Two senior German political figures are calling for a legal process that could outlaw Alternative for Germany as the AfD continues to gain electoral support. Defence Minister Boris Pistorius and Baden-Württemberg Governor Cem Özdemir argue that elements of the party threaten Germany’s democratic constitutional order — raising a difficult question over how a democracy should respond when a party accused of extremism commands substantial voter support.
INR Report: Based on reporting by RT HERE
Two prominent German politicians have called for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) to face proceedings that could ultimately see the party banned, arguing that its ideology poses a threat to the country's constitutional democracy.
German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Baden-Württemberg Governor Cem Özdemir of the Greens made the case in a joint opinion article published by Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
According to RT, the intervention comes as the AfD sits at around 28% support in recent polling, making it Germany's largest opposition force and, according to the source, its most popular individual party.
The AfD campaigns for tougher immigration controls, opposes significant elements of Germany's climate and green-energy policies, criticises Berlin's military and financial support for Ukraine and has called for an end to sanctions against Russia.
Those positions are controversial, but political disagreement alone would not provide grounds for outlawing a party under German law. Pistorius and Özdemir instead argue that elements of the AfD have moved beyond conventional political opposition and threaten Germany's constitutional order.
The Case for a Ban
Pistorius and Özdemir drew parallels between the political dangers facing modern Germany and the destruction of the country's democracy during the rise of National Socialism.
“Today, we are once again facing a threat to democracy from the extreme right.”
One of their central concerns is the concept of “remigration”, promoted by some figures on Germany's nationalist right.
Critics understand the term as potentially encompassing the removal from Germany of large numbers of migrants and, depending upon how it is defined or implemented, possibly people who already possess German citizenship.
Pistorius and Özdemir argue that such ideas could conflict with the constitutional protection of human dignity contained in Germany's Basic Law.
Their argument is therefore that the issue cannot simply be treated as another policy disagreement between political parties.
“A legal review of the constitutionality of a political party is warranted when it calls into question and threatens the continued existence of our democracy.”
They also argued that attempting to confront what they described as “ethnic nationalist ideology” exclusively through normal political debate would be naive.
Russia, NATO and the EU
The two politicians also identified the AfD's foreign-policy positions as a concern.
They described the party's perceived pro-Russian orientation as a “security risk” and criticised AfD proposals for Germany to leave major Western institutions including the European Union, Eurozone and NATO.
These positions require an important distinction.
Calling for withdrawal from international organisations is not, by itself, equivalent to attempting to overthrow Germany's constitutional system. Whether the AfD meets the much higher constitutional threshold required for prohibition would ultimately be a legal question for Germany's Federal Constitutional Court rather than a political determination by government ministers.
That distinction is particularly important because Germany deliberately makes political-party bans difficult.
Its post-war constitutional framework provides mechanisms for banning parties considered hostile to the democratic constitutional order, but the process requires substantial evidence and judicial scrutiny.
Can a Popular Party Be Banned?
The most politically explosive aspect of the debate is the AfD's growing electoral support.
Pistorius and Özdemir acknowledged the party's popularity but argued that the number of Germans supporting it should not protect it from constitutional scrutiny.
They rejected the argument that some voters support the AfD simply to protest against established political parties or dissatisfaction with Germany's current direction.
“The undeniable radicalization of the AfD makes it impossible to claim ignorance of who one is voting for.”
This creates the central democratic tension surrounding the proposed ban.
If a political organisation genuinely seeks to dismantle constitutional democracy, democratic systems need mechanisms capable of defending themselves.
But banning a party supported by a large portion of the electorate also means preventing millions of citizens from voting for their preferred political organisation.
That makes the evidential threshold crucial.
The question is not whether established politicians consider the AfD objectionable, radical or dangerous. It is whether evidence demonstrates that the party satisfies Germany's constitutional criteria for prohibition.
AfD Already Under Intelligence Scrutiny
Germany's domestic intelligence apparatus is already monitoring the AfD.
According to the RT report, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) currently classifies the AfD nationally as a “suspected right-wing extremist” organisation, while some regional branches have faced more extensive surveillance.
That designation allows German intelligence authorities greater scope to monitor the party and its members.
The surveillance itself has become politically contentious, particularly as the AfD's electoral support has increased.
A prohibition would go much further.
Under Germany's Basic Law, the power to declare a political party unconstitutional rests with the Federal Constitutional Court. A government cannot simply abolish an opposition party by executive decision.
That safeguard is particularly significant given Germany's history and the extraordinary consequences of removing an established political organisation from electoral competition.
Government Popularity Is Falling
The debate is unfolding against growing dissatisfaction with Germany's governing establishment.
RT cites an INSA poll published by Bild earlier in August showing support for Chancellor Friedrich Merz's CDU/CSU bloc at 20%, while approximately 78% of respondents said they were dissatisfied with his coalition government, which also includes the Social Democrats.
That political environment makes calls for an AfD ban especially sensitive.
If support for the opposition were marginal, prohibition proceedings might largely be viewed as a constitutional dispute over extremism.
When the targeted party commands support approaching three voters in ten while the governing coalition faces widespread dissatisfaction, the same process inevitably raises a second question: would a ban be protecting democracy from an anti-democratic movement, or removing an increasingly successful political challenger?
The answer cannot reasonably be established from polling numbers or political rhetoric alone.
It depends upon the evidence presented and the constitutional standard applied by Germany's courts.
Does This Affect New Zealand?
Not directly, but the democratic principle involved is highly relevant.
New Zealand also places limits on political activity, including laws concerning electoral participation, national security, hate speech and criminal conduct. But excluding a significant political movement from democratic participation would represent an extraordinary intervention.
Germany's debate therefore raises a question applicable to any liberal democracy:
At what point does defending democracy justify restricting democratic choice?
There are competing risks.
A democracy that provides no mechanism to defend itself against organisations genuinely committed to destroying constitutional government can potentially allow democratic institutions to be used against themselves.
But governments that can easily label political opponents dangerous and remove them from elections create an equally obvious danger.
The protection lies in a high evidential threshold, transparent legal procedures, independent courts and clear constitutional rules — rather than allowing the government of the day to determine which opposition movements voters may support.
Germany may now be approaching precisely that test.
With the AfD polling around 28%, any attempt to prohibit it would not merely determine the future of one political party.
It would test where Germany draws the line between protecting its democracy and protecting the democratic choices of its voters.
Source: RT, 29 August 2026 — German establishment figures call for ban on country’s most popular party
Independent reporting. Original context. Credited sources.