Proponents of banning the AfD argue that the German constitution, or Basic Law, was designed specifically to prevent the rise of anti-democratic movements that could destroy the state from within. They contend that the party’s rhetoric in Thuringia has moved beyond standard conservative politics and into the realm of völkisch nationalism, which directly contradicts the principles of human dignity and equality enshrined in the constitution. For these advocates, the state has a duty to protect its democratic institutions before they are hollowed out by actors who use the democratic process to dismantle it.
Those who support a ban point to the specific activities of the AfD in Thuringia, where the party has been accused of fostering an environment that challenges the legitimacy of the parliamentary system. They argue that the legal threshold for a ban is not meant to be an insurmountable barrier, but a safeguard that should be utilized when a party’s actions pose a clear and present danger to the republic. By allowing such a party to continue operating, they argue that the state is failing in its primary responsibility to uphold the constitutional order.
Furthermore, supporters suggest that a ban would send a powerful signal to the public that there are limits to political discourse in a democracy. They believe that failing to act could normalize extremist views, making them more acceptable to the general population over time. For these proponents, the risk of inaction outweighs the risks associated with the legal process, as they view the preservation of the democratic system as the highest priority for the nation's long-term stability.