The office for the protection of the German Constitution (BFV), in its recent report, said Alternative Für Deutschland (AFD) an “Actal right -wing” organization “not compatible with the liberal and democratic system of Germany. A serious definition, which opens the way for a possible systematic surveillance and public delegitimization of a party which, at the moment, represents almost a fifth of the German electorate. But this classification raises a fundamental question: can a liberal and democratic self -refinement be self -refinement while working actively to delegitimize and marginalize, through administrative systems, political forces that operate fully within the rules of democracy?
Alternative Für Deutschland is a party that, however controversial in its tones and programs, has conquered consent in a fully legal way, has elected representatives and participates in the parliamentary debate. According to the latest polls, it is permanently the second strength of the country and, in some surveys, even exceeds the CDU-CSU, placing itself in the lead. One wonders if this ascent is suddenly “incompatible” with the constitutional order. The attempt to classify it as threat then appears more as the reaction of a system that fears dissent, that not defense against a real subversive danger. In democracy, ideas – even the hardest, even uncomfortable – are fought with arguments, not with the service dossiers.
The mechanism is already known: Anti -fascism is invoked as a shield to justify any form of political expansion. But this long -term strategy is dangerous. Because he does not defend democracy: trivializes and empty. What remains of pluralism if it is established that certain positions – although supported by millions of citizens – are not compatible with the “constitutional order”? Who decides which idea is legitimate? And when a state apparatus does, don’t you slide dangerously towards the repression of dissent with misleading pretexts? If the values of liberal democracy make sense, it is precisely when they are testing by ideas that disturb, which cause, that challenge the dominant thought. Otherwise, What remains is an administrative, sterilized democracywhere consent is admitted only if it falls within the boundaries of what the establishment considers acceptable.
History teaches that every time you try to disqualify a political thought in the name of “protection of democracy”, you risk strengthening it. Ideas are not eliminated with labels: they face each other, discuss, fight – if you have the strength to do it. And this is not an isolated case. In Romania, a candidate for the presidency was excluded from the competition on charges of extremism, despite the electoral support. In France, Marine Le Pen has been condemned to unhealthy for five years, in a sentence that appears more political than legal. A worrying scheme is outlined: in the name of democracy, the space of representation is increasingly narrowed. But a democracy that fears the free vote ends up conforming to what he says he is fighting.
Moreover, you know: for someone, democracy is sacred … but only as long as those who have to win wins. For all the others, there is precautionary exclusion. With the noble label of “defense of freedom”, of course.
Andrea Amata, May 4, 2025
TheVermilion.com is also on WhatsApp. Simply click here to register for the channel and always be updated (free).
The article in danger in danger: not because of Afd comes from Nicolaportro.it.