Right-wing extremism | Ban AfD? What lawyers and Kerkeling say about it

Hape Kerkeling, actor, during an oral hearing on a party ban procedure against the AfD at the federal level in the plenary hall of the Thuringian state parliament. Photo: dpa/Martin Schutt Erfurt. It is considered the sharpest sword of a robust democracy: Should a party ban procedure be initiated against the AfD or not? For the first time, lawyers, experts and celebrities discussed this question in a German parliament at a public hearing - in Thuringia, where the AfD regional association with its leader Björn Höcke is considered particularly radical.

An entertainer, Hape Kerkeling, also had his say: He emphasized that he was not speaking as an expert in constitutional law, but as a descendant of a victim of National Socialism. "I feel that this democracy is in danger," said Kerkeling in the state parliament. "Anyone who trivializes and reinterprets this country's criminal past forfeits any political right to exist in our democracy," he said. The state's promise is: "We will not tolerate fascism in Germany."

In April, the entertainer gave a speech at the commemoration of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camp Buchenwald near Weimar, to which his grandfather was deported by the National Socialists. The Left parliamentary group now invited him to the hearing.

The reason was a proposal from the Left parliamentary group. She wants to ensure that the state government supports a ban procedure at the federal level. After AfD election successes in Saxony-Anhalt, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Berlin, the debate recently picked up speed again. The most important arguments of the hearing:

Kerkeling limited his appearance to the AfD's handling of German history. "Fear, lies and hatred were the ingredients of the National Socialist ideology - and they are the same for the direction of this right-wing extremist party today," said the comedian, author and actor. Anyone who relativizes or trivializes the crimes from 1933 to 1945 is abandoning the foundation of the Basic Law. Anyone who specifically scares people because of their disability, faith, skin color or sexual identity also violates their protected dignity.

The entertainer appealed to politicians to initiate proceedings to ban the AfD. The defense of the Basic Law is not a question of left or right, government or opposition, said Kerkeling.

Former Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution Hans-Georg Maaßen said that a political course correction demanded by the AfD should not lead to a ban procedure. He fears that such a procedure "can be misused to prevent this fundamental course correction and also to force an unpopular competitor out of the political playing field."

According to Maaßen's assessment, the requirements for a party ban procedure are not met. He also called for a ban on the left to be discussed first. The Federal Constitutional Court also suffers from a flaw because it is partly “partisan,” Maaßen claimed.

The Bundestag, Bundesrat or Federal Government can submit an application for a party ban to the Federal Constitutional Court - the court decides on a ban.

The AfD sent its lawyer Christian Conrad to the hearing. The lawyer warned against party ban proceedings if there were uncertainties. “Initiating ban proceedings against a party that is not unconstitutional is itself unconstitutional,” he said. The state government's application is not legally binding and is at best a political mandate. In the end, it is not about a review process, but about a party ban process, emphasized Conrad.

The lawyer Hendrik Cremer from the German Institute for Human Rights accused the AfD of having a racist and nationalist worldview. "The AfD aims to eliminate the basic democratic order," he said. A party ban process has high hurdles, but in the case of the AfD he sees these as having been met.

Kathrin Groh from the University of the Bundeswehr said that the AfD was stirring up fear and desire for retaliation in society. In their opinion, an isolated application against a state association could lead to a result more quickly than proceedings against the federal party.

Kirill-Alexander Schwarz, professor of public law at the University of Würzburg, was of the opinion that the threat to the existence of the Federal Republic was an important criterion for an AfD ban procedure. He referred to calls for an exit from the EU and at least parts of the party from NATO, as well as the proximity to dictatorial systems such as Russia. Neither the size of the AfD nor the possible duration of the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court speak against a ban.

Thuringia's Interior Minister Georg Maier was not among those heard, but spoke on the sidelines of the state parliament. “Majories in the Federal Council are currently sorting themselves out in the direction of a possible application for an AfD ban,” said the SPD politician. He expects the federal-state working group proposed by North Rhine-Westphalia's CDU Prime Minister Hendrik Wüst to examine the constitutional handling of the AfD to come into being this year. This was a first step. “We’ve never been this far.” dpa/nd

With us, no one has to pay to be informed. Sounds like a bad business model? It is too. But independent journalism and participation for everyone are more important to us than profit. Journalism still costs money: research, printing and all the people who do it. That's why we depend on you. We need 300,000 euros by the end of the year.

Donate once or regularly, every amount counts. So that nd remains.