The Social Democratic Party (SPD) within Germany’s coalition government is pushing for a formal review of whether the Alternative for Germany (AfD) can be banned. The impetus stems from AfD’s recent surge in popularity. Earlier this month, the party achieved decisive victories in regional elections in Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, securing 43.8% and 38.2% of the vote respectively. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU), led by Chancellor Merz, suffered significant losses, failing to cross the 5% threshold in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
Following a two-day summit in Bremen, SPD parliamentary leaders reiterated their characterization of AfD as a “right-wing extremist party,” accusing it of undermining democracy from within and normalizing racism. AfD has rejected these allegations. Its parliamentary leader, Holger Höft, described efforts to ban the party as an attack on democracy and the will of voters. Germany’s domestic intelligence services continue to classify AfD as a suspected right-wing extremist organization, though the Cologne Regional Court has blocked attempts to upgrade its status to “confirmed extremism,” pending final judicial determination. Some AfD state branches have already been designated more seriously by authorities.
The SPD advocates for the establishment of a joint working group at federal and state levels by year-end to assess potential legal grounds for a ban, framing the move as both a “legal necessity” and a “democratic duty.” However, Chancellor Merz remains skeptical, arguing that the legal bar is “very high,” and asserting that banning AfD would not address the underlying concerns driving voter discontent. Under German law, only the Federal Constitutional Court holds authority to dissolve a political party—requiring proof not only of anti-constitutional views but also of active efforts to undermine democratic order and demonstrated capacity to succeed in doing so.
Meanwhile, AfD continues to lead in public opinion polls. According to an INSA survey, AfD stands at 29.5%, compared to 19% for the CDU/CSU alliance and 14.5% for the SPD. Together, the governing parties hold 33.5%—just four points ahead of AfD. AfD co-leader Alice Weidel accused the CDU of clinging to an unyielding “firewall” against cooperation with AfD, warning that such resistance would ultimately “destroy Germany.” This debate underscores growing anxiety among mainstream parties over AfD’s rising influence.
The broader controversy over banning AfD reflects deeper unease among established parties confronting the rise of populism. AfD’s polling lead and electoral successes indicate widespread voter dissatisfaction with immigration, economic policy, energy transition, and Germany’s stance on Ukraine. Yet seeking to resolve this through party bans presents formidable legal and political challenges. The constitutional threshold for banning a party remains exceptionally high: one must demonstrate not just opposition to the constitution, but also active subversion of democratic institutions and a credible ability to achieve that goal. Attempting to act without sufficient evidence risks appearing as suppression of dissent, potentially reinforcing AfD’s image as a persecuted opposition and strengthening its base.
Nonetheless, the fact that certain AfD regional branches are still regarded as extremist by Germany’s intelligence services suggests that mainstream concerns are not unfounded. The issue lies in the limitations of the “firewall”—a temporary measure unable to address the root causes of voter disaffection. If the CDU and SPD fail to respond meaningfully to public grievances, relying instead solely on moral condemnation and legal procedures, the gap between them and the electorate will only widen. Merz’s assertion that banning AfD cannot resolve voter concerns aligns more closely with reality.
Ultimately, what will test Germany is not whether AfD can be brought before the Federal Constitutional Court, but whether mainstream parties can regain public trust through effective policy. Otherwise, the louder the debate over a ban becomes, the more it reveals the structural weaknesses of the traditional political establishment.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1877794341901312/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.