(de-news.net) – The conflict between political participation, exclusion, and the potential for a formal party ban is becoming more and more central to Germany’s discussion about how to treat the AfD. Legal experts continue to disagree on whether a ban would satisfy constitutional requirements, while CDU politicians Boris Rhein, Armin Laschet, and Reiner Haseloff advocate for political conflict over prohibition. While some state governments are against a ban or are still undecided, seven state governments are in favor of investigating the matter through a federal-state working group. Warnings from organized labor and notable regional variations in public perceptions of AfD involvement in governance accompany the debate.
The Minister-President of Hesse, Boris Rhein (CDU), has challenged the strategy of maintaining a political “firewall” against the Alternative for Germany (AfD), arguing that Germany’s political center needs to reconsider how it engages with the party and the issues associated with its support. Rather than relying primarily on exclusion, Rhein advocates a combination of substantive political engagement and clearly defined boundaries. In his view, problems do not disappear simply because they are avoided in public debate, and refusing to address an issue merely because the AfD has raised it could ultimately strengthen the political extremes rather than the center.
Rhein has also criticized what he sees as the stigmatization of positions in the name of opposing the political right. His preferred approach is to confront the AfD and its supporters through political argument, while ensuring that concerns affecting citizens remain part of mainstream political debate. He argues that the political center should be able to address the worries and anxieties of voters rather than leaving such issues outside the scope of legitimate discussion. In Rhein’s assessment, excluding voters, their perceptions and the subjects that concern them from open political discourse could ultimately reinforce the AfD rather than weaken it. At the same time, he maintains that the CDU is the only party that draws clear boundaries against both the far left and the far right.
Armin Laschet (CDU), the former North Rhine-Westphalia minister-president, has similarly criticized the renewed discussion over a possible AfD ban initiated by his successor, Hendrik Wüst (CDU). Laschet argues that even discussing the launch or examination of a prohibition procedure could strengthen the AfD and intensify voter anger, particularly following the party’s strong electoral performance in Saxony-Anhalt. Wüst had proposed establishing a federal-state commission to examine the constitutional implications of the AfD. Laschet, by contrast, favors political engagement with the party and questions whether a prohibition procedure would ultimately succeed. He estimates that such a process could take at least three years and has also pointed to the fact that North Rhine-Westphalia’s domestic intelligence agency does not classify the AfD as an organization under observation.
Former Saxony-Anhalt Minister-President Reiner Haseloff, another CDU politician, has also rejected the prospect of an AfD prohibition procedure despite his strong criticism of the party. In his view, the classification of the AfD as definitively right-wing extremist would not, by itself, establish that a ban before the Federal Constitutional Court would succeed or that pursuing one would be politically appropriate. Haseloff therefore regards such a measure as unrealistic as well as politically problematic. His argument centers in part on the scale of the party’s electoral support: eliminating a party that received 43.8 percent of the vote would not eliminate either the electorate behind it or the underlying concerns and problems that contributed to that support.
At the same time, Haseloff has expressed confidence that Chancellor Friedrich Merz will draw conclusions from the election result and adjust his political approach. Although he acknowledges that Merz may have encountered political constraints that were less apparent during the election campaign, Haseloff portrays the chancellor as an experienced politician capable of adapting to changing political realities. He expects the federal government to respond with rapid and tangible results, particularly for voters whose dissatisfaction with specific economic or social pressures contributed to their support for the AfD. In Haseloff’s assessment, the election should therefore lead to both substantive political adjustments and a greater sensitivity to the concerns that have driven voters toward the opposition party.
Seven states back AfD review while others reject or question ban
The question of whether an AfD ban could succeed remains contested among constitutional and legal experts. Two former judges of the Federal Constitutional Court, Hans-Jürgen Papier and Peter Müller, have advised against submitting a prohibition application. At the same time, support for pursuing such a procedure has also emerged within the legal community. In 2024, 17 law professors submitted a detailed statement to the Bundestag in support of prohibition proceedings, while more than 1,000 attorneys signed an open letter from the Republican Lawyers’ Association backing a ban. The Society for Civil Rights has also produced a 1,500-page study concluding that the legal requirements for prohibition are fulfilled. Constitutional scholars Christoph Möllers and Sophie Schönberger have attested to the study’s methodological standards and its open-ended approach, underscoring the continuing disagreement over how the constitutional question should be assessed.
Germany’s constitutional framework sets specific conditions for such a procedure. Under Article 21 of the Basic Law, a political party may be considered unconstitutional if its objectives or the conduct of its supporters are directed toward impairing or abolishing the free democratic basic order or endangering the continued existence of the Federal Republic. The Federal Constitutional Court has jurisdiction over the question of whether those conditions are met. Under the Federal Constitutional Court Act, an application for a party ban can be submitted by the Bundestag, Bundesrat or federal government. Because the states participate through the Bundesrat, the positions adopted by their respective governments determine how each state votes in that body.
Against that constitutional backdrop, a federal-state working group to examine the AfD’s constitutionality has received broad support from seven state premiers affiliated with the CDU and Social Democratic Party (SPD). According to a Focus survey of all 16 state chancellery offices, the leaders of Baden-Württemberg, Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburg, Bremen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Lower Saxony and Saarland were receptive to establishing such a mechanism. Lower Saxony Minister-President Olaf Lies said his state would participate if a federal-state group were created to conduct the legally required examination of whether the AfD could be considered anti-constitutional. The proposed working group would therefore focus initially on a legal and constitutional examination rather than automatically determining that a prohibition procedure should follow.
Other states have taken a more skeptical position. Bavaria, Hesse, Saxony and Rhineland-Palatinate rejected an AfD ban, while Berlin and Brandenburg indicated that they were open to a federal-state working group but questioned whether such an examination would ultimately lead to formal prohibition proceedings. Saxony-Anhalt, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Thuringia did not respond to the Focus inquiry. The initiative followed Wüst’s call for a federal-state investigation after the AfD’s electoral victory in Saxony-Anhalt, adding a constitutional dimension to the broader political debate over how established parties should respond to the party’s growing electoral support.
The debate has also drawn a strong response from organized labor. Yasmin Fahimi, chair of the German Trade Union Confederation, has warned that an AfD-led government would pose consequences for economic policy, social protections and Germany’s participation in the European Union. She has accused the party of promoting social division and characterized it as exhibiting far-right tendencies. Fahimi has also argued that the AfD’s economic and social positions conflict with the requirements of an aging German population. In particular, she points to the party’s opposition to the minimum wage and its support for reductions in social benefits and pensions, arguing that Germany’s labor market depends on maintaining a sufficiently large workforce as the population ages.
Public opinion, meanwhile, reflects significant differences across Germany and among supporters of individual parties. A Forsa survey commissioned by Stern and RTL found that 58 percent of respondents opposed an AfD-led state government. The figures also revealed a pronounced regional divide. In western Germany, six in 10 respondents rejected the prospect of an AfD-led state government, while eastern Germany was nearly evenly divided, with 48 percent supporting such a government and 49 percent opposing it. Opposition was also reported among supporters of the CDU/CSU, Greens, Left and SPD, while 90 percent of AfD supporters favored the party assuming responsibility for a state government. Forsa conducted the survey among 1,001 Germans on Sept. 10 and 11, 2026, providing a snapshot of public attitudes amid the continuing debate over the party’s political role and the possible constitutional response to it.
