The question of whether the ban on the far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD) could be enacted or its leaders disqualified has circulated across the country since last week. Investigative reporting reveals that officials from this party discussed with neo-Nazis a plan to deport two million foreigners and naturalized individuals of non-German origin. The core answer is that legal and institutional channels exist to request disbanding if a party pursues unconstitutional aims. A group of 50 professors from the University of Halle in eastern Germany urged the political class to push for such a ban, while others warned that the move could backfire by taking years to resolve and potentially inflaming the party as a victim of establishment bias. The outcome remains uncertain.
AfD ranks as the second most popular party in terms of voting intention nationwide and leads in the eastern states. Three regional elections are scheduled for September, followed by a pivotal moment ahead of the European elections. A political scientist noted that the process to outlaw a party must be supported by at least one of three bodies empowered to initiate it: the federal government, the Bundestag, or the Bundesrat (the lower and upper houses of Parliament) (source: EL PERIÓDICO). Hajo Funke, a former professor at the Free University of Berlin, explains that before any formal application to the Constitutional Court — the body that can outlaw a party nationwide — is filed, the matter could take years. Funke, who has written extensively on the German far right, cautions that the decision may not be reached in time for this election cycle, let alone the national elections slated for 2025. He characterizes Björn Höcke, Thüringen’s regional leader and a leading figure in the party’s most radical wing, as a fascist. The campaign to obtain Bundestag disapproval signatures for Höcke rapidly reached 1.2 million. Article 18 of the Constitution allows rights such as voting and eligibility to be removed from those who attack the basic order of the republic (source: EL PERIÓDICO). There is no doubt Höcke may be implicated, but a timely resolution appears unlikely.
conspiracy meeting
Funke questions why the process was not begun earlier. The gathering allegedly described as extremist by the terrorist organization involved was labeled as such by internal security services in many German states. The plan to re-immigrate people is viewed as hostile not only to foreigners in the country — about 10 million — but also to citizens of non-German origin and their families, numbering roughly 22 million within Germany’s 83 million inhabitants. The AfD appears politically isolated, and the plan would be impractical without extraordinary circumstances. The idea of triggering civil conflict is strongly discouraged.
The Potsdam meeting, which took place near Berlin, reportedly included AfD members, representatives of neo-Nazi groups within the Union of Values — a conservative opposition effort trying to establish a new radical party — and the Austrian political figure Martin Sellner, linked to the global far-right. The venue’s historical resonance calls to mind the Wannsee Conference of 1942, where plans for deportation and murder were discussed. The parallels drawn are not merely geographic; they underscore the seriousness of discussing mass deportation plans (source: contemporary reportage).
“The plan born in Potsdam is not just a bleak possibility; it challenges the constitutional order,” warned a federation of judges, the Lawyers Association, and allied bodies in a joint statement. “Any dream of mass exile must be confronted with all available legal tools and political means.”
Alice Weidel, co-chair of the AfD, separated from her adviser and a former MP, Roland Hartwig, who attended the Potsdam gathering. Timo Chrupalla, the party’s other co-leader, was unsure whether he had attended a similar event in Düsseldorf years earlier. Several AfD members who attended the Potsdam meeting defended the plans, with Bernd Baumann, the party’s general secretary, arguing that the term was legitimate and that the concept of repatriating immigrants could be pursued through legal channels.
Shocked reactions manifested in signature drives and street protests. In the days that followed, tens of thousands demonstrated against the far right in Berlin, Leipzig, Cologne, Essen, and Potsdam, with support from Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. Both leaders publicly reside in Berlin, the capital of the state of Brandenburg.
Failed outlawing of NPD
There is currently insufficient political support to pursue legalization through the Constitutional Court, Karlsruhe. Support from Scholz’s Social Democratic Party or the Greens has been present, but the liberal coalition partner has deemed such a move counterproductive. The conservative opposition has not shown enthusiasm for similar measures.
The criteria for banning a party are stringent. While attempting to outlaw marginal or local neo-Nazi groups is not unusual, Karlsruhe has only banned two nationwide parties to date — successors to both the Communist and Nazi NSDAP outfits in the 1950s. There have been two prior attempts to outlaw the National Democratic Party (NPD), the main neo-Nazi faction. The first effort, backed by the then-chancellor Angela Merkel and Parliament, collapsed in 2003 after police officers who were also NPD facilitators testified. A second petition, supported by the Bundesrat, was rejected by the Constitutional Court in 2017 on the grounds that the party lacked the necessary weight to threaten the state. The NPD, having had only about 6,000 members and no parliamentary representation, eventually faded, but a clear consensus against the AfD remains elusive. In 2017 the AfD became the first and only party of its spectrum to win seats in the Bundestag (source: historical summaries).