Verdict: Federal Constitutional Court turns off the NPD’s money supply

For the students in the meeting room of the Federal Constitutional Court, the verdict this morning is a lesson in democracy education. But the atmosphere is completely different than at the anti-right demonstrations of the past few days. For a good two hours on Tuesday, three judges explained why the right-wing extremist NPD – renamed Die Heimat since June – has been excluded from state party funding for six years. It’s about human dignity, the principle of democracy – and, beyond the verdict, also very quickly about the AfD.

Federal Council President Manuela Schwesig (SPD), for example, explains: “Now we have to check what consequences can be drawn for the AfD, some of which are already classified as right-wing extremist.” CSU boss Markus Söder speaks of a blueprint for and against the AfD – below the threshold of a difficult and lengthy ban procedure. There are two voices out of several in this direction.

With a view to right-wing extremists’ idea of ​​driving people out of Germany en masse, Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) says: “Right-wing extremism is the greatest extremist threat to our democracy – and to people in our country.” The decision of Germany’s highest court sends a clear signal: “Our democratic state does not finance enemies of the constitution.”

Political concept not compatible with the Basic Law

The Second Senate had previously declared that “Die Heimat” was still unconstitutional. Despite the decline in membership and shrinking election results, its activities exceed the threshold of a mere confession of rejection of the fight against the free democratic basic order and are aimed at eliminating it. It is therefore excluded from state financing. The period of six years is specified by law.

In numerous passages, the 129-page judgment quotes, among other things, an NPD commentary on the party program, statements by officials and posts on social networks, explaining why the court believes the party is violating the constitution. The quotes are full of hatred for foreigners and migrants, rail against Jews or Muslims and put Germans above all else and the German “national community” at the center.

Senate Chairwoman Doris König explains the unanimous decision that the party’s political concept is still not compatible with the guarantee of human dignity within the meaning of the Basic Law. In order to realize the “German national community”, the party calls for the separation of cultures and ethnic groups, a comprehensive legal improvement for all those who belong to this community and the devaluation of the legal status of all those who do not belong to it. “The propagation of the ethnically defined “national community” results in a disregard for foreigners, migrants and minorities that violates human dignity and the principle of elementary legal equality,” says König, citing transsexual people as an example.

In addition, the party opposes the principle of democracy. “It wants to replace the existing constitutional order with an authoritarian nation state oriented towards the “ethnic community,” says König. The party despises the existing parliamentary system and calls for it to be overcome.

The party recently received no money from the state – but many donations

In order to receive taxpayers’ money for their work, parties must, among other things, achieve certain minimum election results. Since the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) had recently failed to do this, according to figures from the Bundestag, it has not received anything from the pot since 2021. A year earlier it was around 370,600 euros.

Nevertheless, the ruling is not a purely symbolic act. Because it also means that tax benefits for the party and donations to it will no longer apply. According to the Federal Council, it receives comparatively high membership fees and donations of up to 700,000 euros per year, as well as inheritances that were previously completely tax-free. According to a party spokesman, Die Heimat has around 3,000 members.

The party itself was unimpressed. As was the case for the oral hearing in July last year, no representative came to Karlsruhe. However, party leader Frank Franz admitted in writing that the verdict was not good for Die Heimat. “But anyone who thinks that would throw us out of the game and stop us is seriously mistaken.” Strengthened by the support of its members and donors, the party will go its own way. From their point of view, an example was made: “If it has now hit the homeland, the focus is now, as expected, on the AfD.”

Blueprint for the AfD?

But it’s not that simple: even to exclude funding, the court would have to find that the AfD is unconstitutional. So the criteria are largely the same. The only difference: the so-called potential to eliminate or impair the free democratic basic order.

What this means is that a party can actually implement anti-constitutional goals. Because the Constitutional Court saw no evidence of this in the NPD in 2017, the second ban procedure failed. The laws were then changed in such a way that one could at least turn off the money supply to an anti-constitutional party. In this respect, the current procedure was a novelty.

Compared to a party ban, experts believe that a funding exclusion is a blunter sword because the affected party is allowed to continue to participate in political competition – including elections. And the AfD would also have a platform in the course of the funding exclusion process and could style itself as a victim – arguments that opponents of a ban process such as Federal Justice Minister Marco Buschmann (FDP) cite.

After the verdict on the TV channel Welt, FDP leader and Federal Finance Minister Christian Lindner also noted that when dealing with the AfD, one should look very closely at what is constitutionally necessary and possible. “The impression must not arise that the parties of the democratic center want to fend off unpleasant competition by resorting to the means of party law.” The confrontation with the AfD must be a political one.