Proponents of an AfD ban argue that the German state has a constitutional duty to protect its democratic foundation from forces that seek to dismantle it from within. For these legal experts, the evidence presented in recent studies is not merely political opinion but a clear indication of a systemic threat to the Basic Law. They contend that the principle of 'defensive democracy'—a core tenet of the German constitution—requires the state to act when a party consistently attacks the dignity of individuals and the democratic process.
By allowing a party that is deemed unconstitutional to continue operating, supporters argue that the state risks normalizing extremist rhetoric and eroding public trust in democratic institutions. They emphasize that the legal threshold for a ban is high by design, ensuring that such a step is only taken when a party poses a genuine, existential danger. For these signatories, the sheer volume of data analyzed in recent reports provides the necessary factual basis to meet this threshold, making a legal challenge not just an option, but a moral and professional obligation.
Furthermore, supporters point out that waiting for the party to gain more power could make a future ban impossible or lead to greater societal instability. They argue that the legal system is the appropriate venue to resolve this conflict, as it removes the decision from the heat of daily partisan politics and places it before the independent Federal Constitutional Court. For them, the protection of human rights and the rule of law must take precedence over political expediency.