Katja Hoyer on the AfD: Why it is wrong to ban Germany's largest opposition party
Our columnist describes how people in Great Britain are astonished by the renewed German culture of prohibition. An analysis.
There are significantly fewer German loanwords in English than vice versa. They are usually only used when there is no equivalent. "Schadenfreude" and "Kindergarten" are classic examples. A loanword that has been heard more frequently recently is "Verboten." Germans are said to have a particular affinity for regulation and this loanword is often used humorously to describe morally charged bans that leave the underlying problem untouched. Looking at the renewed debate about banning the AfD, there seems to be some truth to this.
Since the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution announced two weeks ago that it had classified the AfD as a "confirmed right-wing extremist endeavor" (a move that has been suspended pending a court ruling), I've been discussing this a lot in Great Britain, where I live, and I've repeatedly noticed that the prevailing perspective here is quite different from that in Germany. During a radio interview in which I was describing the legal hurdles to banning a party, the presenter interrupted me and asked how anyone could even consider banning the largest opposition party in order to save democracy. The idea seemed absurd to him.
Many Western democracies have experienced a strengthening of right-wing parties and movements in recent years. Unlike in Germany, however, calls for party bans are rare abroad. In the United Kingdom, the right-wing Reform UK Party is currently leading in the polls and recently celebrated significant successes in local elections . Nevertheless, there have been no calls for a party ban. Because the party is primarily focused on the issue of immigration, which, according to polls , is the second most important issue for voters after the cost of living, Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the left-center Labour Party has now adopted a tougher stance on migration. One could call this 'following the right,' as the Taz newspaper did, or one could call it democratic when the head of government responds to large sections of his – perhaps soon-to-be-former – electorate.
As in Great Britain, very few people in Austria have considered using bans to curb the growing discontent of certain voter groups. Nina Horaczek, chief reporter for the left-liberal weekly Der Falter , wrote about the rise of the AfD and its Austrian counterpart, the FPÖ: "In Germany, it's led to a discussion about banning them. In Austria, it's led to a shrug of the shoulders." The author sharply condemns the FPÖ, but points out that "for all the legitimate criticism" of the party, one must not forget that it is "not the successor party to the Nazi Party." "Moreover, a ban does not solve the fundamental problem," she concludes. That is, society has changed.
The SPD was also bannedOf course, one could point to the Nazi era and argue that Germany is more sensitive than other countries because of this – but the tendency to ban political parties in Germany dates back to times before Hitler was even born. Party bans are part of German democratic history. They have existed in every political system Germany has experienced since its founding in 1871. Party bans have never solved any problems.
The SPD, of all parties, should know this, because its predecessor was banned in 1878 under Otto von Bismarck and ultimately emerged stronger. Workers' parties were founded throughout Europe in the second half of the century to give voice to the impoverishment of the ever-growing urban proletariat. Bismarck's law "against the dangerous tendencies of social democracy" completely backfired. Support for the workers' party grew, and after the law expired in 1890, the SPD simply re-established itself and became by far the largest party in the Reichstag by 1912. Ultimately, the ban had failed to banish the voter discontent that had paved the way for the SPD's rise to power.
The culture of prohibition in GermanyThe Nazi Party, with which the AfD is often compared, was also temporarily banned in several German states in the early 1920s, both before and after Hitler's failed coup attempt in 1923. This did not stop it from continuing to organize illegally, running in elections under different names, and re-establishing itself in 1925. A ban on the Nazi Party after 1930 would neither have saved democracy—for it had long since died and been replaced by presidential cabinets—nor would it have sent home hundreds of thousands of SA members who would have willingly attempted another coup. The longing for a strong man was fueled by problems that could not be solved by bans.
Leaving aside the two dictatorships, because their electoral systems hardly serve as relevant examples for today's situation, we are left with the party bans in the old Federal Republic. West Germany introduced a pluralist party system but curbed the extreme flanks of the party spectrum. The NSDAP's successor party – the Socialist Reich Party (SRP) – was banned in 1952, and the KPD in 1956. This worked relatively smoothly because, while both enjoyed some popularity, they lacked the support of large sections of the population. Extremism ran counter to a zeitgeist that, in 1950s West Germany, was enjoying the economic miracle and had had enough of ideological politics after twelve years of National Socialism. Konrad Adenauer, with his leadership style and rapid successes, was a perfect fit. Under him, the CDU/CSU won the only absolute majority in post-war history in 1957. In this context, few people were bothered by the disappearance of two fringe parties.
The concept of a “defensible democracy”Looking at the history of German party bans, one wonders why so many Germans are still so keen on banning political parties. In any case, bans have never saved democracy or convinced voters of the prevailing system.
The concept of a "defensible democracy" is also not designed to keep the discontent of large sections of the population at bay in the Bundestag. Rather, according to the Basic Law, it is about enemies of the constitution who seek to implement their goals "in an active, militant, aggressive manner" – that is, undemocratically, for example, through terrorism. The SRP fell into this category. It maintained a paramilitary force called the Reichsfront. The KPD, until shortly before its ban, propagated the "revolutionary overthrow of the Adenauer regime." These are examples of unfair methods against which democracy can and must protect itself.
Faeser's controversial official actYou can think what you will of the AfD, but the party currently has ten million voters, and the number is rising. What some people here want to ban isn't a small group with gangs of thugs on the streets, but the voice of a fifth of the electorate. This voice may include anti-constitutional representatives. Everyone can now see this for themselves, as the secret report by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution has been published by various media outlets. But, as the Interior Ministry explains, it is not enough for a party to be banned "for the highest constitutional values to be questioned, not recognized, rejected, or opposed by others in political expression." The crucial issue is and remains whether a party attempts to implement its extremist opinions using anti-constitutional means, and this is the only thing that should be the focus of a ban debate.
By publishing the new AfD classification, former Interior Minister Nancy Faeser certainly did her successor no favors. But she surely knows that. The new government under Friedrich Merz has four years to win back disaffected voters through democratic means – through policy change, not through bans. It now faces the AfD as the largest opposition party in the Bundestag. This is the political reflection of a divided society, within which all conflicts, while certainly fierce, can be resolved peacefully. This is precisely how democracy works.
Faeser's last act in office forced the new coalition to talk about the AfD instead of arguing with it about its substantive issues. Yet banning parties has never been a viable substitute for substantive debates. Many other countries seem to have understood this – despite all the concerns about the polarization of Western societies. I hope that in Germany, more level-headed voices will ultimately prevail, rather than those of a culture of prohibition.
Do you have feedback? Write to us! [email protected]
Berliner-zeitung
