Let's be clear: could be successful.
This means that it would have to be brought to the constitutional court first. I'm not saying this isn't likely to happen, but I don't know how likely. Just my obligatory clickbait headline correction.
'Successful' in the very narrow sense that it would be legal to do so. But not successful in actually changing anyone's politics or the material conditions that give rise to the AfD.
Fascists are not permitted a place in democracy as they are anti-democratic. It’s a simple principle that is part of what the German constitution is founded on. Letting them continue while the complex topics they propose simplistic fascist solutions for are addressed, is not an option.
Exactly. Since when has the mainstream ever succeeded in de-radicalizing a group of political outsiders?
No one thinks it will suddenly change the poltical views of all their voters. The AfD will no longer sit in every TV show spouting their bullshit. They will not get millions and millions of public money. And they will not become our government. That's not a narrow success - that would be huge.
the material conditions that give rise to the AfD
This here. Thatcherism, Schröderism, Reaganism - libertarianism, austerity narratives & politics, "lobbyism" aka pro-billionaire politics aka taking legal bribes - they all helped advance far-right populism to the mainstream.
Plus most other (not even necessarily right-wing) parties helping them along by pointing the finger in the wrong direction: immigrants.
What did the piano playing kid from Charlie Brown/ Peanuts do?
This is what I was getting at in my comment. There's got to be an alternative that addresses those material conditions to durably prevent a right resurgence.
Well, it would probably splinter them into a few new parties as their extreme wing would need to be split off to avoid the same thing repeating with the next party.
This milder form would still be popular and the backlash could catapult them to power. But they might be in power soon anyways.
Best case they will get temporarily weakened and the Germans have time to learn from the American deserter and maybe the rise of the far right won't be en vougue that much.
They couldn't splinter into new parties. Successor parties would be banned as well by this decision.
I guess you would be able to ban some central people from holding political office for a few years. But to can't can every member from politics forever.
The AfD is pretty much the glue that is currently holding all the opposing far-right factions together. The moment they're gone, there will be a lot of infighting.
Good call about not banning it because it's too popular. Just ignore it and wait for people to come to their senses on logic.
It worked to stop Trump in the US.
/s
Last time the reason was they are too small to ban. Now they are too large?
Banning a small party would be politically damaging, banning a big party would be institutionally damaging.
You know what else is institutionally damaging?
Right-wing populist rule.
I guess the Nazis have arrived to downvote this fact.
This has been Germany's strategy wrt far-right populism for decades.
It worked really well to stop them.
/s
Yeah let's let Germany figure it out internally through diplomatic channels.
Its historically worked out very well!
Twice
You're complaining that they're trying to basically ban nazis?
I don't think it's very relevant to WW1/The German Empire
Unfortunately, they will be in power and meddle with the courts before anything can happen.
Germany has so much red tape in its constitution due to fascism that it pretty much always has an excuse to ban whatever it wants, from the far right to Palestine protests. Question is, do they have the will to do it?
I wonder what people think voters whose grievances are represented by the AfD would do when the party is banned. Probably they'd have their minds changed and quietly vote status quo.
/s
They have no grievances. They believe they have grievances because they have been manipulated by the AfD to need an enemy which the AfD presents them on a platter. It's literally the only thing far right politics boils down to so the people give them power which they can use to steal money.
They would need a new party that needs to be created and need to get popular. And the new one would hopefully learn to not break the constitution.
Are you argumenting that partys are above laws and constitution?
Are you argumenting that partys are above laws and constitution?
It depends on how popular it is. If it's 5% of the pop- def not. If it's 30%, probably not. If it's 60% then the laws and constitution might need amendment.
But that's besides my point. If you rely on forcing a third of Germany to make another party to represent it, you might not like what the new party's popularity would be.
Ok, now I am confused. You are saying that they, as a party with around 30% popularity, shouldnt be above the law but the law shouldnt be enforced because it may make them more popular?
I'm suggesting that just enforcing the law without providing an aternative (for AfD), at this point in time, is likely to make them (the figures that formed the AfD) more popular, along with their new party they'll inevitably form. I doubt Germany would round all of them up and throw them in jail. I think the time to ban the AfD was when there were significantly fewer people on their bandwagon. The other comment under mine says AfD voters aren't too fervent supporters, so perhaps it won't go the way I think it would. But that's not my bet. (What I think would happen isn't what I hope btw.)
When I say alternative I don't mean another deporters party but with nicer messaging. That clearly doesn't work. I mean an alternative that gives people real improvements by counteracting the austerity policies of the past for example.
is likely to make them (the figures that formed the AfD) more popular, along with their new party they’ll inevitably form.
Any follow-up party is automatically banned too. That's how this law works.
SPD and C*U are already doing a lot of anti immigration stuff. Immigration is sinking for years now and more and more get exported. What is actually missing for them being an alternative for AfD followers?
Also hopefully the new party they form would learn to not break laws anymore.
Sorry I added an edit abt what I meant by alternative before I saw your reply.
Ah read the update. Not sure what you mean with austerity policies? Also partys with real improvements like the leftist parties?
Most of these voters are not extremist. They just go for the Platzhirsch (top dog) of what sounds good to them. Not many will protest when they get banned, and will accept that AfD "went a bit too far" or whatever euphemism they choose.
Perhaps. Only one way to find out 🔨
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/