Why banning the AfD could be difficult (video)

Why banning the AfD could be difficult (video)

In an application, several members of various parliamentary groups are calling on the Federal Constitutional Court to consider banning the AfD. But such a ban is difficult to implement.

A cross-party group of members of the Bundestag wants to initiate party ban proceedings against the AfD. The Bundestag could soon deal with this question. But the hurdles for banning a party are high – and such a procedure against the AfD, which has significantly strengthened in the recent elections, would be fraught with many imponderables.

Who can apply for a party ban?

The constitutional bodies Bundestag, Bundesrat or Federal Government can apply for such a ban. However, only the Federal Constitutional Court can decide on this. A majority of two thirds of the members of the Karlsruhe Court Senate is then necessary for a ban.

Which path does the current initiative choose?

The initiators want to submit an application from the Bundestag to the Constitutional Court. They want to present the text for the required resolution to the plenary session soon as a so-called group motion, which is supported by individual MPs from different factions. In order to introduce such a group proposal in the Bundestag, five percent of the MPs are required, currently 37. A simple majority of parliamentarians would then have to approve the proposal.

What are the requirements for a party ban?

According to Article 21 of the Basic Law, a party can only be banned in Germany if it wants to impair or eliminate the “free democratic basic order”. In a judgment from 1956, Karlsruhe called for an “actively combative-aggressive attitude” to eliminate this order. In addition, according to the court, there must be concrete evidence that achieving the anti-constitutional goals pursued does not appear to be completely hopeless.

What party bans have there been so far?

Since the founding of the Federal Republic, two parties have been banned: in 1952 the Socialist Reich Party, which was founded in 1949 as a gathering place for ex-members of the NSDAP, and in 1956 the Stalinist Communist Party of Germany (KPD).

The Federal Constitutional Court rejected a ban on the right-wing extremist NPD at the beginning of 2017. At that time, Karlsruhe confirmed that the party had anti-constitutional goals. But it is too insignificant to endanger democracy.

The first ban proceedings against the NPD, which has since renamed itself “Die Heimat”, were discontinued in 2003 without a decision. At that time it became known that important positions in the party were filled by representatives of the constitutional protection authorities.

How do the supporters of a ban against the AfD argue?

In the Bundestag motion, the initiators accuse the AfD of wanting to abolish the free-democratic basic order and of taking an “actively combative, aggressive stance” towards this basic order. In addition, the AfD’s group application attests to numerous violations of the guarantee of human dignity in Article 1 of the Basic Law – such as the demand for remigration or statements from the AfD that violate the human dignity of migrants, Muslims and sexual minorities.

According to Article 21, the Basic Law should therefore declare that the AfD is unconstitutional. Alternatively, the Constitutional Court should determine that the AfD is excluded from state funding.

What do the opponents say?

Critics of a ban warn that the AfD could take on a kind of martyr role as a result – and will ultimately be strengthened. Such a procedure would “drive citizens into the arms of the AfD,” warned the chairwoman of the SPD Basic Values ​​Commission, Gesine Schwan, in the “Tagesspiegel”.

Federal Justice Minister Marco Buschmann (FDP) also recently pointed out the risks of a ban procedure: “If such a procedure before the Constitutional Court were to fail, it would be a huge PR victory for the party.”

Source: Stern

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Posts