AfD: “The intimidation has long been strongly felt”

SZ: Mr. Cremer, former Chancellor Willy Brandt once described it as his biggest mistake that, from 1972 onwards, he had an entire generation of young civil servant candidates investigated by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and, in some cases, banned from practicing their profession.

Hendrik Cremer: Yes, Willy Brandt was right, unfortunately. More than three million young professionals were screened back then, all on suspicion of left-wing extremism... The so-called Radical Decree at the time went extremely far in its practical application; it was also applied draconianly by the authorities; it got out of hand. This experience has led to the state exercising significantly more restraint today—and also to its hesitation when it comes to the AfD.

Shouldn't we fear that things could get out of hand again if the authorities now start to eye every applicant with suspicion? After all, civil servants are also allowed to be thoughtful, politically interested people in their private lives.

In my view, the opposite is more likely to happen. That is, the state will remain too silent today and will only weakly enforce the constitutional duty of loyalty – that is, the duty of civil servants to uphold the free and democratic basic order through all their conduct – and no longer take it seriously enough. Yet the danger is truly great.

One difference from back then is perhaps that, unlike in the years after 1972, when the focus was on real or alleged communists, several courts have now intervened and made it clear that those affected also have fundamental rights and freedom of expression – something the state must respect.

Of course, that's why the legal hurdles for dismissal from civil service are higher today than they were in the 1970s. Nevertheless, my impression is that the threat posed by the AfD is far from being adequately reflected in public discourse, including the media.

How come?

Because the AfD has become increasingly radicalized over the years. Courts today require individual proof of anti-constitutional activity in each individual case. But this proof isn't all that difficult, because supporting the AfD in 2025 is much more clearly contrary to the constitutional duty of loyalty than in previous years. The AfD has developed into a right-wing extremist, nationalist party.

The question is: Can you say that in such a general way about every party member?

There is no longer any dispute over the direction of the party, as there was initially. Since the party conference in June 2022, there have been no significant voices opposing Björn Höcke and his positions, nor is there any opposition within the federal executive board. In 2017, the federal executive board initiated expulsion proceedings against Höcke, when a 60-page internal document essentially described him as a neo-National Socialist.

Can't we nevertheless admit that there are shades of gray today – and that the courts are therefore right when they insist that not every AfD member should automatically be banned like Höcke?

Party members elect their leadership, which determines the party's course. The course of this course is an important indicator of how loyal to the constitution even ordinary members are. There's a second aspect that comes into play, and I feel it's somewhat neglected in the current debate. The courageous democrats in our public authorities who oppose right-wing extremist tendencies are already in the crossfire of attacks by the AfD. We must protect these officials.

What do you mean?

Is it fair to ban a political party? Why the hurdles for a potential AfD ban are so high – and what problems this entails. Former constitutional judge Gabriele Britz discusses this in the current podcast episode.

The AfD, for example, is exerting pressure on schools in some places. The infamous "reporting portals" are one example. Teachers who provide objective information about right-wing extremism are to be reported online and thus intimidated. And now imagine how the mood at such a school will deteriorate if AfD supporters also move into the teachers' lounge. How fear-free discourse, democratic education, is being stifled! We must prevent this.

As long as the AfD remains a legal party, it must, of course, remain possible to express its views and arguments...

...but not with such methods! Let me give you another example. In the summer of 2019, the AfD demanded the suspension of the commander of the Bundeswehr's Leadership Center. This commander had merely pointed out that the AfD, in what was then still officially called its right-wing "wing," clearly advocated extremist positions.

Would you consider this intimidation? If the AfD defends itself against the accusation of right-wing extremism?

The intimidation has long been strongly felt in many parts of the state apparatus, where we urgently need more civil servants with backbone. This is even noticeable at universities. They can address racism, anti-Semitism, and so on in their teaching.

Things get tricky when the three letters appear, meaning AfD. Teachers often worry that critically addressing the AfD could be interpreted as a violation of their obligation to maintain political neutrality. And that they'll become a target for aggressive AfD members. This is how people fall silent. This trend has already begun.

Officials have a duty to moderate their political statements. Does this mean they must also observe limits when criticizing the AfD?

In 2019, Oldenburg Police Chief Johann Kühme said he was ashamed when AfD politicians called Muslims "girls in headscarves" or trivialized the Nazi era as a bird dropping in a thousand years of history. The AfD then accused him of violating the obligation of neutrality associated with his office.

Is there nothing to it?

No, moderation does not mean a ban on naming threats to democracy. Kühme refused to be intimidated; in an interview with the Nordwest-Zeitung in 2023, he even stated that the AfD was distorting the truth to stoke fears among the population. In his warnings, Kühme recalled that there was once a party, the Nazi Party, that was able to destroy the liberal, constitutional democracy in Germany, thus taking over the state and, with it, the police.

However, the AfD has filed a lawsuit against this harsh criticism, just as it is suing the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which tried to label it as "certainly right-wing extremist."

Yes, but all the police chiefs in Lower Saxony have backed their colleagues from Oldenburg, and the former President of the Federal Constitutional Court, Andreas Voßkuhle, has also spoken out and backed Kühme. There are too many "duck-away" people in the country who would rather not take risks, Voßkuhle said. I think that's apt. The police are people too. We can't leave them alone.