The empire of the established parties [in Germany] is crumbling, while the village of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) rebels is growing and thriving—until now. In three strongholds—Brandenburg, Saxony, and Thuringia—state elections are scheduled for the fall. In all these places, the AfD could become the strongest force, possibly even forming the government. Suddenly, an AfD ban is on everyone’s lips. But how realistic is that, actually? What other options are there to deal with the uncomfortable rebels? Junge Freiheit took a look around the armory. Our Gaulish hero Asterix would probably have said, “They’re crazy, those establishment folks!” Here are the eight most important measures.
A general ban on the AfD
The toughest weapon in the fight against the AfD would be a general ban on the party, including its sub-organizations. Only a two-thirds majority of the responsible Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court may impose such a ban. Only the federal government, the Bundestag, and the Bundesrat are eligible to propose it. In the event of a ban, the party’s assets would be confiscated and MPs who entered parliament through party lists would lose their mandate.
Although this would severely damage the AfD, it would not be the end. Directly elected representatives would still retain their mandates. If there are sufficient numbers, an AfD faction could continue to exist with its parliamentary rights. The AfD has already announced its intention to challenge a ban at the European Court of Human Rights. While the chances of success in Strasbourg are good, this would not invalidate a judgment from Karlsruhe. However, Germany would be internationally disgraced.
Time: 3–5 years
Danger: high
Likelihood: low
Ban on the Junge Alternative
Unlike the AfD, the Junge Alternative (JA) [the youth wing of AfD] cannot invoke party privileges.
A central role is played by the domestic intelligence service, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which reports to the federal and state interior ministries. Although the authorities are bound by instructions, they present themselves as seemingly neutral review bodies that have given the JA difficult-to-assess labels like “confirmed right-wing extremist.” It is not that far from this stigmatization to a ban.
It is quite possible that a ban will be lifted after years of legal disputes, as the AfD’s successful lawsuits against the Office for the Protection of the Constitution have demonstrated in the past. However, this uncertainty alone could be enough to deter potential candidates from the conservative milieu, especially if they are only at the beginning of their careers. The party will then be missing them in the event of possible government participation when administrative positions need to be filled.
Time: 3–5 months
Danger: moderate
Likelihood: moderate
Attacks on the rights of parliamentary groups
It becomes difficult for the state to counter the AfD once its members become representatives and form factions or parliamentary groups. For example, in 2019, the Bavarian Office for the Protection of the Constitution admitted that it had to stop its intelligence surveillance of three AfD politicians after they entered the state parliament and became part of the 32-member AfD parliamentary group. It is therefore up to the established parliamentary groups to subject their unpopular rivals in parliament to all kinds of harassment.
The newcomers in the Bundestag were shown who’s boss in the first session in 2017 when the oldest representative—Wilhelm von Gottberg—was not allowed to give the opening speech, as has been the parliamentary tradition for decades. The rules of procedure were specifically changed for this. This was a golden opportunity for the AfD parliamentary group, as the only deviation from this tradition was previously enforced by the National Socialists.
In essence, this explains the game. The AfD parliamentary group is denied a right, such as the claim to a vice president of parliament, who has a significant influence on the debate. The AfD parliamentary group criticizes this, using its news platforms since it is practically absent in established media. The other parliamentary groups, in turn, complain about how the AfD faction portrays itself as a victim, even though they are the ones creating the situation.
Time: ongoing
Danger: low
Likelihood: high
Withdrawal of party financing
In 2017, the Federal Constitutional Court stated in the context of the NPD ban proceedings that while the criteria for a party ban are high, the same does not apply to the withdrawal of financing. Therefore, according to Karlsruhe, the NPD successor “Die Heimat” rightly receives no money from the state since 2021. This was a clear hint that was gladly accepted. The same year, the Basic Law was changed in favor of “a law excluding unconstitutional parties from party financing.” The primary target is, of course, the AfD.
Since the AfD, unlike established parties, has few major donors from the business sector and is therefore particularly dependent on state election campaign cost reimbursements, it would initially be affected by the withdrawal. However, the AfD could use the media interest for fundraising campaigns. If courts, following the expected legal dispute, also overturn the withdrawal, the loss of reputation for their opponents would be immense. The funds of the parliamentary groups would not be affected.
Time: 3–5 years
Danger: moderate
Likelihood: high
Slander by public broadcasting
AfD politicians are systematically marginalized not only by public broadcasting, as evident from their scarce appearances on talk shows; they are also massively slandered. An example is the campaign initiated by the state-affiliated investigative network “Correctiv,” which falsely associates the AfD with National Socialist expulsion plans. These unfounded allegations were further disseminated by public broadcasting as alleged facts.
However, public broadcasting is now under pressure itself, as it blatantly violates its program principles of neutrality. With the surge in polls, AfD politicians may be invited more often. In addition, public broadcasting’s still significant influence on public opinion is diminishing. Younger people are increasingly getting politically informed through social media. Here, the AfD is—probably out of necessity—much more present with its messages than other parties.
Time: ongoing
Danger: moderate
Likelihood: already in use
Use of the “Protection of the Constitution”
While German interior ministers cannot simply ban parties, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution allows them to target unwelcome competitors under the guise of an apparently objective authority. The credibility of their findings is evident, for example, in Thuringia. Here, Interior Minister Georg Maier (SPD) stigmatizes the AfD and the JA as “confirmed right-wing extremists.” Yet, as the SPD state leader, he is also a political rival.
Stephan Kramer, SPD politician and former Secretary General of the Central Council of Jews, has been the head of the authority since 2015. As such, he publicly insulted the Left Party politician Bodo Ramelow in 2012 as “part of a long tradition of anti-Israeli leftists.” He now works for him, even without legal qualifications.
Time: ongoing
Danger: moderate
Likelihood: already in use
Attacks on fundamental rights
If the current trend continues, Björn Höcke, the Thuringian AfD state and faction leader, could indeed become the first blue [AfD] prime minister. The reactions to this possibility are evident in a petition with currently 1.4 million signatures, seriously demanding to stop the “fascist” and strip him of his fundamental rights. “Höcke should no longer be allowed to be elected.” Article 18 of the Basic Law is being invoked for this purpose. The federal government should file such an application in Karlsruhe, the petition says.
Depriving political rivals of the right to stand for election in order to keep them out of office is a hallmark of authoritarian states. Article 18 allows, in individual cases, a restriction of freedom of speech, property, and asylum rights and has been unsuccessfully invoked only four times in the history of the German Federal Republic. Experts say that the right could be applied to associations or parties with fewer hurdles.
Time: 3–5 years
Danger: high
Likelihood: low
Attacks on the party foundation
In addition to official allocations for parties—currently almost €200 million in the federal budget—there is also covert funding through so-called party-affiliated foundations; a swamp where up to €700 million annually disappears with little oversight. If you take a closer look at the organizers of anti-AfD demonstrations, you often find dubious associations that are funded not only by ministry funds but also by party-affiliated foundations.
The uncontrolled growth here became clear when the AfD wanted a piece of the pie for its Desiderius Erasmus Foundation, which it was naturally denied. In reality, parties helped themselves to public assets without a legal basis, as an AfD lawsuit before the Federal Constitutional Court revealed. In response, Germany’s top judges forced the parliament to pass a law for party-affiliated foundations, which was crafted to exclude the AfD foundation for the time being.
Among other things, the associated party must have been represented in the Bundestag for at least three legislative periods—which is not yet the case for the AfD—and it must not be excluded from party financing—which may soon be the case for the AfD. While it is likely that an AfD lawsuit will succeed here as well, it will take years. Karlsruhe, in general, is surprisingly slow when the plaintiff is the AfD. There are still pending proceedings from the first legislative period of the AfD’s parliamentary group.
Time: ongoing
Danger: low
Likelihood: already in use
This analysis was originally published by Junge Freiheit. It has been translated into English and appears here with kind permission.
