Germany’s far-right populist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) will find out on Wednesday whether its designation as a suspected extremist organisation – permitting state surveillance – is legal.
In a heated court case beginning on Tuesday in the western city of Münster, its lawyers argued that the AfD is a democratic party being hounded by political rivals.
The stakes are high, given the AfD is the clear leader in three eastern regions holding state elections in September. Tuesday’s appeal case is based on a 2019 decision to classify the party as a suspected extremist, opening the door to various levels of state surveillance measures, and a 2022 court ruling confirming that decision.
Germany’s domestic intelligence service, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), argues that the populist party is an anti-constitutional force and a potential danger to democracy.
In 2021 a lower Cologne court ruled that the Young Alternative (YA), the party’s youth wing, was particularly extremist. It agitated in a xenophobic manner that drew on “ethnic concepts and terms” – making it a legitimate target for full surveillance of communication and informers.
Other wings of the party have been classified as suspected extremist cases and its members subject to lesser levels of surveillance.
On Tuesday, AfD lawyer Christian Conrad filed a series of motions before proceedings began, seeking to postpone the case citing thousands of pages of files yet to be read and claiming two of the five presiding judges were biased.
When those motions were dismissed, the AfD argued that the domestic service had provided no robust definitions of constitutional or anti-constitutional and was acting outside the law.
Lawyers for the BfV intelligence service argued that its study of AfD extremism was still a work in process “with no final report” as of yet, and dismissed motions filed on Tuesday as “only designed to delay proceedings”.
In its ruling, announced to follow a second day of oral hearings on Wednesday, the senior administrative court of North Rhine-Westphalia is likely to draw on previous rulings that permitted – and set standards for – spying on politicians.
A decade ago, the federal constitutional court ruled that it was permissible to spy on elected officials “if there are indications that the MP is abusing their mandate to fight against the free democratic basic order or is actively and aggressively combating it”.
After a surge in support last year the AfD has slid at federal level to 18.5 per cent, its lowest value in nearly a year, following revelations of meetings between party member and extremist groups who favour deportations of German citizens.
While those revelations prompted nationwide demonstrations, party support in eastern states remains steady at 28-35 per cent.
In a radio interview in advance of Tuesday’s hearing, a senior AfD politician described as “disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful” a question about whether his party is doing enough to distance itself from extremist positions and people.
Rather than answer the question, AfD deputy leader Peter Boehringer criticised the radio station – and other German media outlets – for “permanently misleading news reports” about his party.
- Listen to our Inside Politics Podcast for the latest analysis and chat
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
