The Bavarian Office for the Protection of the Constitution is considering placing AfD MPs under surveillance as individuals in the future – despite high hurdles for elected officials to do this measure. This was announced by the President of the State Office, Burkhard Körner, on Wednesday in the Interior Committee of the State Parliament, where he reported on the AfD’s “networking with other extremist actors.” He did not name the parliamentarians affected or the number. In parliamentary circles, however, it was learned that there could be up to four MPs. From Körner’s report it could also be concluded that it was probably about two men who came to attention through contacts with the right-wing extremist “Identitarian Movement” (IB): Franz Schmid and Daniel Halemba, against whom the Würzburg public prosecutor’s office also charged on suspicion of incitement to hatred whose fraternity is investigating.
Overall, according to Körner, the state office has been trying to clarify since the summer of 2022 by monitoring the entire Bavarian AfD to what extent it is “pursuing efforts that impair or attempt to eliminate the core of the Basic Law.” However, the observation mandate does not extend to all officials and members, but rather only focuses on extremists and examines their influence. At the moment, this only takes place through publicly available material, not through intelligence services such as phone tapping or informants – the often-rumored theory that “that we have hundreds of sources in the AfD is nonsense.” The relationship between the AfD and certain extremist organizations is also crucial for the direction of the entire party.
Daniel Halemba (center) in a plenary session of the Bavarian State Parliament.
(Photo: Peter Kneffel/dpa)
These activities would have increased “in quantity and quality” in 2023, said Körner. Not only, but also through the “remigration” meeting in Dasing, Swabia, with the most publicly known head of the Identitarian movement, the Austrian Martin Sellner. Franz Schmid and Daniel Halemba were there in Dasing. In the committee, Körner also spoke about an AfD man who had already announced during the election campaign that he would make donations from later MPs’ salaries to “front-line organizations”. According to the SZ’s findings, it is Schmid who financially supports “patriotic” circles and IB-affiliated media. On “X” he wrote in the context: “My party and I are against popular exchange.”
There are high hurdles for observing MPs. In 2013, the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe defined it in a fundamental decision, at that time it was about the left-wing politician Bodo Ramelow. If a parliamentarian misuses his mandate “to fight against the free democratic basic order or actively and aggressively fights it,” that justifies the measure. In general, however, proportionality must still be examined individually with a view to the free mandate.
The Ramelow ruling made the threshold “very, very high,” explained Körner; it was just the use of the mandate to prove extremism. Formally, the state office has a period of six months in which it can check whether the threshold has been reached in an individual case. A decision can therefore be expected by summer at the latest. When the AfD first entered the state parliament in 2018, three members of parliament were under surveillance, for example because of racist statements during the election campaign. The measure expired at the beginning of January 2019, at the time with reference to the Karlsruhe hurdles.
For 2023, apart from Dasing, there is several evidence that actors in the AfD, including relevant ones, are cooperating with extremist organizations, explained Körner. A “conscious, active collaboration” can be seen. It is by no means the case that events with the IB and other right-wing extremist organizations were attended “by chance” or only for informational purposes. Often it was about “remigration”. This is not unconstitutional in itself, it depends on what specifically is associated with it.
The leading IB activist Sellner understands by this keyword that Germans with a migration background should also be deported, said Körner. This degrades these people to second-class citizens and is incompatible with human dignity according to the Basic Law. There are different ideas about “remigration” in the AfD. However, the identitarian interpretation prevails “consistently” among the Young Alternative (JA) youth as well as in the camp of the formally dissolved ethnic wing. The AfD faction, which was formed in October after the election, is clearly dominated by the “wing” camp.
Richard Graupner (AfD) spoke in the committee about “contact guilt”: If someone takes part in an event, they do not automatically agree with the views represented there. The “surprise visit” by the head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution also had “to do with the hysteria against the right.” It would be better to look into left-wing extremist contacts in the SPD and the Greens, says Graupner. Florian Siekmann (Greens), vice-chairman of the Interior Committee, replied that Körner’s report was neither secret nor surprising, but was announced with the summons. The AfD had given enough reason for this: the fact that the incidents were not about simple AfD members, but about MPs, was a “shame”. For Siekmann, “the AfD is the parliamentary arm of right-wing extremism in Bavaria.” Representatives of the SPD, CSU and FW were also outraged by Graupner’s “perpetrator-victim reversal”.