From Berlin
A debate has gained more strength in the center of European power in recent weeks: whether or not to ban the far-right party, Alternative for Germany (AfD, for its acronym in German). Discussions peaked in January when it emerged that party members were studying the idea of expelling immigrants. Now they have resurfaced in light of the trial against one of their leaders, sentenced to pay a fine of 13 thousand euros for expressing a slogan of Nazi origin in public events. The Justice Department did not imprison him or take away his civil rights (that of being a candidate, for example) but the process revived a heated debate a few months before the elections. September regional elections. For those elections, AfD grows in the polls in all districts.
The discussion about whether to ban the party exceeds Björn Hocke, the most representative figure of the ultra-extremist wing of the party, who also heads that list in the Thuringia region. For months now, representatives of other organizations have been postulating that the entire party should be outlawed, beyond individual members. And it is that the Magna Carta Germany considers unconstitutional parties that “according to their objectives or the behavior of their sympathizers intend to undermine or eliminate the basic democratic order free or endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany.”
“AfD is a radical right-wing party that powerfully threatens our democracy. In all democratic parties there is an intense debate on this issue and, although there is still no agreement, the idea (of banning it) is advancing,” he says. PageI12 Marco Wanderwitz, Saxon deputy of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). He is one of the parliamentarians who has spoken most emphatically about initiating a motion “as soon as possible” in the Bundestag, the German Parliament or Chamber of Deputies. Although his position is not shared by all the members of his party, some of whom were even linked to that controversial secret meeting that aroused the rejection and cries of millions of citizens in the streets throughout the country. .
For Sofia Leonidakis, leader of the left-wing party faction (Die Linke) in the Bremen state parliament, pushing through the ban motion is also a priority. In dialogue with this newspaper, she points out that “AfD has been poisoning political discourse for a long time” and? Its leaders “have trivialized the Holocaust and incited hatred against Muslims, refugees and feminism.””. Bremen, in northwest Germany, is where there is the most consensus to move forward with the banning of the AfD. It is no coincidence: it is the only state parliament without representatives of that party and it has also always been considered a bastion of the left. “If they appoint parliamentary presidents or even govern at some point, then democracy will be undermined from within. That is why a prohibition procedure is so urgent,” says Leonidakis.
By law, only the Bundestag, the Bundesrat (similar to what in other countries would be the Senate) and the Federal Government can submit an application to the Federal Constitutional Court. To advance, Justice must verify that the party examined not only declares against democracy but also acts – or is potentially capable of doing so – against it. For this, it is based on reports from the intelligence services, which in Germany are several and are allowed surveillance and espionage of groups considered extreme (both right and left) to “prevent extremism.” In three of the sixteen federal states – Saxony, Thuringia and Saxony-Anhalt – the AfD has already been classified as “definitely far-right” by the state offices for the protection of the Constitution.
Background
The closest antecedents, however, are not promising for those who want to ban the party. Since 1945, only two parties have been outlawed in Germany: the SRP, heir to the Nazi party, and the Communist Party. An attempt was made to do the same twice with the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), considered racist and neo-Nazi. The first, in 2003, failed because the judges considered that there were members of the intelligence services involved in the leadership of the party. The second, in 2017, also came to nothing because when the court was due to issue the organization it was already so insignificant at the electoral level that it was not considered a danger.
But AfD is strong in voting intention and that is what drives both those who want to ban it and those who don’t. Among this last group are parliamentarians and ministers who maintain that lThe ban would help the far-right group to victimize itself, It would demonstrate the inability of parties considered democratic to address the electoral phenomenon and would strongly empower the party in the event that justice rules in its favor. “If we ban a party that we don’t like but that remains stable in the polls, then we are showing greater solidarity with it,” said Carsten Schneider, a member of the ruling SPD. and federal government delegate for eastern Germany. In his few public statements on the subject, Chancellor Olaf Scholz seemed to be more sympathetic to this position.
Regarding the positions that believe that it is necessary to address the content of the party rather than ban it and that excluding its themes from political discourse would not be a solution, Wanderwitz tells this newspaper that for him we have to go both ways: “Of course there are We have to argue with arguments, because even if the ban is successful radical ideas will not disappear from people’s minds. However, a ban would help a lot because politicians who are outside the constitutional arc should also stay out of parliament.”
While the reports from the intelligence services advance, parliamentarians of all colors study alternatives. In addition to the total ban of the party (and also of its youth organization, the Junge Alternative), the menu of possibilities is varied. It offers, among others, to exclude the party from state financing (one of the four ways in which political organizations raise funds) or to revoke the electoral rights of private individuals, as was attempted unsuccessfully with Höcke.
In any case, several experts in constitutional law agree on the danger of rushing. Constitutionalist Ullrich Battis, professor emeritus at the Faculty of Law of the Humboldt University of Berlin, explains to PageI12 that a request before this year’s state elections would do more good than harm to the AFD. “Requests of this type must be carefully examined. Due to the times, there would not be a decision before the elections,” says the lawyer. The request, he maintains, could then be seen as proof that the other parties are not in a position to beat the AfD in the political competition.
