Absolutely correct Katja. Provided the AfD remains within the law and respects the democratic process banning the party is entirely inappropriate. Not least of all because it won’t make the AfD electorate disappear, indeed it might further aggravate them. The better answer is to robustly challenge the views of the AfD, offer solutions.
I see the problem and your inclusion of the Marco Rubio quote illustrates it beautifully. The fascist behaviour of current US government has come about via democracy. I get your point about threat of violence, so even though his threats were not against a form of government at the time, Trump's desire for violence against many others, was clearly vocalised. It is unsurprising that Rubio would object to the thought of banning a party that could well behave just like his if it gained power.
But by banning political opponents any previous government would have also acted in an undemocratic way, thereby also damaging the thing they try to protect? As you say, no easy answer.
As WendtK says above, it’s a question to which, in Germany, there are no easy answers. The post WW2 German state has banned political parties before, notably the KPD in the 1950’s, though, interestingly, the DKP was never banned, perhaps reflecting the more tolerant attitudes contained in measures such as Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik. Also, the state used its power of Berufsverbot in the 1970s, not just against members and supporters of the Red Army Faction, but also against several individuals suspected of being Enemies of the Constitution. A number of those bans were highly questionable and hotly disputed, as I recall.
All of these things were of course during the Cold War, and reflected the understandable insecurities of the relatively young democracy of the (western) Federal Republic, but they do serve as precedents to some extent. Perhaps more significantly the changing attitudes towards Communist parties tells us that pragmatism is more powerful than principle in these matters.
It seems to me that, for mainly pragmatic reasons, it would be foolish to attempt to ban the AfD outright. They would claim martyr status and the people who voted for them would justifiably feel that their democratic choices had been ignored by the political ‘elite.’ Nevertheless, it does seem clear enough that certain influential members of the party have expressed views which can fairly be judged as ‘Verfassungsfeindlich.’ Maybe the best route would be to deal with these individuals, to hold them to account in terms of the need to protect what is still (or once again) a somewhat fragile democracy?
It's the usual story. Politicians see an insurgent force growing and resonating with the electorate and instead of engaging with the concerns of the people supporting that insurgency they seek to denigrate, disparage and destroy it. Look at the "Liberal Democrats' in Britain and there attempt to overturn the Brexit referendum. No effort to find out and understand why people voted that way or an attempt to show the merits of their case just an effort to overturn democracy. Our current political classes - all over the west- are inherently undemocratic in their outlook. IMHO of course
If only politicians LISTENED to their electorate, if only the could walk in our shoes if only they had the bravery to see the truth before their very own eyes in so many European cities, the likes of AfD , the Reform party and the successful brexit vote wouldn’t even be a conversation, but here we are , I don’t think the AfD are right extreme but no doubt they have and will attract dubious characters, every party does , just when do you think Katja that this bloody German war guilt will end 🤷🏻♂️
I think your opnion would be different, Katja, if you were in a country where an anti-democratic movement has staged a coup and is actively working to destroy democracy, which is what we are dealing with here regarding the Trumpscum. Just this week, the little neo-Nazi Stephen Miller - who occupies a position of authority that reminds anyone with an understanding of history about Reinhard Heydrich (who he even resembles) - has said they want to revoke habeas corpus, and not just against immigrants. A spokesperson for our Gestapo, the Department of Homeland "Security" is threatening to arrest lawmakers who attempt to investigate the illegal activities DHS is involved with - the organization sends its thugs out masked to kidnap people off the streets!
Democracy is not a suicide pact and an organization that wants to destroy the system is ipso facto not a "democratic participant." Like the Nazis, who used the freedom of democracy to undermine and ultimately destroy democracy, these subversive organizations (it's hard here to wrap one's head around the fact that one of the two major parties is now a conspiracy dedicated to destroying the republic it claims to defend). The Trumpscum here are no different; if we allow it, they will turn state power against the population. They want to impose a theocratic/fascist regime. They ARE the "enemy domestic" referred to in the oaths of everyone who takes office or who serves in the military here has taken "to preserve and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Yes, Democracy does have the duty to limit participation to those who believe in the system, whether they're liberal, conservative or whatever. We have a president who was asked "do you believe in defending the constitution?" (which is the sole job he actually has) who answered "I don't know." Hopefully, the way these morons keep screwing up (one of the good things about fighting right wingers is they are by definition morons and losers - it's how we defeated the Nazis), we will have an election next year that returns a democratic majority to the House and a conviction majority to the Senate and we can begin removing these people, then charging them as the traitors they are and putting them where they belong - in an 8 X 10 windowless cell on the third sub-basement of the Florence SuperMax.
I don't see how banning Trump would have invested his voters in democracy. The very principle
would have been damaged. That's the whole problem. He was elected. So ultimately it would have boiled down to a minority telling a majority what they should vote for. I don't see how that can still be democratic.
The majority of his voters appear thrilled and devoted to being in his gang. I can see no way that democracy could have won unless the democrats had had a strong highly charismatic leader who was more thrilling on tv.
Thank you for this excellent, thought-provoking, and uncomfortable (I mean that as a compliment) article.
Germans do like to play by the (rule) book of instructions … and would love it if there was one describing a foolproof way to do and protect democracy (I’d buy everyone a copy!).
One addition may have to be made to the possible reasons that allowed the Nazi rise to power: resentment. I believe Erich Fromm wrote about it, and it seems to play a role again today. Not provoked by the same causes (WWI, economic deprivation), but by similar, accompanying sentiments such as grievance, disillusionment, and the feeling that participation is not really working (anymore).
If the new government manages to turn the tide, and would address (and, ideally, solve) at least some of the problems that voters struggle with, tackling modern voters’ estrangement once more, than that might well be enough to keep extremism at bay.
Have thought again and remembered - the problem of AfD, Brexit +++ all these right wing threats, is neo-liberalism. Money and power never trickled down. It was sucked up and up and up. Now with Trump the wealthy have sucked up even the unwealthy people. Somehow the rich have to be made dishonourable.
As always excellent summary. To quote Helmut Schmidt ‘eine Demokratie, in der nicht gestritten wird, ist keine’ Have to win the argument in the public arena - not ban it.
I have come to this debate rather late as I got married last week. I am in broad agreement with Katja and many contributors have made sensible and balanced comments. It reminds me of when 'Berufsverbot' was used in the BRD against some left extremists who then wore it as a badge of pride. A tangent: the best man at my wedding (and when I first got married) was a leading scholar of Germany decorated by both the UK and the BRD. A German colleague recently looked up his Stasi file and I think he was a bit miffed that the Stasi were more interested in who talked to him than his own actions. Has anyone here looked up their Stasi file and how hard is it? can it be done online? My German is now much poorer than it was 40 years ago, but I am sure colleagues in Germany would help. Of course, I will be miffed if there is no file!
This debate reminds me of what Lincoln once said: “By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb.”
I'm surprised that the main parties, in their relations with the AfD, have not deployed the good old political instruments of reward and punishment. Get rid of your more extreme elements, discipline your representatives and we'll give you a sniff of power.
This is why Reform UK has a genuine shot at power: the Grauniad sifts through the social media posts of Reform UK's new councillors, and a faction within the Tories seek alliance. It is a wonder to behold.
“……..I have deliberately not commented on whether the AfD’s views really are extremist…..”
Yes you have.
“…….The Nazis were right-wing extremists too…..”.
This statement says you concur with Faesler’s spooks.
It is also incorrect - the Nazis were LEFTISTS, the noun Nazi is a reduction of their full name National Socialist Party.
If there is any ‘extremism’ in German politics it lies in the wokery of the LEFT that says a woman can have a penis - and that we can live without oil and coal. Theses are extreme views that threaten the stability and order of our societies.
The LEFT’s support of Hamas is also extreme in that they demonstrate aggressively and call for the elimination and dislocation of Jews. Why no ’hate crime arrests’ of these violent ‘Brown Shirt’ thugs?
The AfD just wants Germany governed properly - principally, the management of immigration.
“……As an example, they quote AfD leader Alice Weidel associating Islam with ‘group rape’, which she described as a ‘phenomenon’ that ‘we only see in Muslim cultures targeting infidels.’….”
Weidel’s statement is entirely correct - as you must know having lived in Britain for a good few years - they are indeed a social sect that commits grotesque crimes and seeks to establish its own legal system……..it’s growth is down to them never being held accountable for their crimes because the LEFT wants Muslims as a voter base.
As a historian, I am sure that you are aware that the National Socialists had an SS Islamic Legion - that determined to help Adolf kill Jews.
Yet you say that it is the AfD that are ‘right-wing extremists’
If you weren't intent on seeing what you want to see, you would have read that paragraph more carefully. It outlines the tone of the debate in Germany, repeating the arguments that are made. 'That’s the drift of the current debate.'
I re-read it…….your words are clear - you believe that the AfD are ‘right-wing extremists too’.
You are perfectly entitled to believe that, I just indicated that you said you hadn’t commented.
Just saying.
Though I acknowledge that you have been entirely consistent in stating that it would be wrong to proscribe the AfD.
Wonder if Two Tier Keir will be able to resist proscribing Reform? It’s clear that he believes democracy is ‘troublesome’ - he recently cancelled 9 county council elections thereby disenfranchising 5.5m people……..same desired effect as proscribing a party.
Absolutely correct Katja. Provided the AfD remains within the law and respects the democratic process banning the party is entirely inappropriate. Not least of all because it won’t make the AfD electorate disappear, indeed it might further aggravate them. The better answer is to robustly challenge the views of the AfD, offer solutions.
You need to rethink your understanding of what an anti-democratic movement is and how it is confronted. Democracy is not a suicide pact.
I see the problem and your inclusion of the Marco Rubio quote illustrates it beautifully. The fascist behaviour of current US government has come about via democracy. I get your point about threat of violence, so even though his threats were not against a form of government at the time, Trump's desire for violence against many others, was clearly vocalised. It is unsurprising that Rubio would object to the thought of banning a party that could well behave just like his if it gained power.
No easy answer.
But by banning political opponents any previous government would have also acted in an undemocratic way, thereby also damaging the thing they try to protect? As you say, no easy answer.
I think the only way you can defeat something like A.F.D is at the ballot box. You have to let electorate decide.
wow that escalated quickly
As WendtK says above, it’s a question to which, in Germany, there are no easy answers. The post WW2 German state has banned political parties before, notably the KPD in the 1950’s, though, interestingly, the DKP was never banned, perhaps reflecting the more tolerant attitudes contained in measures such as Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik. Also, the state used its power of Berufsverbot in the 1970s, not just against members and supporters of the Red Army Faction, but also against several individuals suspected of being Enemies of the Constitution. A number of those bans were highly questionable and hotly disputed, as I recall.
All of these things were of course during the Cold War, and reflected the understandable insecurities of the relatively young democracy of the (western) Federal Republic, but they do serve as precedents to some extent. Perhaps more significantly the changing attitudes towards Communist parties tells us that pragmatism is more powerful than principle in these matters.
It seems to me that, for mainly pragmatic reasons, it would be foolish to attempt to ban the AfD outright. They would claim martyr status and the people who voted for them would justifiably feel that their democratic choices had been ignored by the political ‘elite.’ Nevertheless, it does seem clear enough that certain influential members of the party have expressed views which can fairly be judged as ‘Verfassungsfeindlich.’ Maybe the best route would be to deal with these individuals, to hold them to account in terms of the need to protect what is still (or once again) a somewhat fragile democracy?
It's the usual story. Politicians see an insurgent force growing and resonating with the electorate and instead of engaging with the concerns of the people supporting that insurgency they seek to denigrate, disparage and destroy it. Look at the "Liberal Democrats' in Britain and there attempt to overturn the Brexit referendum. No effort to find out and understand why people voted that way or an attempt to show the merits of their case just an effort to overturn democracy. Our current political classes - all over the west- are inherently undemocratic in their outlook. IMHO of course
If only politicians LISTENED to their electorate, if only the could walk in our shoes if only they had the bravery to see the truth before their very own eyes in so many European cities, the likes of AfD , the Reform party and the successful brexit vote wouldn’t even be a conversation, but here we are , I don’t think the AfD are right extreme but no doubt they have and will attract dubious characters, every party does , just when do you think Katja that this bloody German war guilt will end 🤷🏻♂️
I think your opnion would be different, Katja, if you were in a country where an anti-democratic movement has staged a coup and is actively working to destroy democracy, which is what we are dealing with here regarding the Trumpscum. Just this week, the little neo-Nazi Stephen Miller - who occupies a position of authority that reminds anyone with an understanding of history about Reinhard Heydrich (who he even resembles) - has said they want to revoke habeas corpus, and not just against immigrants. A spokesperson for our Gestapo, the Department of Homeland "Security" is threatening to arrest lawmakers who attempt to investigate the illegal activities DHS is involved with - the organization sends its thugs out masked to kidnap people off the streets!
Democracy is not a suicide pact and an organization that wants to destroy the system is ipso facto not a "democratic participant." Like the Nazis, who used the freedom of democracy to undermine and ultimately destroy democracy, these subversive organizations (it's hard here to wrap one's head around the fact that one of the two major parties is now a conspiracy dedicated to destroying the republic it claims to defend). The Trumpscum here are no different; if we allow it, they will turn state power against the population. They want to impose a theocratic/fascist regime. They ARE the "enemy domestic" referred to in the oaths of everyone who takes office or who serves in the military here has taken "to preserve and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Yes, Democracy does have the duty to limit participation to those who believe in the system, whether they're liberal, conservative or whatever. We have a president who was asked "do you believe in defending the constitution?" (which is the sole job he actually has) who answered "I don't know." Hopefully, the way these morons keep screwing up (one of the good things about fighting right wingers is they are by definition morons and losers - it's how we defeated the Nazis), we will have an election next year that returns a democratic majority to the House and a conviction majority to the Senate and we can begin removing these people, then charging them as the traitors they are and putting them where they belong - in an 8 X 10 windowless cell on the third sub-basement of the Florence SuperMax.
I don't see how banning Trump would have invested his voters in democracy. The very principle
would have been damaged. That's the whole problem. He was elected. So ultimately it would have boiled down to a minority telling a majority what they should vote for. I don't see how that can still be democratic.
The majority of his voters appear thrilled and devoted to being in his gang. I can see no way that democracy could have won unless the democrats had had a strong highly charismatic leader who was more thrilling on tv.
Thank you for this excellent, thought-provoking, and uncomfortable (I mean that as a compliment) article.
Germans do like to play by the (rule) book of instructions … and would love it if there was one describing a foolproof way to do and protect democracy (I’d buy everyone a copy!).
One addition may have to be made to the possible reasons that allowed the Nazi rise to power: resentment. I believe Erich Fromm wrote about it, and it seems to play a role again today. Not provoked by the same causes (WWI, economic deprivation), but by similar, accompanying sentiments such as grievance, disillusionment, and the feeling that participation is not really working (anymore).
If the new government manages to turn the tide, and would address (and, ideally, solve) at least some of the problems that voters struggle with, tackling modern voters’ estrangement once more, than that might well be enough to keep extremism at bay.
Have thought again and remembered - the problem of AfD, Brexit +++ all these right wing threats, is neo-liberalism. Money and power never trickled down. It was sucked up and up and up. Now with Trump the wealthy have sucked up even the unwealthy people. Somehow the rich have to be made dishonourable.
As always excellent summary. To quote Helmut Schmidt ‘eine Demokratie, in der nicht gestritten wird, ist keine’ Have to win the argument in the public arena - not ban it.
I have come to this debate rather late as I got married last week. I am in broad agreement with Katja and many contributors have made sensible and balanced comments. It reminds me of when 'Berufsverbot' was used in the BRD against some left extremists who then wore it as a badge of pride. A tangent: the best man at my wedding (and when I first got married) was a leading scholar of Germany decorated by both the UK and the BRD. A German colleague recently looked up his Stasi file and I think he was a bit miffed that the Stasi were more interested in who talked to him than his own actions. Has anyone here looked up their Stasi file and how hard is it? can it be done online? My German is now much poorer than it was 40 years ago, but I am sure colleagues in Germany would help. Of course, I will be miffed if there is no file!
This debate reminds me of what Lincoln once said: “By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb.”
I'm surprised that the main parties, in their relations with the AfD, have not deployed the good old political instruments of reward and punishment. Get rid of your more extreme elements, discipline your representatives and we'll give you a sniff of power.
This is why Reform UK has a genuine shot at power: the Grauniad sifts through the social media posts of Reform UK's new councillors, and a faction within the Tories seek alliance. It is a wonder to behold.
“……..I have deliberately not commented on whether the AfD’s views really are extremist…..”
Yes you have.
“…….The Nazis were right-wing extremists too…..”.
This statement says you concur with Faesler’s spooks.
It is also incorrect - the Nazis were LEFTISTS, the noun Nazi is a reduction of their full name National Socialist Party.
If there is any ‘extremism’ in German politics it lies in the wokery of the LEFT that says a woman can have a penis - and that we can live without oil and coal. Theses are extreme views that threaten the stability and order of our societies.
The LEFT’s support of Hamas is also extreme in that they demonstrate aggressively and call for the elimination and dislocation of Jews. Why no ’hate crime arrests’ of these violent ‘Brown Shirt’ thugs?
The AfD just wants Germany governed properly - principally, the management of immigration.
“……As an example, they quote AfD leader Alice Weidel associating Islam with ‘group rape’, which she described as a ‘phenomenon’ that ‘we only see in Muslim cultures targeting infidels.’….”
Weidel’s statement is entirely correct - as you must know having lived in Britain for a good few years - they are indeed a social sect that commits grotesque crimes and seeks to establish its own legal system……..it’s growth is down to them never being held accountable for their crimes because the LEFT wants Muslims as a voter base.
As a historian, I am sure that you are aware that the National Socialists had an SS Islamic Legion - that determined to help Adolf kill Jews.
Yet you say that it is the AfD that are ‘right-wing extremists’
If you weren't intent on seeing what you want to see, you would have read that paragraph more carefully. It outlines the tone of the debate in Germany, repeating the arguments that are made. 'That’s the drift of the current debate.'
I re-read it…….your words are clear - you believe that the AfD are ‘right-wing extremists too’.
You are perfectly entitled to believe that, I just indicated that you said you hadn’t commented.
Just saying.
Though I acknowledge that you have been entirely consistent in stating that it would be wrong to proscribe the AfD.
Wonder if Two Tier Keir will be able to resist proscribing Reform? It’s clear that he believes democracy is ‘troublesome’ - he recently cancelled 9 county council elections thereby disenfranchising 5.5m people……..same desired effect as proscribing a party.