Germany could ban far-Right politicians from running for office
Germany could ban far-Right politicians from running for office
Germany’s centre-Right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party and the centre-Left Social Democrats (SPD), which are holding coalition talks, have proposed a law that will block people with multiple extremism convictions from standing in elections.
This will 100% be used to suppress left politicians.
Just ban the fucking AfD already.
Why would it suppress left politicians? It's not like any of them have multiple extremism convictions, that's usually rightwing politicians.
Being against genocide in Gaza is "extremist" in Germany.
Because they might get convicted of something a judge would call left wing extremism. I have zero trust in this system.
For instance partaking in seating blockades on the routes of Nazi demonstrations is considered left wing "extremism" and could be charged as crime ranging from "coercion" to "breach of public peace / rioting". Now whether it is convicted as such is a different topic, but for instance many climate activists have been convicted with prison times for glueing themselves to the streets. Many courts consider this to be violent coercion. So making yourself vulnerable and unable to act, but in the way of some car, this is violent extremism in Germany.
Yes, and that's how it should be if a politician of any party is convicted for serious offense, eg violence or hatred. Laws should apply equally to all.
Which means such law should be carefully crafted to prevent its abuse for partisan purpose, supressing the opposition, etc.
For instance making it a judicial process, not an arbitrary administrative/executive decision. Restricting this to specific well-defined offenses. Making it a time-limited ban, not a lifetime ban.
In countries where banning parties is a thing, such parties usually have another on the shelf ready to go.
It's usually the party leader that gets banned and the party can't re-register or something.
So when the leader gives their thanks goodbye speech they usually mention the new party.
Maybe also consider bribery convictions and we might get rid of a few CDU/CSU politicians as well 🙃
I love how the commenters on that page hating all on the "far-left", despite the left has exactly nothing to do with that idea. dumb fucks as far one can see.
It's classic whataboutism and trying to draw false equivalencies to muddy the waters. They want to put everyone else on defense about the decision to ban Nazis by making you waste time explaining why someone else isn't a Nazi.
To sum up: fuck them. Nazis are bad. Please continue punching them, both metaphorically, legally, and physically as needed to keep them in their hidey holes.
For what it's worth, I wish we would do the same thing.
But with a proper definition where "center" is pretty far right.
Do it. Honestly I'm a little surprised you didn't do it 80 years ago
In a way we did. Anticonstitutional parties are generally not allowed. The problem is that courts and judges must be absolutely convinced that a party is anticonstitutional to actually ban them.
While I understand the point, won't this just make politicians run on lies even more?
A far-right uprising in Germany, which is at the moment re-militarizing itself. Doesn't anybody else worry about that?
That's a point we are really worried about here in Germany too. The armament of the nation feels wrong in itself too many of us (even though most of us don't have any better ideas when looking at Putin-Russia). But the outlook that the AfD (our stupid Nazi party) could inherit the upgraded army and it's arsenal one day is really frightening.
Wake us up when it's "have".
They're not gonna
A similar system has been there to prevent Nazism rise. Sadly, AfD and other right wing parties found a loophole a decade ago.
If you're talking about the option of banning the entire party: The "loophole" that Afd is exploiting is that this action needs political support and gonservatives are unwilling to give political support for banning a(nother) right-wing party. Is that really a loophole?
Yeah, sadly there is only one way to defeat Nazis and it's not easy or liked by most.
Less inequality and better education are really the only solution.
People reach for extremism when they feel let down by the existing system.
Less inequality and better education are really the only solution.
People reach for extremism when they feel let down by the existing system.
Whatever actual or perceived grievances a person may have (even though merely being born in Germany already constitutes winning the global class lottery) - that only ever causes vulnurability.
That person then turning to actively undermining democratic systems and the international community is something that only happens if some con artist used that vulnurability to convince the person that it constitutes a solution to their problems.
Equality and education are great. Letting con artists run around freely is a completely separate issue. Letting folk get scammed out of their life savings is just as detrimental to a healthy society as letting folk get scammed out of their vote.
Greece did something similar a few years ago.
The Golden Dawn far right wing party was declared a criminal organization (after some violence that lead to a few stabbings and at least one death) and their leaders were thrown in jail.
From the ashes of Golden Dawn and a few other populist/Christian conservative/nationalist parties rose a few new ones, with more careful rhetoric and open support from the now jailed golden dawn leaders and high ranking church ministers.
They are collectively holding 26 of the 300 seats in the parliament and are expected to get better results on the next election cycle.
You can ban them all you want, they can still reform into a "we are not far right, wink wink" party after the ban itself verifies their far right status and rise to power all the same.
A party ban in germany results also in a pohibition to form follow up parties. That's why we should aim for the party and not single members
Yes - but if leading AfD figures were stripped of their right to vote, then such ruling would hit that person regardless of which party he or she¹ is in. And it would also prevent those people from running as independent candidates. So I think going after individuals vs. going after parties is not an either-or. It would make sense to do both.
--
¹ I don't think AfD has enby members.
@MaggiWuerze @Zer0F0x thats right but does really someone believe, that this won't happen? There are members of the afd who are clever enough to form a new party thats just "new enough" to be legaly not a follow up party. I don't think we will get rid of this party or to be more clear, of that spirit that lives within this party. Especially with the CDU/CSU at the moment, which is doing everything at the moment to destroy the trust in the democratic partys and this system.
Same here, the same people couldn't run again but they asked all their supporters to vote for a specific candidate with a clean rep but essentially a puppet
You can ban them all you want, they can still reform
Then make them do that work.
And investigate any ties between the banned party and the new one. Ban the new one as well, if they're just the same people with a new name.
Every time they are forced to rename and reform, that's effort they can't use to further their other goals.
Every time they need to "wink wink" a little harder, they risk losing part of their extremist base.
Make them do the work!
Exactly. People act like it's useless because it doesn't permanently solve the problem.
Well guess what. Fascism cannot be solved permanently. It needs to be opposed in every generation, consistently. Giving in is not an option.
Banning a fascist party costs them a lot of internal cohesion and about a decade of organizing. It's absolutely necessary and worth it.
I agree with you, we should stop them at every corner. I'm trying to point out that banning them isn't a fix-all solution, something needs to be done about their voters as well.
In Greece some members of older, more moderate but still far right parties were absorbed by the center right and are now ministers of the government.
Essentially the center right parties tend to steer to the far right a little to gain the far right vote without being labeled a far right party.
This also needs to be addressed.
Think of it like washing your laundry. Yes, you can and should be careful to not get it dirty in the first place. Yes, if you wrestle in the mud, your clothes will be muddy. Either way you will need to wash them from time to time. Now whether that time is often or only rarely is something you can influence, but the washing itself remains necessary.
We need some strong detergent for those shit stains but I agree, the fight needs to be persistent
We are already in that second phase. We threatened to ban the NPD, it fell into irrelevancy.
And out of the Ashes rose the AfD, wrapping their NPD rhethoric in a cozy CSU blanket.
Yes we could, but the inner security is stalling the investigation and the conservatives and liberals think they could get the nazi votes and lean heavily into the rethorik. Yeaaah doesnt work out. Never did
This absolutely needs to be a thing in every country. Ban far right parties, ban far right media
Considering the CDU could be considered a far right party themselves, they just wanna eliminate their competition, so i wouldn't get my hopes up.
They literaly had an election poster with the slogan "You don't have to vote for the AfD to get what you want. There is a democratic alternative: the CDU!".
As long as privately owned press and corporate social media algorithms try to shift the overton window as far right as it can go that's not gonna happen.
That's astonishing bullshit. There is already a process for ban political parties with political alignments incompatible with the constitution, which has to be initialized by o e of the two chambers of parliament and decided by the constitutional court. Having a political instrument in addition to that will automatically reduce the hurdle of dismantling political movements, for blurry definitions of "sufficient amount of extremists in a party".
The proposal doesn't ban the party, it suggests banning extremist individuals convicted of things like inciting hatred from running for office. In effect, it puts a damper on extreme individual members of a party that doesn't itself reach the threshold for prohibition as a party. So I can see the logic behind it. But I agree it's a dicey proposal and ripe for political abuse. Still, it would be contingent on court decisions so it could work with a strong (just/uncorrupt) court system.
Well reading what's actually is there and not what I already concluded to be there has never been my strong suit. The proposal feels like sidestepping the actual problem, that the rise of the far right must be countered, by putting a weak barr on political discussion and political discours to mitigate broader problems. Which to be fair is the politics of center parties.
As much as I'm a fan of keeping Nazis out of government, holy fuck is this a bad idea!
A judge shouldn't be able to ban anyone from running for office.
This is what Russia does. Ban you from running if you're convicted of "extremism", then define that to include opposing the government.
Disappointing that this isn't the overwhelming response; and shows how dangerously close to fascism a lot of the supposedly 'anti fascist' respondents actually are.
To ban a thing, you'd better first clearly define what it is.
Right/Left are poor descriptors of often complex political stances, with 'far right' being no easier.
Clearly a dangerous path. Those beying for 'a ban on far right' need to take a pause and think, it's like they've forgotten what nuance is.
Better to a) fund the teaching of critical thinking and humanistic morality through the education system; and b) foster domestic economic policies that maximise opportunities for your citizens so they don't feel disenfranchised in large numbers.
That will help prevent the emergence of tribalistic, insular, moral-absolutist behaviour closer to the root.
The CDU thinks they will get their votes but they won't.
They know too well what happens when you let these fuckers get power.
Does this have more backing than the motion to ban the AfD entirely did?
Then they'll ban far left politicians from running.
Then they'll ban anyone they don't like.
And eventually, they'll ban everyone who isn't them.
Right wing lunatics are repulsive in almost every sense, but this isn't the way you beat them. When you put the machinery in place to do something like this, it will inevitably be abused in the opposite direction in future.
It's much harder to be abused when you ban the only party abusing it.
Diverse views here, even within our lemmy 'bubble', suggest it's not obvious what to do about this (and similar situation in France and other european countries). Banning either individuals or parties can set a risky precedent and does not necessarily diminish a movement. I'd rather go for gradually (but rapidly) changing norms about acceptable campaigning, propaganda, use of social media, 'fake' news (lies). That includes faster-acting legal restrictions on funding, ownership, facts/fakes, algorithms, etc.. , as well as positively strengthening alternatives like our fediverse.
The big issue with any form of attempted suppression will not suddenly sway their voters. It would be much smarter to not give people a reason to fall for populists.
But that would be too easy, I guess.
But that would be too easy, I guess.
It's absolutely not easy at all. Afd acts like a cult, getting people de-radicalized will take a lot of effort. And politics that emphasizes societal solidarity and education about democracy, culture, etc.; instead we have gonservatives gutting funding for all of these topics.
You seem to think that everyone who is voting for the AfD is radicalized, which couldn't be further from the truth. Many people who voted for them just saw it as the only option for change. We had CDU/SPD for over a decade where the standard of living declined constantly, then we had red yellow green which tanked it completely - that's almost every party we have available on a national level. The only options are left and AfD, and I'm gonna be honest, the left does not sound appealing to people who understand economics.
Knocking the AfD down to sub 10% would be rather simple - politics just has to shift into a direction where it's pro-population, not pro-top1%. Plenty of stuff could be done to ease the economic pressure of the population, but they rather ensure that people stay at the right I guess.
Nope, if the AfD gets banned, the entire structure and funding crumbles. It will take decades to build up this kind of Nazi momentum.
First of all, no, that's wrong. The AfD got to where they are in 12 years, and that was from 0 - do you really think it would take them another 10 years to get to the point where they are now?
Second of all, it STILL would not convince the people that the AfD is wrong and they would just fall for the next right-wing populist party. So even if it would work, it would only be a temporary solution to a major issue.
It's like banning marijuana and then expecting people to just not do it.
While restricting other pain medication.
While the idea sounds good I don’t think anyone should be setting a precedent to say it’s okay for elected governments to ban opposition parties from running based on their political views. Ultimately the people should hold the power.
Because that hasn't caused us any problems up to now has it? Maybe we should be setting a minimum standard for a political office, and maybe that minimum standard should include not being committed of certain crimes as is being proposed here 🤷♀️
Nah, that's the paradox of tolerance. A democracy cannot allow fascists to run without dismantling itself. Also fascism and other "political views" that dehumanize are not a political view, they are chargeable criminal offenses in many countries.
That is a dangerously reckless and ignorant take of the paradox. The paradox is a rejection of protecting the intolerant, and their use of an argument they do not adhere to themselves. It does not mean we should build the tools and laws of fascist oppression to combat fascism.
It's no different to a "means test" for voting. It sounds great initially, but falls apart if you dig deeper. The virtue of the means test is determined by who governs the means test. Once you create it, you have created the attack vector, and all the fascists have to do if they weasel their way into power is simply change the terms of the means test — you've already completed and normalized the hard part for them. As an example, Trump is currently using a 200 year old law to deport any immigrant an ICE agent chooses, without trial. He's using this law because it gave the president blanket unilateral powers to apply it as they see fit.
Another example from the US that has assisted fascism in denying blacks their right to vote. An old law declared anyone convicted of a felony ineligible to vote, then conservatives created the war on drugs to target and persecute blacks and the left. All they had to do was make non-violent drug offences a felony. As a result, millions of blacks have been denied the right to vote. All because the gov could decide who could and couldn't vote because of X, and any future gov could control the terms of X.
Wehrhafte Demokratie macht BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
There allready is precedent for banning parties. History and current events both show that people are fully ready to vote fascists into power. And also, you know what's one of the big reasons so many people vote for fascists? Fascist propaganda. Banning fascist parties will help have fewer fascist citizens around (at least after a while).
@FourGreenFields @twinnie. add populists to that
People are easily manipulated. There needs to be some guardrails.
It's not based on their views but after multiple convictions for extremist activities. That sounds reasonable (on paper) to me for now. Not that I won't be surprised if anything useful comes of this.
On the topic of cordon sanitaire (the practice of never forming a coalition with far-right parties, no matter how well they perform in elections):
Me pre-2016: "Isn't that kinda counter to democracy?"
Me in 2025: "Outlaw and deport the fuckers, please!"
Calling the SPD anything but a luke warm pudding is a lie.
They are literally neither right noir left. They just bend to whatever coqlition they get into.
Nope. The SPD defending the AFD. Faeser stops the publication of a report, which would label the whole AFD as a party fighting the constitution. They actively work sending refugees to countries like Afghanistan, help to criminalize climate and Palestine activists and so forth.
The only left leaning thing they actively fought for in the last term in government was raising the minimum wage a bit. Everything else which was decent left leaning policy was brought through mainly by the Greens. Sometimes even the FDP had to rightly fight the insane policies of the SPD.
They are staunch defenders of rightwing policy when they are in coalitions with parties that are more leftwing than they are. See: Gerhard Schröder's Agenda 2010.
European defensive democracy stuff sounds good to our left-to-center-left ears, but frankly I doubt it'll be much use. Without good economic policy fascism is inevitable. This will likely do more harm to the left than it will to the right.
DO IT! JUST DO IT! 🧍
It's a really bad idea - forcing your own political opinions is a key characteristic of the 'fascism' you claim to want to ban.
Germany has a usable definition for bannable behavior, as there already is a law to ban entire parties. That criterion is having the "goal of overturning liberal-democratic basic order (FDGO)". I would imagine that this criterion would be used here as well.
Its amazing how things work, the defendors of the democracy are asking to ban a political party. Do this exercise with me, imagine a country where the majority of people want a "far-right" party to rule them, they voted for them on a free and clean election. It can be for a lot of reasons, security, education, social paradox, conservative economic reasons, emigration... whatever, you choose, what would you do? Deny the will of the majority of the people from that country or let them freely choose what they want like true defendors of free will? Im not judging im just curious, i know my answer but i want to ear yours
Protecting minorities from the terror of the majority and protecting democracy for future generations that cannot vote yet are essential parts of democracy.
To answer your question:
Deny the will of the majority of the people
yes, because what you describe is not democracy, it's mob rule
This is a paradox well described by Popper. The gist is: You can not be tolerant towards the intolerant.
You can not be tolerant towards the intolerant.
Yep, The paradox of Tolerance. Its way more deep that we think it is
I never considered it all that much of a paradox. If anything, it's a linguistic contradiction. It's a question of whether we should tolerate someone (in-)directly causing/wishing harm onto others. It also doesn't matter whether they understand it themselves.
A lot of aspects that are considered "political", are arguably just "harm onto A that benefits B". I think it is right to call these out. Universal health care, education, affordable housing, etc. Take off the capitalistic monocle, and certain "rights" and "wrongs" are painfully obvious.
Yes. Would you allow a company to sell actual poison that is marketed as a health food? What if a study showed 50.1% of all people believed it was not actually poisonous because of a successful marketing campaign by the company? What if innocent babies and children were ingesting this poison because their parents believed it was safe?
What if all those people believed companies shouldn't be allowed to sell poison. But that this company should be allowed to sell their product because they mistakenly believe it's not poison.
If you agree with banning a child killing poison but not with banning a far right party, please explain how it's fundamentally any different.
I would allow that company to sell poison.
But I would not allow them to market it as health food.
If a party campaigns on far right ideals, and get elected, then fair enough, that's democracy. Sometimes you have to admit that your views are not wanted.
However, if a far right party campaigns on truth and love and free kittens for everyone, then instead is shown to be liars and haters and give out free guns, then I would have an issue.
Free speech is only allowed if you agree with it, huh?
There we go... Your arguments are indeed so strong that im speechless, you are a comunication guru my friend
