2024-04-15 03:46:04
Should the AfD be banned? The traffic light peaks do not want to be determined yet. For the former Hamburg Senator for Justice and Green Party politician Till Steffen, there is a lot to be said for this.
It has become quiet. Amazingly quiet. At the beginning of the year, political Berlin spent many weeks discussing whether it needed an AfD ban. After “Correctiv”‘s research into the Potsdam “secret meeting”, arguments went back and forth: Do we have to tackle it or will the AfD just use it in the end? And if so, when is the right time?
The debate has been subsiding for a few weeks. Which has less to do with the fact that the AfD doesn’t provide any new arguments. But rather more to do with the fact that the traffic light coalition has not yet taken a clear position: does it want a ban proposal – or not?
Till Steffen knows exactly the doubts, the hurdles and the dangers. The doctor of law was a senator of justice in Hamburg and a lawyer for many years. Since the last election he has been parliamentary manager for the Greens in the Bundestag. He is more optimistic than some of his traffic light colleagues, as can be seen in an interview with t-online. And thinks: The Bundestag should discuss it soon.
t-online: Mr. Steffen, do you think the AfD should be banned?
Till Steffen: A few months ago I still had hope that the AfD could moderate itself. Now you can see: you have decided on radicalization. Whoever nominates Maximilian Krah as the top candidate for the European elections has chosen his path. And there have been a number of reports in the last few weeks alone that suggest that the AfD is unconstitutional.
There are strong indications that some MPs are financed from Russia, see the case of Petr Bystron. The “remigration” ideas are widely shared and result in the harassment and displacement of many fellow human beings. The AfD is obviously a gathering place for politically violent criminals. And we have a top candidate for the AfD in Brandenburg, Hans-Christoph Berndt, who openly says that he wants to abolish the party state. That’s quite a lot of evidence of things that are incompatible with our constitution.
To person
Till Steffen, 50 years old, has worked as a justice senator in Hamburg since 2008 under Ole von Beust (CDU), Christoph Ahlhaus (CDU), Olaf Scholz (SPD) and Peter Tschentscher (SPD). In the 2021 election, he entered the Bundestag with a direct mandate. He studied law and completed his doctoral thesis. In the Bundestag he is parliamentary manager for the Greens and sits, among other things, on the legal committee.
The AfD would counter that these things have not been proven, are taken out of context or are individual cases that do not represent the party as a whole.
She probably would. The main task in a ban procedure is actually to demonstrate that there is a structural anti-constitutionality in the AfD. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution can do this better than we MPs. And our courts then check whether its classifications are legally sound. This is exactly what is happening in the proceedings at the Münster Higher Administrative Court.
Negotiations are taking place there as to whether the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution can classify the AfD as a suspected right-wing extremist case nationwide.
Exactly. Many people in the traffic lights are following this negotiation very closely when it comes to the question of a ban.
Leading traffic light representatives like to retreat to the position that the whole thing is a legal question. Aren’t you making it too easy for yourself? The first step towards a ban is a political decision: whether to submit an application for a ban or not.
Of course it is also a political decision. A political body, i.e. the federal government, the Bundestag or the Bundesrat, must make a decision. They have a guardian role for our democracy; the Federal Constitutional Court can only take action through their decision. That is why politicians cannot shirk this task.
Then why does one get the impression that some people in the traffic lights do that?
Because you don’t just submit a ban application like that. The basis must be very thorough investigations that are legally sound. The judgment in Münster is absolutely necessary for this.
“Aggressively combative” sounds as if the AfD needs to build up a fighting force straight away. But it’s not necessary to prove that.
Till Steffen
But the only issue there is whether the Office for the Protection of the Constitution is right to classify the AfD as a suspected case. That’s different than the question of whether it should be banned.
To put it a little more simply: no.
You have to explain that.
The requirements for observation by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution are indications of anti-constitutional efforts. The prerequisite for a party ban is, on the one hand, unconstitutionality. The Münster judgment could form a basis for this. On the other hand, the “aggressively combative” character of the efforts would have to be established.
The latter is often considered even more difficult to prove.