Debate: Banning Democracy to Save Democracy?
Two perspectives: Banning an extremist party like Germany’s AfD could make the far-right faction a martyr. Or it could be the proactive defense required to protect democracy from those who abuse it.
Markus Ziener is a visiting senior fellow with the German Marshall Fund of the United States and a professor of journalism at Media University Berlin.
The modern fight for democracy is a complex affair. The Next Move is proud to host this debate on the contentious question of banning extremist actors: Is it ever appropriate in a democracy—and is it even a sound political strategy? Leading German journalists examine this question through the lens of their country’s far-right Alternative für Deutschland party (AfD). After you read this overview, check out pro-ban and anti-ban perspectives and let us know what you think!
Proponents say it’s a necessary step to protect open societies. Critics argue it’s a contradiction—using undemocratic tools in the name of democracy.
That question is playing out today in Germany, where the Social Democratic Party—the junior coalition partner in the German government—recently voted to prepare for a formal process to ban the far-right AfD. In May, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency—the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV)—classified the AfD as a “proven far-right extremist” group. That doesn’t initiate a ban, but it’s a major step toward one. The BfV’s various levels of classification can open the door to state surveillance.
Germany is ground zero for this debate. But similar dilemmas are surfacing elsewhere: in Romania, where presidential election results were nullified amid Russian interference; and in the US, where the Colorado Supreme Court mulled removing Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot over January 6.
Backlash to the BfV’s classification of AfD as “far-right extremist” made its way across the Atlantic. US Vice President J.D. Vance erroneously labeled the AfD “Germany’s most popular party,” accusing “bureaucrats” of trying to “destroy it.” His response is part of a global trend: hard-right figures painting themselves as victims of elite suppression.
But alarmist takes like Vance’s ignore the legal and constitutional hurdles to banning a party in Germany. The Federal Constitutional Court can only do so under two strict conditions: there must be strong evidence of anti-democratic intent and a demonstrable effort to dismantle the democratic order.
The Debate: To Ban or Not to Ban?
Most in the German political mainstream agree that the AfD is a systemic threat—not just a typical party (and certainly not “centrist,” as Elon Musk misleadingly suggested). It promotes a racially homogenous vision of Germany, undermines judicial and administrative independence, minimizes Holocaust remembrance, and maintains ties to the Reichsbürger movement—a group that seeks to overturn the postwar republic. On immigration, the AfD has escalated from criticizing asylum policy to calling for “remigration”—a euphemism for deporting even naturalized German citizens. During the pandemic, it flipped from accusing the government of inaction to decrying public health measures as tyranny. Its economic messaging now veers into pro-Russian narratives.
Still, German leaders are divided on how to handle the threat. Chancellor Friedrich Merz of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) believes the solution lies in lowering the political temperature: improving the economy, addressing migration issues, and reducing public anger. His approach highlights the AfD’s parasitic strategy—latching onto crises and stoking resentment rather than offering solutions.
Merz and others worry that banning the AfD could backfire—validating the party’s self-image as persecuted outsiders and boosting their support. In short: persecution makes for good propaganda.
However, others argue that Germany’s past, and the AfD’s present, demand stronger action. The country has banned extremist parties before. The principle of Wehrhafte Demokratie—defensive democracy—exists for a reason. Germans, more than most, know what happens when illiberal actors are allowed to exploit liberal systems.
Ultimately, this debate won’t be resolved by court rulings or intelligence reports alone. That’s why we’re publishing this conversation between Eva Ricarda Lautsch and Heinrich Wefing, writers for Die Zeit, one of Germany’s top newspapers. Both agree on the threat the AfD poses—but diverge on how best to confront it.
This is more than a German story. It’s one that concerns democracy everywhere. In 2025, liberal systems are under strain from within and without. The task ahead isn’t just recognizing danger—it’s choosing the right strategy to face it.
At The Next Move, we believe that disagreement—honest, informed, principled disagreement—is how democracy endures. We hope you’ll read these perspectives and let us know where you land.
In favor of a ban:
Democracy Needs a Proactive Defense. Sometimes, Banning Bad Actors Is OK.
No enemy is free to abuse the democratic system, even if that enemy bears the name “AfD” and has risen to become the second-largest party in Germany’s parliament.
In opposition to a ban:
Why We Can’t Protect Democracy By Banning the Bad Guys.
The debate in Germany about banning the AfD focuses on a real threat: the far-right. But a party ban is not the appropriate solution in a liberal democracy.
 | A guest post by
|
There is no legal basis to ban AFD. Make good policy and extreme right party will massiv decrease like in Denmark.
I'm a strong believer in the idea that nobody's speech is too wrong to be heard. Things that are banned gain strength from going underground.