A legal procedure concerning a possible ban on the right-wing populist party Alternative for Germany (AfD) is generating broad debate in politics and society. In Hamburg, a fictional, artistic version of such a trial has now begun. The spectacular pseudo-trial opened on Friday night on the stage of the Thalia Theater—as part of a three-day production by Milo Rau, the Swiss director whose work has achieved worldwide fame and sparked controversy. The presiding judge is a real top jurist: Herta Däubler-Gmelin, the former German Minister of Justice (SPD).
Under the title “Process Against Germany,” Rau’s idea features no actors delivering lines from a script. Instead, roughly 30 experts and jurists will argue and debate—with four more sessions scheduled over the weekend. The fictional court scenario is also streamed live on the theater’s website. A seven-person Hamburg juror panel will issue its verdict on Sunday evening.
Neiman: “The Reckoning with History Has Gone Off the Rails”
Rau began by asking: “What exactly is the Alternative for Germany, the AfD, offering us? Do we want this alternative? And if not, should we prevent it, if that is the rule of law’s way?” He elaborated that question. Hamburg’s Cultural Senator Carsten Brosda (SPD) stated in his opening remarks: “I hope this trial helps us reaffirm the meaning and the safeguarding of our democracy.”>
Subsequent opening remarks were delivered by Susan Neiman and Joana Cotar. Neiman, an American philosopher and director of the Einstein Forum in Potsdam, focused on the German relationship to its Nazi past: “In the last five years, the processing of German history has spiraled out of control,” she said. She stressed that the AfD rides a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, blaming foreigners for everything. Cotar, a former AfD member of the Bundestag, criticized those who have already declared their judgment about the party. After all, “Lies can be debunked. Certainties cannot.” In this atmosphere, freedom becomes fragile. For Cotar, the intellectual challenge lies in civil confrontation on the substance of the matter.
As the prosecution’s representative, Hamburg criminal-law specialist Gabriele Heinecke argued: “A ban is necessary.” For Heinecke, the issue was not only about the AfD but also about “the actors and followers who create a social climate in which right-wing hatred, incitement, and violence flourish.” The party, she said, is “the spearhead of this development” and a danger to democracy. She also noted that bourgeois parties themselves could become infected by this climate. Journalist and author Andreas Speit commented on the AfD’s influence, stating that “the enemies of democracy present themselves as democrats.”
Quotes from AfD Politicians Are “Undoubtedly Shocking”
On the defense side, attorney Liane Bednarz—cited by her predecessors as expressing “undoubtedly shocking” quotes from AfD politicians—argued that, while these statements are alarming, it remains necessary to examine whether the party’s activities meet the threshold set by Article 21, paragraph 2, of the Basic Law to justify a ban. With the caveat, “And to be clear: that is not the case,” Bednarz asked the court to dismiss the prosecution’s motions. Her colleague, Frédéric Schwilden, author of “Toxic Man,” countered that “prohibiting the AfD does not solve problems.” He pointed out that many AfD members previously belonged to bourgeois parties and were unlikely to be labeled Nazis. “A ban convinces no one except those who already want it,” Schwilden concluded.
Also contributing to the debate were Michael Bouteiller, the former mayor of Lübeck and a long-time anti-extremism activist, and Harald Martenstein, a columnist for Bild who has moved across the political spectrum in his career. Martenstein warned that banning the AfD given its high electoral support could spell “the end of democracy.” He urged a clearer distinction between “right” and “far-right,” between legitimate and illegitimate goals. The latter would include the erosion of freedom of expression and the stripping away of basic rights for parts of the population. To keep the AfD in check, he argued, one should address underlying issues—such as aligning migration with economic opportunities and realities.
In Berlin, the Debate on AfD Ban Is Long-Standing
On the real political stage in Berlin, discussions about a ban on the AfD have been ongoing for some time. It is likely to play a role in upcoming state elections. Polls show the AfD leading in Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. The Social Democrats (SPD) and the Greens support reviewing a ban, while the Union (the conservative bloc) cautions that such a move could play into the AfD’s hands. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution had already determined that the AfD is securely right-wing extremist. That assessment, however, is currently paused due to a standstill arrangement connected to the ongoing Cologne Administrative Court case in which the AfD has challenged the institution’s ruling.
These debates occur amid a broader national conversation about how to respond to a party that has grown from a fringe group into a major political factor. The theater production in Hamburg, with its blend of legal theory, public argument, and staged democratic drama, has added a provocative voice to that conversation, inviting audiences to consider what it would mean to ban a party in a constitutional democracy and what that would say about the state of society and the rule of law.
