Debate in the Union | With triple steps to the AfD ban process?

Hendrik Wüst (CDU), Prime Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia, calls for a federal-state working group to examine the AfD under constitutional law. Photo: Fabian Sommer/dpa "I said something today that I don't think any CDU person has said publicly before," said North Rhine-Westphalia's Prime Minister Hendrik Wüst on Monday evening at an event with transformation researcher Maja Göpel. The CDU politician had previously stated that he thought it was right to set up a federal-state working group to check the AfD for its constitutional conformity.

On Tuesday, Wüst specified: The question is how the state deals constitutionally with a party that "pursues anti-constitutional goals in at least individual federal states." He warns against “quick fixes” to ban the AfD. That could “only be the last resort.” A working group made up of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, constitutional lawyers and other experts should discuss the constitutional handling of the AfD and possible “legal consequences” in an “open-ended” manner. A ban procedure is only one way.

Hendrik Wüst leaves it open what he means by legal consequences. But numerous alternatives to banning the AfD have been debated in the past. Baden-Württemberg's Prime Minister Cem Özdemir and Federal Defense Minister Boris Pistorius recently put forward the idea in a guest article in the "Faz" that individual, particularly radical state associations of the AfD could be banned. Another suggestion is to revoke the eligibility of individual AfD politicians. There have been such cases against neo-Nazis in the past, but not a single one has been successful in the history of the Federal Republic. The idea that state party funding could be withdrawn from the AfD is also repeatedly brought up in the debate. To do this, however, it would have to be established that it is unconstitutional.

"I am still of the opinion that the AfD needs to be made small politically."

There may be doubts as to whether any of these measures will be used against the AfD. Wüst received anything but approval for his initiative. Bavaria's Prime Minister Markus Söder considers a ban to be "hardly enforceable under constitutional law." In addition to a year-long process, there is a risk that the AfD will acquire a new martyr status. The party must be given content. The firewall concept had failed, and in football people would now say that there needs to be “more duels,” said Söder after a cabinet meeting in Munich on Tuesday.

Hesse's Prime Minister Boris Rhein made a similar statement to the CSU politician. “I am still of the opinion that the AfD needs to be made small politically,” Rhein told the German Press Agency. He basically believes that everyone can talk about anything. But he warns against believing that there can be a quick solution. In this context, Rhein referred to the years-long and ultimately failed ban proceedings against the NPD. From his point of view, the Union's goal after the election in Saxony-Anhalt must be "to bring the people out from behind the firewall and to build bridges for them into the center."

A ban on the AfD has been discussed for years. A cross-party motion to initiate the process was discussed before the last federal election, but was not put to a vote. In principle, the Bundestag, Bundesrat and Federal Government can apply for a party ban. The Federal Constitutional Court will decide on the ban.

The »nd.Genossenschaft« belongs to the people who make it possible: our readers and authors. They are the ones who ensure left-wing journalism for everyone with their contribution: without profit maximization, media companies or tech billionaires.

→ report independently and critically → make topics visible that would otherwise go unnoticed → make voices heard that are often ignored → counter disinformation with facts → initiate and deepen left-wing debates

“Pay voluntarily” now and support the financing of our solidarity-based newspaper. So that nd remains.