The Social Democratic Party (SPD) in Thuringia intends to seek a partial ban of the regional branch of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), which is led by Björn Höcke. However, the coalition partner, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), has rejected this approach.
The idea of a targeted, regional ban on the AfD was recently proposed by CSU politicians, including Klaus Holetschek, the faction leader in the Bavarian State Parliament. Georg Maier, the Interior Minister for Thuringia (SPD) and also the SPD state chairman, stated to the FAZ on Monday that he supports the proposal coming from Bavaria. Maier expressed confidence that a motion for a partial ban on the Thuringian AfD has a “very high chance of success,” reiterating his long-standing advocacy for banning the AfD.
Conversely, Andreas Bühl, the CDU faction leader in the Thuringian State Parliament, voiced his opposition. While acknowledging that the Thuringian regional chapter represents the “most extreme part” of the party, Bühl opposes a ban debate, stating that they cannot be certain the ban would succeed. He added that such a ban procedure would only benefit the AfD, as it would strengthen their “victim narrative.”
Among legal experts, the constitutional permissibility of banning a specific regional branch is highly debated. Maier suggested that, to be entirely sure, the law of the Federal Constitutional Court should be interpreted explicitly to allow such a request concerning a regional chapter. He outlined a multi-step legal process, where an authorized representative would draft a lawsuit that could be submitted by the Federal Council (Bundesrat), with potential backing from the Federal Government and the Bundestag, as these federal organs possess the authority to request a party ban.
Armin Schuster, the Interior Minister for Saxony (CDU), issued a warning against attempting an AfD ban through the Federal Council. He pointed out that requesting a ban against a single regional branch requires the consent of 15 federal states in the Bundesrat, provided there is no state-level factual basis or knowledge. Schuster argued that pursuing this strategy would “directly provoke the idea that a competitor is being targeted for party political reasons,” rather than through precise, strict legal and professional procedures. He advised against “experimenting with such extremely controversial constitutional issues on the open heart of democracy.”
