dw.com
German Bundestag Fails to Initiate AfD Ban
Despite months of effort and concerns over extremism, the German Bundestag failed to garner enough support to initiate a ban on the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party before the new Bundestag convenes. The initiative will need to be reintroduced in the next legislative period.
- What key factors hampered the effort to initiate a ban on the AfD within the Bundestag?
- The failure to reach a majority vote highlights the challenges in achieving a cross-party consensus on this controversial issue. Key figures, while expressing concern, acknowledge that obtaining the required support is a significant hurdle. The inclusion of AfD members with controversial pasts further fueled the debate, but not enough to secure the necessary votes for the ban. This reflects the deep divisions within the German political system on how to deal with the AfD.
- What immediate consequences arose from the Bundestag's failure to secure a majority vote to ban the AfD?
- The German Bundestag failed to garner enough support to initiate a ban on the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, despite months of effort. Key figures like Marco Wanderwitz and Till Steffen, while expressing continued concern about the AfD's extremism, acknowledge the initiative's failure before the new Bundestag convenes. This setback highlights the difficulty of achieving a consensus on such a controversial issue within the German political system.", A2="The failure to ban the AfD stems from the inability to secure a majority vote in the Bundestag. While 124 deputies initially supported the initiative, this fell short of the required number. The inclusion of AfD members Maximilian Krah and Matthias Helferich, known for controversial statements minimizing Nazi atrocities, further fueled concerns but did not shift the political landscape enough to achieve a ban. This highlights the significant hurdle of achieving cross-party consensus on such a divisive issue.", A3="The inability to ban the AfD before the new Bundestag session signifies a potential shift in strategy for its opponents. While proponents vow to continue their efforts in the next legislative period, the missed opportunity points to the challenges ahead. The current political climate indicates that achieving the necessary majority for a constitutional court challenge remains highly uncertain. This raises questions about the long-term prospects for effectively countering the AfD's influence within the German political system.", Q1="What immediate impact resulted from the Bundestag's failure to secure a majority vote on banning the AfD?", Q2="What factors contributed to the insufficient support for initiating a ban on the AfD in the Bundestag?", Q3="What are the potential long-term implications of the Bundestag's failure to initiate an AfD ban, and how might this affect future strategies to counter the party's influence?", ShortDescription="The German Bundestag failed to achieve the necessary majority to initiate a ban on the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, despite concerns about its extremism and despite months of efforts by several parties. The initiative, which required a two-thirds majority, will need to be reintroduced in the next legislative period.", ShortTitle="German Bundestag Fails to Initiate AfD Ban" )) льно 2025. Prije samo jedan dan po prvi put do većine u Bundestagu došlo se zahvaljujući glasovima AfD-a, a čelnik parlamentarne skupine SPD-a Mützenich optužio je kancelarskog kandidata CDU-a Merza da otvara vrata pakla. Sada Bundestag raspravlja o inicijativi da se ispita AfD - od strane Saveznog ustavnog suda s ciljem zabrane djelovanja ove stranke. Bundestag to može zatražiti zajedno s Bundesratom i saveznom vladom. U ovom trenutku inicijativu podržavaju 124 zastupnika. Ali to nije dovoljno i zato Bundestag ne glasa. Neki inicijatori napuštaju Bundestag Mjesecima su se zastupnici nekoliko klubova poslanika u Bundestagu borili za većinu. Ona ne postoji a sada je ostalo malo vremena. Novi Bundestag sastaje se najkasnije 25. marta. Za inicijativu za zabranu AfD-a to znači: povratak na početak. Političar Zelenih Till Steffen, kao i Marco Wanderwitz, jedan je od pokretača ove inicijative. U intervjuu za ARD, Steffen je rekao: "Naš cilj ostaje pokrenuti još jedan postupak u sljedećem zakonodavnom razdoblju." Njegova kolegica iz SPD-a Carmen Wegge priznaje da još uvijek nema realnih izgleda za većinu te da se ne planira posebna sjednica Bundestaga. Ali i ona će, kaže, nastaviti kampanju za pokretanje postupka protiv AfD-a pred Ustavnim sudom u Karlsruheu. "AfD predstavlja najveću prijetnju našoj demokraciji i uvjerena sam da ispunjava uvjete za zabranu stranke", kaže ona. Upozorenje na daljnju radikalizaciju No, prema informacijama ARD-a, trenutno nema nikakvih razgovora. Ali političar CDU-a Wanderwitz ne želi odustati: "Na ovaj ili onaj način, proces se mora nastaviti. AfD postaje sve radikalniji." Wanderwitz aludira na činjenicu da je frakcija AfD-a također prihvatila Maximiliana Kraha i Matthiasa Helfericha za novi saziv Bundestaga. Krah je u jednom intervjuu rekao da nisu svi koji su nosili uniformu SS-a zločinci. Helferich je sebe opisao kao "prijateljsko lice nacionalsocijalizma". Ironično – kako kaže. Wanderwitz, koji sada napušta Bundestag, kaže: "AfD je prijetnja demokraciji. Stoga se moramo braniti." Inicijativa za zabranu pripremana je mjesecima prošle godine. Od početka je bilo jasno da se mnogi članovi Bundestaga mogu ubijediti u pokretanje zahtjeva za zabranu samo ako Savezni ured za zaštitu ustava klasifikaciju "sumnjivi slučaj" pretvori u "potvrđeno ekstremistički". Još u oktobru 2024. tadašnji predsjednik Saveznog ureda za zaštitu ustava Thomas Haldenwang (CDU) nagovijestio je takvu mogućnost. No, to se nikada nije ostvarilo, kao ni obećano vještačenje. Ipak, o prijedlogu se raspravljalo u prvom čitanju u Bundestagu. No, nakon upućivanja na Odbor za unutarnje poslove, nije bilo većine za konačno glasovanje. Pošetkom rada novog Bundestaga, takvi prijedlozi postaju irelevantni - ili, kako kaže tehnički izraz, postaju žrtve diskontinuiteta. tagesschau
- What are the long-term consequences of the failed attempt to ban the AfD, and how could this impact future strategies to counter the party's influence?
- The inability to ban the AfD before the new Bundestag session likely necessitates a shift in strategy from its opponents. The missed opportunity signals the challenges ahead for those seeking to curb the party's influence. The current political landscape suggests that achieving a majority for a constitutional court challenge remains a difficult goal. The long-term prospects for countering the AfD's influence within the German political system remain highly uncertain.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing strongly emphasizes the dangers of the AfD and the urgency of banning it. The headline (although not provided) likely reinforces this. The repeated use of strong language such as "threat to democracy," "opening the gates of hell," and "most serious threat" sets a negative tone and shapes the reader's perception of the AfD. The article sequences events to highlight the failure to achieve the necessary votes to initiate the ban process before the new Bundestag is formed, further reinforcing the narrative of a missed opportunity.
Language Bias
The article employs strong, emotionally charged language when discussing the AfD, using terms like "unconstitutional," "misanthropic," "enemy of democracy," and "opening the gates of hell." These terms are not objective descriptions but rather value judgments that strongly influence the reader's opinion of the AfD. More neutral phrasing such as "criticized for unconstitutional actions," or "concerns about democratic processes" could be used instead.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the efforts to ban the AfD party, quoting politicians who support the ban. However, it omits perspectives from the AfD itself, leaving their arguments and counter-arguments largely unheard. This omission could create a biased narrative, presenting only one side of a complex political issue. While acknowledging space constraints is important, including a brief statement summarizing the AfD's stance would enhance balance.
False Dichotomy
The article frames the situation as a simple dichotomy: either the AfD is banned, or it remains a threat to democracy. This oversimplifies the complex political landscape and ignores alternative approaches to addressing concerns about the AfD's ideology and actions. The article does not explore other methods of countering extremism or protecting democratic values.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses an initiative in the German Bundestag to ban the AfD party, citing concerns about its unconstitutionality, anti-democratic tendencies, and increasing radicalization. Preventing the normalization and potential success of extremist groups directly contributes to maintaining peace, justice, and strong institutions. The efforts to prevent the AfD from gaining power and potentially undermining democratic processes are directly in line with SDG 16's targets.