Prohibition of the AfD: Social Democrats prepare an application

The SPD is driving the debate about a ban on a ban against the AfD. At the federal party conference in Berlin, she demanded immediate, serious preparations for such a procedure. “The moment the protection of the constitution says, this is a secured right -wing extremist party, there must be no tactics,” said party leader Lars Klingbeil.

The delegates decided on an application entitled “Defensive Democracy means acting: Now prepare AfD ban proceedings-and regain people”. It describes the AfD as “clearly right -wing extremist”. A federal-state working group should collect material for this. In the event of sufficient evidence, the SPD then wants to penetrate that “immediately” a ban on a ban will be submitted to the Federal Constitutional Court. The party leadership has already said that it was certain that this was succeeded.

The evidence is already “overwhelming”, it is said. “The ethnic wing dominates the party.” The AfD Basic Law and human dignity violates the demands of a “remigration” of people with a migration background. She pursues the strategy of “systematically undermining trust in our parliamentary democracy” and wants to “abolish the liberal-democratic basic order”.

The demand for the initiation of a prohibition procedure against the AfD had become louder after the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution had classified the party as secured right -wing extremist. However, due to the legal approach of the AfD, the classification is initially on ice. At the request of the Federal Government, Bundestag or Federal Council, the Federal Constitutional Court would have to decide on a party ban.

“With a party that abuses democratic rules to combat democracy from the inside, no fair competition is possible,” the Social Democrats argue. “Every attempt to integrate them into the democratic discourse runs into nothing.” The SPD will therefore work “at all levels to initiate a prohibition procedure against the AfD before the Federal Constitutional Court”, according to the decision.

But it is also clear that a ban could “in no way replace the political examination of her ideas”. A party working group should therefore develop a concept in order to counter the policy of the AfD in terms of content and practically. The aim of the SPD should be to regain AfD voters permanently.

In the coalition, however, there is no agreement on an AfD ban. The Union rejects it and wants to fight the AfD politically. Especially in East Germany with a particularly high AfD voter content, a prohibition procedure is viewed critically in both the CDU and in parts of the SPD. The AfD could even further strengthen this, and the outcome of the procedure before the constitutional court is also uncertain.

The Union reacted reluctantly to the SPD’s party convention decision. “In any case, the previous findings are not enough for this,” said the first parliamentary managing director of the Union faction, Steffen Bilger (CDU), the newspapers of the Funke media group on Sunday. He referred to the “high legal hurdles” for a prohibition procedure.

A procedure before the constitutional court can get the government, the Bundestag or Federal Council on the way. It must be demonstrated that a party is acting aggressive, combative against the democratic basic order. The opinion of the AfD alone is not yet sufficient evidence.