Everyone talks about it - we want to know! Expert opinion on the potential unconstitutionality of the AfD

There is still uncertainty in the political process as to whether the AfD can be banned. We now want to clarify it with a comprehensive expert opinion.

This much is clear: Many in the AfD question the guarantee of human dignity and fundamental rights. Their rhetoric is often racist, anti-Muslim and endangers people - because words become deeds. What is less clear: The German constitution explicitly provides for the possibility of a party ban in defense of democracy. The requirements for a ban are for good reason extremely high. Does the AfD meet these requirements? This must be carefully examined.

The fact that there is a wide range of political parties in Germany with very different ideas and proposals is a valuable asset under constitutional law and an expression of democracy in action. It is also the prerequisite for a genuine choice in elections. However, the desired competition of political ideas also has limits laid down in the Basic Law: Parties that aim to impair or eliminate our free democratic basic order are unconstitutional and can be banned.

LACK OF LEGAL CLARITY UP TO NOW

There has long been a growing number of voices that see the rhetoric, program and policies of the AfD and its members as a threat to the fundamental rights of all people and an open democratic society. For about a year now, there has been much discussion about whether the AfD could be banned under Article 21(2) of the German Basic Law. Efforts in the Bundestag to propose a ban failed. One reason for this is that many MPs were unsure whether such a motion would be successful.

In recent months, there have already been numerous expert reports on this issue: Expert opinions, statements, journalistic texts and specialist articles. In addition, there have been numerous assessments by the offices for the protection of the constitution and a growing number of court decisions. However, no authority has yet compiled all the information and examined in the necessary depth whether the complex legal requirements for unconstitutionality and therefore for a ban are met. As a result, there is still a great deal of uncertainty about an issue that is central to our democracy.

A RESEARCH-BASED FOUNDATION FOR THE BAN DEBATE

We want to put this discussion on a new, scientifically sound footing: The threshold for a party ban under Article 21(2) of the Basic Law is very high. This makes it all the more important to carry out this examination carefully, at the highest scientific level and with the best constitutional expertise. On the one hand, it is important to fully understand the AfD as an object of investigation and, on the other hand, to draw factually and legally viable conclusions based on the standards of the Federal Constitutional Court.

The result of such an examination is an important signpost for the public debate. However, it could also shape other debates, such as those on the permissible AfD-critical activities of non-profit or publicly funded organizations.

We require time and resources for this thorough and impartial expert opinion. To this end, we want to put together a team of several lawyers and right-wing extremism experts who will devote themselves exclusively to this issue for months. The GFF will have the results of the expert opinion reviewed by independent experts.

The GFF has extensive experience with strategic proceedings for the protection of fundamental rights, which it also conducts before the Federal Constitutional Court in particular. We are not alone in our project: the organizations Campact, Volksverpetzer, innn.it, Republikanischer Anwältinnen- und Anwälteverein (RAV), Postmigrantischer Jurist*innenbund, Frag den Staat and Bleibt stabil support our cause.