Press comments on the NPD verdict
“The withdrawal of state funding would hit the AfD hard”
View of the hearing room of the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe: The NPD participants in the proceedings were not personally present at the hearing
© Uwe Anspach / DPA
The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that the NPD, which now operates under the name “Die Heimat”, should no longer receive financial support from the state. The press is rumbling about the consequences for the AfD.
This is what the press wrote about the court ruling:
“Frankfurter Rundschau“: “According to the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court, the NPD/’Die Heimat’ will not receive any funds from state party financing for six years. It may well be that they no longer exist afterwards. The practical effects are nevertheless limited. The right-wing extremist party no longer finds the support that would secure it significant state support. The judgment shows that, beyond the ban on parties, there are constitutional options available to put a stop to right-wing extremist incitement. The withdrawal of state funding would hit the AfD hard – and it would be logical. Those who only want to exploit the democratic system in order to replace it with authoritarian rule should under no circumstances be supported. Taking the legal route is not enough. It’s more difficult to counteract this mixture of ethnic ideas, contempt for democracy and weariness of politics so that people don’t fall for the AfD.”
“Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung“: “Anyone who calls for a separation of cultures or ethnic groups, anyone who defines the state population ethnically and disregards minorities, anyone who despises parliamentarism – wants a completely different system. Namely one that is strongly reminiscent of totalitarian rule, to which the Basic Law is the antithesis. From experience he created the instrument of party banning, and in the young Federal Republic this sword was used to strike once to the right and once to the left. But that doesn’t mean you have to draw this sword. (…) The Karlsruhe proceedings should not appear as a weapon for shrunken popular parties that have neglected the people. But it must always be clear to everyone what is possible under this basic order and what it abolishes. Even a free country knows red cards.”
“This is not a blueprint for the fight against the AfD”
“badish newspaper“: “It must be doubly frustrating for the right-wing extremist NPD. On the one hand, the Federal Constitutional Court has decided that the party can no longer be financed by the state because it is unconstitutional. At the same time, everyone just wants to know what consequences the ruling has for the AfD (…) Whether the AfD can be banned, whether state resources can be withdrawn, that can only be assessed if you look at the party’s program and the The officials’ speeches were analyzed in detail. However, the threshold is the same for both measures; a financial exclusion is no easier to achieve than a party ban. Furthermore, it is not a milder means that does less damage to democracy than banning parties. Who is supposed to be convinced by a democracy that massively subsidizes most promising parties, while the sleazy children of the AfD are bled dry financially?”
“People’s voice“: “The AfD and other right-wing extremist associations can snort as they want: The ruling on the six-year exclusion of the homeland party from party financing is not arbitrary, but has a legal basis. This was created after the failed ban of the homeland predecessor NPD. The Constitutional Court has now determined that the national community sought by the right-wing party violates human dignity by excluding foreigners and minorities. This is understandable for everyone, even without a law degree. The Karlsruhe judges have the outstanding task of ensuring compliance with the Basic Law. But that doesn’t mean they hover above German society. And in this, right-wing extremist excesses and the millions of people protesting against them are a central topic. Any ruling other than the one announced would have seriously damaged the reputation of the Constitutional Court.”
“Leipziger Volkszeitung“: “Until the East German state elections in autumn 2024 and the federal election in 2025, there would definitely be no stopping or banning the AfD. A ban on the youth organization ‘Junge Alternative’ would be conceivable. Either way, it is appropriate to close those open flanks that the party could use if it got more than a third of the votes, as in Brandenburg, Thuringia or Saxony.”
“Central German newspaper“: “No, this is not a simple blueprint for the fight against the AfD. In principle, the hurdle to remove state funding would be the same: the party would have to prove that it specifically wants to unhinge German democracy. However, it is good to know that there is a less drastic instrument below the party ban threshold. This could also address the dilemma that, in contrast to the NPD, the AfD is not too small for a ban, but in case of doubt it is already too big and has too many voters. The decision to bleed them financially could be a middle ground – assuming a corresponding application was made and Karlsruhe approved it.”