8 ms·

Germany is debating whether to ban AfD as the party surges to 21% in the polls

01GOD 3y ago
[dead]
pauldenton 3y ago
We need to ban our political opposition for the sake of democracy This reminds me of Justin Trudeau shutting down the bank account of the Trucker protestors. We need to lock out our opposition from accessing their bank accounts or from being able to pay their cellphone bill because democracy
HereIGoAgain 3y ago
What a shortsighted, dangerous and all around undemocratic concept. It's scary that Germany of all places would willingly play such a dangerous and disingenuous game.
pessimizer 3y ago
Very democratic to ban political parties as they rise in the polls. You have to ban AfD, because they seem like the types that would try to ban opposition parties; paradox of tolerance and all that.
- ALittleLight 3y ago
  Counterpoint: The Germans previously elected the Nazis. I'm sure we'd all prefer a bit of anti-democracy here at the polls than kilotons of democracy delivered by air in a few years.
  - version_five 3y ago
    That's what constitutions are for.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      Agree. The structural solution is a weaker, better checked and balanced Berlin. The classic form of that solution is enhanced federalism and devolution of power. But the EU offers another path: closer political integration.
    - purerandomness 3y ago
      Exactly, and because you're right, the Nazi's playbook is having some historic event - let's say, a Reichstag Fire [1] or something - disabling the constitution on day 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire#Political_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire#Political_conse...
    - orra 3y ago
      I'll point out that banning parties who would seek to destroy democracy is part of the German constitution. Article 21. There's no irony here. What is being mooted is something deliberately introduced in the immediate aftermath of the Nazis and World War II, to prevent a reoccurrence. (I've slightly lost the thread here, so I'm not 100% certain you're disagreeing.)
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        The irony is that banning political parties on the grounds of threatening the German state is exactly that the Nazis did after Hitler became chancellor with the Reichstag Fire Decree. And the same thing East Germany did to cement communist control. "We have to disenfranchise you to protect democracy" is a self defeating idea.
      - version_five 3y ago
        I wasn't aware of that, my notion of a good constitution is that you should be comfortable with your worst enemy wielding the powers it grants. I'm curious what checks there are on Article 21 then. It seems like a no brainer that an unfriendly government count just declare all their opposition enemies of democracy. How is that power limited?
    - undersuit 3y ago
  - gameman144 3y ago
    I guess the question would be whether banning opposition is the best way to quell opposition. One of the core tenets of democracy is that the people get a choice in their government. If the current government is able to rip that choice away if it's unpalatable, then that's anti-democratic in and of itself.
    - jmye 3y ago
      The people also chose the government doing the banning. I don’t find this reasoning holds any water. If we all vote to ban the party some dude started to advocate for killing all left-handed people, we’re not being anti-democratic - we’re being serious people. If you think this party poses no threat, then that’s a real argument. “But it’s not fair that I can’t vote for the cannibals/Nazis/anti-democracy advocates” is unequivocally not (and it’s not more so just because you don’t think they’re actually Nazis or whatever).
      - gameman144 3y ago
        There is a difference between allowing a party and allowing an act. If a party says "drugs should be legal", it doesn't mean that drug dealers are legal today. Outlawing an action is fine. Outlawing a party who says the action should be okay is anti-democratic.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    The Germans did not elect the Nazis into power. They lost in the 1932 elections by no small margin. Hindenburg got 53% of the vote, Hitler less than 37%. The Nazis would later cement their power after the Reichstag fire decree, banning most attempts at opposition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_German_presidential_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_German_presidential_ele...
    - throw9away6 3y ago
      Boy history loves to rhyme doesn’t it…
    - hollerith 3y ago
      Your URL doesn't support your position (emphasis mine): >Hindenburg's reelection failed to prevent the NSDAP from assuming power. Two successive federal elections later that year left it as the largest party in the Reichstag and anti-republic parties in the majority. Under this political climate, Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933. Upon Hindenburg's death in 1934 Hitler de facto assumed the presidency, which he combined with the chancellorship to become the Führer und Reichskanzler. >The NSDAP emerged from the Reichstag elections in July as the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag and having over a third of the vote, while Papen's position was undermined. Papen dissolved the Reichstag again with elections in November, in which the Nazis lost seats but remained the largest party.
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        Subsequent elections weren't fair elections: in February of '33 the Nazis had already started to ban and persecute competing parties. I guess if you caveat the statement by specifying that they only won unfair, rigged elections then sure that isn't wrong. > Upon Hindenburg's death in 1934 Hitler de facto assumed the presidency, which he combined with the chancellorship to become the Führer und Reichskanzler. Hitler was appointed not elected. And assumed the presidency after Hindenburg's death, not by winning an election. > The NSDAP emerged from the Reichstag elections in July as the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag and having over a third of the vote "Over a third" is nowhere near the majority. Remember Hindenburg ran as an independent and won over 50% of the vote. "Largest party" in a system with more than two parties and. And again, after February 1933 the Nazis had severely suppressed opposition parties. Subsequent elections are not fair elections, this is like saying Kim Jeong Un was democratically elected. Technically he was, with the little detail that there was just one party and one candidate to vote far.
  - memefrog 3y ago
    If the Germans elected the Nazis maybe we should take pause and think why rather than try to ban it. Maybe the lesson should be "dont ignore the concerns of the people" rather than "banning parties is good".
    - 01GOD 3y ago
      [dead]
  - justinclift 3y ago
    > ... than kilotons of democracy delivered by air in a few years. Why bring the US into the conversation? ;)
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  It's also an ostrich policy. Instead of asking why 20% support them just decree that they are wrong.
  - local_issues 3y ago
    Not everyone’s opinion is equal. Sometimes, for the good of a democracy, people should be told who they can vote for. There’s also never been a blowback to this. /s
Dig1t 3y ago
Seems to me that this article does not actually debate or discuss any points made by this party, the goal is just to describe them as "Hitler-esque" (their words) and paint them as evil. Obviously a lot of people in this party feel a certain way and demonizing them is not going to make them just disappear.
porkbeer 3y ago
How is banning political parties as they become popular 'protecting democracy'? I don't agree with most of their politics, but am more afraid of draconian control of the political process 'for our own good', than some biased actors who should already be constrained by the rule of law.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  Oh I see, you are not familiar with how the EU works? Well, the EU, and Germany, have been threatening and punishing any member state that voted the "wrong way". Take Italy for instance, the head of the EU comission, publicly announced that the EU has ample ways of punishing Italy should the new prime minister "misbehave" - essentially meddling in the country's internal affairs and attempting to influence elections, in favour of alined politicians. What you are witnessing in Germany is just regular EU affairs, as Germany is the main country of origin for such practices. I don't like AfD but bannig them won't help much and such policies are damaging the continent. It will blow up at some point as the pressure is pretty high in all member states.
  - purerandomness 3y ago
    > Well, the EU, and Germany, have been threatening and punishing any member state that voted the "wrong way" Works as designed, then. What's the point of having a system of shared values if one member goes "Hey, let's, umm, kill all the left-handed people!" and your system can't defend itself against such actors? What if those actors were paid by an entity determined to destroy your system by testing the extreme edge cases of your shared values? Let's say Russia decides to troll your system by paying for staged Koran burnings in Sweden [1]. Now, a debate ensues about the tradeoff between freedom of speech/expression, and the value of not hurting people's religious feelings. If your system gets weaker by such attacks, you need to strengthen the system by excluding or restricting malicious actors. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/27/burning-of-quran-in-stockholm-funded-by-journalist-with-kremlin-ties-sweden-nato-russia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/27/burning-of-qur...
    - 3y ago
brauhaus 3y ago
AfD is garbage, but banning it might be counter-productive. A democracy should have institutions that would ensure it's survival even if the biggest idiots take over - because one day they will.
- purerandomness 3y ago
  The Nazi's playbook, however, is to disable the institutions that ensures its survival, as a first measure as soon as they take over. The trick is to figure out the day before it's too late. Last time, for example, it didn't work.
- ProjectArcturis 3y ago
  What if banning parties like AfD is the institution that ensures democracy's survival?
  - ms4720 3y ago
    Then your country is too weak for democracy
    - ProjectArcturis 3y ago
      Then what?
  - xedrac 3y ago
    I think by definition, that's no longer democracy.
    - effie 3y ago
      Democracy does not imply that a political party cannot be banned. Nazi party is forbidden in many countries that are usually considered democratic or at least flawed democratic (democratic formally, but not in effect). Democracy in contemporary context also does not mean direct democracy, it means representative democracy. That's why banning a party that has overwhelming popular support can still be democratic, if it is done lawfully by democratically controlled institutions (via regular and free elections). Dissent of the people for a specific decision or policy does not have legal power in standard democracies unless a special mechanism is invoked, such as referendum with the power of law (whose invocation the president or representatives have to agree on, details depend on country).
version_five 3y ago
There was a panic ~2016 about populist leaders ignoring democratic norms and imposing their own rules in spite of constitutions and other controls. And there had been some limited forays into that - Orban for example. It feels to me now that the retaliation was way worse than the initial concern, ie the populist strongmen largely stayed within norms but we've since had authoritarian pushes from their political opponents, like this one, that are completely undemocratic but "justified" because they belive they're on the side of good. It won't end well.
- justinclift 3y ago
  > ... because they belive they're on the side of good.. Seems like such a large amount of disaster and misfortune have been caused by people because "We have God on Our Side". :(
SushiHippie 3y ago
Sorry, but why would the graph of the voting intention have completely wrong colors for the parties (except CDU)? This was very confusing, as it looked like that AFD (normally blue) has the lowest voting intention meanwhile blue in the graph is "Left" which I think is the party "Die Linke" which is normally red.
TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
Maybe improving policies of current parties would be making more sense?

[dead]

We need to ban our political opposition for the sake of democracy This reminds me of Justin Trudeau shutting down the bank account of the Trucker protestors. We need to lock out our opposition from accessing their bank accounts or from being able to pay their cellphone bill because democracy

HereIGoAgain 3y ago

What a shortsighted, dangerous and all around undemocratic concept. It's scary that Germany of all places would willingly play such a dangerous and disingenuous game.

pessimizer 3y ago

Very democratic to ban political parties as they rise in the polls. You have to ban AfD, because they seem like the types that would try to ban opposition parties; paradox of tolerance and all that.

ALittleLight 3y ago
Counterpoint: The Germans previously elected the Nazis. I'm sure we'd all prefer a bit of anti-democracy here at the polls than kilotons of democracy delivered by air in a few years.
- version_five 3y ago
  That's what constitutions are for.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    Agree. The structural solution is a weaker, better checked and balanced Berlin. The classic form of that solution is enhanced federalism and devolution of power. But the EU offers another path: closer political integration.
  - purerandomness 3y ago
    Exactly, and because you're right, the Nazi's playbook is having some historic event - let's say, a Reichstag Fire [1] or something - disabling the constitution on day 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire#Political_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire#Political_conse...
  - orra 3y ago
    I'll point out that banning parties who would seek to destroy democracy is part of the German constitution. Article 21. There's no irony here. What is being mooted is something deliberately introduced in the immediate aftermath of the Nazis and World War II, to prevent a reoccurrence. (I've slightly lost the thread here, so I'm not 100% certain you're disagreeing.)
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      The irony is that banning political parties on the grounds of threatening the German state is exactly that the Nazis did after Hitler became chancellor with the Reichstag Fire Decree. And the same thing East Germany did to cement communist control. "We have to disenfranchise you to protect democracy" is a self defeating idea.
    - version_five 3y ago
      I wasn't aware of that, my notion of a good constitution is that you should be comfortable with your worst enemy wielding the powers it grants. I'm curious what checks there are on Article 21 then. It seems like a no brainer that an unfriendly government count just declare all their opposition enemies of democracy. How is that power limited?
  - undersuit 3y ago
- gameman144 3y ago
  I guess the question would be whether banning opposition is the best way to quell opposition. One of the core tenets of democracy is that the people get a choice in their government. If the current government is able to rip that choice away if it's unpalatable, then that's anti-democratic in and of itself.
  - jmye 3y ago
    The people also chose the government doing the banning. I don’t find this reasoning holds any water. If we all vote to ban the party some dude started to advocate for killing all left-handed people, we’re not being anti-democratic - we’re being serious people. If you think this party poses no threat, then that’s a real argument. “But it’s not fair that I can’t vote for the cannibals/Nazis/anti-democracy advocates” is unequivocally not (and it’s not more so just because you don’t think they’re actually Nazis or whatever).
    - gameman144 3y ago
      There is a difference between allowing a party and allowing an act. If a party says "drugs should be legal", it doesn't mean that drug dealers are legal today. Outlawing an action is fine. Outlawing a party who says the action should be okay is anti-democratic.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  The Germans did not elect the Nazis into power. They lost in the 1932 elections by no small margin. Hindenburg got 53% of the vote, Hitler less than 37%. The Nazis would later cement their power after the Reichstag fire decree, banning most attempts at opposition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_German_presidential_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_German_presidential_ele...
  - throw9away6 3y ago
    Boy history loves to rhyme doesn’t it…
  - hollerith 3y ago
    Your URL doesn't support your position (emphasis mine): >Hindenburg's reelection failed to prevent the NSDAP from assuming power. Two successive federal elections later that year left it as the largest party in the Reichstag and anti-republic parties in the majority. Under this political climate, Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933. Upon Hindenburg's death in 1934 Hitler de facto assumed the presidency, which he combined with the chancellorship to become the Führer und Reichskanzler. >The NSDAP emerged from the Reichstag elections in July as the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag and having over a third of the vote, while Papen's position was undermined. Papen dissolved the Reichstag again with elections in November, in which the Nazis lost seats but remained the largest party.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      Subsequent elections weren't fair elections: in February of '33 the Nazis had already started to ban and persecute competing parties. I guess if you caveat the statement by specifying that they only won unfair, rigged elections then sure that isn't wrong. > Upon Hindenburg's death in 1934 Hitler de facto assumed the presidency, which he combined with the chancellorship to become the Führer und Reichskanzler. Hitler was appointed not elected. And assumed the presidency after Hindenburg's death, not by winning an election. > The NSDAP emerged from the Reichstag elections in July as the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag and having over a third of the vote "Over a third" is nowhere near the majority. Remember Hindenburg ran as an independent and won over 50% of the vote. "Largest party" in a system with more than two parties and. And again, after February 1933 the Nazis had severely suppressed opposition parties. Subsequent elections are not fair elections, this is like saying Kim Jeong Un was democratically elected. Technically he was, with the little detail that there was just one party and one candidate to vote far.
- memefrog 3y ago
  If the Germans elected the Nazis maybe we should take pause and think why rather than try to ban it. Maybe the lesson should be "dont ignore the concerns of the people" rather than "banning parties is good".
  - 01GOD 3y ago
    [dead]
- justinclift 3y ago
  > ... than kilotons of democracy delivered by air in a few years. Why bring the US into the conversation? ;)
mytailorisrich 3y ago
It's also an ostrich policy. Instead of asking why 20% support them just decree that they are wrong.
- local_issues 3y ago
  Not everyone’s opinion is equal. Sometimes, for the good of a democracy, people should be told who they can vote for. There’s also never been a blowback to this. /s

Dig1t 3y ago

Seems to me that this article does not actually debate or discuss any points made by this party, the goal is just to describe them as "Hitler-esque" (their words) and paint them as evil. Obviously a lot of people in this party feel a certain way and demonizing them is not going to make them just disappear.

porkbeer 3y ago

How is banning political parties as they become popular 'protecting democracy'? I don't agree with most of their politics, but am more afraid of draconian control of the political process 'for our own good', than some biased actors who should already be constrained by the rule of law.

gumballindie 3y ago
Oh I see, you are not familiar with how the EU works? Well, the EU, and Germany, have been threatening and punishing any member state that voted the "wrong way". Take Italy for instance, the head of the EU comission, publicly announced that the EU has ample ways of punishing Italy should the new prime minister "misbehave" - essentially meddling in the country's internal affairs and attempting to influence elections, in favour of alined politicians. What you are witnessing in Germany is just regular EU affairs, as Germany is the main country of origin for such practices. I don't like AfD but bannig them won't help much and such policies are damaging the continent. It will blow up at some point as the pressure is pretty high in all member states.
- purerandomness 3y ago
  > Well, the EU, and Germany, have been threatening and punishing any member state that voted the "wrong way" Works as designed, then. What's the point of having a system of shared values if one member goes "Hey, let's, umm, kill all the left-handed people!" and your system can't defend itself against such actors? What if those actors were paid by an entity determined to destroy your system by testing the extreme edge cases of your shared values? Let's say Russia decides to troll your system by paying for staged Koran burnings in Sweden [1]. Now, a debate ensues about the tradeoff between freedom of speech/expression, and the value of not hurting people's religious feelings. If your system gets weaker by such attacks, you need to strengthen the system by excluding or restricting malicious actors. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/27/burning-of-quran-in-stockholm-funded-by-journalist-with-kremlin-ties-sweden-nato-russia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/27/burning-of-qur...
  - 3y ago

brauhaus 3y ago

AfD is garbage, but banning it might be counter-productive. A democracy should have institutions that would ensure it's survival even if the biggest idiots take over - because one day they will.

purerandomness 3y ago
The Nazi's playbook, however, is to disable the institutions that ensures its survival, as a first measure as soon as they take over. The trick is to figure out the day before it's too late. Last time, for example, it didn't work.
ProjectArcturis 3y ago
What if banning parties like AfD is the institution that ensures democracy's survival?
- ms4720 3y ago
  Then your country is too weak for democracy
  - ProjectArcturis 3y ago
    Then what?
- xedrac 3y ago
  I think by definition, that's no longer democracy.
  - effie 3y ago
    Democracy does not imply that a political party cannot be banned. Nazi party is forbidden in many countries that are usually considered democratic or at least flawed democratic (democratic formally, but not in effect). Democracy in contemporary context also does not mean direct democracy, it means representative democracy. That's why banning a party that has overwhelming popular support can still be democratic, if it is done lawfully by democratically controlled institutions (via regular and free elections). Dissent of the people for a specific decision or policy does not have legal power in standard democracies unless a special mechanism is invoked, such as referendum with the power of law (whose invocation the president or representatives have to agree on, details depend on country).

version_five 3y ago

There was a panic ~2016 about populist leaders ignoring democratic norms and imposing their own rules in spite of constitutions and other controls. And there had been some limited forays into that - Orban for example. It feels to me now that the retaliation was way worse than the initial concern, ie the populist strongmen largely stayed within norms but we've since had authoritarian pushes from their political opponents, like this one, that are completely undemocratic but "justified" because they belive they're on the side of good. It won't end well.

justinclift 3y ago
> ... because they belive they're on the side of good.. Seems like such a large amount of disaster and misfortune have been caused by people because "We have God on Our Side". :(

SushiHippie 3y ago

Sorry, but why would the graph of the voting intention have completely wrong colors for the parties (except CDU)? This was very confusing, as it looked like that AFD (normally blue) has the lowest voting intention meanwhile blue in the graph is "Left" which I think is the party "Die Linke" which is normally red.

TheLoafOfBread 3y ago

Maybe improving policies of current parties would be making more sense?