Germans seeking to ban democracy to save democracy

It’s taken a few decades, but liberal Germany has come over a bit Churchillian. I’m thinking of Winnie’s famous quote: “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

Last weekend, hundreds of thousands of Germans took to the streets in dozens of cities to protest against the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party with many calling for it to be banned. There were banners warning of a return to the Nazi era, and chants about the AfD being a fascist party.  In a related issue, more than a million people have signed a petition demanding that the government prevents the party leader in the State of Thuringia, Björn Höcke, from participating in politics.

Two things have led them to the conclusion that the only way to prevent the AfD from becoming even more popular is to ban it. Firstly, it now polls at about 22 per cent nationally and, this year, looks set to win control of at least one state government in Eastern Germany where support is even higher. Brandenburg, Saxony, and Thuringia are all in play and the EU elections in June will probably see AfD successes. The second reason, and trigger for the demonstrations, is the revelation that AfD officials had met a group of influential extreme right-wingers and wealthy potential donors and discussed plans for the mass deportations of migrants including some “non-assimilated” Germans. The party responded that the meeting was not sanctioned by the leadership, sacked those attending, and said the plans were not party policy.

During this week, as calls for a ban grew, Germany’s Constitutional Court ruled in favour of ending state funding for an ultra-right-wing party called Die Heimat (The Homeland) which is far smaller, and far more extreme, than AfD. In the ruling, the court referred to “streitbare Demokratie”, usually translated as “militant democracy.” This refers to the country’s post-Nazi/post-war acceptance that the state should have the authority to restrict authoritarian parties if they were using democracy’s freedoms to try and gain power in order to then do away with democracy.

The most vociferous opponents of AfD hope they can now build on the ruling and persuade the Constitutional Court to ban the AfD. They correctly argue that the constitution clearly allows political parties to be outlawed if they “seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order.” According to an Ipsos poll published on 11 Jan 11,  42 per cent of Germans support starting the legal process.

Is the AfD “fascist” and undemocratic?  That depends on subjective interpretations of what fascism is. The party started life in 2013 on a mostly economic platform arguing against the Euro and criticising Germany’s bailout of Greece. However, as early as 2015, its first leader, Bernd Lucke, quit saying levels of xenophobia in the party were intolerable.

That was the same year as Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed 1.3 undocumented migrants and refugees into Germany with the words “Wir schaffen das” – we can manage this. The immigration issue became the party’s focus amid rhetoric tinged with echoes of Germany’s Nazi past. The media was referred to as “Lügenpresse” – lying press, a slogan used by the Nazi’s during their rise to power. Senior officials argue Germans should be proud of the soldiers in WW2, that the Berlin Holocaust Memorial was a “monument of shame” and that there has been an “invasion of foreigners.” The party says it will go further than France’s ban on the burka and prohibit the Muslim call to prayer being played through loudspeakers from mosques.

However, proving in court that the AfD actively seeks to overthrow democracy would be extremely difficult. There would also be dangers in going down the legal route because whichever way a decision went could backfire.

Win or lose, the AfD would present itself as a political martyr and argue that yet again the elite mainstream, bewildered at the popularity of a movement which takes voters’ concerns seriously, was demonstrating how out of touch it was with the people. Even if it was banned, it would likely rise again in another form, this time taking even more care than it already does to stay the right side of the law.

The German electorate would have seen that the mainstream political class was unable to defeat ideas through debate and persuasion and resorted to getting rid of the “deplorables” (as Mrs Clinton might refer to AfD voters) through the levers of the state. It is perhaps ironic and pertinent that the Weimar Republic went down this route, banning Nazi publications, and jailing Nazi leaders before those same leaders came to power and banned all other parties.

Political pluralism is part of the bedrock of a democracy. As E.M. Forster put it: “Two cheers for democracy: one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism.” And yet modern, democratic Germany finds itself with a paradox, one which other European countries may face. Should it dilute pluralism, reduce free speech, and ban a party designed to represent the views of millions in order to strengthen democracy? The, possibly apocryphal, quote from the Vietnam War put it another way: “It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it”.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life