More than 1,000 German legal professionals have backed a call for proceedings to ban the Alternative for Germany (AfD). The initiative, organized by the Republican Lawyers’ Association, had collected 1,051 signatures by early August, including lawyers, judges and prosecutors. Its supporters argue that the AfD violates the constitutional principles of human dignity and democracy and that Germany should act before the party can translate its programme into state power.
Their concerns should not be dismissed. Germany’s post-war constitution was deliberately designed according to the principle of a “militant democracy”: a democratic order is not required to remain passive while its enemies seek to destroy it. Article 21 of the Basic Law therefore allows the Federal Constitutional Court to ban a party that aims to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order. A party ban is therefore not automatically undemocratic. It is a constitutional instrument shaped by Germany’s historical experience.
Yet the existence of such an instrument does not mean that its use would necessarily be politically wise. The debate surrounding the AfD increasingly reveals a dangerous temptation: replacing political competition with administrative and judicial containment.
