Germany’s Constitutional Court has refused to ban the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party. A bid to get it outlawed was rejected by the court in 2003; and now a new bid – launched after a series of racist murders in recent years was found to be the work of a neo-Nazi terror cell, and backed by all 16 German states – has been turned down too. The judges argued that the far-right NPD doesn’t pose a big enough threat to warrant suppression, as it has no MPs and enjoys barely 5% electoral support. No doubt they were scared of being challenged in the Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg, which takes a dim view of political bans. But needlessly so: given Germany’s recent history, it’s most unlikely Strasbourg would have objected to suppressing a party that has caused so much destruction. As for it not being much of a threat today – do the judges really want to wait for its support to grow, when to then ban it would look like a desperate measure to suppress the popular will? In these times of aggressive right-wing populism, an immediate ban would have been a wake-up call, a warning that democracy is under threat and is ready to defend itself; that we can’t afford to tolerate a party bent on destroying the democratic order, let alone keep funding it with taxpayers’ money; and that nobody is allowed to spout hate speech with impunity. (Heribert Prantl, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Munich)
German politicians are desperate to avoid the appearance of high-handed behaviour by government, and rightly so. There are people still alive who lived through the attempt by the establishment to tolerate Hitler, thinking it could tame and civilise him, once elected. Alas, the weak but well-meaning government was swept away by a bunch of ruthless , anti-democratic bullies and murderers. I think Mr. Prantl has it absolutely right: to wait until the NDP is bigger is a recipe for disaster and will simply encourage more members . Were Court of Human Rights to condemn the ban it would be shameful. We need no more Nazis, thank you. Anywhere.
Generally speaking, I think it sets a dangerous precedent if we give the government the power to ban organisations based on their ideology alone. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that cannot be infringed if the majority object to what is being said. Even speech that demonises a race or other group ought not to be banned.
Having said that, the NPD isn’t just an ordinary organisation. Its a political party, that seeks to use the violent capacities of the state to deny others their basic human rights. There’s a major difference between allowing individuals or collective interests to hold Neo-Nazi views, and tolerating a Neo-Nazi party.
Personally I don’t believe the NPD is much of a threat. It doesn’t even appear on most major opinion pols. Like the BNP in Britain, its support has collapsed because of the rise of right-wing populists, who have made xenophobia respectable. Anti immigration voters now have the choice of voting for a parties which could gain serious power. So were the European Court of Human Rights to reject a ban, I don’t think the consequences would be all that severe.
But if I were the court, I would enforce a ban. Just because the NPD aren’t a threat now, doesn’t mean they won’t be in the future. Also, I believe that every party should have to agree to the basic principles of the German constitution, even if they disagree on some of the specifics. You can’t have a true democracy if a faction of your political parties are anti democratic. The NPD is irreconcilably hostile to the values of the Federal Republic, so there’s no need to allow it political representation.