AfD ban | Hape Kerkeling: “Buchenwald is possible again”

Hape Kerkeling, actor, sits in the plenary hall of the Thuringian state parliament during an oral hearing on a party ban procedure against the AfD at the federal level. Photo: Martin Schutt/dpa It is 11.45 p.m. on Wednesday evening when no one has any questions in the plenary hall of the Thuringian state parliament. The members of the Justice Committee listened to statements on a possible AfD ban procedure for almost ten hours and questioned the experts. The hearing is based on an initiative by the Left, which demands that the Thuringian state parliament speak out in favor of a ban on the AfD. Before the hearing, there was a lot of reporting about the invited experts. The Left had invited the actor Hape Kerkeling, the AfD had invited the former President of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Hans-Georg Maaßen.

Six of the nine experts were invited by the Thuringian coalition parties and the Left. The focus was on legal expertise. For example, Valentina Chiofalo from the Society for Civil Rights presented the NGO's report on the AfD's unconstitutionality. The lawyer Chan-jo Jun explained why the AfD's remigration concept is in no way consistent with the constitution, and Hendrik Cremer from the German Institute for Human Rights (detailed statement from the institute) attested that the party has a "racist, ethnic-nationalist worldview." The lawyer sees the requirements for a ban procedure as being met because the AfD aims to “eliminate the basic democratic order”. Kirill-Alexander Schwarz, professor of public law at the University of Würzburg, explained that the AfD was endangering the existence of the Federal Republic. As reasons, he cited the AfD's hostility to the EU and NATO and its proximity to dictatorships such as Russia. Kathrin Groh from the University of the Bundeswehr explained that the AfD was stoking fears. On the question of whether individual state associations or the entire party should be banned, she pointed out that regional bans may lead to success more quickly.

The AfD members in the Justice Committee sometimes reacted poisonously to the experts' statements; the report from the Society for Civil Rights was derogatorily referred to as an "AI report". AfD MP Sascha Schlösser told Hendrik Cremer from the German Institute for Human Rights that he would forego a survey with the words "You don't have all your cups in the cupboard." The fact that most experts came to the conclusion that the initiation of a ban procedure could have a chance of success clearly did not sit well with the politicians of the extreme right-wing party.

The day after the meeting, the deputy parliamentary group leader of the AfD Daniel Haseloff described a sentence from Hape Kerkeling to the DPA news agency as a “scandalous statement”. During his survey, Kerkeling said: "People who come with the election slogan: Everything is possible - with a car manufacturer I understand that. Then it's about increasing speed, more seats in the car. But a political party where everything is possible and which makes that its election slogan, Buchenwald is also possible under certain circumstances." In general, the actor, whose communist grandfather was imprisoned in Buchenwald, spoke a lot about the AfD's view of history and warned against a "glossing over attitude towards the Nazi dictatorship." Kerkeling spoke out clearly in favor of initiating ban proceedings and appealed in particular to CDU politicians to overcome their stance on this.

"The hearing was important and historic at the same time because the question of a ban on the AfD was finally not just discussed in the abstract, but different constitutional assessments, factual bases and counterarguments were publicly put on the table."

The three experts appointed by the AfD, Christian Conrad, a lawyer who has represented the AfD several times, Hans-Georg Maaßen and the constitutional lawyer and participant in the "Potsdam secret meeting" Ulrich Vosgerau, were unsurprisingly skeptical about the ban. The former intelligence chief Maaßen explained that the AfD operates on the basis of the Basic Law and that he could not see a “second agenda” that was unconstitutional. He sees a ban as “eliminating political competition.” Maaßen also couldn't resist taking a dig at the Left. If the same standards were applied as to the AfD, a ban on the Left would be much more urgent, according to the former Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Ulrich Vosgerau was also critical of Die Linke, saying their proposal was completely irrelevant because the Thuringian state parliament did not have the authority to decide on a party ban. When asked about the “Potsdam Secret Meeting,” Vosgerau described it as “great” and recommended that everyone meet with Martin Sellner. Otherwise, Vosgerau took pleasure in denying the competence of the questioners who do not belong to the AfD faction. The AfD-affiliated lawyer also had few flattering words for the other experts.

Katharina König-Preuss from the Thuringian Left Party drew a positive conclusion the day after the hearing: "The hearing was important and at the same time historic because the question of a ban on the AfD was finally not just discussed in the abstract, but different constitutional assessments, factual bases and counter-arguments were publicly brought to the table." Several experts explained in detail why they consider the prerequisites for a ban procedure or a corresponding examination by the Federal Constitutional Court to be given. The great media attention and feedback from far beyond Thuringia also showed that this debate has national political significance. König-Preuss questions the suitability of the three experts named by the AfD and points out, among other things, that Hans-Georg Maaßen had a lunch date with Björn Höcke and Christian Conrad appeared at an AfD press conference.

According to König-Preuss, the overall picture of the hearing is “crucial.” On the one hand, comprehensive constitutional arguments for a ban procedure were presented, and on the other hand, objections were clearly stated. Politicians and the public need to deal with this now. The aim must be that the constitutional questions can be clarified “where the constitution places this decision”: before the Federal Constitutional Court.

This article cost you nothing. We do: for research, printing and technology. We saved on office rent as well as printing and distribution. And we gave up salary. Nevertheless, the calculation doesn't work without you. We need 300,000 euros by the end of the year. You pay what you can, in return we keep writing.

No paywall, no small print, just one goal: that nd stays.