8 ms·

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 contr

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...
  - ms4720 3y ago
    No if your system gets weaker by that you need a stronger system
    - purerandomness 3y ago
      Agree. Suggestions?
  - the_lego 3y ago
    > What's the point of having a system of shared values if one member goes "Hey, let's, umm, [stop immigration]!" and your system can't defend itself against such actors? Corrected to better reflect AfD's position. To address your point, the goal should be to serve the people, not the system. A system that persists against its subjects wishes is, by definition, tyranny.
    - purerandomness 3y ago
      AfD never, ever, wanted to stop immigration. The trick is that they set up a decoy problem that needs fixed, that only they know how to fix (without providing a fix, of course). "Chemtrail poisonings need to stop" would be a popular AfD demand [1]. The trick here is to use a popular conspiracy theory, so demanding stopping of chemtrail poisonings looks like serving the poeple from the outside, right? Now, the AfD would never say "stop immigration". They say "stop uncontrolled excess immigration", so it seems like there'd be some "normal" amount of immigration, and the stupid government doesn't see that we're currently surpassing it, and that this is a huge problem that needs fixing. They want to have a say who's a "valid" asylum seeker, and who's just entering with malicious intent. And this is where shared values are being overstepped. Populists will tell you that they know how to weed out rapists, by looking at their nose, or skin colour, or if they have mobile phones on them when entering the country. The problem arises when a critical mass starts believing that yes, indeed, 5G needs to be banned from our vaccines, and the people will be served! [1] https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/afd-in-sachsen-staatskanzlei-muss-sich-nach-kleiner-anfrage-mit-chemtrails-befassen-a-5d295473-0a4c-4cda-a958-2e9ef1b61f6d https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/afd-in-sachsen-st...
Zardoz84 3y ago
[flagged]
- effie 3y ago
  Any incontrovertible evidence for party being nazist? And if there is, why weren't they banned already? Nazi parties can't legally exist in Germany. Re downvotes, I'm pointing out that decisive German institutions so far did not pronounce the party as Nazi, and there were probably good reasons for that.
  - purerandomness 3y ago
    Quick question before we provide data, what would you accept as qualifying evidence that would make you go "Oh, ok, yup, they're Nazis". > And if there is, why weren't they banned already? There's a protocol that is being followed. The AfD is currently at the "Verdachtsfall" stage, and the debate is whether the Verfassungsschutz will escalate to the next stage. > Nazi parties can't legally exist in Germany. Let's play Red Team here, say you want to create a Nazi party. Wouldn't you want to make sure it flies under the radar as long as you can?
    - effie 3y ago
      > what would you accept as qualifying evidence Party leadership making apologies for Nazi Germany or support for Nazi/equivalent policies, or tolerance of party members behaving in such a way. > There's a protocol OK, so they were not found overstepping the red lines yet, only problematic and dancing on it. OK, this may change in the future. When the relevant institutions make the judgement, then it should credible. > say you want to create Sorry, I can't play this game. But you have a point, yes smart Nazis would try to do that.
      - purerandomness 3y ago
        > Party leadership making apologies for Nazi Germany or support for Nazi/equivalent policies, or tolerance of party members behaving in such a way. Oh that's an easy one, there are many many such quotes. Links in German citing sources: https://www.volksverpetzer.de/analyse/nazis-in-afd/ https://www.volksverpetzer.de/analyse/nazis-in-afd/ https://www.volksverpetzer.de/analyse/argumentationshilfe-hoecke/ https://www.volksverpetzer.de/analyse/argumentationshilfe-ho... https://www.volksverpetzer.de/analyse/25-krasse-hoecke-zitate/ https://www.volksverpetzer.de/analyse/25-krasse-hoecke-zitat...
purerandomness 3y ago
Protecting a system sometimes means to restrict access of malicious actors who want to destroy this same system. It's similar to the paradox of tolerance. When you want to live by some rules, you have to defend these rules. Otherwise, malicious actors will use up all available resources, game the system by every available loophole, and then rewrite the rules of law.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Does AfD want to "destroy" German democracy? I really don't see any attempt to substantiate this claim, beyond nebulous statements like "... they warned in an analysis that the party is actively and methodically trying 'to implement its racist and Right-wing extremist goals'". What are these extremist goals? Presumably less immigration, but that's hardly destroying democracy. As the article explains, implementing such a ban would put the existing German political establishment in a group comprised of many unsavory folks: > Germany has a troubled history of parties being banned, with Otto von Bismarck, the country’s first chancellor, banning the Social Democrats for disloyalty to the Kaiser. > When the Nazis came to power, they banned all other parties. > The German Democratic Republic (East Germany) also banned other parties not affiliated with the ruling Socialist Unity Party. Maybe actually try and address the concerns AfD supporters have, instead of simply trying to ban the party. The 20% of AfD supporters are still going to vote and will probably become even more radicalized as this ban would substantiate the claims that Germany does not want to fairly address their concerns.
  - purerandomness 3y ago
    > Maybe actually try and address the concerns AfD supporters have I suppose you're German and you're familiar with the failed attempt of Friedrich Merz trying exactly that with his CDU? The trick populists use is that you make something seem to be something everybody would want, of course, and demand for it to be implemented, without having actual solutions. How do you address a party demanding that the government should stop poisoning citizens with chemtrails? [1] Would you agree that Germany needs to restrict "uncontrolled immigration"? I would. Who wouldn't?! But wait. What's "uncontrolled"? Who gets to decide on the definition? If we had a definition, do we actually have uncontrolled immigration, and if we do have it, what exactly is the problem with it, and why would we want to solve it? But see, they're not in the problem-solving business. They don't care. They're in the "stir up fear and promise we have a solution" business, which is a very successful business model. If 20% of your population believe that there's 5G in your vaccine and the government wants to kill half of your friends, you need to fix other things, like lack of education. A ban on a malicious actor trying to game the system might be a temporary hack to win time. [1] https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/afd-in-sachsen-staatskanzlei-muss-sich-nach-kleiner-anfrage-mit-chemtrails-befassen-a-5d295473-0a4c-4cda-a958-2e9ef1b61f6d https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/afd-in-sachsen-st...
effie 3y ago
It would be, if AfD was credibly anti-democratic, e.g. if there is evidence they support restricting or dismantling democratic processes, such as regular and free elections, balance of powers, etc. I don't know if there is such evidence, so no judgement on AfD. However, it seems very often media in west write "protecting democracy" when they actually mean "protecting political power of centrists/liberal democratic parties". Some people even genuinely think that it's democracy only when that part of political spectrum rules.
- memefrog 3y ago
  Some democratic processes are good, but not all of them. For example, is it antidemocratic to advocate for a Parliamentary system over a Presidential system? I am glad we have a Parliamentary system in NZ. If we didn't, should the NZ government be able to ban a party advocating for one? Germany supports lots of antidemocratic measures. They oppose binding referenda of the population before the adoption of international treaties, for example. This isn't about democracy. It is about protecting leftist policies from democratic backlash.
  - effie 3y ago
    > is it antidemocratic to advocate for a Parliamentary system over a Presidential system? It depends on the law (constitution). If the law says it's forbidden, then it is anti-that-kind-of-democracy. If there is no such law, then it's consistent with democracy. Real presidential democracy should allow for change of law and constitution, so the democratic process here would be to first change the law/constitution to allow for advocating, then advocate for switching to Parliamentary system, then get this change passed through the lawmaking process. Lots of steps, very hard to do, but in principle there should be a legal and democratic way. If there isn't legal democratic way, the system is highly suspicious, and probably isn't even formally a democracy. > If we didn't, should the NZ government be able to ban a party advocating for one? If the government (in extreme, the president) is democratically elected, and if the ban is done constitutionally and lawfully, then that would be still democratic. > Germany supports lots of antidemocratic measures. They oppose binding referenda of the population before the adoption of international treaties Interesting, is this an official government position with some rationale? Or the government just does whatever they can legally and ignores the calls for referendum? One rationale I've came across is that international treaties (in parliamentary systems) have to go through the parliament, which is representative, so referendum is not needed, and if someone wants to invoke one, they have to do the necessary work required by the law.
somat 3y ago
It is a delicate subject to be sure, on the one hand "we allow any democratically elected party as long as it is our party" sounds disingenuous. On the other hand remember that the nazi's got into power via democratic means. And then promptly proceeded to shut down the democratic process. I suspect that germany remembers this lesson more acutely than most.
mudita 3y ago
I’m not talking about the AfD here, but trying to quickly answer the question how banning political parties can seen as justified in principle: Banning a political party is an important instrument in a wider philosophy known in Germany as “wehrhafte Demokratie” (defensive democracy). This philosophy states that democratic states should have legal tools with which they can defend themselves against people, who want to attack the democratic order itself. Wehrhafte Demokratie is a very well established and accepted concept, here, partially because of a wish to avoid repeating the mistakes of the Weimarer Republik. It’s also justified by the belief that democracy is not just a dictatorship of the majority, but that even a majority of voters is limited in what they can do and that democracy also includes for example the protection of minorities. > biased actors who should already be constrained by the rule of law Banning a political party works by the rules of law. The legal barriers for banning a political party are quite high in Germany. Basically for a ban it must be proven that the party as a whole, not just single member, have the goal to attack key elements of the democratic order itself and that there is a real danger that they could succeed. The last condition can also be a legal reason to only ban a party once it actually gets popular: As long as it is unpopular, judges don’t see the condition fulfilled, that the party presents a real danger, so they won’t ban the party. This happened with Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD), which was ruled to be verfassungsfeindlich (an enemy of the constitution), but not banned because it was so ineffective und unpopular.
- effie 3y ago
  This is fascinating, and seems to be a very wrong strategy, if the goal is to defend democracy. The law should indicate that if there is evidence a party wants to dismantle democracy, action should be taken to dissolve and ban the party as soon as possible. A law stating that courts should be waiting for such party to grow and get support is dumb and dangerous, from the pro-democratic viewpoint.
01GOD 3y ago
[dead]

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...
- ms4720 3y ago
  No if your system gets weaker by that you need a stronger system
  - purerandomness 3y ago
    Agree. Suggestions?
- the_lego 3y ago
  > What's the point of having a system of shared values if one member goes "Hey, let's, umm, [stop immigration]!" and your system can't defend itself against such actors? Corrected to better reflect AfD's position. To address your point, the goal should be to serve the people, not the system. A system that persists against its subjects wishes is, by definition, tyranny.
  - purerandomness 3y ago
    AfD never, ever, wanted to stop immigration. The trick is that they set up a decoy problem that needs fixed, that only they know how to fix (without providing a fix, of course). "Chemtrail poisonings need to stop" would be a popular AfD demand [1]. The trick here is to use a popular conspiracy theory, so demanding stopping of chemtrail poisonings looks like serving the poeple from the outside, right? Now, the AfD would never say "stop immigration". They say "stop uncontrolled excess immigration", so it seems like there'd be some "normal" amount of immigration, and the stupid government doesn't see that we're currently surpassing it, and that this is a huge problem that needs fixing. They want to have a say who's a "valid" asylum seeker, and who's just entering with malicious intent. And this is where shared values are being overstepped. Populists will tell you that they know how to weed out rapists, by looking at their nose, or skin colour, or if they have mobile phones on them when entering the country. The problem arises when a critical mass starts believing that yes, indeed, 5G needs to be banned from our vaccines, and the people will be served! [1] https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/afd-in-sachsen-staatskanzlei-muss-sich-nach-kleiner-anfrage-mit-chemtrails-befassen-a-5d295473-0a4c-4cda-a958-2e9ef1b61f6d https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/afd-in-sachsen-st...

Zardoz84 3y ago

[flagged]

effie 3y ago
Any incontrovertible evidence for party being nazist? And if there is, why weren't they banned already? Nazi parties can't legally exist in Germany. Re downvotes, I'm pointing out that decisive German institutions so far did not pronounce the party as Nazi, and there were probably good reasons for that.
- purerandomness 3y ago
  Quick question before we provide data, what would you accept as qualifying evidence that would make you go "Oh, ok, yup, they're Nazis". > And if there is, why weren't they banned already? There's a protocol that is being followed. The AfD is currently at the "Verdachtsfall" stage, and the debate is whether the Verfassungsschutz will escalate to the next stage. > Nazi parties can't legally exist in Germany. Let's play Red Team here, say you want to create a Nazi party. Wouldn't you want to make sure it flies under the radar as long as you can?
  - effie 3y ago
    > what would you accept as qualifying evidence Party leadership making apologies for Nazi Germany or support for Nazi/equivalent policies, or tolerance of party members behaving in such a way. > There's a protocol OK, so they were not found overstepping the red lines yet, only problematic and dancing on it. OK, this may change in the future. When the relevant institutions make the judgement, then it should credible. > say you want to create Sorry, I can't play this game. But you have a point, yes smart Nazis would try to do that.
    - purerandomness 3y ago
      > Party leadership making apologies for Nazi Germany or support for Nazi/equivalent policies, or tolerance of party members behaving in such a way. Oh that's an easy one, there are many many such quotes. Links in German citing sources: https://www.volksverpetzer.de/analyse/nazis-in-afd/ https://www.volksverpetzer.de/analyse/nazis-in-afd/ https://www.volksverpetzer.de/analyse/argumentationshilfe-hoecke/ https://www.volksverpetzer.de/analyse/argumentationshilfe-ho... https://www.volksverpetzer.de/analyse/25-krasse-hoecke-zitate/ https://www.volksverpetzer.de/analyse/25-krasse-hoecke-zitat...

purerandomness 3y ago

Protecting a system sometimes means to restrict access of malicious actors who want to destroy this same system. It's similar to the paradox of tolerance. When you want to live by some rules, you have to defend these rules. Otherwise, malicious actors will use up all available resources, game the system by every available loophole, and then rewrite the rules of law.

Manuel_D 3y ago
Does AfD want to "destroy" German democracy? I really don't see any attempt to substantiate this claim, beyond nebulous statements like "... they warned in an analysis that the party is actively and methodically trying 'to implement its racist and Right-wing extremist goals'". What are these extremist goals? Presumably less immigration, but that's hardly destroying democracy. As the article explains, implementing such a ban would put the existing German political establishment in a group comprised of many unsavory folks: > Germany has a troubled history of parties being banned, with Otto von Bismarck, the country’s first chancellor, banning the Social Democrats for disloyalty to the Kaiser. > When the Nazis came to power, they banned all other parties. > The German Democratic Republic (East Germany) also banned other parties not affiliated with the ruling Socialist Unity Party. Maybe actually try and address the concerns AfD supporters have, instead of simply trying to ban the party. The 20% of AfD supporters are still going to vote and will probably become even more radicalized as this ban would substantiate the claims that Germany does not want to fairly address their concerns.
- purerandomness 3y ago
  > Maybe actually try and address the concerns AfD supporters have I suppose you're German and you're familiar with the failed attempt of Friedrich Merz trying exactly that with his CDU? The trick populists use is that you make something seem to be something everybody would want, of course, and demand for it to be implemented, without having actual solutions. How do you address a party demanding that the government should stop poisoning citizens with chemtrails? [1] Would you agree that Germany needs to restrict "uncontrolled immigration"? I would. Who wouldn't?! But wait. What's "uncontrolled"? Who gets to decide on the definition? If we had a definition, do we actually have uncontrolled immigration, and if we do have it, what exactly is the problem with it, and why would we want to solve it? But see, they're not in the problem-solving business. They don't care. They're in the "stir up fear and promise we have a solution" business, which is a very successful business model. If 20% of your population believe that there's 5G in your vaccine and the government wants to kill half of your friends, you need to fix other things, like lack of education. A ban on a malicious actor trying to game the system might be a temporary hack to win time. [1] https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/afd-in-sachsen-staatskanzlei-muss-sich-nach-kleiner-anfrage-mit-chemtrails-befassen-a-5d295473-0a4c-4cda-a958-2e9ef1b61f6d https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/afd-in-sachsen-st...

effie 3y ago

It would be, if AfD was credibly anti-democratic, e.g. if there is evidence they support restricting or dismantling democratic processes, such as regular and free elections, balance of powers, etc. I don't know if there is such evidence, so no judgement on AfD. However, it seems very often media in west write "protecting democracy" when they actually mean "protecting political power of centrists/liberal democratic parties". Some people even genuinely think that it's democracy only when that part of political spectrum rules.

memefrog 3y ago
Some democratic processes are good, but not all of them. For example, is it antidemocratic to advocate for a Parliamentary system over a Presidential system? I am glad we have a Parliamentary system in NZ. If we didn't, should the NZ government be able to ban a party advocating for one? Germany supports lots of antidemocratic measures. They oppose binding referenda of the population before the adoption of international treaties, for example. This isn't about democracy. It is about protecting leftist policies from democratic backlash.
- effie 3y ago
  > is it antidemocratic to advocate for a Parliamentary system over a Presidential system? It depends on the law (constitution). If the law says it's forbidden, then it is anti-that-kind-of-democracy. If there is no such law, then it's consistent with democracy. Real presidential democracy should allow for change of law and constitution, so the democratic process here would be to first change the law/constitution to allow for advocating, then advocate for switching to Parliamentary system, then get this change passed through the lawmaking process. Lots of steps, very hard to do, but in principle there should be a legal and democratic way. If there isn't legal democratic way, the system is highly suspicious, and probably isn't even formally a democracy. > If we didn't, should the NZ government be able to ban a party advocating for one? If the government (in extreme, the president) is democratically elected, and if the ban is done constitutionally and lawfully, then that would be still democratic. > Germany supports lots of antidemocratic measures. They oppose binding referenda of the population before the adoption of international treaties Interesting, is this an official government position with some rationale? Or the government just does whatever they can legally and ignores the calls for referendum? One rationale I've came across is that international treaties (in parliamentary systems) have to go through the parliament, which is representative, so referendum is not needed, and if someone wants to invoke one, they have to do the necessary work required by the law.

somat 3y ago

It is a delicate subject to be sure, on the one hand "we allow any democratically elected party as long as it is our party" sounds disingenuous. On the other hand remember that the nazi's got into power via democratic means. And then promptly proceeded to shut down the democratic process. I suspect that germany remembers this lesson more acutely than most.

mudita 3y ago

I’m not talking about the AfD here, but trying to quickly answer the question how banning political parties can seen as justified in principle: Banning a political party is an important instrument in a wider philosophy known in Germany as “wehrhafte Demokratie” (defensive democracy). This philosophy states that democratic states should have legal tools with which they can defend themselves against people, who want to attack the democratic order itself. Wehrhafte Demokratie is a very well established and accepted concept, here, partially because of a wish to avoid repeating the mistakes of the Weimarer Republik. It’s also justified by the belief that democracy is not just a dictatorship of the majority, but that even a majority of voters is limited in what they can do and that democracy also includes for example the protection of minorities. > biased actors who should already be constrained by the rule of law Banning a political party works by the rules of law. The legal barriers for banning a political party are quite high in Germany. Basically for a ban it must be proven that the party as a whole, not just single member, have the goal to attack key elements of the democratic order itself and that there is a real danger that they could succeed. The last condition can also be a legal reason to only ban a party once it actually gets popular: As long as it is unpopular, judges don’t see the condition fulfilled, that the party presents a real danger, so they won’t ban the party. This happened with Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD), which was ruled to be verfassungsfeindlich (an enemy of the constitution), but not banned because it was so ineffective und unpopular.

effie 3y ago
This is fascinating, and seems to be a very wrong strategy, if the goal is to defend democracy. The law should indicate that if there is evidence a party wants to dismantle democracy, action should be taken to dissolve and ban the party as soon as possible. A law stating that courts should be waiting for such party to grow and get support is dumb and dangerous, from the pro-democratic viewpoint.

01GOD 3y ago

[dead]