The right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (AfD), a party whose parts have been declared right-wing extremists by the Institution for the Protection of the Constitutional Order in Germany and are therefore under observation, reacted to a report by the research network Korektiv about a meeting between some of its officials and right-wing an extremist. As stated, it was not an AfD meeting and no political strategies were developed there.
However, the party does not deny that the meeting in Potsdam discussed the plan of "remigration", i.e. the expulsion of some people with a migrant background from Germany.
One of the founders of the far-right "Identitarian Movement", Martin Zelner, as reported by Korektiv, advocated at that meeting that asylum seekers, foreigners with the right of residence, but also "those German citizens who are not assimilated" must leave Germany .
That so-called "remigration" is not a new plan of right-wing extremists, and it implies the expulsion from Germany of all people with a migrant background, as well as those with German citizenship who do not fit into the image of Germany as seen by right-wing radicals.
"Remigration" plans are unconstitutional
Such a plan would be racist and unconstitutional. It would define people based on their origin and substantively correspond to the concept of the people that the Federal Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional in the earlier proceedings to ban the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD).
The court in Karlsruhe then assessed: "A political concept which aims at the strict exclusion of all those who are not ethnic Germans" offends human dignity. In addition, it would violate human rights, because it would mass expel people who, in truth, do not have German citizenship, but have the right to stay in Germany.
What does this mean for the possible ban of the AfD?
The Federal Constitutional Court requires two things to be proven in order for a party to be banned. First, these are unconstitutional goals - which means that the party must strive to limit or abolish the libertarian, democratic basic order. And second, there must be "planned active action" by party members or party supporters in order to achieve unconstitutional goals. At the same time, it must at least appear that it is possible for this action to be successful.
In the case of the NPD, which was not banned in 2017, the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe denied the real danger of that party, evaluating it as insignificant. But the AfD – which could even win some provincial elections this year – would most likely not be judged as politically insignificant.
What evidence would have to be presented for a ban?
In the case of proceedings to ban the AfD, it would have to be proven which goals the party pursues and that they are unconstitutional.
Christoph Mellers, a professor of constitutional law and a commissioner in the second procedure to ban the NPD, pointed out the following problem in an interview for the "Zideutsche Zeitung" newspaper: unlike the NPD, the AfD did not write down unconstitutional goals in its program. That is why it would be necessary to prove its unconstitutionality from the statements of the party leader and at the same time prove that it applies to the entire party. One cannot rely only on the existing reports of the Institution for the Protection of the Constitutional Order, but documents obtained through their own research would have to be presented. One topic in the possible ban proceedings could be the networking of AfD politicians with the far-right scene.
Who did the AfD disassociate itself from?
The far-right "Identity Movement" is on the list of organizations whose members cannot become members of the AfD. But it has been known for years that the AfD does not stick to that "list of incompatibility" consistently. One of the most famous examples is AfD member of the Bundestag, Jan Nolte, who employed a Bundeswehr officer in his cabinet who was suspected of planning a right-wing terrorist attack. Despite being labeled a right-wing extremist by the military counter-intelligence service MAD, the officer was given a pass to enter the German parliament.
It has been shown on several occasions that some AfD members maintain contacts with right-wing extremists or have such a background themselves. This, therefore, means that their own "incompatibility list" has no special value in that party.
After the publication of Korektiv's research, the AfD points out that the party did not organize the meeting in Potsdam, nor did it invite to that meeting.
One element in a possible injunction procedure
It is true that the Alternative for Germany has written that members of certain right-wing extreme groups cannot become members of that party, but when Roland Hartwig, the personal adviser of party leader Alice Weidel, meets with a prominent right-wing extremist and discusses racist expulsion plans, that is in any case something that would play a certain role in the possible process of banning the AfD.
The meeting in Potsdam could be an indicator of the anti-constitutional activities of the AfD, that is, it could be at least one element in the possible process of banning the party.
How did the politicians react?
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) on the X platform reacted with the following words to the Korektiv report: "We will not allow anyone in our country to make a difference based on whether one of us has a migrant background or not." We protect everyone, regardless of origin, skin color or how unpleasant someone is to fanatics with assimilation fantasies."
Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Feser (SPD) warned of the danger of right-wing and right-wing extremists networking. She says that it is therefore right that the Institution for the Protection of the Constitutional Order carefully monitors contacts in the right-wing extremist spectrum.
Konstantin von Notz of the Greens says that such deportation plans are "a concrete and structural component of a party that despises man." Aleksander Trom from the opposition Christian Democratic Union (CDU) believes that it is frightening how AfD politicians, right-wing extremists and supporters of the "Identity Movement" are interconnected, which is labeled as unconstitutional. But Trom does not think it is wise to initiate the process of banning the AfD, because he believes that it would only strengthen the Alternative.
The former president of the Bundestag, Wolfgang Thirze (SPD), however, spoke in favor of re-examining the possibility of starting the ban procedure. Such a procedure has high obstacles and the AfD would use it for propaganda, Tirze agrees. "But the sword of Damocles of prohibition should remain hanging over the AfD."
Bonus video:
