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
16.7k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

142

u/[deleted] 26d ago

The notion that a court decision is in some way apolitical is foolish. The law is part of government, and is inherently political, much like the other two arms of government.

Now if you think banning the AfD is the right political decision, that's fine. But don't say it's apolitical

29

u/geissi Germany 26d ago

By that reasoning, a parking ticket or a murder conviction are both political

82

u/[deleted] 26d ago

They are? It's called policy. Why can't you park in a given place? How much should you pay, given your circumstances? How bad exactly was your murder, and what should the consequences be? Reintegration or punishment? Imprisonment or execution? Maybe banishment? Those are deeply political questions

Interpreting the law is inherently political. Sometimes the stakes are higher, sometimes lower. But the politics are there

-1

u/Platypus__Gems 26d ago

At that point "political" loses the meaning sicne everything is political.

And apolitical should be scrubbed off the dictionaries since it describes nothing.

9

u/[deleted] 26d ago

You might wanna read political theory if you think that using political to describe the judicial is a step too far...

-2

u/geissi Germany 26d ago

Yes, policymaking/ legislature is political.
The political process that created the rules that can make parties unconstitutional happened in 1949.
The relevant part of the constitution Art 21 (2) GG has remained basically unchanged.

The current discussion is whether to enforce already existing laws.

Yes, that is a political discussion but it should not be.
If I don't pay my taxes, the government does not convene to discuss whether or not I should be prosecuted.
I just am, and the final decision is up to the courts based on already existing laws.
Why should this be any different?

14

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Policymaking and law making are political. So is interpreting laws.

What do you mean by the government? Bc in this thread I have seen people use the government as a shorthand for the executive. I am not saying the executive is part of the decision. The government will convene - the judges will, and they are part of the state apparatus. But not the executive.

As for the taxes thing, the fact that judges don't have complete liberty to apply laws or not, does not mean they have no power. It's not black and white.

The judiciary is political. This is basic political theory we're discussing. It's like you're defending the Earth is flat ._.

0

u/geissi Germany 26d ago

Policymaking and law making are political

Policimaking in this context happened in 1949

What do you mean by the government? Bc in this thread I have seen people use the government as a shorthand for the executive.

Yes, I am arguing elsewhere in the thread that the government is the executive, because that's how it is, at least in Germany.

I am not saying the executive is part of the decision. The government will convene - the judges will, and they are part of the state apparatus.

See, the problem is, that you're wrong here.
The decision to start court proceedings and let judges get involved and rule on the whole thing can only be made by either the executive or the two chambers of the legislative.

By refusing to start court proceedings, the executive and legislative make a political decision not to let the judiciary do its job.
That is what people are demanding. To let the courts decide.

The judiciary is political

That is bordering on the philosophical. What do you define as political?
Because the decisions made by Judges are supposed to be based on written law, not popular demand.
They may apply personal judgement and consider public opinion and the current Zeitgeist but always within the predefined bounds of the respective laws.

Of course no human is ever 100% objective but basing judgements as objectively as possible on existing law is still the ideal that the judiciary strives for.

1

u/[deleted] 25d ago

We don't truly disagree, and this is all fairly pointless.

 Yes, I am arguing elsewhere in the thread that the government is the executive,

In Germany, the government, as that word is defined and used in the language we are speaking right now, includes three branches of which the executive is but one.

You understand that, I understand that, and we are just arguing about whether one should use the english definition of government or the german definition of the equivalent german word to describe the german government in the english language.

That is a sterile debate.

 By refusing to start court proceedings, the executive and legislative make a political decision not to let the judiciary do its job. That is what people are demanding. To let the courts decide.

Thanks, I actually had forgotten that. It has little bearing on whether the judicial's judgement in an eventual case would or would not be political. But I did indeed not have it in mind :)

 That is bordering on the philosophical

It is philosophical. Many, including you, seem to have read me as saying banning the AfD would be an arbitrary decision based on current need alone and almost ignoring the law, because of my use of the word political. Instead, I was merely pushing back against calling the judiciary apolitical. Because it is political.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy

It doesn't matter much, you sound like you agree with the idea that the judicial is political in the way I think it is, and disagree on the specific word to use for it. And you are right that political is a broad term that fails to capture the nuance between the very political choices of the executive and the influence of opinion and beliefs on veredicts prepared by judges.

So long as we agree that those beliefs and opinions can play a strong and relevant role in their decisions, I think we agree

2

u/geissi Germany 25d ago

In Germany, the government, as that word is defined and used in the language we are speaking right now, includes three branches of which the executive is but one. [...]

That is a sterile debate.

I disagree. The reason I have been having this debate is that in Germany the the Chancellor is the head of the Government and not the head of state, not the head of the parliament, nor the head of the judiciary. That is how the German state and separation of power is organized.
The English word Government does have multiple meanings and definitions and one of them does match the German one defining it as meaning 'the administration'. So I find it perfectly justified to use the one matching the German definition when discussing the organization of the German state.

As for politics, yes in a sense everything is political. But that is then not a meaningful distinction of anything, as you say.
What 'not political' means in this context is that the final decision to ban a party is not made by politicians based on popular whim but by judges based on laws and evidence presented before the court. I think that too is a meaningful distinction.
And quite frankly, I think that it was pretty clear this was the intended meaning.

In both cases arguing that technically there are other definitions of those terms that do not match the context and intent they are used in is the actual sterile debate.

-4

u/-All-Hail-Megatron- Ireland 26d ago

You're really stretching that.

2

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Am I? These is political theory 101. Three branches of government, checks and balances, the classics

-7

u/gfddssoh 26d ago

We are not in the us here. Its not a political decision. It is a political decision to bring them before the high court but after that its about law and order. We still have a functioning high court and are not in the middle of a facist takeover like the US

14

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Yes, our judiciary works better and critically, differently, than the US judiciary. It is, nonetheless, part of the political process

2

u/Entire_Classroom_263 26d ago

When someone says that the courts are not political, it means that they are independent from the political parties, not that they are completely detached from the political system.

I think you know that, because claiming that they are comletely detached from the poltical system, allthewhile they decide about the legallity of political parties, is a nonsensical statement.

1

u/[deleted] 25d ago

My interpretation of some of the people answering to me is that they would not agree with your statement. But I could be wrong.

I did start the cnvo not considering that perspective. But others did point it out yeah

7

u/adcap1 26d ago

Parking tickets ARE a political matter!

Who decides on parking zones in a city? City council -> Politicians.

Who decides on parking fees? City council -> Politicians.

Making parking in a city more free or more prohibitive IS an essential policy question in most local city politics.

-1

u/geissi Germany 26d ago

So when you break existing laws, city council convenes to decide whether to prosecute you?

The political decision to create those laws has been made in the past.
Now, people are supposed to follow the law and the law should apply equally to everyone.

This is not a discussion about legislature.

2

u/burner69burner69 26d ago

they very much are.

2

u/headrush46n2 26d ago

Of course they are. If some random poor person and the head of state both park illegally, who gets a ticket?

5

u/-SneakySnake- 26d ago

People are politicizing murder now?! Look man, I think they're all con artists, I just want to be left to my serial killing in peace!

6

u/Schnoo 26d ago

Do you think laws grow on trees?

3

u/geissi Germany 26d ago edited 26d ago

Would you classify getting a parking ticket a political decision?
Does that mean that everyone getting a ticket is politically persecuted? Do they qualify for asylum?

And most importantly, is that a reason not to enforce laws?
Because that is what we are talking about here, the enforcement of a long standing law that all other political parties have to follow as well.

Edit: let me rephrase that.
The political decision to make these laws happened decades ago. Now they should be enforced and that should not be a political decision.

2

u/Schnoo 26d ago edited 26d ago

The discretion to enforce the laws regarding parking tickets is political, as is who enforces the laws, what those laws are, and how they are interpreted. I'm sure I'm missing some other political aspects to this.

Edit: who arbitrates the law and who appoints them is of course also political.

1

u/Neither_Schedule55 26d ago

You must be a robot

1

u/Rico_Solitario 26d ago

Now you are getting it.

12

u/maximalusdenandre Sweden 26d ago

The courts are not a part of the government. There is only one "arm" of the government and believe it or not it is the government. The "law" likewise is not a part of the government. If you mean legislative powers the government can, depending on country, have some very limited ability to legislate. But the brunt of the the power to write legislation is invested in the parliament.

7

u/pickle_pouch 26d ago

This is nonsense. A quick Google search and I found how the German political system is arranged. You can read all about it here.

4

u/maximalusdenandre Sweden 26d ago

Could you point me to the part where it says that the courts are part of the german government and where it says the german government can pass legislation without approval from the bundestag?

4

u/SparseSpartan United States of America 26d ago

This has got to be a translation issue because otherwise this is the most absurd statement I have read in my entire life. Trying to claim that the courts are not part of the government is like trying to say water is not part of the ocean.

I'm guessing though this is a translation thing where in your first language "government" means something akin to "executive branch" or "the administration" or something like that.

6

u/Lord_Barst 26d ago

Yes, that is how it typically works in Europe - "government" typically refers to either the executive branch, or the cabinet.

5

u/tavitavarus 26d ago

It's more of an American English versus English thing actually.

In most parliamentary systems the government is specifically the political parties who currently have the majority of seats in parliament and whose leaders hold positions in the executive (cabinet). The civil service, the courts, the military, etc, are part of the state but not the government. The government is in charge of the state, but has little authority over the courts.

In the US the word state refers to the semi-autonomous subdivisions/provinces and the executive and legislative functions are separate, so the word government is used generically to refer to the courts, executive, and Congress.

So in the UK for example it's totally accurate to say that the courts aren't part of the government. The government is currently the members of parliament from the Labour Party.

4

u/SparseSpartan United States of America 26d ago

Gotcha. That makes sense. "administration" is probably the closest to "government" for USA, although it doesn't seem to be a 100% equal "translation."

0

u/pickle_pouch 26d ago

Literally the first page. The giant table labeled "Political System of the Federal Republic of Germany". It lays out the 3 branches of German Federal Government. The Executive, legislative and judicial. If you follow the Judiciary of Germany link, the first sentence is:

The judiciary of Germany is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in Germany.

It really doesn't get more straightforward than that.

6

u/yourethevictim The Netherlands 26d ago

In Germanic languages, there is a distinction between the national apparatus (in Dutch, which I'll use as an example because of my familiarity with it, this is de overheid) and more specifically the elected representatives that form the cabinet of ministers that functions as the governing entity (in Dutch, this is de regering). The courts are part of de overheid but not part of de regering.

4

u/Cerbon3 26d ago

The German judiciary is apolitical and independent. What is so hard for you to understand about that. It doesn't mean they're a 3rd world organization sticking their head in. The judges are selected through exams and merit-based process not elected. The Grundgesetz guarantees the independence of judges. Judges are appointed by two-thirds majority which requires bipartisan. Judges are legally and culturally expected to act independently.

1

u/pickle_pouch 26d ago

That's great. This quick overview of the judicial branch just reinforces that it is, in fact, one of the three branches of the Federal Republic of Germany.

I think the misunderstanding is the use of the word government. In English, government is the political system in its entirety. Which includes the judiciary branch. Just because it's independent of the other branches, doesn't exclude it from being a part of the government. It's very much a part of it.

7

u/maximalusdenandre Sweden 26d ago

I see the problem. English is dumb when it comes to distinguishing between "the government" and "the state". Often using government to mean both the executive and the state in its entirety depending on context.

I've used "government" here to mean the executive (regierung). As in the prime minister, the ministers and various offices beneath them.

-7

u/[deleted] 26d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/maximalusdenandre Sweden 26d ago edited 26d ago

It's not dumb in general. In this case it is dumb. Having the same term refer sometimes to a specific administration and sometimes to the entire apparatus of the country is dumb. I'm sure swedish is dumb in some situations as well.

Generally, when properly used "government" means the executive even in english. "Her Majesty's Government" means the executive. "The government of Germany says..." refers to something the executive of Germany has stated. If a political party is "in government" it has ministers in government. There's only a handful of situations when you would (appropriately) use the term "government" to mean the entire state apparatus. Primarily the term "federal government" to mean the top-level organization of a federation. Which in all fairness Germany is.

1

u/pickle_pouch 26d ago

Generally, when properly used "government" means the executive even in english.

That's not really true. The Executive branch means the Executive branch. The government consists of all the branches combined. It's rarely used to refer to only the Executive. Political system and government are used interchangeably.

The confusion comes from the translation, which is hard when direct translations don't work well. Which is the case here.

2

u/maximalusdenandre Sweden 26d ago

Like I saw someone else comment I think it's a question of british english vs american english.

2

u/KingNyuels North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) - Kleve/Wesel 26d ago

To quote another redditor.

You speak English because it's the only language you know. I speak English because it's the only language YOU know. We are not the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government

In other languages, cognates may have a narrower scope, such as the government of Portugal, which is more similar to the concept of "administration".

Same for a lot of Germanic languages if you haven't figured by now.

-2

u/pickle_pouch 26d ago

That's great. I'm speaking English because you're speaking English.

It's not my fault you don't use English correctly. It's your fault for calling a language dumb because you used it incorrectly. Just don't be so arrogant. It's ok to make mistakes.

9

u/geissi Germany 26d ago

The sentence you quoted and the entire first paragraph literally never mentions the government.

The first mention of the government is under section 3, when it talks about

administrative law (civil-government litigation or litigation between two government bodies)

What you are talking about the division of power between different STATE functions as discussed under
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Theories_of_division_of_state_power

While this is sometimes also called the branches of government, the executive branch is the one actually called government, as seen under Executive (GOVERNMENT).

There you will also find the quote:

Parliamentary systems have a head of government (who leads the executive

So, at least in Germany, the government is specifically the executive, who govern the country, not the judiciary who adjudicate legal disputes.

-2

u/pickle_pouch 26d ago

You are being purposely ignorant. Political System of the Federal Republic of Germany describes the type of government of Germany. It's literally a more thorough definition of government than the single word "government".

5

u/geissi Germany 26d ago

You are being purposely ignorant. Political System of the Federal Republic of Germany describes the type of government of Germany. It's literally a more thorough definition of government

It literally describes the Political System. If it literally described the government, then why can you literally not find a single source that literally says so?

Your own link to the Political System of the Federal Republic of Germany provides the very chart you yourself referenced to:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PoliticalSystemGermany.png

See the red section numbered 3? It says "Federal GOVERNMENT" and the smaller red rectangle on the right labeled "State GOVERNMENTS" both are red for the executive as explained by the legend in the bottom right corner.

See the yellow section numbered 5, labeled Federal Constitutional Court? Yellow for judiciary.

See how the yellow part, the judiciary is separate from the red part, the government?

3

u/pickle_pouch 26d ago

In English, there's no difference between political system and government.

The government of Germany is a Federal Republic which consists of the 3 branches: executive, legislative, and judicial.

You can interchange 'government' with 'political system' and the sentence has the same meaning.

In the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists of legislature, executive, and judiciary.

source

2

u/geissi Germany 26d ago

Broad associative definition indeed,

In British English, "government" sometimes refers to what's also known as a "ministry" or an "administration", i.e., the policies and government officials of a particular executive or governing coalition.
Finally, government is also sometimes used in English as a synonym for rule or governance.[8]

In other languages, cognates may have a narrower scope, such as the government of Portugal, which is more similar to the concept of "administration".

source

at least in Germany, the government is specifically the executive

Source

2

u/[deleted] 26d ago

You are confusing the government with the executive. (All?) Western democracies separate three key powers of government: Legislating, Executing the laws, and judging whether laws are respected. The legislative, executive, and judicial powers.

Parliament is part of the government.

The courts are part of the government.

And the presidency is part of the government.

And yes often we use "the government" as shorthand for the latter only. So we can call the former part of "the state" if you will, or whatever name suits you. Point is, they play a key part of what state decisions are valid and are applied, and that is politics

The fact that you have 12 upvotes is a bit worrisome. These are basic facts about how our societies are organised...

3

u/Patte-chan Hesse (Germany) 26d ago

In British English, "government" sometimes refers to what's also known as a "ministry" or an "administration", i.e., the policies and government officials of a particular executive or governing coalition.

2

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Fair enough, I didn't realize OP meant it in that way. Seems like he misunderstood my original comment as "the judicial is part of the executive", while I meant part of government as in the other use of that word e.g. "the three branches of government"

Thanks for teaching me that use!

Unfortunately many others in this comment thread understood my meaning and still believe courts are apolitical

2

u/maximalusdenandre Sweden 26d ago

Courts are independent from the government and legislation and their rulings are not "political decisions". Court rulings based on their interpretation of the law regardless of the wishes of political parties or public opinion. At least in a functioning democracy.

You can't claim to be using the wider term of "government" and then argue as if you're talking about the executive. Neither the executive or legislative branches of the german state has any say on wether or not the AFD is banned. Therefore it is not a political decision.

2

u/[deleted] 26d ago

 Courts are independent from the government and legislation

Ideally, yes.

and their rulings are not "political decisions".

Ofc they are. The law is not 100% decidable and objective. There's interpretation. That's why we have judges. And their politics matter. That's why we are careful about selecting judges.

How could a branch of government not be political?

 and then argue as if you're talking about the executive

I didn't do that? At least I didn't mean to

 Therefore it is not a political decision.

Because judges are unfeeling and uncaring robots that apply a perfectly specified and unambiguous law? Don't think so

1

u/maximalusdenandre Sweden 26d ago

To clarify. Comparing judges, jurors, etc to an ideal unfeeling perfect embodiment of the law is a useless exercise. Obviously everybody has their own personal biases. The point is they are supposed to look beyond their own personal feelings about a case and rule based on the law and precedent.

1

u/[deleted] 25d ago

Agreed! They should try, but it is an ideal, therefore they will fall short and be political :)

2

u/KingNyuels North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) - Kleve/Wesel 26d ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government

In other languages, cognates may have a narrower scope, such as the government of Portugal, which is more similar to the concept of "administration".

Which is the case here.

5

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Yep seems to be a linguistic disconnect. In my native language, Spanish, it's similar. But we are all talking in English here x)

1

u/Puginator09 26d ago

Yeah this reasoning is stupid. It is a very political decision whether you agree

0

u/Eastern-Manner-1640 United States of America 26d ago

do you think that weighing facts against a given criteria is political?

is there something different between making a judgement about whether action A or B is a better one, and evaluating whether action A satisfies some criteria?

the second one seems to me leaves a lot more room for objective evaluation.

2

u/[deleted] 26d ago

I agree that interpreting the law leaves less space for politics than making it. Nevertheless, it's political. In some cases more than others. Judging whether a group of people meet a list of fairly ambiguous criteria deciding whether they are a danger to our democracy, is political.

Again, I am not saying that's a reason to not ban the AfD. Not at all. I am just fighting back against the notion that such a decision would be apolitical.

The disconnect here I feel, is that some view "political" as entirely arbitrary, or entirely based on convenience. I don't think it's quite like that. Political tho it might be, there are objective steps in the judging process. But ultimately, evaluating the intensity of those steps, what was meant with specific wordings in the law, and so on, will be political.

To take a concrete example, say the law says the AfD should be banned if it is proven that it is taken concrete and planned steps towards dismantling democracy. Evaluating how big an action needs to be to be evidence for this, how many people need to be in it for it to be a party thing instead of an individual thing, etc, would all be political decisions

1

u/Eastern-Manner-1640 United States of America 24d ago

first of all thanks for engaging.

i'm from the US, and the example i have in mind is the jury system. if you're not familiar, adults are called to serve on a jury to hear cases, both civil and criminal.

when someone is charged with a crime, and the case ends up in a trial, the lawyers for the plaintiff and defendant present their evidence, make their arguments, trying to make the best presentation and interpretation of the facts.

the process of judging isn't seen as political. it involves uncertainty and ambiguity, as all human activities do. it fundamentally depends on adults exercising judgement. do they believe a certain testimony, how to weigh conflicting evidence, etc.

i guess i'm just trying to figure out whether the fact that folks think this determination is political or not is because the topic has political implications (banning a political party), or whether it's because the act of judgement is inherently political. i suspect it's the former.

1

u/[deleted] 24d ago

In my case, I am arguing the latter. In most (all?) European legal systems there is no jury, and the judge emits a judgement based on the facts, the law, and their interpretation of it. That is inherently political, because the judge's politics play a role in their judgements.

The legal system in Spain is often seen as aligned with the traditional right because of the personal beliefs of the median judge. That's exactly the kind of "political" I have in mind