SPD Politician Carmen Wegge on a Possible Ban of the AfD Party

This week, The Transatlantic Ledger is taking an in-depth look at a possible ban of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. SPD politician Carmen Wegge supported the recent motion in the German Bundestag. In the interview, the fully qualified lawyer makes clear why now is precisely the right moment for a ban of the AfD.

Hardly any constitutional debate is currently being conducted as intensively as the question of whether ban proceedings should be initiated against the AfD. The trigger, among other things, is an extensive expert opinion by the Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (Society for Civil Rights, GFF), which concludes that the requirements for a motion under Article 21, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law could be met. At the same time, the political reactions show how differently the assessments turn out.

While Thuringia’s Interior Minister Georg Maier (SPD) has, in recent days, once again advocated for at least examining a ban proceeding against the Thuringian AfD state association, CSU leader Markus Söder is warning against a party ban and is pleading for the AfD to be confronted primarily through political means. Union parliamentary group leader Jens Spahn, in turn, recently floated the idea of stripping Björn Höcke of his right to stand for election, thereby favoring targeted measures against individual extremist actors over a ban of the entire party.

Against this backdrop, The Transatlantic Ledger spoke with SPD Bundestag member Carmen Wegge, who has long been engaged with questions of militant democracy and had already supported a cross-party motion in the previous legislative period to examine an AfD ban proceeding. In the interview, she explains why she considers the current moment suitable, what role the Federal Constitutional Court plays, and why she understands the protection of human dignity as the core of the current debate. The interview is based on her written answers to The Transatlantic Ledger’s list of questions.

Using the Instruments of Militant Democracy

The Transatlantic Ledger: In your view, why is now precisely the right time to initiate a ban proceeding against the AfD?

Carmen Wegge: Since its founding, the AfD has continuously radicalized from a right-wing populist protest party into a clearly right-wing extremist party, whose unconstitutional aims and practices have by now been comprehensively documented and assessed both judicially and by the intelligence services. With the classification of the AfD by the federal and state offices for the protection of the constitution, and the administrative court rulings that support these observations, the situation has changed significantly.

We no longer see merely individual extremist currents, but an entire party whose profile is directed against the free democratic basic order. Added to this is the now available comprehensive expert opinion by the Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (GFF), which, on the basis of millions of analyzed text sources, arrives at the conclusion that the legal requirements under Article 21, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law are met and that a motion would have a prospect of success.

“When a party deliberately attacks the guarantee of human dignity and the principle of democracy, and works systematically to undermine the democratic constitutional state from within, then, in my view, it is not only possible but imperative to use the instruments of militant democracy and have the constitutionality of this party reviewed by the Federal Constitutional Court.”

What new developments have changed the debate?

Central to this is the GFF expert opinion, which for the first time presents such a comprehensive analysis of the AfD’s aims, structures, and activities according to scientific standards and strict constitutional-court criteria, and which also takes into account sources that have so far not been incorporated into official assessments, or only inadequately so. The report demonstrates very clearly that the AfD advocates an ethnic-cultural conception of the people, systematically attacks the human dignity of numerous groups, and works in a planned manner to intimidate and persecute political opponents and to push them out of the democratic process of political will-formation.

On top of this, right-wing extremist forces now significantly shape the party. Representatives of the extremist spectrum dominate the federal executive board, East German state associations with völkisch-nationalist positions are overrepresented, and a generation that was socialized in the youth organization and in the extra-parliamentary far right now occupies key party positions. At the same time, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution has progressively sharpened its assessment of the AfD, and courts such as the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia have already confirmed that this is legally sound.

What constitutional requirements actually need to be met in the first place?

Article 21, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law provides that parties are unconstitutional if, based on their aims or the behavior of their supporters, they seek to impair or abolish the free democratic basic order, or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany. The case law of the Federal Constitutional Court has given concrete shape to these requirements. It is not enough for a party merely to call individual constitutional values into question within its political debate; rather, it must work in a planned and targeted manner to destroy the functional conditions of democracy, and there must be concrete, weighty indications that this conduct could at least possibly succeed.

A party ban further requires that the evidence be strictly free of state involvement, meaning that the decisive evidence must not have been generated through covert state influence exerted on the party from within, and the proceedings must rest on a solid, comprehensively evaluated evidentiary basis. Finally, the consequences of a ban are drastic. The party is dissolved, its assets can be confiscated for charitable purposes, and its mandates are forfeited — which is why the constitutional hurdles are deliberately set high, and only the Federal Constitutional Court may decide on a ban.

The Federal Constitutional Court Is Decisive

What role does the Federal Constitutional Court play in this?

The Federal Constitutional Court is the only institution authorized to rule on the unconstitutionality of a party. No one else in Germany can ban a party. This is a lesson drawn from the Weimar Republic and National Socialism. It is intended to prevent abuse and to ensure that a party ban is never the result of a partisan political power struggle, but rather of an independent review grounded in the rule of law.

In proceedings under Article 21, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law, the Court examines both the aims and platform of a party and the actual conduct of its officeholders over an extended period, and assesses whether these activities are directed toward abolishing the free democratic basic order. At the same time, the Federal Constitutional Court reviews whether the strict state-independence of the evidence required by law has been maintained. In this sense, the Federal Constitutional Court is not only the guardian of the constitution but, in a party ban proceeding, also the institution that puts militant democracy into practice while simultaneously guarding against overreach of the ban instrument.

How do you assess the findings the constitutional protection authorities have produced so far?

I consider the findings of the constitutional protection authorities to be a central building block in assessing the AfD, because they rest on long-term, systematic observation and have by now led to the classification that several state associations of the AfD are confirmed to be right-wing extremist endeavors. Even the elevation of the AfD’s federal association from a “test case” to a “suspected case,” and the subsequent surveillance of the party using intelligence-service means, have shown that the party is undergoing not merely isolated extremist wings, but an overall development hostile to the constitution. The assessments of the constitutional protection authorities confirm what we have been witnessing in parliament for years. There is no effective internal-party demarcation from extremist forces; rather, these forces shape the party across its full breadth.

At the same time, it is clear that the work of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution alone is not sufficient to sustain a motion in Karlsruhe. It must be embedded in a broader evidentiary basis that also incorporates independent expert opinions such as that of the GFF, as well as scientific analyses. It matters to me that we take all these findings seriously without uncritically overstating them, and that we bring them together with civil society, academia, and parliamentary experience.

“The work of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution alone is not sufficient. It must be embedded in a broader evidentiary basis that also incorporates independent expert opinions such as that of the GFF, as well as scientific analyses.”

Indications of Systematic Attacks on Human Dignity and Democracy

What significance do statements by individual AfD officials have for the legal assessment?

Individual statements and activities are significant because they show how the AfD’s programmatic goals are actually lived out in practice, and whether unconstitutional positions are merely marginal phenomena or load-bearing elements of the party culture. The GFF expert opinion analyzes an enormous volume of material (social media posts, speeches, press releases, internal documents, etc.) and arrives at the conclusion that racist, inhumane, and anti-democratic statements occur recurrently and systematically, particularly from high-ranking officeholders.

It is particularly relevant that central figures who hold leadership positions within the party maintain contacts with right-wing terrorist networks or are themselves involved in right-wing extremist structures, and that the party does not sanction these individuals but instead provides them with mandates and offices. Legally, the issue at hand is not isolated scandals, but rather the question of whether these statements and activities are the expression of a consistent party-political course directed at impairing or abolishing the democratic basic order. The fact that the AfD discusses so-called “remigration plans,” which amount to the disenfranchisement and expulsion of entire population groups, or openly calls for the criminal prosecution of political opponents, constitutes weighty evidence that it is systematically attacking the guarantee of human dignity and the principle of democracy.

Critics warn that a ban proceeding could even strengthen the AfD. How do you respond to this objection?

I take this concern seriously, because a party ban proceeding must, of course, always be politically accounted for as well, and there is a risk that an extremist party will stage itself in the role of victim. At the same time, I am convinced that the greater risk lies in allowing a party that demonstrably attacks the foundational pillars of our constitution to continue unhindered out of fear of possible mobilization. Militant democracy was created precisely in order to learn from the mistakes of the Weimar Republic, in which a party was able to destroy democracy through legal means because no clear limits were set for it.

What is decisive is that a ban proceeding be prepared cleanly in accordance with the rule of law, be assessed independently by experts, and be broadly supported democratically. The aim here is not to eliminate an unwelcome political competitor, but rather to have a party that systematically attacks human dignity and the democratic constitutional state reviewed by an independent court. At the same time, it remains our task to confront the AfD politically, to refute its arguments on the merits, and to give people better answers to their concerns. A ban proceeding can never, and must never, replace the political engagement with right-wing extremism.

More in Part 2 of the Interview