A “scandal”: Why should this AfD report remain under wraps?

In its assessment of the AfD, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution apparently manages without intelligence information. So why do they need the secret service at all?

Under observation: AfD leader Alice Weidel imago/Emmanuele Contini

The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution worked for years on its report on the AfD . The result is an 1,100-page document that classifies the party as "certainly right-wing extremist." The domestic intelligence agency accuses it of violating human dignity, the principle of democracy, and the rule of law.

Even before, when the AfD was still considered a "suspect case," the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution was able to conduct intelligence surveillance. It was allowed to hire informants, i.e., pay people to gather information from within the party. Surveillance and video and audio recordings were also generally possible. Now that the AfD has been upgraded to a higher status, the hurdle for doing so is lower.

Against this backdrop, the new AfD report, published on Tuesday by Cicero magazine, among others, surprised many. It largely dispenses with intelligence findings. In the methodology chapter, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution itself describes the "evidence" it uses: "programmatic writings and policy papers, publications, statements on websites and social networks, as well as statements in public spaces, such as speeches at election campaign events and demonstrations."

In fact, the document largely resembles a collection of quotations. Some memes, for example, posted on Platform X, also made it into the document. Only a few sections contain information that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution may have obtained elsewhere: for example, regarding money transfers to AfD front organizations such as the magazine Compact.

Why was the document classified as secret and "for official use only"? While this is the lowest level of secrecy, it was not intended to be leaked. And, more fundamentally: Is an intelligence service even necessary for such information, when journalists and academics also evaluate and report on public statements made by party members?

Constitutional lawyer: Citizens must be able to form their own opinion

It was Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) who decided against publication in early May, shortly before handing over power to her successor, Alexander Dobrindt (CSU). She pointed out that such reports had been kept secret in the past as well. "Precisely to protect sources and prevent any hints as to how the findings were obtained," said the SPD politician. Indeed, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which reports to the Interior Ministry, has handled the matter this way so far. Dobrindt now wanted to have the publication reviewed, but Cicero preempted the ministry.

However, it remains questionable which sources should actually be protected, and why the relevant passages couldn't simply have been blacked out.

The fact that the ministry did not publish the document itself is a "scandal," says Leipzig constitutional lawyer Hubertus Gersdorf to the Berliner Zeitung. "In a democracy, citizens have the right to form their own opinion about such government reports that are fundamentally important for our country." Gersdorf believes the report should have been made available to the public immediately in its entirety—possibly with individual sections redacted.

Now everyone can get an idea of ​​the secret service's actions. While opponents of the AfD say that statements on social media are sufficient for assessing the party, there are people who know the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution from the inside and, in an interview with this newspaper, stated: If they were certain about their assessment of the AfD, they wouldn't have written more than 1,000 pages. The report focuses on quantity over quality.

AfD report: Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution does not want a debate about its work

However, there may be other reasons for secrecy. Once such a report is released, a battle for the right to interpret it begins. Not only AfD politicians then comment on details of the document, quotes, or interpretations, but also lawyers and security experts. While the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution has promised to no longer describe the AfD as "certainly right-wing extremist" during an expedited procedure before the Cologne Administrative Court, the report remains. And with it the debate about the intelligence agency's analysis.

It is in the best interest of an intelligence agency that its work is not discussed in public. In the case of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, a unique institution worldwide, it also discloses its assessments of alleged enemies of the constitution through press releases or reports. This was also the case with the AfD. The agency spoke of an "ethnic-based understanding of the people" that is incompatible with the free democratic basic order. An abstract term that requires explanation. However, the intelligence agency did not reveal how it arrived at its assessment; only gradually did the media quote individual passages from the document.

The secrecy is understandable from the logic of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution—otherwise, its analysis would be extensively questioned. After all, the intelligence agency uses terms like "certainly right-wing extremist," which do not even appear in the Constitutional Protection Act and are interpreted differently by political scientists and lawyers. For example, constitutional lawyer Volker Boehme-Neßler doubts that the term applies to the party . Furthermore, other organizations could point to the release of the AfD report when demanding the publication of "their" intelligence files.

Lawyer Rolf Gössner: Is a domestic intelligence service necessary for this?

Rolf Gössner also questions whether all the accusations against the AfD and possible conclusions would have been possible without the domestic intelligence service. Gössner is a journalist and civil rights activist, and he himself was monitored by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution for decades. Not because he belonged to an extremist organization, but because of his contacts with groups and media outlets that the intelligence agency classified as left-wing extremist. The lawyer has long called for the abolition of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution – and is not suspected of being politically close to the AfD.

One can simply consider the speeches, publications, and quotes from AfD representatives, which have been reported on almost daily for years. "Just think of the 'remigration' threats," Gössner told this newspaper. "After all, the AfD has long been identifiable as ethnic, racist, and xenophobic – with verifiable links to the neo-Nazi spectrum. Furthermore, there is a frightening upward trend in right-wing acts of violence, which are also fueled by AfD hate speech." He therefore doubts that "an official certificate prepared by the secret service" is necessary to respond to the causes of social challenges and "this potential danger."

Rolf Gössner sued unsuccessfully for a long time against his own surveillance. Only in 2020 did the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig rule that the surveillance violated fundamental rights. At the court's behest, Gössner also received approximately 2,000 pages of his personnel file from the intelligence service. However, 80 percent of it was redacted for confidentiality reasons—the Office for the Protection of the Constitution certainly didn't have to go to that much trouble before publishing the AfD report.

While the party's upgrade has no immediate legal consequences, Gössner says, it will primarily have "far-reaching repercussions in politics, government, and society, which will naturally have serious consequences for the party." The party sees itself "publicly stigmatized and marginalized by the state, thus impairing its fundamental rights, particularly its freedom of association and equal opportunities."

All of this happened "without prior legal hearing, meaning she was unable to defend herself before publication, which seems at least questionable from a constitutional perspective." Rolf Gössner doesn't limit his criticism to press releases like the one regarding the AfD classification. A similar situation also applies to the annual reports of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, in which individuals and organizations are publicly branded as extremists or enemies of the constitution.