The Alternative for Germany (AfD) “is demonstrably unconstitutional”. That is the headline result of a massive new report presented in Berlin on Thursday.
The 3,000 page report by The Society for Civil Rights (GFF) suggests that a ban brought against the party could be successful. As such, it could reignite the debate around whether the AfD should be blocked from participating in politics.
The GFF is the latest in a line of governmental and non-governmental organisations to have concluded that the far-right party is "extremist," "unconstitutional" or similar.
In May 2025, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) found the party to be “confirmed right-wing extremist”. A Cologne administrative court later placed a temporary injunction on that label until a legal review is finalised.
Additionally, the German Institute for Human Rights (DIMR) published a legal analysis which found that the AfD was a “danger to the free democratic basic order”.
The latest GFF report, however, offers a new and detailed look at how the far-right party’s goals and statements demonstrate that the party meets the threshold for a ban, according to German Basic Law.
2.9 million posts
The work that went into the GFF report was immense. Over the course of a year researchers analysed 2.9 million social media posts, 77,000 parliamentary documents and 55,000 press releases.
“We have evaluated this mountain of data. On this basis, we have legally examined the AfD according to scientific standards,” wrote the authors of the report.
They also suggested that the true goals of the party could only really be understood via such a comprehensive content analysis.
‘Attacks human dignity’
Citing more than 2,500 pieces of evidence, the GFF said that the AfD “systematically attacks the guarantee of human dignity”.
Specifically the report highlights clear evidence that the AfD wants to prosecute its political opponents for decisions it disagrees with.
It also shows that the AfD aims to achieve “exclusion, disparagement and far-reaching legal devaluation of foreigners, Germans with ‘migration history’, Muslims and other social groups.”
Additionally, it provides evidence the AfD is pushing to promote an ethnic-cultural concept in Germany that is incompatible with the Basic Law. (The full report and a summary are linked below.)
Can the AfD be banned?
A common argument against seeking to ban the AfD has been that the legal requirements to do so are high, and that trying and failing would legitimise the party.
But there is clear legal precedent in Germany regarding party bans. A decision on whether to try and ban the National Democratic Party (NDP) is relevant here.
The NDP, which has since rebranded itself as “The Homeland” (Die Heimat), is a far-right, ultranationalist party which has been described as a neo-Nazi organisation.
Crucially, when a party ban procedure was brought against the NDP, the Federal Constitution Court found that the party’s demands confirmed it was unconstitutional. But the party wasn't banned at the time because the court found it did not have enough voter support to be considered an active threat to Germany.
In its report the GFF argues that the goals of the AfD are largely aligned with those of the NDP, which were found to be against Germany’s basic democratic order.
To give just a few examples:
- The NDP wanted to revert citizenship law to be based only on the principle of descent – The AfD has also advocated to revert citizenship law to be based only on the principle of descent.
- The NDP wanted family support measures to apply exclusively to ‘German’ families – The AfD has proposed a family allowance limited to families with two German parents in its state election platforms in Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.
- The NDP proposed a regulation to repatriate foreigners living in Germany – The AfD proposed regulations to repatriate asylum seekers.
- Both parties have proposed abolishing the fundamental right to asylum in Germany.
READ ALSO: 'Welcome culture to farewell culture' - The AfD's plans for Saxony-Anhalt
Given its similarities to another party that has already been ruled as unconstitutional in Germany's highest court, and the party's popularity among voters, The Society for Civil Rights suggests that the Federal Constitutional Court would be expected to rule in favour of a party ban.
"Yes, the AfD could be banned," reads a headline in the GFF's summary of its report.
But the authors add an important clarification: "This opinion does not make any statement as to whether such an application should be made."
Will an application for a ban be brought?
In Germany a ban procedure against a political party needs to be brought to the highest court by either the federal government, the Bundestag or the Bundesrat.
So far Chancellor Friedrich Merz has repeatedly and consistently said that he does not support seeking a party ban against the AfD. Instead he has suggested that the party must instead be defeated at the ballot box.
But more than a year into Merz’s time as chancellor, his party has lost significant voter support while the AfD has since risen to become Germany’s leading party at the national level in recent polls.
If the CDU remains steadfast in its resistance to seeking a party ban, the process seems unlikely to move forward.
READ ALSO: Germany's CDU slammed for 'empowering AfD' with plan for deportation centres
What is The Society for Civil Rights?
The Society for Civil Rights (Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte - GFF) is a non-governmental, non-profit association based in Berlin which works to defend fundamental and human rights through strategic litigation.
The group describes itself as “legal protection insurance for the German constitution.” It employs lawyers to bring cases before German courts to seek landmark rulings in defence of liberties and human rights protected by German law.
Other issues that the group engages with include equal pay for men and women, defence of freedom of assembly and protection from government surveillance of citizens.
The GFF’s full report on the AfD is available here, and an interactive summary can be found here.
Comments (1)