The Alternative for Germany (AfD) has gained ground in three recent state elections, caused an uproar in the Thuringian parliament and triggering another debate on whether to ban the party outright.
You must log in or register to comment.
If simply banning nazis from holding political power is enough for some of you to question, then you’re really not going to be ready for what you need to do to them once they get political power. Ban them now because y’all are far too soft to do what needs to be done if you don’t.
Don’t know what’s there to be so smug about. “Oh you would rather ban them in a constitutional process than to wait for them to seize power and fight a bloody civil war, or worse?” Yes please! I hope we all much prefer the first option.
I hope we all much prefer the first option.
Some of us are convinced this measure does nothing, and are unwilling to fight. It seems they only seem to oppose fascism when it can be done by magic.
Some of us are convinced this measure does nothing
Nothing? How can it do nothing? You could argue that it doesn’t do enough or not the right things, but if nothing else banning the party would obviously keep them out of the government at least for the next few years.
I dont know, you’d have to ask someone who believes that.
Please. People say they’re too big now, but there has to be a right size. In Canada, at least, hate groups are always too popular and established to challenge, or too small to bother with.
Isn’t there a lot of dirt on them? Starting with pushing for more strict laws against foreign influence and funding, covert fascism, and then dragging them (and anybody else akin to them) through courts until they are non-existent is how it should have been done a long time ago imho. Just a cold, inorganic machine of beaurocracy grinding them into a ground meat without any possible objection due to biases.
It’s being done, but the party itself never crosses a hard line into fascism. Individual party members do, even up to ministerial level in the few states where they got sufficient votes to have some official functions, but then the party distances itself from those individuals and kicks them out. That way they have taken official responsibility and are immune to prosecution themselves.
FINALLY. And to everyone who is like “tHiS wiLl MaKe ThInGs WorSe!!11” or “bAnNiNg ThE pArTy WoN’t hElP”. SHUT THE FUCK UP.
These are LITERALLY Nazis. Even more than the US Trump-Rep’s.
And since Russia is not willing to throw 25 Million People on them again and is much more keen to join them, since they are heavily involved with the AFD:
-https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/putin-afd-zusammenarbeit-100.html
-https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/petr-bystron-afd-russland-100.html
-https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2024/kw15-de-aktuelle-stunde-russland-afd-997398
-https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2024-04/afd-russische-regierung-strategiepapier
I’m not willing to take any chance on that. We have Laws for EXACTLY this scenario, time for our government to grow a spine and starts protecting democracy!
We did it once, we can do it again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Reich_Party
Far-right parties’ main goal is excluding people from society so they should be fully okay when they’re the ones being excluded.
Banning the party isn’t going to help.
Like I say of Trump, the AfD isn’t the problem, they’re a symptom. Conservatism and conservatives themselves are the problem – the question is how should we deal with them, and I really don’t know the answer to that.
Edit: just to clarify, I’m not saying the AfD shouldn’t be banned, just that banning the party won’t change the people who vote for it and run it.
There won’t be democracy in Germany if the AfD gets into power. You need to stop the wound from gushing before you can worry about setting the broken bone.
100% Correct. These are Nazis just like they are depicted in textbooks.
I don’t disagree with that sentiment at all, I’m just not sure how to set this particular broken bone. How do you make ~20% of the population less fascist?
You stop allowing the lies and disinformation to spread, that’s how!
Germany did it after WWII. They can do it again.
Did they do it, though? Eg. the BfV (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the domestic intelligence agency) and BKA (Federal Criminal Bureau, the federal investigative police) are somewhat notorious for having a bit of a neo-Nazi problem, and they’re not the only German federal or state entities with the same issue (see eg. this article about the BfV and BKA. Edit: PBS report about neo-Nazi infiltration in German security forces).
It’s not an uncommon view that denazification wasn’t entirely successful. Hell, they even have a word for the sort of rushed “washing clean” of Nazi officials that was done: Persilschein, “Persil ticket” (Persil is a detergent brand).
I’d argue that if denazification had really succeeded, the AfD and others like it wouldn’t be as much of an issue.
“Not entirely successful” and “not 30% of the population” are two very different things.
I’d be inclined to think that going from 30% to 20% is worse than “not entirely successful” (assuming AfD voters in general are at the very least somewhat sympathetic to fascist views, which really doesn’t seem like an unfair assumption)
20% is still better than 30%. Less momentum in the movement; more chance of discouraging others from pursuing it.
deleted by creator
There is a difference between conservatism and being a threat to the democratic order. Germany has conservative parties that are perfectly valid, it’s just that the AfD is not one of them.
Killing the head of a terrorist organization won’t help if you don’t fix the underlying issues.He will be replaced in short order, usually by someone worse. Likewise this kind of political movement.
What the left in Europe (well in my country at least) still doesn’t understand is that they’re not going to fix this by lecturing the populist voters about how all their thoughts and ideas are wrong.
Killing the head of a terrorist organization won’t help if you don’t fix the underlying issues.
And yet we don’t allow terrorist organizations to campaign for office, officially and supported by tax money, in our societies.
I agree, that this move is mostly about getting some time and deeper issues still need to be addressed. However, by law, if the party is banned so are followup parties.
What the left in Europe (well in my country at least) still doesn’t understand is that they’re not going to fix this by lecturing the populist voters about how all their thoughts and ideas are wrong.
I do not agree with this sentiment though. Because for a big part their thoughts and ideas are just wrong (e.g. scientific denial (like climate or vaccinations) or hate against certain groups). We cannot say ‘well they have a point’ when they simply don’t have shit.
I agree with you that there’s no need to pretend fascists have a valid point. But those who would reason with them fail to understand that fascists are beyond caring whether they have a valid point or not. They are simply determined to have things their way. While we try to educate fascists about where they’re mistaken, they will smirk and load their guns. To them it’s funny that others are so stuck on argument when you can just use violence to get what you want. They see this attachment to argument as weakness and stupidity, and they know what to do with the weak and stupid.
That said, whether banning the party would help depends on how committed their voters are to the fascist cause, and I’m not familiar with the scene in Germany. Maybe if there are many who are just disgruntled but not particularly committed, putting obstacles in the party’s way could buy time to turn them away. But people get sucked in quickly because fascist groups know how to make people feel they belong, pander to their egos, and rapidly program their prejudices while persuading them everyone else is lying. It has cultish aspects, so there has to be a plan for how to deprogram people from a cult.
As long as it is a political party it is entitled to double digit millions every year in state party financing.
If it is forbidden, it cannot be refounded with the same people and ideology and their wealth is seized.
It ia not comparable to “terrorist” organizations, that dont need to abide by some rules of the dominant order in order to be active.
The democratic system should not actively finance and aid those who want to destroy it.
Finally the ideology is legitimised every time it can be voted for legally, as it shows the ideology to be considered part of the acceptable political plurality
There is a difference between conservatism and being a threat to the democratic order.
I’m not sure I agree. More and more it’s started seeming like they’re generally just waiting for a moment to drop their masks; eg. here in Finland now that we have a fully right wing government, our “fiscally conservative” party started their term off by limiting the right to strike, and is now echoing extremist right wing talking points about eg. immigration, LGBT+ people, and the environment. They were OK with an extremist right wing minister leaving us out of Ukraine’s “Alliance for Gender-Responsive and Inclusive Recovery” because the plan mentioned LGBT+ people, and they stood in the way of banning abusive LGBT+ “conversion therapy” even though they claimed to be against it back when they still had to be in a government with leftist parties (sorry, couldn’t find an English source for this but here is one in Finnish. For translation I’d suggest DeepL, it’s vastly superior to eg. Google). They are also blaming the opposition for “besmirching” Finland’s reputation abroad, meaning they don’t want anyone pointing out that we have literal neo-Nazis in the government and parliament.
Banning the party isn’t going to help.
Yes it will. It’ll mean it won’t be standing in elections, and that’s only fair because it’s an anti-democratic party… and it will deprive its members of broad protections afforded to parties and remove a unifying banner for them.
Banning anti-democratic institutions in a democracy is not only justified, it is conducive to the democracy’s survival. It lifts the bar for getting rid of democracy to be equivalent to not winning in an election but by establishing a second monopoly on violence, a far greater threshold and attempts at which are more straightforward to deter, prosecute and stamp out than being within every TikTok user’s first few swipes.
There’s nothing that prevents AfD voters from going to other parties, there’s plenty, or to voice their concerns in a new party that can be a legitimate part of the democratic system. Changing parties isn’t like banning a religion or a creed or a race, a party is hardly more than just a banner, the power of which can change between and during elections, at any time, through a simple act of the mind. Banning the party will absolutely help.
It sends a good message. It doesn’t send a message of wanting the silence the concerns of those who voted for the AfD in anything but the short term, it sends the message of ‘we hear you, but try again… a bit less fascist-y please’.
Note that I’m not saying the AfD shouldn’t be banned, just that banning it won’t make the people who vote for it and run it any less, well, fascist.
There’s nothing that prevents AfD voters from going to other parties, there’s plenty, or to voice their concerns in a new party that can be a legitimate part of the democratic system. Changing parties isn’t like banning a religion or a creed or a race, a party is hardly more than just a banner, the power of which can change between and during elections, at any time, through a simple act of the mind. Banning the party will absolutely help.
And that’s the thing; because the people who support AfD won’t change just because their party gets banned, how likely do you think it is that they’ll realize they need to be a legitimate part of a democratic system instead of what they’ve been doing all along?
banning it won’t make the people who vote for it and run it any less, well, fascist.
Correct. But it’s no supposed to do that. Banning a fascist party doesn’t solve every problem of a divided society, but it prevents the worst (a fascist party seizing power) and gives us time (and the chance!) to solve some of the others.
There’s basically no other option. Either a society has effective rules against fascism in place or it will stand idly by while being undermined. And if it has these effective rules, it must abide by them. ‘Fascists should not be allowed to rule the country’ seems to be a reasonable lower limit.
Banning a party has significant affects on far-right organizations and money-streams. Much of their propaganda will become impossible to finance and any successor parties are automatically banned as well. Fascist voters cannot become disillusioned without a ban. Their beliefs are as solid as a flat-earther or anti-vaxer and only destroying their echo chamber has a chance to take them out.
There will always be a subsection og the population that adheres to fascist ideas. For a liberal democracy to function, these ideas have to be ostracized to make sure that no fascist party can establish itself in a major way. Some far-right voters will vote for minor far-right parties, some will vote for more moderate conservative parties and some won’t vote at all. The key is to keep them from uniting while appearing moderate enough to win over some more moderate voters.
In Thailand they ban the major progressive party after nearly every election. Usually they’ve already formed another party even before the ban comes down. Often the party leaders are excluded but it doesn’t achieve much and creates the perception that they’re persecuted.
In Germany, political parties have been banned successfully, both the far-right Socialist Reich Party and the far-left Communist Party. While successor parties were formed, these were less extreme, at least in public, and less successful.
While the AfD is bigger than either of these parties, it still doesn’t poll any higher than 20%. Furthermore, polls indicate that the vast majority of those who don’t support the AfD, believe it shouldn’t be anywhere near power. No other party in Germany receives that level of rejection from those who don’t support it.
If you tried to ban a party with wider appeal, it would probably fail, but with the AfD it may succeed.
And that’s a symptom of media and social media echo chambers.
A ban is incredibly hard. Not impossible, but hard. And even if, it won’t solve the actual problem. The AfD maintained the image of a protest party and to this day people believe this crap. A great way to cut their votes in half would be educating the population so they understand that protest is good but voting for fascist scum is not.
Good.
Too little, too late. You can’t ban a 30% party and expect democracy to hold.
Of course you can.
“Sorry, the Nazis are at 30%, nothing we can do. We’ll just die then.”
- What you said.
- You really should.
- You need to make sure to educate people so that they don’t fall prey to populist assholes.
- Politicians need to address people’s needs and fears instead of whatever the hell our current government is doing at the moment.
Banning one of the the biggest democratic parties to save democracy.
I wonder how that would go. It’s the paradox that you have to be intolerant to intolerance.
There is no paradox.
Tolerance is a social contract that both guides and protects your actions. If you breach that contract by being a cunt then you are no longer afforded it’s protections for the same.
Nazis demand you accept them while demonising others and will continue to take advantage of you being “tolerant” for as long as you allow it.
one the biggest parties
FTFY, there is nothing remotely democratic about those people.
Those laws exist for a reason, we had some experiences in the past.
They are not a democratic party
Google paradox of tolerance.
Anybody can come to the party as long as you bring your own beer.
The AfD brought crack.
The first half of your comment seems to be critical of banning a party, as if it damages democracy. But then in your second half, you reference the paradox or tolerance, which implies you are in favor of banning the AfD.
We banned the fascist party in my country for 20 years. It accounted something like 55-60 % of the votes, back in the day.
It didn’t work well.
Which country? What happened when they tried?
Argentina. Peronism got proscribed for ~20 years (1955-1973). It’s a lot more complicated than that cause it actually was fascist vs conservatives*.
Ellected governments had little to no real power cause +50% of the people were not allowed to vote, so the faction that started winning power was the military. Every excuse was a good one to take down the government and bring up another dictatorship.
*refined fascists
I’m not sure we can call Peronism fascist. While it was populist and nationalistic, it’s missing that hallmark blood-and-soil (this land for our bloodline) aspect that really marks out fascist ideologies.
You can’t really call yourself fascist if you’re trying to say all your people are equal, you need to be trying to establish some sort of hierarchical order where these citizens are always better than those citizens.
DW News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for DW News:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - Germany
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.dw.com/en/calls-grow-in-germany-to-ban-far-right-afd/a-70371841
