Should proceedings to ban the AfD be applied for?

Both hosts are neutral on the question itself. The invitation is to a conversation, not to a position.

• 

  Abstimmung21 works for participation and direct democracy, and runs nationwide citizens' votes on current questions each year. It belongs to no party and is independently funded. This topic was submitted by Omas gegen Rechts and Volksverpetzer; anyone may submit one, and doing so implies no position on the part of the hosts.

  abstimmung21.de
• 

  We develop the Dialograum format and support the facilitation.

  About the initiative

At issue is an application to the Federal Constitutional Court. It would examine whether the conditions for banning the party „Alternative für Deutschland“ (AfD) are met.

Under Article 21 of the German constitution a party may be banned if the Federal Constitutional Court finds that it seeks to impair or abolish the free democratic basic order. Only the Bundestag, the Bundesrat or the federal government may apply for such proceedings. The court alone decides; an application does not oblige it to issue a ban.

The domestic intelligence service classifies the AfD at federal level as a suspected extreme-right case, and several state associations as confirmed extreme-right. Legal opinions differ on the prospects of a ban succeeding.

In favour it is argued, among other things, that a protective instrument provided for by the constitution would be used, that an open legal question would be settled in court, and that leaving it later could make a ban harder to enforce.

Against it is argued that the legal hurdles are high, that milder measures such as withdrawing state party funding should be examined first, and that failed proceedings could strengthen the party politically.

Conversations happen in small groups of up to ten people, with a facilitator. The main arguments for and against are presented at the start so that everyone begins from the same footing. No prior knowledge is assumed.

Differing views are welcome. The aim is not to agree on a shared position but to understand the arguments of others and to listen to one another.

A few rules apply, which the facilitator goes through with everyone at the start.

• Every view has a place. Insult, belittlement and threat do not.
• Let people finish. Questions are welcome; refuting is not the aim.
• No agreement has to be reached. Understanding the others is enough.
• The facilitator watches over these rules and steps in when needed.

The conversations are recorded and automatically transcribed, without attributing anything to individual speakers. The audio is deleted afterwards. The transcript is used for the write-up, which is made available to everyone who took part.