The proposal to prohibit the AfD causes a split within the Bundestag
For the first time, the German Parliament, or Bundestag, is confronted with the prospect of prohibiting the Alternative for Germany (AfD): A group of legislators are circulating a draft proposal among party factions to garner support. Despite slim chances of success, the discussion can no longer be avoided by anyone.
Some are apprehensive, while others have been anticipating this moment for quite some time: The AfD ban proposal has been put forth. Prepared by MPs from CDU, SPD, Greens, and Left Party, including Saxon CDU's Marco Wanderwitz and Berlin SPD's Carmen Wegge, the group has managed to gather over 37 signatures from legislators, qualifying them to table the motion in the Bundestag. Alongside the Bundesrat and federal government, the Bundestag is the only body authorized to petition the Federal Constitutional Court to ban a political party. On Tuesday, the legislators will seek backing from their factions for the text, aiming for a majority approval. The proposed motion is set to be unveiled to the public on Wednesday.
The proceedings shed light on the conflicting views within the Bundestag over an AfD ban. Broadly speaking, four positions can be discerned in the Parliament. AfD legislators, together with sympathetic independents, oppose an AfD ban; however, this strategy may even benefit them. Another group opposes the ban procedurally due to doubts about its success and potential strengthening of the AfD. These voices predominantly emerge from the factions of Union, FDP, and SPD.
A third fraction consists of legislators who believe in an AfD ban, but find the approach of the Wanderwitz and Wegge group tactically unwise or even dangerous. The final group comprises the motion's proponents themselves, who acknowledge the challenge in amassing a majority but remain undeterred. Given the federal government and state governments' reluctance to initiate action in this direction in the near future, such as a consolidated presentation of evidence supporting a ban, the legislators perceive this as an opportunity.
Scholz remains skeptical
The 17 interior ministers have been accused of inaction by the motion's creators. Even the interior ministers of Brandenburg, Saxony (both CDU), and Thuringia (SPD), whose domestic intelligence agencies have classified the respective AfD state associations as "solidly right-wing extremist," are not initiating a ban procedure. At the beginning of the week, Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz also voiced his skepticism about pursuing a ban procedure in an interview with RTL. Many critics consider the chances of success to be too uncertain, while some Union MPs consider warnings about the AfD to be an overreaction.
Details about the ban proposal's specifics remain unclear. Essentially, a representative delegated by Bundestag President Bärbel Bas will amass evidence advocating an AfD ban and outline it in a motion. A decision will ultimately be made by the Federal Constitutional Court. Only the judges in Karlsruhe can decide whether to ban a party outright, as in the case of the NPD's successor party "Die Heimat," or exclude them from party funding.
Hurdles are immense in any scenario: A party must "deliberately dismantle the functioning of the liberal democratic basic order" to merit a ban, as per the German Interior Ministry. With the exclusion of Die Heimat from party funding, Karlsruhe also introduced the criterion of potential: Whether a party has the ability to implement its objectives. Karlsruhe deemed this potential lacking in the niche party Die Heimat, therefore opting for a more lenient measure than a ban and withdrawing state funding.
The NPD failure to be banned preceded when the party was still substantial, with representatives in several state parliaments and Strasbourg. Abortion of the ban occurred due to the infiltration of the militant right-wing extremist party by so-called V-people - NPD members funded by the constitutional protection authorities who held high positions within the party. The constitutional court was unable to determine whether the state indirectly influenced the party or gained insights into its defense strategy.
The authors of the AfD ban proposal anticipate a two-month period between the motion's passage by the Bundestag and its submission to the Federal Constitutional Court. During this timeframe, a "freedom of action" for the AfD could potentially be established. In other words, constitutional protection authorities and any other federal or state authorities are requested to remove any possible V-people from the AfD. However, it is unclear within the Bundestag whether these authorities are obligated to adhere to this request.
Green Parliamentary Group leader Irene Mihalic affirms that she knows of no one in her faction who opposes an AfD ban, but stresses, "We must not fail." The danger of the signal that a favorable ruling would send or the failure of the application in the Bundestag is deeply felt, understood as a kind of endorsement for the AfD. Until a ruling, the AfD could also position itself as a victim more than ever.
Opponents of the ban proposal have labeled the 2025 Bundestag election as the "last free election," while its proponents argue that the AfD has already been demobilized. In the event of an ongoing ban application, the AfD would not acquire additional support, according to their belief.
Critics within the SPD and Green parties argue that the application for a ban lacks a comprehensive gathering of evidence. Regardless, the application should be submitted to Karlsruhe at the conclusion of the evidence-collecting process. The primary point of contention between the two parties: For the Greens, it's not about whether but how a ban application should be initiated, explains Mihalic. Consequently, the Greens call for the federal government to speed up evidence collection and submit it to the Bundestag for review by independent constitutional lawyers. For a long time, SPD chairwoman Saskia Esken has been urging interior ministers to seriously consider a ban on the AfD.
A ban, they claim, is not a tool for political discourse.
The responsibility now lies with the Federal Minister of the Interior, Nancy Faeser. The SPD faction is hesitant to publicly criticize or push her into action. So far, Faeser has shown skepticism but has not categorically rejected the implementation of an interdiction procedure. Like other Social Democrats, Faeser advocates for containing the AfD despite limited success up until now. A party ban, according to Faeser, is not a tool for political debate but a last resort of the liberal rule of law. In essence, voting for the interdiction motion could put SPD MPs at odds with Faeser and Scholz.
The coming weeks will show how many MPs now deem this last resort necessary. The motion, spanning eight pages, provides instances of the AfD's unconstitutional stance over the years and cites the Higher Administrative Court of Münster's confirmation of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution's classification of the entire party as a suspected right-wing extremist case. The AfD has filed an appeal against this ruling. Should the appeal fail, the Office could potentially classify the entire AfD as securely right-wing extremist.
The authors of the interdiction motion leave various possibilities open. They suggest options such as banning individual state associations or the youth organization "Young Alternative" (JA), or partially or fully excluding the AfD from public funding. They argue that now is the time for the Federal Constitutional Court to weigh in on the issue, or the opportunity might be lost forever.
The motion to ban the Alternative for Germany (AfD) is currently being circulated among party factions in the German Bundestag. This proposal, spearheaded by MPs from CDU, SPD, Greens, and Left Party, has garnered over 37 signatures, enabling its tablement in the Bundestag.
Given the reluctance of federal and state governments to initiate an AfD ban procedure, the Bundestag legislators view this as a potential opportunity to take action. They believe that the two-month period between the motion's passage and its submission to the Federal Constitutional Court could provide a "freedom of action" to remove possible V-people from the AfD.
