If You Can’t Beat Them, Ban Them: The German Establishment’s Attack on Democracy

Germany has long called itself a country that upholds democracy in a “defensive form”—a concept propagated by an establishment that claims the right to decide who and what voters should be allowed to vote for. This principle is now being wielded most aggressively in the fight against the right-populist Alternative for Germany (AfD).

This week, a court of appeals confirmed the exclusion of the AfD candidate from the upcoming mayoral election in Ludwigshafen, a western German industrial city of 122,000 residents. When citizens go to the polls on September 21, they will no longer have the option of voting for the AfD.

Instead, voters’ choices are now limited to four establishment candidates: one from the CDU, one from the SPD, one independent (though an SPD member), and one from the pro-EU group Volt—which has begun replacing the Green Party in many areas.

This exclusion of Germany’s biggest opposition party represents the most radical affront to the country’s post-war democracy yet. It serves both as test case and precedent for further bans against the populist right.

The move follows months of aggressive ‘firewall’ tactics serving the same purpose. After February’s general elections, in which the AfD came second, established parties banded together to form weak and unpopular coalitions solely to exclude the AfD from power.

But as established parties lose support so dramatically that even such tactics no longer suffice, the methods are becoming openly authoritarian. Any restraint in weaponizing the full power of the state—including secret service institutions and even the courts—has been abandoned.

How the Ban Unfolded

The exclusion began when incumbent Mayor Jutta Steinruck (formerly SPD) contacted the SPD-controlled Rhineland-Palatinate Ministry of Interior, requesting information about AfD candidate Joachim Paul from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. The SPD-led ministry had already made headlines by announcing that civil servants expressing sympathy for the AfD would be excluded from state positions.

The resulting 11-page report claimed “good reasons to doubt Paul’s loyalty to the constitution,” citing:

• A photograph: Paul posted an Instagram photo of himself with Austrian activist Martin Sellner, who was banned from Germany for advocating the deportation of migrants, including those with citizenship who fail to “sufficiently assimilate.”
• The concept of “remigration”: Paul gave a November 2023 lecture titled “Immigration: A Matter of Destiny—Why Remigration is Necessary and Feasible.”
• Literary references: A 2022 article by Paul in the Austrian magazine Freilich referenced Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, stating, “Tolkien’s entire work reflects a conservative mindset of particular value to contemporary conservatism … The protagonists fight for a cause greater than themselves: their homeland, the survival of their culture, a just order, the defense against a global threat.”
• Cultural interests: Paul’s appreciation for Wagner’s Nibelungenlied, which the report claims holds significance for him in terms of “national pride.” The report notes he offers video seminars on the medieval epic.

For Germany’s liberal and cultural left, all of this undoubtedly smacks of “Nazi.” But in a democracy, the question of what to make of Paul’s ideas and associations should have been left to the public. Paul might not have won—some polls didn’t favor him despite the AfD’s strong February performance in the region, where it came a very narrow first with 24.3%. But the establishment wanted to take no risks, knowing full well they have lost the public struggle on migration and national values.

Normal voters operate with a different set of values than many within the elites—one that includes natural attachment to country and culture. Not many Germans will embrace figures like Sellner, but many share the view that mass migration has served the country poorly and that demanding assimilation from those who come seeking protection and support is reasonable. They find it absurd to treat every expression of cultural pride as inherently fascistic—an interpretation that alienates ordinary citizens who cherish these feelings.

A City in Crisis

Ludwigshafen exemplifies how far elites will go to maintain their grip on power. The city struggles with problems plaguing many German communities:

• An extremely high migration rate of around 40%, primarily from Muslim countries, with at least two elementary schools now having 90% students from migration backgrounds. Islamist terrorism has been an issue in Ludwigshafen, just like in its neighboring Mannheim. 
• Crumbling public infrastructure, including critical Rhine bridges
• Growing unemployment and increasing numbers of locals receiving social support, particularly since BASF—the city’s main industrial employer—announced massive cutbacks due to Germany’s high energy costs

Yet the more desperate the situation becomes, and the more reason voters have to complain about poor political decisions made by mainstream parties, the more authoritarian the establishment’s response.

A Warning Realized

When JD Vance warned that Germany’s—and Europe’s—biggest threat to democratic security comes not from outside but from within, he proved prescient. He correctly noted that tackling Germany’s problems requires politicians with strong democratic mandates and that “fearing your own voters is a surefire way of destroying democracy.”

The immediate target may be Ludwigshafen’s voters, but the broader target is the German electorate at large. The elite’s attempts to stave off voter pressure grow ever more radical. Banning the AfD in Ludwigshafen is merely a test run—the hapless SPD, polling at 15% and unable to win majorities, has already announced plans to ban the AfD altogether, with support from many in the ruling CDU.

For all who care about democracy, the time has come to stand with those whose voices are being silenced. Already, politicians responsible for this democratic erosion—like Ludwigshafen’s incumbent mayor—are filing hate speech lawsuits against angry critics. But we must not be intimidated and decide to remain silent. Democracy’s stakes are too high.

This authoritarian turn has made it clearer than ever why we should support the populist challenge to an exhausted establishment desperately clinging to power.