This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2016/mar/04/germany-ban--neo-nazi-npd-refugees-far-right
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Germany wants to ban the neo-Nazis of the NPD again, but why now? | Germany wants to ban the neo-Nazis of the NPD again, but why now? |
| (2 months later) | |
| This week, after some five years of preparation, the German Bundesrat finally asked the Federal constitutional court in Karlsruhe to ban the National Democratic party of Germany (NPD). Parliament’s upper house argues that the party is racist and antisemitic, and constitutes a threat to Germany’s democratic order. | This week, after some five years of preparation, the German Bundesrat finally asked the Federal constitutional court in Karlsruhe to ban the National Democratic party of Germany (NPD). Parliament’s upper house argues that the party is racist and antisemitic, and constitutes a threat to Germany’s democratic order. |
| The previous attempt to have the party banned, which lasted from 2001 until 2003, ended with the case being thrown out because the NPD was so infiltrated by intelligence service informers that the court could not distinguish between the party and the state. This leads to three questions. Why is Germany so intent on banning the NPD? Why do it now? And why does it expect a better outcome this time around? | The previous attempt to have the party banned, which lasted from 2001 until 2003, ended with the case being thrown out because the NPD was so infiltrated by intelligence service informers that the court could not distinguish between the party and the state. This leads to three questions. Why is Germany so intent on banning the NPD? Why do it now? And why does it expect a better outcome this time around? |
| The answer to the first question is to be found, as so often in Germany, in the country’s dark past. The main lesson the postwar German elite took from the rise of Adolf Hitler during the Weimar Republic was that a (German) democracy should protect itself from anti-democrats. So, to ensure that no new Hitler could rise and destroy democracy, the new Federal Republic of Germany defined itself as a militant democracy (in German wehrhafte or streitbare Demokratie), in which anti-democratic politics are illegal. | The answer to the first question is to be found, as so often in Germany, in the country’s dark past. The main lesson the postwar German elite took from the rise of Adolf Hitler during the Weimar Republic was that a (German) democracy should protect itself from anti-democrats. So, to ensure that no new Hitler could rise and destroy democracy, the new Federal Republic of Germany defined itself as a militant democracy (in German wehrhafte or streitbare Demokratie), in which anti-democratic politics are illegal. |
| While most anti-democratic groups can be simply outlawed by the minister of the interior – and many have been, including the notorious Action Front of National Socialists/National Activists in 1983 and the Viking Youth in 1994 – political parties (the distinction is crucial but complex) can only be banned by the federal constitutional court. It is important to emphasise that the state can take action against anti-democratic organisations, but does not have an obligation to do so. | While most anti-democratic groups can be simply outlawed by the minister of the interior – and many have been, including the notorious Action Front of National Socialists/National Activists in 1983 and the Viking Youth in 1994 – political parties (the distinction is crucial but complex) can only be banned by the federal constitutional court. It is important to emphasise that the state can take action against anti-democratic organisations, but does not have an obligation to do so. |
| Which leads us to the second question: why now? The NPD has been around since 1964 and, while it has been threatened with a ban throughout its existence, the one previous attempt was more than a decade ago. Since 2003 a new procedure has never been far from the political agenda, with debates flaring up whenever there is an increase in either NPD support or far-right violence. The past couple of years have seen both. The NPD has won a couple of seats in a few states – most notably in Saxony in 2009 and in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania in 2006 and 2011 – as well as one seat in the European parliament, although that was a consequence of a legal technicality rather than an increase in support. | Which leads us to the second question: why now? The NPD has been around since 1964 and, while it has been threatened with a ban throughout its existence, the one previous attempt was more than a decade ago. Since 2003 a new procedure has never been far from the political agenda, with debates flaring up whenever there is an increase in either NPD support or far-right violence. The past couple of years have seen both. The NPD has won a couple of seats in a few states – most notably in Saxony in 2009 and in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania in 2006 and 2011 – as well as one seat in the European parliament, although that was a consequence of a legal technicality rather than an increase in support. |
| The main argument is that the NPD has radicalised even further since 2003 | The main argument is that the NPD has radicalised even further since 2003 |
| More importantly, Germany was shocked in 2011 when it learned that a small terrorist cell, under the grandiose name of National Socialist Underground (NSU), had been responsible for a string of killings over almost a decade. Most of the 10 victims were of Turkish origin, which had led law enforcement agencies to treat the killings as related to Turkish organised crime rather than German far-right terrorism. (Some parts of the media even referred to them by the dismissive and racist term “kebab killings”.) A state parliamentary committee has called the investigation into the NSU “a fiasco”, noting (again) the murky entanglement of group members and state informers, and leading to allegations that Germany was turning a blind eye to far-right terror. | More importantly, Germany was shocked in 2011 when it learned that a small terrorist cell, under the grandiose name of National Socialist Underground (NSU), had been responsible for a string of killings over almost a decade. Most of the 10 victims were of Turkish origin, which had led law enforcement agencies to treat the killings as related to Turkish organised crime rather than German far-right terrorism. (Some parts of the media even referred to them by the dismissive and racist term “kebab killings”.) A state parliamentary committee has called the investigation into the NSU “a fiasco”, noting (again) the murky entanglement of group members and state informers, and leading to allegations that Germany was turning a blind eye to far-right terror. |
| Finally, while the procedure was started much earlier, recent developments undoubtedly have further increased the urgency and will of the political establishment. The country’s wealth and Willkommenskultur (welcome culture) have attracted more than a million refugees to Germany in the past months. This has led to a backlash among part of the population, which has been expressed in growing support for far-right parties – most notably the new Alternative for Germany, but also the old NPD – as well as in street protests (most notably by the Pegida movement), and in violent attacks on refugee homes. | Finally, while the procedure was started much earlier, recent developments undoubtedly have further increased the urgency and will of the political establishment. The country’s wealth and Willkommenskultur (welcome culture) have attracted more than a million refugees to Germany in the past months. This has led to a backlash among part of the population, which has been expressed in growing support for far-right parties – most notably the new Alternative for Germany, but also the old NPD – as well as in street protests (most notably by the Pegida movement), and in violent attacks on refugee homes. |
| Banning the NPD would be seen as a powerful signal to all anti-immigrant groups and individuals within the country, as well as to concerned businesses and governments abroad, that Germany is still a militant democracy and is not “blind in the right eye”. | Banning the NPD would be seen as a powerful signal to all anti-immigrant groups and individuals within the country, as well as to concerned businesses and governments abroad, that Germany is still a militant democracy and is not “blind in the right eye”. |
| Which leaves the question: why does the political establishment think it will be successful now? Undoubtedly it hopes that the shock over the NSU will help, even if the link with the NPD is tenuous at best (ie, “personal connections” between members of the NPD and NSU). It will also hope that the judges will be influenced by the current political climate. But the main argument is that the NPD has radicalised even further since 2003: the German media has reported for years that the party leadership is full of people with a neo-Nazi past. Even if this proves to be true, the main question of this court case, which undoubtedly will take several years, will be the same one that undermined its predecessor: will the court be able to clearly distinguish between party and state? Given the recent findings with regard to the NSU, that seems far from certain. | Which leaves the question: why does the political establishment think it will be successful now? Undoubtedly it hopes that the shock over the NSU will help, even if the link with the NPD is tenuous at best (ie, “personal connections” between members of the NPD and NSU). It will also hope that the judges will be influenced by the current political climate. But the main argument is that the NPD has radicalised even further since 2003: the German media has reported for years that the party leadership is full of people with a neo-Nazi past. Even if this proves to be true, the main question of this court case, which undoubtedly will take several years, will be the same one that undermined its predecessor: will the court be able to clearly distinguish between party and state? Given the recent findings with regard to the NSU, that seems far from certain. |
| • This article has been corrected to make clear that the Bundesrat, rather than the Bundestag, finally asked the Federal constitutional court to ban the NPD, and Parliament’s upper, rather than lower house, argues that the party is antisemitic. | • This article has been corrected to make clear that the Bundesrat, rather than the Bundestag, finally asked the Federal constitutional court to ban the NPD, and Parliament’s upper, rather than lower house, argues that the party is antisemitic. |
| • The photograph and caption on this article were changed on 11 November 2016. |