What happens if the AfD comes to power? We should prepare for it. But each measure carries its own risk.

The debate over banning the AfD has become more open Photo: Christian Mang

The reactions after the Correctiv report on the “remigration” meeting were to be expected: now it was necessary to finally “wake up”, “all democrats must remain united now” and, of course, it was also an “alarm signal” .

It was the same formula as after the attack in Halle, the murder of the Kassel CDU district administrator Walter Lübcke, the attack in Hanau, after the arrests of the right-wing terrorist “Group S” or the coup plotters around the Prince Reuss. The warning is given in a federal presidential and pastoral tone. However, it's too rare for anyone to say what exactly needs to be done once everyone has woken up. Probably also because many people suspect that “defensive democracy” is a delicate matter: if it is armed, others will quickly follow its example, and not only if the AfD ends up in power.

An exception to the general lack of ideas is the now somewhat more open debate on banning the AfD. At least now many say specifically what they believe speaks for or against. The enormous risks of this step are obvious.

The very valuable Thuringia project of the constitutional blog has been thinking for a long time about how to make democracy resilient in the face of an “authoritarian and populist takeover”. Among other things, he proposes amending the state constitution so that Höcke cannot be elected head of government in a third vote by simple majority. The civil service law should be reformed so that senior officials in the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (VS) and the police cannot simply be replaced. Other conceivable counterstrategies are more laborious, many are uncertain, and some are dangerous. But the worst way is not to talk about these strategies. What needs to be clarified is when the antidote is worse than the problem and when it is not.

Höcke's five-point plan

Some fear that so many parties could fall below 5 percent in the elections in Thuringia that Höcke could become prime minister with a good 40 percent. What follows is already known. Because he has outlined what he plans to do in power in a five-point plan.

Among other things, he wants to terminate contracts with state media. Of the MDR, only a “basic radio” financed by taxes should remain. Legally, this would be possible from 2024. Could states change the media treaty beforehand in such a way that Höcke's plans would be thwarted?

Höcke wants to solve all the country's “climate problems.” The Federal Climate Protection Act obliges, among other things, the federal states to protect the climate. Can the demands for the states be designed in such a way that an exit would be too costly for a Höcke government?

Programs for democracy, diversity and against right-wing extremism should disappear: Höcke calls it “rolling back the ideological state.” What could speak against a guarantee of continuity by the federal or state government?

A participatory democracy based on the Hungarian model

According to the state election program, the Thuringian AfD wants to facilitate “participatory democracy” and referendums. A look at Hungary shows what may come of this: the government is agitating and gaining approval for its authoritarian policies in referendums. The Greens, for example, are big supporters of direct democracy. But what if – driven by an AfD-friendly “basic radio” and far-right private media – more and more people thought the human rights nonsense needed to be cleared up? Is it better then to restrict the possibilities of direct democracy through federal law?

The AfD wants to make it easier to own weapons in Thuringia, where many neo-Nazi militants live. He wants to combat measures against online hate speech as “censorship.” Can the federal government put an end to this? Should he? There should no longer be “ideological guidelines” or “early sexualization” in Thuringian schools. In any case, it is conceivable what image of history should be shown there. Is it necessary to provide powers to the Conference of Ministers of Education to be able to define teaching content in a more binding way?

Restricting the scope of action of potential AfD state governments could prevent bad things from happening. But it is a restructuring of federalism that may also prove counterproductive: if right-wing extremists join the federal government at some point, more liberal federal states would find it more difficult to follow their own political path. Issues relating to electoral, civil service and party laws are no less delicate.

What is considered extremist?

Ultimately, it always depends on the verdict of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution: anyone who is considered an extremist can be attacked. This is now, in part, the case with the AfD. If the Office for the Protection of the Constitution classifies the party as a whole as extremist, a large number of AfD officials could lose their jobs.

However, what is considered extremist is always a matter of political premises. If Hans-Georg Maaßen were still VS president, any discussion about banning the AfD would be invalid. Under him, the VS would hardly classify the party as extremist. So what happens if the AfD and a new Union of Values ​​party soon form a coalition in the east and Maaßen becomes VS head or interior minister again? From now on, many things center-left will be considered extremist.

Many of the counterstrategies can also be directed against others. Some still remember what professional bans once meant for leftists. Do you want that again? Political counterstrategies could be perceived by many as undemocratic and would further strengthen the far right. That doesn't mean they have to be wrong in the current situation. It is important to start a debate about what would be possible and sensible and what risks should be accepted. As long as “wokeness” is preached, this will not happen. A criminal oversight.