of one in five, if not more, Germans is excluded?
Cas Mudde is the Stanley Wade Shelton UGAF professor of international affairs at the University of Georgia, and author of The Far Right Today
Fatma Aydemir: Neo-Nazis didn’t invent ‘remigration’ – it’s already happening
There is a weird sense of relief when a piece of information leaks that was meant to be kept secret. No matter how horrible the news, knowing is always more digestible than suspecting.
When I heard that high-ranking members of the AfD had been meeting up with neo-Nazis and influential entrepreneurs in order to plan the “remigration” of millions of immigrants and people of colour out of Germany, I felt strangely reassured. All these years of being told by politicians from various parties not to worry too much about the few people who vote for the AfD, all those TV talkshows that gave a platform to AfD politicians and framed their neofascist propaganda as a legitimate voice in a democracy, were actually scarier to me than the simple fact that has now been confirmed: Nazis are planning to do Nazi things again.
The systematic deportation of whole parts of society that are perceived as not “German enough” is not a new idea; it’s German tradition. To prevent its repetition, the German constitution, first enacted in 1949, allows the banning of political parties that threaten the liberal democratic order of the state. This is exactly the case with the AfD, which is the second-strongest party according to current polls.
Should measures be taken to ban this state-funded cell of antisemitic, misogynist and racist propagandists who are planning to deport millions of people once in power? This is absolutely out of the question for me. Will it solve the problem that 20% of German voters seem to support or at least tolerate AfD’s neofascist stance on migration? Unfortunately not. They will only disperse into political parties that are already restricting asylum rights and deporting migrants, or plan to do so – that is, every party in the German parliament except for the declining leftist Die Linke. Though on a much smaller scale than planned in the secret AfD meetings, project “remigration” is already happening.
Fatma Aydemir is a Guardian Europe columnist
Matthias Quent: A ban is feasible after the next election – with the right planning
A lesson from history is that German democracy should be able to defend itself, and this could entail banning political parties if they endanger the German constitution. The core of the constitution is the inviolability of human dignity. It is this very principle that is severely attacked by the racist and discriminatory policies of the AfD – made all the more urgent by the revelation that high-ranking AfD members had discussed plans for mass deportations. Currently, hundreds of thousands of people are protesting against the party, and a slight majority of Germans support initiating a banning procedure.
There are legal and political reservations, but one crucial factor to consider is the timing. The last party ban proceedings, against a small neo-Nazi party, the NPD, lasted almost four years. The AfD is larger, more professional and more ambiguous. A ban would need to be even more thoroughly prepared. Many fear that during the proceedings, the AfD would benefit, just as Donald Trump has been able to exploit judicial proceedings against him for propaganda purposes. “They’re against him because he’s for you,” said the AfD’s Björn Höcke, already adopting Trump’s rhetoric.
Federal elections are set to take place in Germany in the autumn of 2025 – the banning process would not be completed by then, and the AfD would be guaranteed continuous attention throughout. Realistically, a ban would only be feasible after the elections, by the next government, which should apply for it quickly and ideally in cooperation with the democratic opposition. Then it could be concluded within the current legislative period without affecting the federal elections. Until then, it must be meticulously prepared: legally, politically and with the continuous support of civil society.
Matthias Quent is a professor of sociology and a board member of the Institute for Democratic Culture at Magdeburg-Stendal University. He conducts research on democracy and rightwing extremism
Holger Hestermeyer: A successful ban would cause an earthquake – and might change some voters’ minds
A response to the rise of the far right must, first and foremost, be political. The AfD has surged to 20% in federal polls, more in eastern Germany. Yet it offers no good answers to any of Germany’s problems. This, above all, must be made clear to voters.
A ban offers no salve to the rise of extremism. But if it is both legally possible and politically useful, it is time to consider one.
The German constitution provides for the possibility that parties that seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order can be declared unconstitutional. This includes, for example, any party striving for a state based on an exclusionary ethnic notion of citizenship.
The German constitutional court has rightly made banning a political party difficult. A party has to actively advocate and act towards undermining the basic order, and there must be an indication that their activities could potentially succeed. Only two parties have been banned under the constitution, both in the 1950s. An attempt to ban the NPD failed in 2017.
Proceedings against the AfD should only be started if success is overwhelmingly likely. There are indications that point that way: the party at state level has been classified as “rightwing extremist” by intelligence services in three Länder because of Islamophobic, racist and antisemitic statements. The (now-fired) right-hand man of AfD party chair Alice Weidel took part in discussing plans to deport migrants and “unassimilated” German citizens.
Now the government needs to discuss the evidence openly. But even if a ban is possible, is it desirable? Or would it just confirm the belief of AfD voters that they oppose a sinister “deep state”? Legitimate parties participate in numerous elements of the democratic system. You cannot exclude one indefinitely from that participation without good reason. Voters deserve clarity. A successful ban would cause an earthquake. It would not convert all AfD voters. But in its wake, some voters might realise that a once legitimate protest party is now an extremist one.
Holger Hestermeyer is a professor of international and EU law at the Vienna School of International Studies
