Tomasz Lejman, Interia: Why is such an application submitted, it seems quite controversial to ban a party that was democratically elected?
Marco Wanderwitz, CDU MP: – Our constitution, created after World War II, provides for the possibility of delegalizing parties that do not operate democratically. This results from the experience of the first German democracy – the Weimar Republic – which failed, which consequently led to the rule of the National Socialists. These governments not only ruined… Germanybut also the whole world in great suffering.
– Currently, in a situation of threat to democracy, we have appropriate legal tools that allow us to exclude such parties from democratic competition, regardless of their popularity among voters, if they do not comply with the principles of democracy. As applicants representing almost all democratic factions of the Bundestag, we believe that it is high time to start the procedure of banning such parties. Our application was signed by 124 MPs. When it was first submitted, it had 113 signatures – now another eleven have been added.
– A vote on this matter seems likely in January or February. But this is just the beginning. After the vote, it will be necessary to carry out numerous procedures and then refer the matter to Constitutional Tribunal. We anticipate that the application will probably arrive there in the second half of 2025. It is worth noting that this procedure is not time-limited in accordance with the Act on the Federal Constitutional Court.
What exactly is in the application, what arguments are it about?
– AfD seeks to destroy what it calls “old parties”, i.e. the democratic party system. This means that he treats us as enemies. SPD feels the same way we do – just like CDU. Although to some extent we are their “favorite opponents” because we are a center-right party.
– As politicians in Germany, we are increasingly experiencing attacks and threats that are linked to the AfD. If, as a civil society and a democratic community, we fail to better protect those taking political responsibility – but also those operating in organizations and associations – against hate speech and aggression, it will be difficult for our democracy to survive the next few years in good condition.
– We need to do more to counteract this – both in real life and in the virtual space. What happens online also poses a serious threat that cannot be ignored.
What exactly happened to you?
– Well, the situation gradually became worse and even embarrassing at times. I couldn't organize any political rallies. Strange people immediately appeared, surrounded me, shouted various slogans and threatened me.
– It was clear that these people had very vivid imaginations when it came to coming up with ways to intimidate me. I received specific threats, both by e-mail and by regular mail. I know it wasn't a joke – these people really intended to carry out their threats. Let me just say this: it's not over. It's still going on.
How far has the far right come in Germany?
– Far away – and that's why we need to start taking action. We have specific examples, such as the Reuss group, which planned a far-right coup. There is currently an ongoing trial against its members. It is worth adding that a former AfD MP worked for this group and spied, collecting information about other MPs. The aim was to commit a mass murder of parliamentarians of democratic parties on the day of the attack. These are the findings of the federal prosecutor's office.
– Of course, the defendants' lawyers claim that it was just a “theory” of a group of older men who told fantastic stories over beer. However, there are many more such examples. The problem is real and requires a decisive response.
– The AfD also often talks about migration, but it is not only about people who illegally crossed the borders of Germany. This is about mass re-emigration of the so-called passports of Germans – people with foreign roots, who were often born in Germany. This is of particular concern. In addition, there is discrimination against sexual minorities and disabled people. These groups, according to the far right, “can exist”, but preferably somewhere on the margins of society.
Are there any other ways apart from delegalizing the entire party?
– Of course, our Basic Law also provides for other options that are currently being considered. One of them is, for example, the deprivation of some basic rights, such as the right to vote in elections or organize rallies and meetings.
– Björn Höcke from Thuringia is always cited as an outstanding example, as he has already been individually convicted several times. This is a significant case because he uses banned Nazi slogans and regularly recites them at public meetings. Theoretically, it would be possible to remove Höcke from public life, for example. As a result, he would lose his seat in the Thuringian parliament and would no longer be able to participate in public events.
– However, this would only be a partial solution. In other words, we would have to carry out many similar procedures because there are many people like Höcke in the AfD. As for effectiveness, I am free from illusions – Mr. Höcke would still play a key role in the party, probably not as keynote speaker, but his influence would remain significant.
– It is also possible to limit the financing of parties, i.e. withdraw public subsidies from them. Such actions have already been taken against the AfD and would undoubtedly make its functioning more difficult. Nevertheless, in my opinion, these are half-measures. To effectively counter threats, more decisive actions are needed.
Recently, there has been a lot of talk in Germany about the so-called Firewalli.e. the firewall between the democrats and the AfD. Is this the way to solve the problem? After all, this leads to even greater polarization of society.
– That's a good question, but let me answer briefly. Is everyone who votes for the AfD a far-right radical? Of course not. But when we talk about AfD as a party, a key question arises: who defines what right-wing radicalism is? The answer can be found in our Constitution. In short: there are those who are democrats and there are those who are right-wing extremists. And between them there must be Firewall – firewall. Why? Because some want to build on democracy, while others want to abolish it.
– Examples of attempts to cooperate with extremists, either through negotiations or giving them the opportunity to co-rule, have shown that such actions do not bring results. All attempts to “bewitch” the extremists ended in failure.
– Personally, I can say that I have a neighbor who is an AfD member. We used to talk by the fence, but that time is over. We simply have nothing to talk about anymore – he is convinced that everything AfD does is fine. And when someone is so deeply rooted in their beliefs, dialogue becomes impossible. Unfortunately, this is why polarization is inevitable, but the alternative would be to accept the actions of those who want to destroy democracy. This is too high a price.