Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) officially launched an effort seeking to ban the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, according to The Berliner on Monday.
SPD delegates voted unanimously on Sunday to establish a “federal working group” commissioned to collect and present evidence of AfD’s extremism—“evidence they say is already ‘overwhelming,’” The Berliner reported. The resolution, adopted during SPD’s three-day party congress in Berlin, calls for the collection and presentation of evidence of AfD’s extremism
“Based on historical experience, we have a constitution that provides the necessary instruments,” SPD leader Lars Klingbeil told members during the meeting, according to Deutsche Welle. “The moment at which domestic intelligence says this is a confirmed right-wing extremist party, there is no more room for tactics.”
The SPD accused the AfD of weakening Germany’s constitution and systematically eroding faith in democracy, arguing the party’s advocacy for “remigration” of individuals with migrant backgrounds constitutes a violation of human dignity and an attempt to dismantle the liberal democratic system, according to The Berliner.
In Germany, the power to ban a political party rests exclusively with the Federal Constitutional Court, not the government or parliament. A ban requires a two-thirds majority of the Justices in the Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court, reflecting an extremely high bar for such a measure.
“If the application proves to be well-founded in the principal proceedings, the Federal Constitutional Court declares that the political party is unconstitutional, orders the dissolution of the party and prohibits the establishment of substitute organizations,” The Federal Court states.
If a political party is banned in Germany, it is dissolved, prohibited from participating in elections, and its symbols and logos are outlawed, according to Professor of European Politics Dr. Angela Bourne per the academic blog Verfassungsblog. Its assets are confiscated by the state, its offices closed, and any efforts to re-establish the party under the same or a similar name are prohibited and can be punished, the article reads.
Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has banned only two political parties since its founding. The Socialist Reich Party (SRP) a neo-Nazi successor to the Nazi Party, was outlawed in 1952 due to its open opposition to the legitimacy of the Federal Republic. The Communist Party of Germany (KPD) was also banned in 1956 when the court deemed the party to be fundamentally opposed to liberal democracy and too closely aligned with Soviet communism.
The legal attacks levied against AfD stand in contrast with growing support for the party in the German population, particularly in the east. A recent survey showed AfD at 32%, nine points ahead of the SPD. A 2024 election in the German state of Thuringia saw the AfD outpace its competitors, taking nearly a third of the vote in the state, while the 2025 federal elections saw the party surge in their share of control.
“After losing 86 seats and being downgraded to junior partner in the new government led by the Christian Democrats of Friedrich Merz,” the European Conservative argues, “the SPD is now trying to ban its rivals rather than defeat them at the ballot box.”
The move for a ban comes almost two months after the German intelligence agency Bundesamt für Verfassungschutz (BfV) designated AfD as an extremist group, a move which enabled the agency to step up monitoring of the opposition party. The designation was made on the ground that the party was “racist and anti-Muslim.”
After the designation of AfD as an extremist group, critics voiced their opposition to the increasing pressure on the party. X CEO Elon Musk posted on the platform that a ban “would be an extreme attack on democracy.”
The extremist label was subsequently challenged by the AfD and placed under a “standstill” order for further review by the BfV.
“10 million AfD voters — you can’t ban them,” newly elected Chancellor Friedrich Merz told reporters. “You have to engage with them factually and on substance.”
All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Caden Olson
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.bizpacreview.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
