Wolfgang Merkel on a possible AfD ban: “This is a cartelization of party competition”

The fact that the 1,000-page AfD report has not yet been made public, only its findings, has been widely criticized. How do you assess this?

This shows that we are not dealing with a normal government agency, and certainly not with an academic institution, but with an intelligence agency. Intelligence agencies, by definition, operate secretly and only selectively disclose their procedures. This may make sense for an intelligence agency, but it does not for a democratic debate. If, as happened, one initially only publishes the results of an expert opinion and not the opinion itself, this is problematic in a democracy, and the overall assessment of "certainly right-wing extremist" remains without a sufficiently transparent basis. In public, we hear mainly interpretations and too few verifiable facts about the report. This also applies to the statement that the AfD violates Article 1: "Human dignity is inviolable." This is not a matter for the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution to decide, but for the Federal Constitutional Court.

There's a theory circulating within the AfD that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution's report is a kind of last resort for the establishment because of the party's strength. Is there any truth to this?

This is the expected reaction of the authoritarian-populist AfD to the 1,000-page report by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Such a document is certainly not the last straw for the democratic centrist parties. But they must ask themselves why so many people have turned away from them. The AfD and its electoral successes did not fall from heaven or spring from hell. The real reasons for the AfD's success lie not in its radical, ethnically charged nationalism, but in the lack of governing skills of past cabinets. They have so far failed to solve the major problems of our society effectively or fairly. This applies to the traffic light coalition as well as to the Merkel years.

Could the AfD report be interpreted as an admission by the government that they can no longer solve the country's problems politically?

I would argue against this. While the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is bound by instructions, the government—as far as we can tell—does not directly interfere with its analyses. It's obvious that Nancy Faeser was aware of and shared responsibility for, if not even encouraged, the publication of the essence of the report in her final days as Interior Minister. This fuels the long-standing accusation that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution is politically controlled.

Interestingly, this criticism was primarily voiced by leftists in the 20th century. However, the report on the AfD is being positively celebrated in these circles. Do you see a contradiction in this? From 1972 to 1978, the so-called Radical Decree was in effect throughout Germany. At that time, I was studying sports in Heidelberg, among other subjects. The so-called Radical Decree was in effect at the time. I was rejected as a junior student assistant at the Sports Institute because the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) had alleged left-wing activities against me during my time at high school. Grotesque—but that's how far the Office for the Protection of the Constitution went back then. A renewed surveillance of society by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, now by the authoritarian right, would once again leave illiberal traces in our society.

When the media and political elites today speak of "confirmed right-wing extremism," one must correctly add: "as determined by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution." However, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is not the Federal Constitutional Court. Thus, the statement "confirmed" contains a considerable degree of hubris. Only the Federal Constitutional Court is the authoritative voice that can decide such a thing.

He is considered one of the leading representatives of right-wing extremist tendencies within the AfD: Thuringian politician Björn Höcke. Martin Schutt/dpa

Is it even the job of an institution like the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution to reduce electorate? No. While I find much of this party's leadership – with all due respect – disgusting, I often find their statements to be racist and chauvinistic. However, that doesn't lead me to consider a ban particularly politically wise or democratic. Furthermore, banning the AfD would be highly risky from a pragmatic perspective.

The mere motion – from the Bundestag, Bundesrat, or federal government – ​​would give the AfD the opportunity to portray itself as a victim of the "old parties" over the years of the proceedings. If a ban is ultimately not implemented, it would be an unprecedented boost to the AfD's legitimacy. And even if the Federal Constitutional Court – which rightly shows extreme restraint in debates about bans – were to issue a ban, it would have dramatic consequences for politics and society: the withdrawal of AfD parliamentary mandates, possible waves of solidarity from sympathizers, protests, and probably even violence, particularly in eastern Germany. The polarization of society would be further exacerbated. Such a withdrawal of parliamentary mandates would have to be enforced with considerable repressive measures at the federal, state, and local levels. Liberal democracy and open society would be damaged.

This also has to do with the fact that the AfD is very strong in the East.

A ban would ban the strongest party in East Germany. A significant portion of the demo would be told they are political extremists and political wrong-way drivers. More than 30 percent would not be allowed to vote for the party they want to vote for. Yet we learn in social studies at school: All power emanates from the people. This should no longer apply to 30 percent of voters. This is a problem from a democratic theory perspective. Moreover, those requesting the ban are ultimately the rival parties who want to eliminate one of their competitors from the game. Firstly, because it is too successful, and secondly, too radical. This is essentially a cartelization of party competition. I insist, this is not AfD talk. The concept of cartel parties was already being discussed in (left-wing) party research in the 1990s, based on the decline of the mainstream parties.

What could the established parties do better in dealing with the AfD?

I consider it one of the cardinal moments in democracy that we not only elect parties and candidates, but can also vote them out. Voting out should give the parties a moment of self-criticism: What did we do wrong, what do we need to change, why do people vote for a right-wing extremist party? If, instead of such reflection, you simply ban a party like the AfD, you obscure your own ability to take a critical look at yourself and, if necessary, change your own policies. That is at least what Jens Spahn , who is by no means my favorite politician, does. He asked whether it would not be beneficial for the AfD to be permanently denied committee chair positions. Because then it could once again sing its old litany about being excluded by the "system parties." Even if the firewall is emotionally understandable, you have to ask why the AfD has doubled in size behind the firewall in just a few years. It's about winning over the demos, the people, including that part of the party behind the firewall, to democracy. Banning parties does not contribute to this.