Debating the merits and drawbacks of instituting a ban process for the AfD
A diverse group of parliamentarians from various political parties are contemplating initiating a process to prohibit the AfD party. The allegations against the right-wing populists include numerous instances of violating human dignity, such as advocating for forced return of immigrants or making remarks that degrade migrants, Muslims, and LGBTQ+ individuals. The German parliament may soon address this matter, but the requirements for party prohibition are stringent. A ban against the AfD, which has witnessed significant growth in recent elections, could be filled with uncertainties. Here's an explanation of the key points.
Who can petition for a party ban?
The constitutional bodies of the German Parliament, Federal Council, and Federal Government hold the authority to petition for a ban. However, it is ultimately the Federal Constitutional Court that makes the final decision. A two-thirds majority of the judges at the Karlsruhe court is necessary to impose a ban.
Which route will the current initiative take?
The initiators intend to submit an application to the Federal Constitutional Court on behalf of the Parliament. They will soon present the required resolution to the plenum in the form of a group application, which will be supported by individual members from various factions. A minimum of five percent of the Parliament members are required to introduce such a group application in the German Parliament. A simple majority of the Parliament members would then need to approve the application.
What are the criteria for a party ban?
A party can only be banned in Germany if it aims to undermine or abolish the "free democratic basic order," as per Article 21 of the Basic Law. The Federal Constitutional Court requires an "actively combative-aggressive attitude" for this purpose, as well as concrete evidence that achieving the targeted anti-constitutional goals is not entirely impossible.
Which parties have been banned up until now?
Since the establishment of the Federal Republic, two parties have been banned: the Socialist Reich Party in 1952, which was initially founded in 1949 as a gathering place for former members of the Nazi Party, and the Stalinist Communist Party of Germany (KPD) in 1956. The Federal Constitutional Court rejected a ban on the right-wing extremist NPD in early 2017, citing that the party held unconstitutional goals but was not substantial enough to threaten democracy. A first ban procedure against the NPD, which has since rebranded itself as "Die Heimat," was discontinued in 2003 after key party positions were discovered to be occupied by trusted agents of the Constitutional Protection authorities.
How do the proponents of a ban procedure against the AfD justify their position?
The initiators argue that the AfD in the Parliament aims to abolish the free democratic basic order and adopts an "actively combative-aggressive attitude" towards it. Furthermore, the group application attributes numerous violations of human dignity under Article 1 of the Basic Law to the AfD, such as calls for forced return of immigrants or statements that degrade migrants, Muslims, and LGBTQ+ individuals. The Constitutional Court should hence determine that the AfD is unconstitutional according to Article 21 or excluded from state funding.
Following last week's events in the Thuringian state parliament, CDU federal MP and former commissioner for the East Marco Wanderwitz has already called for a ban procedure. "The AfD's conduct in the Thuringian state parliament once again followed the script of undermining parliamentary democracy and its institutions," Wanderwitz told taz. The AfD deliberately and effectively delegitimizes parliamentary democracy and its institutions. "An urgent ban procedure before the Federal Constitutional Court, as per Article 21 of the Basic Law, is necessary," said the Saxon MP.
Similarly, Green parliamentary manager Irene Mihalic remarked. "The events in Thuringia once again revealed the fascistoid character of the AfD," she told Funke media group's newspapers. Mihalic acknowledged the high barriers for a party ban in Germany. "We must not make mistakes that would strengthen the enemies of the constitution through a flawed process," she said. Therefore, all relevant actors in federal and state governments should "thoroughly debate the pending issues" in a ban procedure. Mihalic warned of a concrete danger: "If the AfD gets the chance, it will destroy essential components of our democratic rule of law and make Germany a satellite of Putin."
What counterarguments do the opponents raise?
Critics of a ban procedure warn that the AfD could assume a martyr role - and as a result, be strengthened. A ban procedure would "drive citizens into the arms of the AfD," warned the chairwoman of the SPD's values commission, Gesine Schwan, in Tagesspiegel. "A ban application would now be politically counterproductive." Federal Justice Minister Marco Buschmann recently pointed out the risks of a ban procedure: "If such a procedure before the Constitutional Court were to fail, it would be a massive PR victory for the party." Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz had made it clear at the end of May that a party ban for the AfD is currently not an issue for him. A party ban is "a very difficult matter in a democracy," he said, with very high hurdles.
The petition to ban the AfD party can be initiated by the constitutional bodies of the German Parliament, Federal Council, and Federal Government, but it ultimately falls upon the Federal Constitutional Court to make the final decision. Given the alleged human dignity violations by the AfD, such as advocating for forced return of immigrants and making derogatory remarks towards migrants, Muslims, and LGBTQ+ individuals, some parliamentarians are contemplating submitting an application to the Federal Constitutional Court.
