Berlin-Lankwitz · 24 September 2026

Should proceedings to ban the AfD be applied for?

Almost everyone present wanted the Federal Constitutional Court to examine the question. What they wrestled with was something else: how do you protect democracy without losing the people who have turned away from it?

How the evening went

Background
A legal introduction: what unconstitutionality means and who can file the application.
Arriving
At fixed tables, in the style of a World Café: “What brings you here today?”
Gain and concern
“What would you gain from review proceedings, and what is your biggest concern about them?”
Changing perspective
“Which argument from the other side can you most readily understand?”
What holds
“How would you recognise that this question is being handled well, whatever the outcome?” Then: all tables together in a plenary.

Arriving

Why people came

To experience how people can still talk to each other about such a contested subject at all.
In every conversation
To gather arguments, so as not to answer only emotionally in everyday life.
Raised several times
Fear of the political direction and of the recent election results.
Raised several times
Powerlessness and helplessness in the face of that direction, and the question why no proceedings have been applied for yet.
Raised several times
Not wanting to hear later from one’s own children that one did nothing.
A single voice
Being undecided: there is only one chance at proceedings, is the basis sufficient?
A single voice

In the perception of those present, nobody who votes AfD or opposes proceedings was in the room. What is said here about the other side rests on the participants’ own experience.

What was wrestled with

Five tensions

The conversations turned less on yes or no than on weighing things up. Five of these ran through the whole evening.

Clarification or confirmation?

What speaks for proceedings

A court establishes facts. Evasions like “we never said that” would no longer be possible.
For undecided voters, a judgment would carry more weight than individual media reports.
The Bundestag, Bundesrat or Federal Government ban nothing themselves. They have the Federal Constitutional Court examine it.

What to weigh against them

If the proceedings do not lead to a ban, the AfD could use them as a clean bill of health.
There is only one chance at proceedings. Started too early, there would be no second.

In the room, the wish for clarification prevailed. Whether the evidence is already sufficient remained disputed.

The party is gone, the ideas remain

What a ban would achieve

The party would have to dissolve and its assets would be confiscated. Money for its apparatus and propaganda would be gone.
Successor organisations would be banned along with it.

What it would not achieve

Forces prepared to use violence could organise outside a party, no longer bound by its rules.
Many people’s attitudes would not disappear, they would find new outlets.

In the room, there was agreement: ban proceedings alone are not enough. What comes afterwards is missing from the public debate.

Protecting democracy without losing the people

Protection

The constitution provides for a ban, and a democracy able to defend itself should use it.
The dignity of every human being under Article 1 of the Basic Law is not up for a vote.
One person: democracy matters more than including everyone.

The people behind it

Those who voted for the party could experience a ban as an intrusion on their own vote.
Many feel unheard and left behind, and for them the AfD is an outlet.
Those who vote AfD could feel all the more like victims after a ban.

In the room, the two were combined: explain to AfD voters why ban proceedings are necessary and that they are not directed against them, while taking their social situation seriously. Participants themselves described the change of perspective as hard.

Arguments or feelings?

Inform factually

Many know neither the procedure nor the party programmes.
One suggestion was factual information for the public, for instance in an address by the Federal President.

Take feelings seriously

For some, the AfD is a source of hope: “They see me, they understand me.”
A lecturing manner drives people who feel patronised further towards the party.
Healing and reconciliation were named for hurts that arose in the East with reunification.

It remained open whether factual arguments can make up for what has arisen at the level of feelings. People wished for hopeful images of their own, showing that change is possible.

Wait or act?

Why politicians hesitate

The suspicion was fear of failure and fear of the voters.
Proceedings take years and tie up energy that other issues then lack.

Why not wait any longer

There is such a thing as “too late”. The proceedings should be pursued as a high priority.
It is incomprehensible that regional branches are classified as hostile to the constitution without anything following.

In the room, the urgency was undisputed. The way forward was seen differently: more demonstrations, or targeted talks with the CDU.

The question behind all the questions

What comes after a ban?

It came up in every conversation, and none could answer it: how does a society deal with the people who voted for a banned party?

What holds

What the participants propose

Bundestag, Bundesrat, Federal Government
Apply for ban proceedings and pursue them quickly, thoroughly and transparently. Disclose intelligence reports and court filings.
Politics
Address AfD voters directly and explain why the proceedings are necessary. Strengthen social security so that fewer people drift to the fringes.
Federal Government, Federal President
Inform factually about how ban proceedings work and what they mean.
Politics, schools
Limit the power of tech companies whose algorithms favour inflammatory content, and bring media literacy into the classroom.
Civil society
Pool initiatives against the far right, and write to members of parliament to encourage them in the courage to pursue proceedings.
Everyone
Start conversations with questions: “What threatens you?” instead of immediate contradiction. A concrete everyday problem is an easier way in than the election result.

In closing

What the participants take home

From the closing round

One person took the question of review proceedings home with them. Talking about it with others gave them courage.
One person was glad the ideas at the tables were so similar, and at the same time regretted that the group stayed among like-minded people.
One person said the problem has many layers. Talking is not enough, one has to act.
Another person agreed: the aim must be to get into conversation with more people and to build alliances.

Left open

Why have the Bundestag, Bundesrat and Federal Government not filed an application so far?
After a ban, how does one deal with the party’s supporters and voters?
Can factual arguments make up for what has arisen at the level of feelings?
How do you win people with a different view for a conversation like this?

Facilitation

Saskia Howe
Saskia Howe is an independent facilitator and process consultant. For more than twelve years she has designed conversations and workshops for leadership teams, medium-sized businesses, non-profit organisations and educational institutions.

Write to us if you would like to be notified Dialogräume held so far

About this documentation: The aim of the evening was to listen to and understand one another, not to debate or to create artificial agreement. Names and identifying details of individuals have not been included. Statements reflect participants’ views, not verified facts. “In every conversation”, “Raised several times” and “A single voice” show how widespread a thought was, not how right it is.

24 September 2026 · Berlin (Lankwitz)