Germany’s new Minister of Justice, Stefanie Hubig (SPD), has stated that she considers it “absolutely necessary” to examine the possibility of banning the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. Her argument: to protect democracy.
In statements to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Hubig claimed that, following the official classification of AfD as a “confirmed far-right” entity by Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the party should be considered “a potential threat to our democracy.”.
The minister appealed to the concept of a “defensive democracy” embedded in Germany’s Constitution, which includes provisions to dissolve political parties that seek to undermine the democratic order. “A party ban should not be launched lightly,” she admitted, but added: “If, after thorough examination, the conditions are met, it would be hard to justify not using that instrument.”
Nevertheless, Hubig herself acknowledged the complexity of such a decision, noting that “the outcome of legal proceedings can never be predicted with certainty.” In her view, that uncertainty should not paralyze the state: “In criminal trials, too, the verdict is unknown at the beginning—yet the rule of law still files charges.”
However, not everyone in the government shares Hubig’s enthusiasm. The Minister of the Interior, Alexander Dobrindt (CSU), recently expressed skepticism, stating that the report from Germany’s intelligence agency is not sufficient to justify a ban. “This assessment is not enough,” he said bluntly. Applying such a measure could backfire on the government and, ironically, further boost AfD’s standing in the polls—something the ruling parties would surely want to avoid.
The debate highlights a trend seen repeatedly in Europe in recent years: faced with the electoral growth of movements critical of the liberal-progressive consensus, governments resort to legal and administrative mechanisms to curb their influence—always under the guise of “defending democracy.” The risk, some legal scholars warn, is that this approach may end up weakening precisely what it claims to safeguard: political pluralism and trust in democratic institutions.
