Summary
Highlights
Harald Martenstein discusses the idea of banning a political party that is widely supported by the electorate (20% in the West, 35-40% in the East of Germany). He argues that this action represents 'the end of democracy' and its replacement with a 'guided democracy,' where public opinion no longer influences political decisions. He ironically suggests that this is what some are trying to achieve.
Martenstein questions if 'right' and 'right-radical' are synonymous, noting their interchangeable use in left-leaning discourse. He distinguishes between traditional conservative values (supporting entrepreneurship, tradition, family, and patriotism) and radical ideologies. He highlights figures like Adenauer, de Gaulle, and Churchill as prominent right-wing politicians who fought against Nazism and built European unity, arguing that banning such stances is anti-democratic.
Martenstein addresses the term 'populism,' often used disparagingly, and its implication that seeking public approval in governance is a flaw. He asserts that the will of the majority is the foundation of the constitution. Banning parties with significant public support removes the state's legitimacy and turns it into an authoritarian regime, which should only occur in cases of self-defense against groups aiming to abolish democracy itself.
He discusses legitimate and illegitimate goals for a political party. Illegitimate goals include suppressing freedom of speech, revoking basic rights for parts of the population, or banning parties deemed inconvenient by the ruling government. He warns that defending democracy can be used as a pretext to abolish it, referencing historical events like China's Anti-Rightist Movement which transformed the country into a one-party state.
Martenstein contrasts Germany's debate on banning parties with other European countries where similar parties are in government coalitions. He lists several stances that should be considered legitimate in a democracy: advocating for constitutional amendments (as the German Basic Law has been amended over 50 times), restrictive migration policies (practiced in democratic states like Denmark and Australia), desiring to leave the EU (as the UK did), and patriotism (exemplified by Willy Brandt). He emphasizes that the broad spectrum of accepted political positions is a hallmark of democratic states.
He states that to ban a party like the AfD, one must prove it intends to replace the current system with an authoritarian one, for example, by eliminating competing parties. He mocks the idea that individual members' 'right-wing bullshit' is sufficient grounds for a ban and presents several controversial quotes, revealing them to be from Franz Josef Strauß, a prominent conservative figure, rather than current 'right-wing extremists,' highlighting the historical context and often selective memory in political discourse.
Martenstein criticizes the rampant use of 'Nazi' as a catch-all term for anyone disagreeing with certain left-wing ideologies. He clearly distinguishes historical Nazis (who had militias, promoted war and racism, and sought a 'Führerstaat') from modern conservatives. He explains Godwin's Law, which states that in online discussions, comparisons to Nazis or Hitler inevitably arise, often to delegitimize the opponent rather than make a historical point. He gives examples, including Angela Merkel and Peer Steinbrück being compared to Nazis.
He points out the absurdity of comparing figures like Alice Weidel, an openly lesbian woman in an interracial relationship, to Himmler, noting Weidel would have been persecuted by the Nazis. He argues that calling all right-wingers 'Nazis' is 'historical illiteracy' and, worse, a deliberate strategy to eliminate political competition. He suggests that AfD voters want solutions to real problems rather than a new Hitler, implying a desire for effective governance exemplified by figures like Helmut Schmidt.
Martenstein believes that to curb the AfD's influence, one should address real issues like managing migration, ensuring security, improving schools, and maintaining economic competitiveness. He emphasizes that the real dividing line is not between 'left' and 'right' but between authoritarian regimes and democracies that guarantee equal civil rights for all citizens, regardless of their political views, as long as they adhere to laws and reject violence.