analysis
The meeting between AfD officials and right-wing extremists and the expulsion plans discussed there provoked strong criticism. Do they also have an impact on a possible ban procedure?
The AfD has reacted to the report by the research network “Correctiv” about a meeting with right-wing extremists. That was “not an AfD appointment” and no political strategies were developed there. What is not denied: that a master plan for “remigration” was discussed at the meeting near Potsdam.
According to “Correctiv”, the mastermind of the right-wing extremist “Identitarian Movement”, Martin Sellner, advocated at the meeting that asylum seekers, foreigners with the right to remain and also “non-assimilated German citizens” must leave Germany. The so-called “remigration” is not a new plan by right-wing extremists. What is meant is the expulsion of all people from Germany who have a migration history and who, even with a German passport, do not fit into the right-wing radical image of Germany.
“Remigration” plans are unconstitutional
Such a plan would be racist and unconstitutional. It would define people ethnically according to their origin and correspond in terms of content to the concept of the people, which the Federal Constitutional Court has already classified as unconstitutional in the NPD ban proceedings.
At that time, Karlsruhe said: A “political concept that is aimed at the strict exclusion of all ethnically non-Germans” violates human dignity. In addition, it would violate human rights to expel people en masse who do not have German citizenship but have the right to remain in Germany.
What does this mean for a possible AfD?Prohibition process?
The Federal Constitutional Court requires two things for a party ban. Once anti-constitutional goals: This means that a party must strive to impair or eliminate the free democratic basic order. And then “planned, active action” by party members or party supporters in order to achieve the anti-constitutional goals.
It must at least appear possible that this action will lead to success. In the case of the NPD, which was not banned in 2017, Karlsruhe denied that the party was actually dangerous. The AfD, which could win state elections this year, would most likely not be classified as politically insignificant.
What evidence would have to be provided for a ban?
A possible ban procedure against the AfD would probably involve a different sticking point than the failed ban procedure against the NPD in 2017. In the case of the NPD, Karlsruhe had said that the party was now simply too politically insignificant, even though it was clearly anti-constitutional. In the case of the AfD, in order to ban it, one would have to prove exactly which anti-constitutional goals it is pursuing.
Christoph Möllers, professor of constitutional law and legal representative in the second ban proceedings against the NPD, pointed out a problem in an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung: Unlike the NPD, the AfD does not include anti-constitutional goals in its programs. Therefore, one must be able to prove their anti-constitutionality from statements made by their officials and attribute them to the party as a whole. You can’t just rely on the existing reports from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, but you would have to submit your own in-depth collection of material when applying for a ban. One topic in a ban procedure could be the networking of AfD politicians with the right-wing extremist scene.
The Incompatibility list the AfD
The right-wing extremist “Identitarian Movement” is actually on the AfD’s incompatibility list. This means: Their members cannot become AfD members. However, it has been known for years that the incompatibility list is not consistently followed. The most prominent example: AfD member of the Bundestag Jan Nolte employed a Bundeswehr officer in his office who was suspected of planning a right-wing terrorist attack. Despite being classified as a right-wing extremist by the Military Counterintelligence Service, this employee received a house pass for the Bundestag.
AfD members of the Bundestag repeatedly attract attention because they maintain contacts with right-wing extremists or have a corresponding background themselves. The party’s own incompatibility list does not seem to have a particularly high priority. After the “Correctiv” research became known, the AfD pointed out that the meeting in Potsdam was not an AfD event and that the AfD itself did not invite it.
A building block in a possible Prohibition procedure
The AfD has stipulated that members of certain right-wing extremist groups are not allowed to become members of the party. If party leader Alice Weidel’s personal advisor meets with a prominent right-wing extremist and racist expulsion plans are then discussed, that is a circumstance that would almost certainly play a role in an AfD ban process.
The Potsdam meeting could be an indication of the AfD’s unconstitutionality and thus at least a building block in a possible AfD ban procedure.
How does politics react?
Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) reacted clearly on the short message service X. He writes: “We will not allow anyone to distinguish the “we” in our country based on whether someone has an immigrant background or not. We protect everyone – regardless of origin, skin color or how inconvenient someone is to fanatics with assimilationist fantasies.”
Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser has warned against the networking of right-wing and right-wing extremist groups. The SPD politician says that it is therefore right that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution monitors very closely which contacts there are in the right-wing extremist spectrum.
Green Party domestic politician Konstantin von Notz said such deportation plans were a “concrete and structural part of this inhumane party.” Alexander Throm, domestic policy expert for the CDU, also finds it frightening to what extent AfD politicians, right-wing extremists and supporters of the “Identitarian Movement,” which is classified as unconstitutional, are networked. However, Throm doesn’t think much of a ban procedure; in his view, that would only make the AfD even stronger.
The former President of the Bundestag, Wolfgang Thierse, however, spoke out in favor of examining a ban. Such a procedure would have high hurdles and would be “exploited for propaganda purposes” by the AfD, said the SPD politician. “The sword of Damocles of a ban should remain hanging over the AfD.”