Hamburg Divided on AfD Ban Following Extremist Designation

Following the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV)’s classification of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) as a party with demonstrably right-wing extremist tendencies, opinions in Hamburg are sharply divided regarding the possibility of initiating a ban on the party. While the Green Party and the Left Party in the Hamburg Parliament (Bürgerschaft) are advocating for a ban, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) are currently rejecting such a measure.

Hamburg’s Senator of the Interior, Andy Grote (SPD), stated that the BfV’s classification of the AfD as a right-wing extremist entity did not come as a surprise to him, citing the party’s "constant radicalization process." However, he emphasized that even a judicial confirmation of this classification would be a necessary but insufficient prerequisite for a ban. He argued that the BfV and the Federal Ministry of the Interior would need to re-evaluate the situation to determine if it meets the "very high probability of success" required for a ban.

Grote underscored the gravity of a party ban, describing it as "a very sharp sword that should only be used in absolute exceptional cases." His cautious approach highlights the legal and political complexities involved in such a decision, emphasizing the need for overwhelming evidence and a strong likelihood of success to avoid potential repercussions and challenges to the ban.

In contrast, Katharina Fegebank, Hamburg’s Second Mayor from the Green Party, argued that the time for a ban is now. "A party ban is a very sharp sword that should only be used in absolute exceptional cases," she acknowledged, "But when, if not now, should a party ban be initiated?" She pointed out that the AfD, currently leading in national polls, is classified as demonstrably right-wing extremist by the BfV because it opposes the free democratic basic order. "Our Basic Law includes the possibility of a party ban for precisely such cases," she stated, emphasizing that it is the "appropriate way to deal with these enemies of our democracy, instead of continuing to normalize them."

Fegebank’s forceful statement reflects the Green Party’s unwavering stance against right-wing extremism and their conviction that the AfD poses a significant threat to the democratic foundations of Germany. They believe that a ban would send a clear message that such ideologies are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Echoing the Green Party’s sentiment, Deniz Celik, the Left Party’s domestic policy expert, declared that "a ban on the AfD is overdue." However, Celik also cautioned against diverting attention from the role of governing parties in recent years in contributing to the rise of right-wing sentiment. He criticized the "de facto abolition of the right to asylum and massive social cuts" as factors that have fueled the AfD’s growth.

Celik’s perspective highlights the Left Party’s broader critique of the political landscape, arguing that addressing the root causes of social division and inequality is crucial in combating right-wing extremism. They believe that a ban alone is insufficient and that a comprehensive approach is needed to address the underlying issues that contribute to the AfD’s appeal.

Dennis Thering, the CDU’s state and parliamentary group leader in Hamburg, acknowledged that the BfV’s assessment confirmed his own evaluation of the AfD. However, he deemed a ban procedure too uncertain at the present time. He stressed that "at the very latest, everyone must now understand that this party and its representatives are anything but bourgeois, conservative, let alone patriotic."

Thering’s statement reflects the CDU’s internal struggle with the AfD issue. While acknowledging the party’s extremist tendencies, they are hesitant to pursue a ban due to concerns about potential political fallout and the impact on the democratic process. Their focus is on clearly distancing themselves from the AfD and exposing its true nature to the public.

The Hamburg AfD, for its part, rejected the classification of the entire party as right-wing extremist as incorrect. State leader Dirk Nockemann argued that "our finding: the Office for the Protection of the Constitution is a demonstrably politically instrumentalized authority," adding that the decision was therefore not surprising. "We will defend ourselves against this expected attack on our party with all legal means," he stated.

Nockemann’s response underscores the AfD’s strategy of portraying itself as a victim of political persecution and questioning the impartiality of state institutions. They are likely to challenge any attempt to ban the party through legal channels, arguing that it violates their constitutional rights.

Sina Imhof, the Green Party’s parliamentary group leader, argued that anyone who systematically devalues population groups, attacks democratic institutions, and disregards Germany’s historical responsibility "does not belong in parliament – but before the Federal Constitutional Court." She concluded that "right-wing extremist parties must be banned – and the AfD is one of them."

Dirk Kienscherf, the chairman of the SPD parliamentary group, stated that the new classification was "a warning reality check for all those who have supported the AfD in the past." He urged them to "ask themselves now: do I continue to support a demonstrably right-wing extremist party?"

Thering further noted that numerous AfD members and parliamentarians maintained "the best contacts with the warmonger Putin and are deeply rooted in the Russian system of power." He emphasized that there has been no cooperation or agreements between his Hamburg CDU and the AfD in the past, and there will be none in the future.

Celik reiterated the Left Party’s stance, stating that the AfD is "a breeding ground for racists and fascists." He concluded that "to combat the AfD sustainably, we need a fundamentally different policy for better working and living conditions and against social division."

The Hamburg Office for the Protection of the Constitution stated that it remains to be seen how the federal office’s decision will affect its dealings with the AfD’s state association. A spokesperson said that the office would first examine the report to determine whether and, if so, what consequences should be drawn in Hamburg. The report has not yet been received by the state office.

The differing opinions in Hamburg reflect the broader national debate on how to deal with the AfD. The decision on whether to pursue a ban will likely depend on a complex interplay of legal, political, and social considerations, with significant implications for the future of German democracy.