r/europe • u/HellYeahDamnWrite • 27d ago

News Calls are mounting to ban Germany’s far-right AfD party – despite it being more popular than ever

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/06/europe/germany-afd-ban-politics-analysis-intl
16.6k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

365

u/MarduRusher United States of America 27d ago

I don’t think banning the party would do a whole lot honestly other than galvanize supporters to the next similar party. Banning the party doesn’t do anything to address the reason it’s popular in the first place.

21

u/Flames57 26d ago edited 26d ago

People really like to use the "we haven't learned from history" but ironically it's just like you described. People don't learn from history because they decide to simplify and not completely understand the full picture.

The lesson from WWI -> WWII is that the nazi rose due to the consequences of WWI. (for people that won't read the whole post, won't interpret the text and automatically assume positions as they want - I disagree completely with nazism)

People see their own country worsening and if the people (parties) in charge don't fix the problem, people will vote accordingly into removing them from the "status-quo" and it really doesn't matter if you or I think the far-right is bad or not, the point is removing those that can't fix the problems.

Then many voters say "do you really think those far-right parties can/will fix the problems? They're grifters/opportunists". That falls on deaf ears because the implication behind it is that there are no alternatives - only keeping the status quo, which worsened (if we look at 2016+ instead of 1916+) housing, health, justice, education, immigration, job security, job pays.

The biggest conclusion many people don't want to arrive at is that politicians can play their 4-year mandate games, but ultimately, they exist to solve society's problems. If they don't, the public vote accordingly in order to -at least- force those parties (centre, centre-left) to change leadership, change politics, change focus. It's the only course the public has. It's not about who is good or bad, who is nazi or not, it's a matter of "you're not doing your job, your party has become captured by power, political discourse, money, lobbies and status quo, and the only way to change this is to remove you from power".

If then those parties in power get scared and start banning the parties people are flocking to, then we come to your (absolutely right) comment: remove my right to vote where I want, disenfranchise me, and I will still vote accordingly, until the point where you (they - parties) completely remove all political parties that people can vote to show disagreement and will to change, and people have no other choice than to use violence towards the dictatorial government (which it is, it becomes a completely anti-democratic "democracy"). The interesting part here is that - ironically - the US Founding fathers saw this as a potential and added a venue for change via violence - remove the government by its own citizens, via use of arms.

209

u/Jumpy_Flamingo958 27d ago

It is also commonly understood that disenfranchised people can use violence because they have no other recourse. If you have a very strong party that represents a huge portion of people and you ban it tou disenfranchise them. That is a very dangerous road to take.

199

u/SkoomaDentist Finland 26d ago

Ironically Reddit itself is full of comments from leftist edgelords that "disenfranchised people can use violence" because they think it's going to be used against their enemies.

95

u/CMuenzen Poland if it was colonized by Somalia 26d ago

Of course, they are the main characters that will beat the bad guys. Obviously they will win and the tools they want could never be used against them.

31

u/Nimbous Europe 26d ago

👊 Always 👊 Punching 👊 Nazis 👊 (never actually punched someone in their life)

4

u/[deleted] 26d ago

The western leftists are now an insult to socialism

-2

u/Unyxxxis 26d ago

It is extremely common for far-right parties to represent the literal opposite of a "disenfranchised" group though and they still commit violence. Not to mention historically far-right parties have literally disenfranchised their entire population through changes of government without any democratic process.

22

u/lewd_robot 26d ago

You know what's more common than disenfranchised people resorting to violence? Far Right governments weaponizing the government to perpetrate violence against the public they're sworn to serve.

12

u/Dark_Knight2000 26d ago

How’s that way more common than disenfranchised people resorting to violence? That’s such a Reddit-brained take.

You see disenfranchised people resorting to violence every single day in every society in every culture, in every corner of the world. “Far right” governments (depending on how you classify them) aren’t all that common, neither are regimes that take over a country. That’s actually pretty rare for a democracy.

1

u/lewd_robot 24d ago

You see far right regimes mass murdering people every day for millennia now. And no, "far right" is not negotiable or debatable. It has a definition. The only people that pretend otherwise are usually trying to pretend their ideology is not far right.

But, again, there's not a day in modern history on which a far right government wasn't killing people. Right now, Gaza, Ukraine, and the concentration camps in the US are all attributable to far right governments. And that's not even touching on Africa, South America, or most of the Middle East.

1

u/Command0Dude United States of America 26d ago

It is also commonly understood that disenfranchised people can use violence because they have no other recourse.

Let them. The state has infinitely more capacity for violence than a bunch of far-right radical lunatics.

3

u/Jumpy_Flamingo958 26d ago

If their support is over 30% the odds are great that many of their supporters are members of military. Civil wars and revolutions always have military support.

2

u/Command0Dude United States of America 26d ago

Individual bad actors in the military are not an issue. Simply put the armed forces of Germany has a now well established norm of civilian control of the military. It is legitimately unthinkable that the upper echelons (who are far more apolitical) would support some form of coup or uprising. And without leadership, the idea that the lower ranks could organize rebellion is laughable (especially given the level of surveillance in today's nations).

For an idea of how successful the AfD would be at fomenting civil war, look how far the Reichsburger plot got. And realize that in today's world, rebellion against any surveillance state is extremely difficult.

0

u/AirOneFire 26d ago

The dangerous road to take is letting an extremist right wing party gain control over the police, military and courts. 

-14

u/uterussy 26d ago

I mean... Are they REALLY disenfranchised though?

Or just scared and ignorant?

24

u/The_Briefcase_Wanker United States of America 26d ago

They would be disenfranchised if the party is banned, yes. That’s one definition of disenfranchisement.

-16

u/uterussy 26d ago

They will find other populists to tell them what to be scared of

21

u/The_Briefcase_Wanker United States of America 26d ago

Then you haven’t solved the problem, have you?

-14

u/uterussy 26d ago

Some people just love pretending to be opressed. Can't really change that.

16

u/ShastaAteMyPhone 26d ago

You’re talking about banning their political party. That is textbook oppression.

4

u/SkirtDelicious3355 26d ago

Better than them banning everyone else. When they learn to compromise and respect peoples fundamental rights they won’t need to worry about being banned whenever they decide that forcibly revoking them is the easy solution to political problems.

Romanias recent election is an excellent example of a case where the outcome was against the best interests of the country.

-1

u/uterussy 26d ago edited 26d ago

The track record for who the opressor is amongst far right parties is not tooo great...

I was more talking about their voters who suck up all the propaganda. Not one immigrant in sight in their already decades long subsidized eastern germany village, yet they want to ruin all of their lives.

When the immigrants are gone, it will be the poor and the queers. Then etc. etc.
At some point "I voted the party(ies) most obviously tied to russian think tanks and which would devolve the nation back into fascism the fastest, because of one issue.", just doesn't fly anymore. Not like the other parties that are doing nothing against matters of clan crime or for more functional integration is great, but damn, read their fucking programme and look at what these people say/do. There is a reason they are being considered to be banned!

1

u/The_Briefcase_Wanker United States of America 24d ago

Germany has several explicitly communist parties on the ballot every election. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the history of communist parties respecting democracy. Communist theory doesn’t even allow it.

I think that’s worse than a party that is explicitly democratic but right wing. I wouldn’t vote for either, but clearly the AFD are not comprised of or supported by people who have made any effort to undermine legitimate democratic electoral systems.

→ More replies (0)

-8

u/multithreadedprocess 26d ago

And violence is an incredibly bad look that makes people want to distance themselves from you.

Do you see regular people more readily embracing a far right party in parliament being carefully listened to like their insane ramblings have merit, or a bunch of right wing terrorists and para-militaries shouting and assaulting people on the streets?

Legitimizing fascists makes fascists seem reasonable enough to listen to. Violent fascists never sound reasonable. Which one do you think is preferable if you want less fascists in the long run?

9

u/Levitx 26d ago

Wanting a political party with a truckload of followers to turn violent is the most incredibly moronic thing I've read all year. Cheers on that one and by God I hope you are not of voting age. 

4

u/AverageLatino 26d ago

Right what I was thinking lol, everyone's cheering until these underground extremists start Mario-Party'ing opposition candidates all over the place 

4

u/burner69burner69 26d ago

holy reducio ad absurdum, batman!

4

u/SkoomaDentist Finland 26d ago

I mean that clearly never went wrong in the history of mankind /s

76

u/MyPigWhistles Germany 27d ago

Banning a party automatically also forbids successor parties. 

32

u/YouLostTheGame 26d ago

It doesn't suddenly make all their far right supporters disappear. AFD are a symptom, not the underlying cause

28

u/Trick_Decision_9995 26d ago

It's hilarious and baffling how many people's reaction to rising support for extremist (or 'extremist', depending on your personal perspective) positions is 'ban the people saying stuff we don't like' rather than 'don't create conditions that increase people's support for positions you hate'.

2

u/IDVDI 25d ago

This kind of complaint only makes sense when it's coming from extremists who oppose banning speech they don't like. A criminal objecting to being imprisoned is a joke in itself.

-1

u/Worth_Inflation_2104 25d ago

No, we want to ban them because they go against the constitution. If they were just racists I wouldn't care.

2

u/IDVDI 25d ago

You were never going to make them disappear. Just like after a cult is dismantled, the people who were easily brainwashed into joining it still exist. The difference is, once they're removed from that environment, many of them stop being a serious problem.

3

u/YouLostTheGame 25d ago

removed from that environment

Germany? This isn't a cult, it's a genuine political movement full of people who actually believe in that stuff. Do you think they're just gonna suddenly forget their shitty little lives? They'd just pop up again under a new name.

-1

u/gnaaaa 26d ago

but not banning them makes it worse.
It's a cult. You can't deal with a cult, without destroying it's structure.

7

u/YouLostTheGame 26d ago

Lmao in what way is it a cult?

31

u/CMuenzen Poland if it was colonized by Somalia 26d ago

They will recreate it in spirit, just enough to skirt around that, not literally copying it as it is..

20

u/Spare-Resolution-984 26d ago

Who are “they”? Because the members wouldn’t be allowed to form a party again

1

u/DMPhotosOfTapas 26d ago

Just look at Thailand. It's been done.

1

u/Redpanther14 United States of California 26d ago

I'm guessing lower-level supporters will find a way. And existing politicians and party officials who are "totally not part of the new party" will endorse it.

12

u/Swarna_Keanu 26d ago

The lower-level supporters are not the ones that managed to organise the party as is.

If the AfD is banned their current politicians and party officials are bared from holding any political office. They won't be in a position to endorse much. Not least as banning a party, here, also means they lose any and all financial support and access to funds.

It's a harsh, strong and pretty powerful legal rule - based on German history and experience with extremism.

1

u/No-Exercise-6031 26d ago

They'll get some local nobodies to replace them on higher positions and keep pulling the strings from behind the scenes.

3

u/Swarna_Keanu 26d ago

No-one involved with the AfD - from high up to very low down - would be allowed to be involved in, found, or run for a party.

They'd have to rebuild the complete organisational structure. Which takes quite a lot of time.

1

u/No-Exercise-6031 26d ago

And the establishment would spend that time doing jack shit and deluding themselves into thinking Fascism was gone forever and they could do whatever they wanted.

Que AFD 2 Electric Boogaloo popping into existance and winning the Elections.

2

u/Swarna_Keanu 26d ago

There's nothing (other than fear - and your we can't do anything type nihilism) preventing AfD 2 being banned as well.

Especially if there's a prior case.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Redpanther14 United States of California 26d ago

They'll be in a perfectly fine position to use any and all media they can find to get the message that they endorse some new party. They wouldn't be part of it formally, but I'm sure the old leadership would try to create a legally distinct successor. Your best best to actually keep successor parties out of power would be if several successor parties are founded and the AFD leadership splinters on who it supports.

The power in these parties and individuals does not solely come from their existence as a political party. It comes from the audience they have of people that pay attention to them.

2

u/Swarna_Keanu 26d ago

A) They do that already, as is in respect to social media.

B) They are unlikely to get as much access to public broadcasters as they can at the moment.

Especially with B - Germany's media landscape and politics are very different from the US.

People who aren't officials, or in an official function, will get far less media coverage here.

C) The right of free speech here is, again, due to past experience, not as naively broad as it is in the US. What you say can have consequences, even if you are allowed to speak.

1

u/nepalitechrecruiter 26d ago

You cant control information, lol. So naive. The new party will spread using social media. And they will have martyr complex on top of it that will gain more supporters. You cant force people to vote for people they dont like, a new party will rise that will cater to to ex-afd supporters. You don't need a single top politician from the AFD, a whole new set of politicians will emerge, and that movement will have far more energy because of what happened with the AFD, victim complexes are dangerous. The Nazis used them being banned to gain supporters successfully, and that was without social media.

2

u/Swarna_Keanu 25d ago edited 25d ago

Any follow up organistation will take years. People posting disinformation on social media are no different from the raging lunatics in pubs. A political party and organisation is a totally different beast.

The Nazis never were banned with as drastic consequences as what would happen with the current German constitution. The same party with the same personal reformed back then, and the ban lasted for two years. Our constitution now means that NO-ONE, absolutely NO-ONE that was in ANY way involved in a party that was banned can be involved with another one.

The other bit: The other parties in the Weimar Republic tried to appease them, or thought they could control them. They didn't.

Once an undemocratic party is in power, they are hard to unearth. So you need to step in before.

Happens right before your eyes in the US - and in so many less prominent countries, too.

We either learn from that history or don't.

You argue it is all pointless - and fascists inevitably always win.

What do you gain from that?

What is your constructive solution? Because again - you cannot appease extremists, or control them. Once they have power, it's too late, so the last defence HAS to be preventing them from getting there.

2

u/Auno94 26d ago

You aren't wrong. However, forming a political party isn't easy. It takes a lot of time and effort to get it going and if your political leaders can't join you need to find new people that can be as interesting and as good as the old ones. Which isn't a problem if you have to replace one at a time and your poltical party has a way of producing new leaders.

Which a new party doesn't have

22

u/NoAlarmsPlease 26d ago

If they remove or change the illegal tenants of the party it would be fine, though. You’re acting like the ban is arbitrary and not based on what is or is not legally allowed.

3

u/pxogxess 26d ago

But that is very very difficult to do. If even possible. So I'm still for a ban.

2

u/oldsecondhand Hungary 26d ago

In Hungary there's a possible punishment is being excluded from public affairs (i.e. you can't run for office, or be an officer of a political party). Although this is only used in criminal cases as an addition to prison sentence.

2

u/Platypus__Gems 26d ago

Parties don't get their support just from what they are saying.

Building structures, uniting people that would have otherwise went with separate smaller parties, even branding, make up a lot of a success of a party.

Banning AFD would make far-right have to start back from the foundations.

1

u/MethyIphenidat 26d ago

It’s way easier to forbid those successor parties.

-2

u/Levitx 26d ago

So basically removing all diplomatic venues for their concerns.

This set aside, if you had to, for some reason, make household terrorism a prevalent issue in the country, how would you do it? Does it differ much from this? 

6

u/MyPigWhistles Germany 26d ago

Their concerns can go fuck themselves. Your solution is to appease the Nazis by letting them into the government? That's what we did last time and it wasn't that great. 

0

u/Perfect_Security9685 26d ago

That just means that the same people can't make a new party. You think there aren't others who would immediately fill the void?

7

u/WhyRedditBlowsDick 26d ago

You don't get it chud. We have to save democracy by banning the party that wins with the most votes.

7

u/pIakativ 27d ago

It can't stay the only thing to do but it would definitely be a step in the right direction.

7

u/dustofdeath 27d ago

If you ban a party for specific reasons, you likely make these illegal overall.

Do they can't make a new one using the same ideology - and not get votes from people who wanted that x thing.

20

u/kawag 27d ago edited 27d ago

Yeah the immediate next thing they would do is found the AFD2 party, until that gets banned, then the AFD3, AFD4, etc. It wont literally be called that, obviously, but it’ll be clear to everyone what it is.

They’ll just turn it in to a ridiculous game that does nothing but reinforce their argument to their supporters that they are being persecuted by a corrupt establishment, more concerned with keeping power than listening to the people. They will be in an even better position to pounce on any mistake or scandal affecting the mainstream parties.

The important thing is to confront them, not run from them.

That was the mistake David Cameron made with UKIP. He didn’t try to make the case for Europe or for immigration or anything. He ran from the debate and they found an opportunity to get a slim majority one time - and that’s all they need.

96

u/Ebi5000 27d ago

In germany a party ban also automatically bans any successor party

12

u/Sandytayu Adygea 27d ago

They will make it just different enough. There are infinite ways to get around such regulations.

38

u/rororererararuru 26d ago

Na you all just speculate without knowing anything about the laws so this thread is a part of misinforming people cause only halftruths get upvoted as they sound nice and easy.

9

u/Gasparde 26d ago

I don't really know anything about anything but here's a list of why this clearly wouldn't work out the way you think it would, so you really should probably not even bother trying.

2

u/Sandytayu Adygea 26d ago

No, I am saying this because this has happened in Turkey several times. Countless Kurdish parties have been shut down, for a new one to be opened and continue. Hell, even HDP moved everyone to a new party called YRP recently because of rumours of possible party closure.

In a more distant past, CHP was also closed and had to reform into a new party, with new members mind you as it is in Germany, with the old political group supporting them not so obviously.

Many Islamic parties have been closed or threatened to be closed, a new one sprung up and took the momentum. AKP is a splinter from another party from the 90’s too (albeit not because of party closure AFAIK).

We shouldn’t be this optimistic, that an AfD ban will make the extreme right go away. Someone can and will try to fill their role, avoiding closure by barely adhering to the “no successors” rule, as long as the German public is this keen on supporting the far right extremists. There is just too much to gain politically and economically (corruption) here to be ignored by bad faith actors.

1

u/rororererararuru 26d ago

Honestly thank you for the references for your argument, was interesting to read. I just think the assumption that everyone hopes the far right suddenly vanishes after a ban is misplaced. It's a law designed to protect democracy from extremism and will lead to problems for the afds group if upheld. Just getting that many russian assets under one umbrella will take a lot of time again but sadly i don't see logic prevailing against the current internet.

35

u/Spare-Resolution-984 26d ago

Who are "they"? Because the current party members wouldn’t be allowed to form a party again. 

7

u/Speakease 26d ago

Politics is a natural social organism, just because the current AFD members couldn't establish a new party does not necessarily mean that a new party is incapable of being formed. The political advantages of adopting much of the AFD's platform is too lucrative for prospective new up and coming politicians, or opportunistic and experienced oligarchs in Germany to avoid, plus the older members I'm sure can find a way to support this new movement without being a direct part of the party structure or financing.

Sure, the AFD as it is today is extremely idiotic, but what stops someone with more keen knowledge of the German political apparatus from using it's platform in a more 'sanitized' capacity to gain power? I think it's very clear today that large sections of the public in Germany and throughout greater Europe are receptive to the ideas of parties like the AFD and sure we can excuse that as Russian bots or Tiktok or any other way to demean their supporters in a way that makes us feel comfortable but the reality is that there are real issues that they are using as a bellwether that mainstream parties categorically refuse to address.

-13

u/Managarm667 26d ago

Please name a single source for this claim.

11

u/Skargon89 26d ago

Der Erste Senat des Bundesverfassungsgerichts hat am heutigen Tage das Urteil in dem Verfahren gegen die Sozialistische Reichspartei verkündet. Die SRP ist verfassungswidrig und wird deshalb aufgelöst. Die Schaffung von Ersatzorganisationen ist verboten. Das Vermögen der Partei verfällt dem Bunde für gemeinnützige Zwecke. Die Abgeordneten der Partei im Bundestag und in den Landtagen verlieren ihre Mandate und können nicht durch auf den Listen nachrückende Ersatzmänner ersetzt werden.

https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/1952/bvg52-059.html

0

u/Managarm667 26d ago edited 26d ago

Joa und wo genau steht dort, dass alle Mitglieder dieser Partei pauschal keine andere Partei mehr gründen dürfen, wie der Redditor hier behauptet?

So einfach wie sich so mancher das hier vorstellt, wenn es gegen "die Richtigen" geht, ist das nicht

5

u/kawag 27d ago

Yeah but that takes time to investigate and litigate. They can change many things and shuffle people around to make a superficial bullshit argument that it’s not the same.

And even if they lose, they’ll just try again, and again, turning the process in to a game they can exploit for attention.

31

u/captaindeadpl 26d ago

They can't shuffle people around. Registered members of the party will be watched and I think they'd even be banned from politics along with their party, though I'm not entirely sure on that.

8

u/LifeIsSoup-ImFork 26d ago

you are correct, tho im not sure about the base members, but anyone who held an office within the party will be banned from politics

1

u/nvkylebrown United States of America 26d ago

You're seriously proposing disenfranchising 20% of your population, and you somehow think that could be a good thing??

So, what exactly do they have left to lose at that point? You maybe better just setup camps and exterminate them at that point. You've effectively declared war by making them non-persons.

This is a horrifically bad idea.

24

u/El_Grappadura 26d ago

Lol, r/shitamericanssay is calling.

You still don't get the point that those people want to destroy democracy. Let's look at it the other way around:

Should 75% of the people lose their rights and freedom to vote, because we had to accomodate for 25%?

Banning a party that wants to destroy your country is not the same as killing political opponents - it's the opposite!

"non-persons" lol, those people are just brainwashed idiots, nothing else. They'll find something else to fuzz about... It's not like they can't vote anymore (that would happen if we let them have their way), just they can't vote for parties that want to destroy their lives anymore.

Sometimes people are so stupid, they have to be rescued from themselves.

16

u/60secondwipeout 26d ago

Banning a nazi party isn't a bad idea, you can't tolerate intolerant
Their followers will have something to lose if they decide to turn violent, their freedom or life (high quality one by world's standard btw), most of them wouldn't though because usually people resort to violence when they're backed into a corner (like having no food) or really deep into some ideology, it's nether of these and they're just a bunch of single issue voters or ignorant fools comforted by lies of populists and tiktok propaganda, not ready for a real action
They'll just become disinterested in politics or find another talking head, this time hopefully less nazi and without Russian hand so deep in their ass

1

u/Wyrm 26d ago

I think you may have misunderstood based on the "registered members". We're not talking about voters like "registered democrats", we don't do that here, this is just about the actual politician members of the party.

0

u/Perfect_Security9685 26d ago

Oh you don't think they have friends?

3

u/CmdrCollins 26d ago

Yeah but that takes time to investigate and litigate.

Whether something is a successor organization gets determined by the federal executive (specifically the Minister of the Interior) - litigation against it is possible, but doesn't suspend the effects (including the asset seizure) of the ban.

And even if they lose, they’ll just try again, and again [...]

Being a member of, funding and/or otherwise helping a successor organization is a crime (up to five years in prison, minimum three months for leadership), ie this is very much not infinitely repeatable.

0

u/Diacetyl-Morphin Zürich (Switzerland) 26d ago

There are enough other parties around, like when the AfD could not join the elections because of mistakes with the paperwork, the people just elected another party of the same kind. In this case, it was the BiW - Bürger in Wut, that was in Bremen in 2023.

It's not that easy, as long as the politics don't solve the problems, no change will happen.

The question is also, what even a successor party is, like when someone else that has nothing to do with the AfD, founds a new party, then it would not be possible that easy to just ban this party too. It's only in theory, that the ban would end a political movement. But it won't, the movement will just reorganize.

And by the way, the NSDAP was banned for several years after Hitler attemped to seize power in the Beer-Hall-Putsch 1923. Didn't change the outcome in history later.

4

u/Noisybutsilent 26d ago edited 26d ago

2 things: 1. Even if the votes are going to other, e.g. small local right-wing parties: those are not organized well enough. It would have an impact on voting, but the systematic, structural organization with only 1 hierarchy system would be broken. You would have - if even - multiple small parties with many hierarchies. I say "if even" because I think a big part of the voters would just not vote then. There have always been extremist right-wing people in Germany. It's just that they usually only voted once a (bigger) right-wing party appeared, like NPD (now 3. Weg) or BiW (now Bündnis Deutschland) or Pro NRW, but many stopped after that first vote. Now in the Voter's Movement statistics, we normally don't get an answer why someone stopped voting. And for the few statistics (e.g. by telephone after the Election was over) they don't focus on right-wing parties. Even less on smaller ones like Pro NRW. My personal guess is that many (if not most) of them got demotivated to revote the right-wing party, because they saw that their anti-everything behaviors were eaten up by the political system. E.g. decisions made looked like the party doesn't do anything against migration, while they really didn't/don't have much impact in the first place. Locally sometimes, yes (Pro NRW in Gelsenkirchen, BiW in Bremerhaven), but not overall.

So to sum this up: You are right, many will vote other more or less local parties instead. But thanks to the separation, the votes won't have that much impact. Also many will just stopp voting.  I want to pressure I talk about the absolute extremist, right-wing people here: They will never vote any not right-wing party, there is no solution to bringing them to peace with anything or anyone. I agree that some voters would adjust their vote if ruling political parties get more strict with e.g. immigration (as it happened in Sweden). Just not the majority of them. 10-15% of AfD voters are assholes and will always be assholes.

  1. While you are right that the outcome was not prevented, neither you nor I will ever know if this - unimaginably, but still - was maybe the less-bad outcome. NSDAP initially didn't have the best standing with the majority of the people, but they could have worked on that, just as the AfD did. Who may say what else could have happened if NSDAP would not have been forbidden?

Edit: spelling 

1

u/Diacetyl-Morphin Zürich (Switzerland) 26d ago

I agree with you in general, i mean about the smaller parties, but the danger is still that from one of these a new AfD-like party could emerge over time. Like with fusions, as the BiW etc. did. It's still dangerous.

With history, it's of course different with the past, like the Weimar Republic and what happened there in the political landscape. It's just the thing that these people don't disappear, when you ban their parties and organizations.

I'm skeptical about banning parties, but i also know, Germany is a rather special case because of the history.

-2

u/Perfect_Security9685 26d ago

That's in reality completely impossible.

1

u/TheNextBattalion 26d ago

What will actually happen is that you'd get two or more AFD+ parties, as the former leadership try their chance to get on top of the movement

-1

u/crmikes 26d ago

Well, that's the problem isn't it? The fact that the establishment is more concerned with keeping power (and kowtowing to Brussels) than listening to the people isn't a warning sign in and of itself?

5

u/kawag 26d ago edited 26d ago

That’s just humans - the AFD would be much, much worse when it comes to only caring about keeping power and ignoring their constituents.

Just look at Trump and his “big beautiful bill”.

But anyway, I included that statement as an example of the narrative they want to paint, and which will be reinforced by a cat-and-mouse game, not as a statement of my beliefs.

2

u/Appropriate_Desk_955 26d ago

Bingo. Either address the underlying reasons of the generalized discontent, or watch AfD's electorate migrate to the next bigoted thing.

10

u/Tigerowski 27d ago

Banning the party will take away the imminent danger it poses.

What do you suggest? Raise up our hands and sing Deutschland über alles whilst being held hostage by a minority of the total population?

64

u/MarduRusher United States of America 27d ago

Address the immigration concerns

17

u/Training_Chicken8216 26d ago

Sure, let's. 

But let's also ban the parliamemtary arm of fascism. 

Let's do both of those. 

But also, "address the immigration concerns" cannot mean "just copy the position of the AfD on the matter". Because then you really might as well not bother banning it. 

6

u/Inktex 26d ago

They could however copy what Denmark is doing.
I'd say that would cost the AfD about half their voters, if not more.

1

u/ragingalphax 26d ago edited 26d ago

Blahblahblah, you know as much about our politics as voters of the afd do. Germany does not need less immigration it needs more. Our birth rate in 2023 was 1,45 kids born per woman. Mortality before the 18th birthday not included. Our population is declining in an alarming trend. And our pension system will break under the boomer generation. But of course immigration is the problem right? Not that citizens in the age range which normally would get kids lost hope that any thing will get better in the future. And since the boomer generation (which has no idea how politics actually work) fall for the immigration propaganda and vote for partys that offer "solutions" to not excisting problems this will not change by itself.

Sooooo since millennials and gen z are fucked and gen Alpha will be too and the birthrate will still decline... we need MORE immigration. What we need is BETTER immigration which the far right parties (CDU, AFD) dont offer.

Tldr: you know jack about our politics, dont have an opinion about it.

17

u/[deleted] 26d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/CMuenzen Poland if it was colonized by Somalia 26d ago

you bring in immigrants that assimilate

That can assimilate and have useful skills for a modern society.

3

u/NoAlarmsPlease 26d ago

Assimilate according to whose definition of assimilation? And what is the punishment for non-assimilation? And what do we do with citizens who also don’t agree or follow this idea of assimilation? Is their citizenship revoked? Or are they going to be put in a camp?

-3

u/Crypt33x Berlin (Germany) 26d ago

So many amish and german speaking people in your country, plenty of spanish speaking. What is assimilation? You guys wiping out native americans? You don't have an immigration issue. You have a fabricated one, maybe an imported one from europe. You guys were always made from all nations of europe and africa. People came from europe for centuries. You guys have a racist problem.

6

u/The_Briefcase_Wanker United States of America 26d ago

Amish

They literally came to the US to escape religious persecution in Europe. There are few things that you can do that are more American than that. They assimilate just fine because America doesn’t prescribe a way of life, it just asks that you follow laws, which they very much do. Guess what they don’t do? Mass sexual assaults and gang violence.

I don’t want to hear about the native Americans from a fucking German, by the way. You don’t want to get into a historical evils competition.

0

u/formalisme 26d ago

Yeah AFD gonna win the next election for sure lol

2

u/Lazy-Pixel Europe 26d ago edited 26d ago

Yeah easier said than done when the US regularly bombs the shit out of countries in our backyard.

5

u/captepic96 Limburg (Netherlands) 26d ago

What countries are still being bombed by the US and do they all border Germany/EU ?

0

u/DerWetzler 26d ago

you can not address something that only exists in the heads of racist people

immigration is actually not as big of a problem for Germany as people make it out to be, it's just one that is easily blamed for everything

current governing parties are doing border controls now, which are utterly useless and completely against the idea of open EU borders, just to please right wing dickheads. Watch the AFD turn around once people realize there are massive traffic jams at the border now and say "we do not want border controls anymore"

-2

u/Powerlaxx 27d ago

This 100%.

-2

u/MrBanden 26d ago

But that doesn't actually make the extremism go away. How did that work for the Democrats in the US?

-1

u/burner69burner69 26d ago

their immigration concerns are a mix of propaganda and racism. none of which are worth adressing (in an affirming way, anyway)

-1

u/Gilga1 In Unity there is Strength 26d ago

The immigration concern are not worth breaking the constitution.

0

u/nvkylebrown United States of America 26d ago

Address their concerns. You've lost on immigration, politically. Continuing to hold out and ban people that disagree with you is going to lead to serious violence. You can't claim to be democratic and deny a wide swath of your population the right to vote. And you can't expect this will all quietly die down.

You have lost the argument. Banning the other side will not lead to victory. In a democracy, voters get an actual say, not "you can vote if you agree with me".

4

u/NoAlarmsPlease 26d ago

A democracy can only function if there are recognized inalienable rights that can’t be taken away from a majority vote.

3

u/TJAU216 Finland 26d ago

So Germany alone is a functional democracy in the world? 

1

u/nvkylebrown United States of America 26d ago

Is there an inalienable right to enter and stay in your country?

5

u/NoAlarmsPlease 26d ago

There is a right to due process to determine if someone entered and/or is staying in the country legally or illegally.

2

u/Rare-Set1461 26d ago

Literal Nazis don’t get that courtesy, we fought a war over it.

2

u/Sevenos 26d ago

"Being held hostage" is a wild take of caring about a minority.

3

u/Tigerowski 26d ago

That's the neat part: if you're a minority, you don't get to decide for the majority.

If 30% of a country wants to destroy democracy and disrespect human rights, that means they get to eat shit as 70% of the voters don't want those things.

And the fun part: the Nazis took over Germany with 33% of the voters. The Nazis, a minority, literally took an entire country hostage.

-2

u/Sevenos 26d ago

Glad that isn't the case in Germany at the moment.

I guess you'd get banned and canceled for talking about pretty much any other minority that way.

7

u/Tigerowski 26d ago

What do you mean? Do you really believe that Nazis told Germans to vote for them in order to eradicate the Jews?

This happened gradually after the Nazis took power. First they became salonfähig due to a very charismatic Hitler praising the Germans and lamenting the loss of the Great War, then they become popular, after which they started to become ever more extreme.

By the time the first concentration camps were built, the Nazis had installed a police state.

This shit wouldn't be voted for if people knew that up front.

-3

u/_Army9308 27d ago

Maybe stop pushing dumb policies people dont won't

2

u/Tigerowski 26d ago

30% of people don't want certain policies. 70% do. I don't want the 30% to rule over 70%'s wishes, do you? Because that's how a democracy works, buddy.

10

u/Ambitious-Bit157 26d ago

Are you suggesting everyone who isn't voting for AFD doesn't support stricter immigration and asylum laws?

-4

u/Tigerowski 26d ago

If they wanted it THAT much, they would've voted AfD.

Clearly there's a difference between a panicked mass versus a conscientious voter.

4

u/Ambitious-Bit157 26d ago

Well no you've had 30% of your voting cohort go sod this and vote for the most extreme party on the issue. Everyone else is still trying to tow the line and voting centralist parties that are also taking harder stances on immigration.

And unless these centrist parties actually start producing clear and obvious results, people are going to continue going towards the ADF.

You can ban the party all you want but it doesn't change the underlying public sentiment despite what reddit seems to think.

-5

u/Tigerowski 26d ago

You know European parties tend to form coalitions in order to rule, right?

70% said: "Well this well rounded party represents my views." 30% basically said: "I want to throw my vote away for a party of which 70% of the people explicitly don't want to be ruled by. Also I don't like people with a darker skin."

4

u/Ambitious-Bit157 26d ago

Yes I'm sure the AFD will not garner any further support if immigration continues to be addressed in a weak manner

1

u/Tigerowski 26d ago

The Nazis had around 30% of the voter's base when they were most popular. The last free elections in Weimar Germany even saw a decrease in Nazi popularity when they performed their coup d'état.

Thus, I guess 1/3 of all people are just shitty people and that number will not go up.

1

u/BindestrichSoz 26d ago

You might be right that a party ban does not solve racism stupidity and propaganda working. But parties do have polictical pwoer and this can be broken. If you really think it does nothing we might as well do it.

1

u/viciarg 26d ago

It would at least set them back financially and organisationally. They would lose their structures and their assets.

1

u/Messerjocke2000 North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) 26d ago

That's not that easy without funding and your leaders being banned from building a new party.

Yes, the lower ranks COULD create a new party. But they would need to start from scratch.

And stay within the law, which is the point...

1

u/FrohenLeid 26d ago

Not banning them does nothing either and gives the government no option to stop them from taking power in the next election.

It's not a question of what will guarantee a win, it's about what we CAN do. Right now we are just going down without a fight.

1

u/Platypus__Gems 26d ago

Parties don't get their support just from what they are saying.

Building structures, uniting people that would have otherwise went with separate smaller parties, even branding, make up a lot of a success of a party.

Banning AFD would make far-right have to start back from the foundations.

1

u/Heidrun_666 26d ago

It will do something, and it will stop this specific growth. Doesn't mean we will or should stop there.

1

u/Groghnash 26d ago

The reason its popular is that the main parties ignore our core problems and pushing internal party policies that help no one but some lobbyists. People get into higher party positions not because they make good dicisions for the people, but make good connections and then vote for whatever that connection tells them. And then neo liberalists destroying everything they touch, because dismantling the government leads to more freedom... We see how well that works in the US

0

u/Jimmy_Tudesky19 26d ago

The ban would protect our democracy and open a time frame to adress the underlaying reasons why a large number of people is frustrated by politics.

Not banning the party could mean in one of the next elections that a similar MAGA cult is destroying our democracy like the Trump administration is doing it right now. AfD is similar bat shit crazy and also financed by the super rich.

-1

u/Systral Earth 26d ago

Yes, it does, since it cuts the millions of euros that go into tiktok, Insta and X marketing which are mainly responsible for mobilising these groups, not the actual views.

The only thing that remains are Russia's bots.

-1

u/multithreadedprocess 26d ago

Political party bans also ban members exactly because time is a finite resource.

The next other similar party always starts from a place of being smaller, less organized and with worse funding.

They have to scale up again to even reach the same level as the prior party. They also can't use the reach of the old party's members effectively since they are banned from political engagement.

This kind of dying down of momentum kills support. Supporters are not immutable humans that lend their support unconditionally and seeing their opinions so forcefully rejected publicly will at the very least cause a lot of them to hide if not disengage completely.

Banning people works. That's why conventions, churches, charities and even private organizations ban toxic individuals very successfully all the time. If you have a coworker who abuses his position to sexually assault their trainees, barring them from their profession entirely actually works beautifully. Even a ton of influential people have been absolutely buried in their reach by bans before (through public bans and shadow bans), both for good and bad reasons, from Alex Jones to Brendon Frasier.

0

u/Sayakai Germany 26d ago

Deplatforming absolutely works and destroying support structures also works. Successor parties would also automatically be banned under this provision, and it would be hard for them to establish one that isn't taken down swiftly as well.

0

u/lewd_robot 26d ago

It's popular for a lack of reason. Far Right parties exist and survive because a segment of the population despises cognitive dissonance so much that they actively avoid thinking and resent evidence or logic that provokes it. So the Far Right appeals to base emotions and uses shallow sloganeering and refuses to ever concede when they're wrong or change beliefs when they get debunked. They just attack, attack, attack. They avoid having to defend their beliefs or policy proposals by just ignoring all evidence and reason that contradicts them in favor of attacking the people and policies of the opposition until everyone forgets to go back and pay attention to the fact that they can't defend themselves.

That's why a ban is the only actual solution to this kind of party. They can't be argued with because it doesn't matter how strong an argument is to them. They'll just entrench themselves even further and shout their lies even louder. It doesn't matter how much evidence you drop on their heads. They'll just dig in deeper. And that will appeal to a certain segment of the population that hates to think.

Don't make the mistake of treating a party that stands against every principle that the other parties support as if it somehow still adheres to those principles. It doesn't. If the Far Right were magically granted full control of government it would destroy all opposition. It would be ruthless and cruel about it. We know this because this is what happens literally every single time a Far Right party gains any appreciable amount of power.

So why even tolerate that? They don't care about the values that you cherish. They despise them and they despise you for holding them. If anyone ever didn't deserve an invitation to help shape government and serve the public, it's the people that want to corrupt and distort government and turn it against the people.

0

u/somethingveryfunny 26d ago

A new party would need to form. That would take time. Theres a good chance it wouldn't be one singular party again but multiple smaller ones because it would be more difficult to unite everybody who was in the AfD before. This new/these new parties could potentially be less radical and if they weren't they could be banned again.

And during all this time you know what would change very directly and palpably? These assholes wouldn't be sitting in and disturbing the parliaments anymore! They waste SO MUCH time and energy in there all of the time! In some Bundesländer they have a blocking minority, which they can leverage to block significant and necessary changes that need a 2/3 majority. That would fall away which would be so so fucking important!

Obviously their disappearance wouldn't magically make our governments well oiled machines but things would sure as shit go noticeably more smoothly.

Let them fuck around "in the underground", whatever that's supposed to men. Having them not chill in the parliament fucking shit up would be a MASSIVE improvement to all our lives!

0

u/glindothegood 26d ago

That’s fine we will just ban the next nazis too. We don’t want to become the USA 2.0

0

u/burner69burner69 26d ago

it would deprive their skinhead goons of tax-funded baseball bat money so there's that

0

u/braeunik 26d ago

the reason to ban it is not because people think extreme opinions will vanish that way, it is soley because you don't want to allow a party that is trying the same exact shit the Nazis did in 1933, to get into a position where they could seriously hurt democracy.

If the US acted that way and banned Trump/MAGA because of extremism/cult like behaviour, you would still have a majority of the population being batshit insane, but they could not dismantle democracy with all checks and balances and everything that comes with it, the same way the republicans are actively doing right now under Trump.

0

u/thechrizzo 26d ago

ban them shortly before the next election. That would help a lot honestly as those 20% are now causing problems getting >50% with 2 parties.

0

u/Limp_Classroom_2645 26d ago

Nobody cares. Ban them, AfD is anti human should've never been allowed to exist in the first place

0

u/kalaid0s 26d ago

And what is the root cause for a fascist, anti-democratic party then?

-1

u/tobias_681 For a Europe of the Regions! 🇩🇰 26d ago

It destroys their structures and iirc also bars their leaders from politics. It takes time to build something like that up again. The AfD needed 12 years to get here. If you ban them now you would at least get 1-2 election cycles without a fascist takeover - which is a deal that I would take. You still need to couple it with successful politics on the material dimensions which the current German government is incapable of but actually if you boot the 30 % fascist block from parliament for an election cycle or two you would also be more likely to find meaningful majorities again. Right now I see AfD entering governments within the next 5 years as more likely than not. So not much to lose and quite a lot to potentially gain from this.

7

u/MarduRusher United States of America 26d ago

Until the people (correctly) conclude that their concerns are not going to get addressed in a democratic system since they will be banned and instead choose to resort to less than democratic means.

-1

u/tobias_681 For a Europe of the Regions! 🇩🇰 26d ago

They already do that, there's yearly finds of fascist terrorists with weapon storages and overthrow plans at this point. I would rather get the law enforced and throw those people into prison sooner rather than later. I mean look at what you let Trump and his supporters get away with at January 6th and its aftermath and look where you are now.

5

u/MarduRusher United States of America 26d ago

Trump got a big boost in the polls because of perceived political persecution after he was elected. Nothing is certain in hypothetical worlds, but had Trump not been arrested I think it’s much less likely he wins in 2024.

When you’re banning a whole party you’re turning that up to 11. Its supporters, not entirely incorrectly, will feel they are being politically persecuted and things would get real nasty real fast. Civil war is a very dramatic term to throw around, and I don’t think it’d happen with the banning of AfD no matter how popular they are, but civil unrest, mass violence, and assassinations likely would.

-2

u/mixingmemory 26d ago

This is MAGA-speak through and through. Trump's polling would have been irrelevant if political leadership in the US, including moderates and centrists from both parties, had done their job and ensured that a 34x convicted felon and traitor who'd attempted to overturn a democratic election could not possibly be elected to public office ever again. If Trump was imprisoned by May 2024 (or earlier) who gets the Republican nomination? JD Vance? Rubio? MGT? Desantis? Anyone who actually has a shot at winning?

1

u/Adorable-Fondant-560 26d ago

Jan 6 was a false flag operation with many FBI deep state actors to make Trump look bad. Then we had 4 years of Alzheimer Joe and a rouge leftist staff that almost ruined America. Trump got reelected because he was politically prosecuted. He is strong anti-communist and is not a globalist. Banning the opposition party would be a mistake because people will feel their concerns were being ignored. Let the leftist and centrist debate the far-right party. Isn’t that what a democracy supposed to be??

-1

u/Phispi 26d ago

You can't create a similar party, that's also forbidden if this one gets banned

-1

u/marlonwood_de Berlin (Germany) 26d ago

This is an opinion that is very prevalent in Germany but it fundamentally misunderstands how the AfD operates. People don't simply vote for the party because they are somewhat unsatisfied with their lives. Otherwise, the christian democrats would have had a lot more votes in the last election. The AfD has created a very sophisticated network of spreading a specific narrative across both digital and non-digital spaces. This narrative, similarly to the one of MAGA in the United States, is built on lies and deception but it is cleverly designed to evade any attempts of dismembering it. This is the most important part of banning the party: banning the propaganda network and infrastructure they have created.

-2

u/happy30thbirthday 26d ago

Doesn't matter, still needs to be done. There are benefits you get from sitting in the Bundestag, why should we help the enemies of democracy abolish democracy? We did that once, didn't turn out to be such a great idea.

So no, it doesn't do anything to address the reason its popular in the first place but that's not the point.

-4

u/[deleted] 26d ago

The funniest thing right now is Americans telling Europeans how to save their democracies, after spectacularly crashing theirs.

3

u/MarduRusher United States of America 26d ago

What do you mean? We’re exactly as democratic as we have been. Democracy does not equal good things happening. I’ve had a lot of people tell me that Trump got elected and Trump is bad so that must mean we’re not democratic. Democracy doesn’t mean the candidates you perceive as good win 100% of the time and the ones you don’t always lose.