The German Social Democrats (SPD) are again pushing for a new ban of the extremist party NPD. This was last attempted in 2003, but the ban was thrown out by Germany’s supreme court. Since then, the NPD won some seats in Saxony’s state assembly, and gained support in many rural communities in eastern Germany.
I have always been opposed to an outright ban of the NPD. For one thing, I agree with the columnist Harald Martenstein that it is far better to confront extremism openly and publicly rather than trying to sweep it under the carpet. For another, banning political activity could open the door to restricting any expression of political opposition. Germany has a terrible historical legacy in this respect. But I am less sure in my position after reading this interview in the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel with Jan Zobel. Zobel is former spokesman for the NPD who dropped out of the party in 1997 and since then has been sounding the alarm about the party’s activities.
In the interview Zobel comes out strongly in favor of a party ban. A ban would destroy the party’s structure, disrupt its recruiting efforts and isolate its leadership. Zobel stresses the violent and even terrorist orientation of some of the NPD’s membership:
Die NPD arbeitet ganz offensichtlich auch mit Gewalttätern zusammen –
mit Personen, die wegen Körperverletzung angeklagt waren oder etwas mit
Terrorismus zu tun hatten, also etwa eine kriminelle Karriere als
Bombenbauer und –bastler gemacht haben. Sie sind mittlerweile in der
NPD absolut integriert und arbeiten zum Teil als Mitarbeiter von
Landtagsfraktionen. Dafür gibt’s unzählige Beispiele. Die NPD schämt
sich dessen auch nicht mehr, sie geht ganz offensiv damit um. Wenn
jetzt in der Verbotsdebatte leisere Töne angeschlagen werden, ist das
natürlich Humbug. Die sind radikal wie eh und je. (The NPD is publicly working together with violent criminals – with individuals who have been charged with assault or who were involved in terrorist activities such as bomb-making. They have been completely integrated into the party and even working with the party members in the state assemblies. The NPD is not even trying to hide this anymore, they are on the offensive. It doesn’t make sense that people want to tone down the debate over banning the party. They are more radical than ever.)
The biggest danger of a ban is that the party would be forced underground, where there will be even less scrutiny of their activities and possibly adopt even more violent tactics.
0 comment
But can’t these party members be indicted for criminal activities rather than banning the party?
Is there any group in Germany similar to the Southern Poverty Law Center that works on criminal activity in fringe groups?
http://www.splcenter.org/index.jsp
These people have been very effective at tracking neo Nazi and other racist groups and breaking them up.
I can’t help but agree that in the German context, banning the NPD would probably help marginalize the party. Driving them underground and towards more subversive tactics would likely help delegitimize them in the eyes of ordinary East Germans. After all, isn’t it likely that banning the Communist party in the 50s did help destroy West German communism?
Still, such a ban remains offensive to democratic principles (on the face of it anyway). Is hostility to the constitutional order really sufficient basis to ban them? Where do you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable forms of political activity? Who gets to draw it?
It’s an unsavory precedent to be sure.