The former Federal Constitutional Court judge, Udo Di Fabio, has cautioned against both excessive demonization and complacency in addressing the rise of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, highlighting a complex and precarious political landscape. In an interview with “Bild am Sonntag”, Di Fabio emphasized the party’s contribution to societal polarization, fueled by narratives suggesting potential national collapse due to migration policies or undue alignment with Russia over Western counterparts.
However, he simultaneously warned against the dangers of equating the AfD with the Nazi party, arguing that such comparisons exacerbate divisions and risk alienating a significant portion of the electorate – roughly a quarter of German citizens – who currently support the party for various, not always ideologically driven, reasons. Di Fabio acknowledged the potential for radical elements within the AfD to sympathize with Nazi ideology and symbolism, urging careful and ongoing monitoring of the party’s evolution.
While a potential ban of the AfD remains a possibility, Di Fabio deems such a measure “likely to succeed” and “potentially politically necessary” should the party further radicalize and actively seek to undermine the existing constitutional order. Currently, however, he expressed uncertainty whether the legal threshold for such a ban has been met, advising a cautious approach, “holding the powder dry” for future use.
Regarding the possibility of the AfD entering government following upcoming state elections, Di Fabio suggests it is improbable unless the party secures an absolute majority. He anticipates that other parties would coalesce to form a government in such a scenario. Nevertheless, he conceded that, in the event of an AfD-led government, the German constitution provides mechanisms to intervene should the government violate legal boundaries. “In other words, even an AfD government would have to adhere to the rule of law” he stated, adding a note of caution against prematurely predicting the demise of democracy, while acknowledging a “serious challenge” ahead.
Di Fabio strongly advocated for maintaining the “firewall” – the refusal of established parties to cooperate with the AfD – so long as it remains feasible, expressing tempered optimism about the party’s potential for reform. He acknowledged the possibility of a change of heart within the AfD but expressed greater concern over the trajectory toward further radicalization – posing a potential alternative vision of Germany that diverges significantly from democratic principles. The caution underscores a deeply nuanced assessment of a party rapidly reshaping the German political landscape.
