Good call about not banning it because it’s too popular. Just ignore it and wait for people to come to their senses on logic.
It worked to stop Trump in the US.
/s
Last time the reason was they are too small to ban. Now they are too large?
Banning a small party would be politically damaging, banning a big party would be institutionally damaging.
You know what else is institutionally damaging?
Right-wing populist rule.
I guess the Nazis have arrived to downvote this fact.
Germany has so much red tape in its constitution due to fascism that it pretty much always has an excuse to ban whatever it wants, from the far right to Palestine protests. Question is, do they have the will to do it?
This stuff always scares me because yeah today you’re using it to control the worst elements of the right.
But in a few years they’ll be using this as precedent to suppress leftists.
The UK has been making a habit of this for a while now.
I wonder what people think voters whose grievances are represented by the AfD would do when the party is banned. Probably they’d have their minds changed and quietly vote status quo.
/s
They would need a new party that needs to be created and need to get popular. And the new one would hopefully learn to not break the constitution.
Are you argumenting that partys are above laws and constitution?
Are you argumenting that partys are above laws and constitution?
It depends on how popular it is. If it’s 5% of the pop- def not. If it’s 30%, probably not. If it’s 60% then the laws and constitution might need amendment.
But that’s besides my point. If you rely on forcing a third of Germany to make another party to represent it, you might not like what the new party’s popularity would be.
Ok, now I am confused. You are saying that they, as a party with around 30% popularity, shouldnt be above the law but the law shouldnt be enforced because it may make them more popular?
I’m suggesting that just enforcing the law without providing an aternative (for AfD), at this point in time, is likely to make them (the figures that formed the AfD) more popular, along with their new party they’ll inevitably form. I doubt Germany would round all of them up and throw them in jail. I think the time to ban the AfD was when there were significantly fewer people on their bandwagon. The other comment under mine says AfD voters aren’t too fervent supporters, so perhaps it won’t go the way I think it would. But that’s not my bet. (What I think would happen isn’t what I hope btw.)
When I say alternative I don’t mean another deporters party but with nicer messaging. That clearly doesn’t work. I mean an alternative that gives people real improvements by counteracting the austerity policies of the past for example.
is likely to make them (the figures that formed the AfD) more popular, along with their new party they’ll inevitably form.
Any follow-up party is automatically banned too. That’s how this law works.
SPD and C*U are already doing a lot of anti immigration stuff. Immigration is sinking for years now and more and more get exported. What is actually missing for them being an alternative for AfD followers?
Also hopefully the new party they form would learn to not break laws anymore.
Sorry I added an edit abt what I meant by alternative before I saw your reply.
Ah read the update. Not sure what you mean with austerity policies? Also partys with real improvements like the leftist parties?
SPD and CxU are barely doing anything to reduce immigration. We see fewer numbers simply because there aren’t as many migrants on their way to Europe compared to 2015/2016. It’s like having a leak in your roof, and when it stops raining, then saying that u fixed the leak in the roof. No, the leak still exists and water will still drip into ur house when it starts raining again. The number of deported people is still ridiculously small. We currently have over 200k people which should be deported if the law was followed. And we still see net positive immigration numbers, when it now should be net negative numbers what with the war in Syria being basically over. This is why the AfD is so popular, because they are the only party who really want stricter immigration policies. All other parties failed to deliver.
They have no grievances. They believe they have grievances because they have been manipulated by the AfD to need an enemy which the AfD presents them on a platter. It’s literally the only thing far right politics boils down to so the people give them power which they can use to steal money.
They haven’t been manipulated by the AfD though. They’ve been manipulated by mainstream media.
In my country the far right has spent hundreds of thousands on social media advertising. And what do they advertise? Fight videos where colored people are the aggressor. But advertising about how they are going to increase the pension age, lower taxes for people with capital, and all such bullshit is only mentioned in small print when you go look for it. The mainstream media just follows whatever the hype is.
Banning wouldn’t be necessary if the established parties would actually do proper politics. Mainly, putting proper immigration policies in place. If we had controlled immigration policies in place, like in Denmark for example, the AfD never would have gotten as popular. But unfortunately most germans (parties and people) put u automatically into the far-right corner if u say that u see the uncontrolled mass immigration critically.
There is no uncontrolled mass immigration, you weird uninformed racist dolt. It’s a dogwhistle that rightoids use to prop up the masses and stir hate which gives them power they use to stir more hate.
So those literal millions of people who came to germany since 2015 don’t exist?
Ah, so we immediately dropping the “uncontroleld” pretension, and go to the “preserving the cleanliness of the race” territory. Yeah, over the last 10 years literal millions (around two of those millions or so) people immigrated to Germany. What’s your problem with that?
Maybe using far-right buzzwords has something to do with that…
Asylum != immigration. You’d need to change some fundamental laws how we treat people fleeing persecution and war. Mostly wars and conflicts started by the USA / Russia. Or increasingly fleeing climate change in the future.
Basically we’ll have to create consensus to not save people from certain death that come to our borders. Most people are with you on most cases of immigration. And climate change will lead to something like a billion refugees. So asylum will need to be limited.
Europe already turned asylum seekers back who end up in slave camps in Libya. Also a result of “intervention” that created much worse outcomes.
Long term we might have drones and robots and automated gun turrets to secure Europe’s borders. But honestly I suspect Europe will fall apart before that precisely because of the politics we’d need. It’s a hard sell without resorting to fascism.
