Government Rift Widens Over Calls to Ban AfD After Extremism Classification

SPD Pushes Forward as CSU Rejects Legal Action

A deepening divide has emerged within Germany’s ruling coalition as the Social Democratic Party (SPD) increases pressure to pursue a ban on the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), while the Christian Social Union (CSU) and large parts of the Union bloc strongly oppose such a move. The conflict follows the recent reclassification of the AfD by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution as a “confirmed right-wing extremist organization.”

SPD parliamentary leader Matthias Miersch confirmed that internal talks within his party are already well advanced. He stated that a formal decision could soon be reached, paving the way for negotiations with the CDU/CSU to potentially pursue a joint application for a ban. Miersch emphasized that the procedure should be considered independently of pending legal appeals by the AfD against the new classification. “The question of a ban is already on the table,” he said.

Dobrindt Warns of Backlash and Legal Uncertainty

Federal Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) has firmly rejected the idea of initiating a party ban. He argues that such legal action would only serve to reinforce the AfD’s victim narrative, energize its base, and potentially backfire politically. “Those who believe the AfD can be defeated in court are heading for a rude awakening,” Dobrindt told national media. He insisted that the political battle should be fought through democratic competition, not legal disqualification. “We must marginalize the AfD through the center, not the courts,” he said.

His remarks reflect the dominant view within the Union, which remains skeptical of a ban. CDU parliamentary managing director Steffen Bilger acknowledged the internal opposition but noted that the party’s stance could shift if the AfD continues to radicalize. “I would not rule out a change in position in the future,” Bilger stated, recognizing that the far-right party has become increasingly extreme.

Mixed Response Across Parliament

According to surveys conducted among Bundestag members, a clear majority of SPD, Greens, and Left Party MPs support initiating a ban procedure. Out of 176 lawmakers who responded to an inquiry, 124 explicitly backed the move, while 13 more said they would consider it under certain legal conditions. Only a small number of Union members—two MPs—expressed support for a ban. Most others either rejected the proposal or withheld comment.

The Greens have proposed forming a joint task force between federal and state interior ministries to coordinate legal groundwork before any formal petition is submitted to the Constitutional Court. The Bundestag, Bundesrat, or federal government all hold the authority to initiate the procedure, as outlined in Article 21(2) of Germany’s Basic Law and the Federal Constitutional Court Act.

Supporters Cite “Militant Democracy” Clause

Proponents of the ban argue that the AfD’s positions and actions go beyond democratic dissent and actively threaten Germany’s constitutional order. They cite the concept of “wehrhafte Demokratie”—militant democracy—as enshrined in the German constitution, which allows the state to prohibit parties that seek to undermine or abolish the democratic system.

SPD leaders, including Lars Klingbeil and Carmen Wegge, have repeatedly pointed to the AfD’s increasing alignment with far-right and xenophobic ideologies. They argue that the party promotes anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, and anti-democratic rhetoric, and maintains documented links to extremist networks. These accusations are based in part on findings from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which recently detailed the party’s embrace of “ethno-nationalist” and minority-hostile ideologies.

Wegge and other supporters warn that inaction would normalize such positions and allow them to infiltrate mainstream discourse. “The AfD is the greatest danger to our democracy,” she said.

Legal and Historical Obstacles to a Ban

Opponents within the Union emphasize the legal difficulties associated with banning a political party. They warn that unless clear and sufficient evidence is presented, a failed attempt could not only strengthen the AfD but also damage public trust in democratic institutions. The failed attempt to ban the far-right NPD in the early 2000s serves as a cautionary example, as the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that although the party was openly extremist, it lacked the actual capacity to endanger democracy.

Critics also argue that banning the AfD would not address the underlying social and political grievances that fuel its support. “Banning a party does not change how people think,” said CSU MP Heiko Hain, stressing that combating extremism requires more than legal measures. Others within the Union fear that rushed or poorly prepared legal action could create further division and bolster the party’s anti-establishment image.

Public Opinion Shifting After Extremist Label

Public sentiment appears to be moving in favor of a ban, particularly after the AfD’s official reclassification in May as a confirmed extremist group. Although the final legal status of this designation is pending a court review, the development has reignited debates in parliament and the media.

Vice Chancellor Lars Klingbeil has called for a careful legal review of the ban’s feasibility, noting the need to proceed responsibly while recognizing the gravity of the threat. Chancellor Friedrich Merz, however, remains cautious and has so far refrained from endorsing any action.

Uncertainty Over Legal Path Forward

Any application for a ban would require the Constitutional Court to evaluate whether the AfD not only espouses anti-constitutional goals but also poses a realistic threat of implementing them. The threshold for success is intentionally high to prevent political misuse of the mechanism.

While the SPD and other left-leaning parties are building momentum toward a formal submission, their ability to gather cross-party support remains uncertain. The Union’s refusal to support the initiative in its current form could delay or derail efforts, especially without unified backing from the government as a whole.