08.05.2025

How to make things worse

Attempt to ban the AfD official opposition reveals a profound political weakness. That Die Linke has given its backing could prove to be an own goal, argues Carla Roberts

For the last few years, the Amt für Verfassungsschutz (Office for the Protection of the Constitution - the equivalent of MI5) has categorised the rightwing Alternative für Deutschland as “Verdachtsfall” - ie, it was constitutionally allowed to monitor the AfD, as it was “suspected” of promoting “rightwing extremism”. After an investigation lasting a number of years, on May 2, this category was officially changed to AfD being a “confirmed rightwing extremist endeavour, due to the extremist character of the entire party, which disregards human dignity”, and “its attempts to undermine the free, democratic order”. The report is a staggering 1,100 pages long, so excuse us if we quote only from the press release, which is interesting enough.

Concretely, the categorisation centres on AfD’s

aim to exclude certain population groups from equal participation in society, subject them to unconstitutional discrimination, and thus assign them a legally devalued status. Specifically, for example, the AfD does not consider German citizens with a migration history from predominantly Muslim countries to be equal members of the German people. This is evident in the numerous xenophobic, anti-minority, anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim statements continually made by leading party officials … The devaluation of the aforementioned groups is also evident in the blanket use of terms such as Messermigranten [knife-wielding migrants] or in the general attribution of an ethnoculturally determined propensity toward violence by leading members of the AfD.¹

I quote the press release of the Verfassungsschutz at some length, because it does show the rather obvious problem with it. The term Messermigranten, for example, to describe the handful of attacks by migrants and refugees in the last couple of years is hardly a phrase that has exclusively been used by the AfD. The entire political establishment and the media have been ranting and raving against migrants, especially in the run-up to the general election in February, where the bourgeois parties were falling over themselves to pose ever tougher on migration.² You could go around all of the mainstream parties and indeed find “numerous xenophobic, anti-minority, anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim statements continually made by leading party officials”.

Protecting

Clearly, this is not about protecting the “free democratic order” or the German post-war constitution (drawn up with a lot of ‘help’ from the US government) - but about desperately trying to stop the continued rise of a party that is posing as an alternative to the establishment and which is, crucially, increasingly successful at it. Having polled 20.8% in the February general elections, it has now climbed to an even more impressive 25% in the polls - head to head with the Christian Democratic Union.³

This really should make it very clear to mainstream politicians that AfD scare-mongering and setting up ‘firewalls’ does not work - quite the opposite. Yes, many AfD voters are attracted by the party’s anti-migration rhetoric (which, again, is in reality now shared by all mainstream parties). But the much bigger reason is the desire of many in Germany to give the establishment a bloody nose, chiefly over the increasingly dire state of the German economy and rising costs for energy and living expenses - while the government has just decided to allow unlimited borrowing for military purposes like propping up the Zelensky regime in Ukraine. This policy is becoming increasingly unpopular and for obvious reasons. Trump’s dramatic change in US policy towards Ukraine has shown exactly how irrational and pointless the ongoing financial support to the tune of many billions has become. Presenting the AfD as ‘beyond the pale’ and ‘outside of decent society’ will only make it more attractive to many who feel like ‘losers’ in today’s Germany - and there are many.

Not neutral

Needless to say, the Verfassungsschutz is not a ‘neutral’ body - it is part of the ministry of the interior. While the Social Democratic Party remains part of the new government, it has gone from the main coalition partner (with the smaller Greens and the Free Democrats between 2021 and 2025) to junior partner in the new coalition with the Christian Democrats. The coalition agreement signed on May 5 allocates the ministry of the interior to the CDU - so the fact that the Verfassungsschutz published its findings three days before the handover is widely seen as the last ‘hurrah’ of former SPD minister of the interior, Nancy Faeser: something she wants to be remembered for.

There are no immediate or automatic consequences following from this recategorisation. It does not automatically lead to AfD members in the public service getting into trouble or to any cuts in state funding. The secret service is already observing and investigating the party and its members on all levels and there are many, many undercover agents, helping the media with their various ‘exclusives’ about this or that AfD politician doing something particularly stupid. It is a purely symbolic decision - so far.

But many politicians, including Nancy Faeser, are hoping that this recategorisation will now be followed by a ‘careful investigation’ that could lead to the outright banning of AfD - a subject that has been hotly discussed in Germany for many years. 48% of the population want to see the party outlawed, according to a recent poll.⁴ Both the SPD and the CDU are split on the issue, with the SPD generally more pro-ban than the CDU - hence Faeser’s rush in getting the categorisation through before her departure.

The May 6 debacle over the confirmation of Merz (CDU) as new chancellor could give calls for a ban new impetus - because it showed how fragile things currently are. What is usually a formality descended into near-chaos, when 18 parliamentarians of the new CDU-SPD coalition initially refused to vote for Merz, meaning the necessary simple majority was not achieved - for the first time ever in the history of the Bundesrepublik.⁵The AfD immediately called for new general elections, unsurprisingly: they would probably have won. A second round of voting in parliament on the same day however avoided that - which was only possible because MPs of Die Linke and the Greens had voted in favour of changing the Bundestag agenda (which requires a two thirds majority).

Linke leader Ines Schwerdtner used the opportunity to call on the “CDU/CSU to speak to us not only when the house is on fire, but also on other political decisions when a two-thirds majority is necessary. Democratic parties should be able to talk to each other.” Clearly, Die Linke’s slight move to the left in the run up to the general elections and it’s declared aim “to stay in opposition” was no principled, long-term strategy. There is immense pressure on the leadership to move the party back to become once again reliable ‘managers of capitalism’. Hopefully, the recent influx of tens of thousands of new, mainly left-wing members will at least lead to organised and vocal opposition - also when it comes to the question of banning the AfD.

There are only two political parties solidly in favour of banning the AfD - among them, predictably enough, the pro-war Green Party. The fact that Die Linke too has come out calling for a ban and the withdrawal of all state funding for the AfD, however, is not just disappointing and short-sighted - it borders on suicidal stupidity.⁶ After all, Die Linke and its forerunners, the Party of Democratic Socialism and Linkspartei, had themselves been in the official crosshairs of the secret service ever since the foundation of the PDS in 1990, for being ‘leftwing extremists’.

Some of the 16 German federal states even imposed an official ban on employing PDS members (in the public service in Bavaria, for example, you had to sign a declaration that you were not and had never been a member - and you could be sacked on the spot if it turned out you were lying). Only when former Die Linke MP Bodo Ramelow successfully sued over being spied upon in 2014 did the secret service officially end the policy towards the party. We have no doubt that it has continued to keep the tabs on Die Linke - that is, after all, what we pay our taxes for in modern ‘democracies’!

Anti-migrant

As Die Linke has been the only party that has not fallen for the anti-migrant narrative and has instead moved somewhat to the left, it has been going up in the polls too, now standing at an impressive 10% (up from the 8.8% it achieved in the general elections in February). It is likely that the main parties will try to incorporate and thereby neutralise Die Linke, particularly in order to hold off the AfD. But in even slightly different circumstances, the state could easily consider taking another look at outlawing Die Linke, which states in its programme that “capitalism isn’t the end of history - we are fighting for democratic socialism” and “we want a fundamental transformation of society that overcomes capitalism”.⁷

Of course, it all depends on what you mean by those phrases and in the last 10 years Die Linke has done everything it can to show what a loyal servant of capitalism it is - running local and regional governments as badly as any of the establishment parties. But the point stands. It is entirely self-defeating to call on the state to ban the AfD. Socialists should not fight to give the capitalist state any more ammunition against forces it does not like.

As an aside, while ex-Die Linke celebrity Sahra Wagenknecht has moved dramatically to the right in an attempt to chase the anti-migrant vote - her new party, Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW), missed the parliamentary 5% hurdle by 0.2% - she is clearly a much cleverer politician than those running Die Linke. She has opposed the AfD’s new categorisation, as well as a possible ban, stating that this “politically counterproductive measure” is part of an “authoritarian reconstruction of society that curbs free speech and fights inconvenient political forces with undemocratic methods”.⁸

In another online post, she writes: “This classification, the firewall debates and marginalisation in the Bundestag are slaps in the face for AfD voters, which will certainly not convince any of them to change their minds.”⁹ She has got the problem right, but her solutions are entirely inadequate: she calls for “common-sense policies”, which for her include demands for a referendum to reduce annual migration to Germany from 500,000 to 50,000.¹⁰ Reactionary populism. Socialists should take on the AfD politically by providing a principled political alternative - not by aping it or calling for a ban.

Complex

Banning a political party in Germany is an extremely complex process, which can only be started by the government or a majority in either the Bundestag or the second chamber, the Bundesrat. The last time there were attempts to ban a party - the far-right Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands - it failed rather miserably. The first time, in 2003, the process had to be abandoned after it transpired that the regional and national leaderships of the party were riddled with “too many” informants and spies (this begs the question of how many is ‘just right’). The second attempt led to a four-year process, which ended in 2017, with Germany’s federal supreme court ruling against a ban: although it found that the NPD was indeed acting “against the constitution”, it was deemed too small to cause any real damage.¹¹ The same cannot be said of a party that now leads in the German polls.

Socialists and communists should stay well clear from calls for such bans, even when in relation to fascist organisations. We are, after all, interested in overthrowing the capitalist system, including the various ‘oh so democratic’ constitutions. It is no coincidence that the last time the Federal government was successful in implementing such a ban was in 1956, when the Communist Party of Germany was outlawed.