A motion to ban the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, signed by 112 MPs, has been submitted to Bundestag President Bärbel Bas of the far-left Social Democrats (SPD). If passed, the motion would initiate proceedings to Germany’s Constitutional Court, which will decide whether the AfD—a party growing in popularity and now the second most supported in the country—can be legally banned.
The motion requires a simple majority in the Bundestag, which consists of 733 seats. With significant momentum from establishment parties, the proposal could have far-reaching implications for Germany’s political landscape.
The Context Behind the Motion
The AfD’s rise has disrupted Germany’s political equilibrium. Its growing support makes coalition-building increasingly difficult for ruling parties, prompting efforts to exclude the party from the democratic process. Proponents of the ban argue that the AfD threatens Germany’s democratic values and cite the need to “save democracy” as a justification.
One vocal supporter, CDU MP Marco Wanderwitz—who lost his local election to an AfD candidate—has championed the motion, emphasizing the urgency of action. Wanderwitz remarked, “It has to happen quickly,” citing upcoming elections as a critical factor.
Support for the motion spans multiple party factions, including 50 members of the Greens. However, not all MPs within the establishment parties are on board with the timing or approach of the ban.
Dissent Within the Ranks
While most of Germany’s political establishment supports the ban, there is division over its execution. Some Green MPs, like Renate Künast, have called for a more measured approach. Künast submitted a counter-motion advocating for a thorough legal review, including expert assessments on the likelihood of success.
This cautious stance reflects concerns that a failed ban could backfire, bolstering the AfD’s popularity and undermining the credibility of establishment parties. Critics also point out that any ban could take years, and the Constitutional Court—though often aligned with establishment interests—might reject the motion, dealing a severe blow to those seeking to curtail the AfD’s influence.
Legal Challenges to a Ban
A key factor in the potential ban is the AfD’s classification by Germany’s Office of the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), led by Thomas Haldenwang. The BfV had planned to designate the AfD as a “confirmed threat” to the constitution this year, a move that could provide a stronger legal foundation for a ban. However, the designation has been delayed due to elections, as it would violate equal opportunity clauses that prohibit significant actions against parties so close to election dates.
Haldenwang, a staunch critic of the AfD, is stepping down from his position at the BfV to run for an MP seat in the upcoming snap elections, expected in January. This change could influence the pace and direction of proceedings against the party.
Potential Risks of a Ban
The decision to ban the AfD is fraught with political and legal risks:
- Backlash and Increased Support: Many observers warn that banning the AfD could galvanize its supporters, portraying the party as a victim of an establishment conspiracy and driving more voters to its side.
- Extended Legal Battle: A ban would likely take years to litigate, prolonging uncertainty and giving the AfD more time to campaign on claims of unfair treatment.
- Rejection by the Constitutional Court: The possibility that the court might reject the ban outright looms as a major risk, potentially undermining the credibility of establishment parties and emboldening the AfD.
Snap Elections in January
The urgency surrounding the motion is heightened by the announcement of snap elections in January. With the AfD gaining traction in polls, establishment parties face mounting pressure to act swiftly. However, the timeline for the legal and political process to ban a party raises questions about whether meaningful action can be taken before the elections.
The motion to ban the AfD reflects the deep divisions within Germany’s political landscape and the establishment’s struggle to respond to the party’s growing popularity. While proponents argue that the ban is necessary to protect democracy, critics warn of the risks associated with such a move, including legal setbacks and potential political blowback.
As Germany prepares for snap elections, the outcome of this motion—and the broader effort to curb the AfD—will shape the country’s political trajectory in profound ways. Whether the push to exclude the AfD succeeds or backfires, it underscores the challenges facing established parties in navigating a rapidly shifting political environment.
