The conversations turned less on yes or no than on weighing things up. Five of these ran through the whole evening.
I
Clarification or a stage?
What speaks for proceedings
- Not an authority bound by instructions but an independent court would determine whether the AfD is unconstitutional.
- Ongoing proceedings would “freeze” the firewall debate. Democratic parties could point to the court.
- Precisely because the party had grown so large, it had to be attempted now.
What to weigh against them
- Without a ban, the AfD could use the ruling as a “clean bill of health”: “You examined us, and we are not.”
- Proceedings lasting years would give the party a stage to present itself as a victim and to cast doubt on the court.
- One person: the AfD might already be too large for proceedings.
In the room the wish for a judicial clarification prevailed. The fear of failure came up in every conversation. One dissenting voice held failure to be impossible: either the party would be banned, or it could democratise itself.
II
Protection from violence or a cause of violence?
What a ban would protect
- Neo-Nazis would be kept from power. Democratic forces would be less exposed to right-wing violence.
- Mandates would lapse, assets would be confiscated, successor organisations would be banned too.
- Those facing hostility, including teachers under pressure, would feel seen and strengthened.
What a ban could set off
- Without a parliamentary framework, parts of the following could go underground, more prone to violence than today.
- For those whose “mouthpiece” is taken away, powerlessness could turn into rage. Some feared conditions close to civil war.
In the room violence was taken seriously on both sides of the scale: as a reason for a ban and as a possible consequence. One person countered that far-right crime was already rising, and society would have to withstand that.
III
Banning without belittling
The rules apply
- Article 21 of the Basic Law expressly provides for ban proceedings.
- People had a right to choose only between parties that stand on the basis of the free democratic order.
- A democrat follows the law. If a court found the party unconstitutional, that had to be accepted.
The people behind it
- “They’re taking something away from me”: those who voted AfD could experience proceedings as an attack on their own vote and identity.
- Those who feel belittled react with rage or withdraw, and are then out of reach.
- Real worries were understandable: rising prices and rents, crumbling schools, lives broken after 1989, in the East as in the West.
In the room the change of perspective often succeeded up to a limit. One person fully understood the rage at being belittled, but did not see why the rest of the population should therefore look on “with hands in their laps”.
IV
Proceedings or better politics?
What proceedings can achieve
- Review proceedings would show that politics is able to act and that democracy protects itself.
- Even the debate about an application slowed the shift to the right. During proceedings the AfD would have to rein in its radical forces more.
- It could be a “starting signal” for then winning people over to democracy.
What they cannot achieve
- The reasons for voting AfD would not disappear with the party. The ideas would find new forms.
- Proceedings were only “one of thousands of puzzle pieces”. There was concern that politicians would sit back once the application was filed.
- Other democracies took other routes than banning a party.
In the room there was broad agreement: proceedings would complement the political argument, not replace it. One person, by contrast, saw no other consequence than ban proceedings.
V
Explaining or reaching people?
Explaining democracy
- Many knew little about the Basic Law. Democracy had to be taught far more in schools and universities.
- In debates on constitutional law, someone should always set out the legal position.
Reaching people
- Democratic parties had to address people through feelings too, not only with facts. The AfD offered an outlet for rage.
- Where pubs, meeting places and democratic parties had disappeared, the AfD stood in the market square, with a sausage stand, for instance.
- Anyone who reports a problem, a pothole say, should see it fixed quickly.
Left open: how to reach people who refuse conversations like this one. Both were wanted: explaining democracy and making it tangible in everyday life.
