Is AfD a dangerous political party
Executive summary
Germany’s domestic intelligence service (BfV) has classified the AfD as a right‑wing extremist endeavor, a designation that permits increased surveillance and cites an “ethnic‑based understanding of the [German] people” as decisive evidence [1] [2]. Critics — including Jewish community leaders and mainstream parties — warn the AfD poses a clear danger to minority communities and to democratic norms; the party’s rise to 20.8% of the vote nationally in 2025 and strength in eastern states underpin those concerns [3] [4].
1. What the security services say: an extremist label with legal consequences
Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) moved from observing AfD to formally classifying it as a “confirmed right‑wing extremist endeavor,” a step that allows surveillance, informant use and communications monitoring; the agency’s report emphasized the party’s “ethnic‑based understanding” of the people and rhetoric demeaning whole population groups [1] [2].
2. Political power and the practical threat: why influence matters
AfD is no longer a fringe actor: it improved to about 20.8% of the national vote in 2025 and became the second‑largest party in the Bundestag, while scoring especially strongly in eastern German states — a dynamic that turns ideological concerns into practical risks if the party gains governing power or blocking power in parliaments [1] [3] [5].
3. Concrete examples of extremist rhetoric and actions cited by critics
Reporting and watchdogs point to explicit anti‑immigrant and anti‑Muslim messaging, use of “remigration” language in the party programme, billboard campaigns referencing conspiracies, and episodes such as distribution of “deportation ticket” style flyers — elements the BfV and journalists cite as evidence of extremist tendencies [1] [6].
4. Warnings from civil society: minorities and historical memory
Jewish community leaders and others have publicly warned that an empowered AfD represents “a real danger to Jewish life” and to protected groups given the party’s record and rhetoric; those concerns draw on Germany’s unique historical context and amplify calls for vigilance from mainstream institutions [3] [4].
5. The party’s defenders and internal divisions: competing narratives
AfD leaders and supporters argue the BfV’s designation is itself an attack on democracy and present the party as a protest movement against mainstream elites; internally the party is split between more moderate figures who court international visibility and hard‑right elements that have prompted expulsions and controversy [2] [7] [8].
6. Mainstream politics’ response: ostracism and debate over banning
Mainstream German parties have maintained a “firewall” of non‑cooperation with AfD lawmakers, and the BfV label has intensified calls — including public debate about whether a constitutional ban is warranted — though banning a party remains legally fraught and politically divisive [9] [10].
7. International links and legitimacy battles
AfD has sought legitimacy abroad, courting contacts in Washington and aligning with parts of the global populist right; Reuters reports growing ties between AfD figures and MAGA‑aligned personalities, which complicates efforts by German parties to isolate it and raises questions about external influences [11].
8. What “danger” means in practice — probabilities, not certainties
Available sources document rhetoric, internal networks, and legal classification that increase the probability AfD poses risks to minority rights and democratic norms if it gains more power [2] [5]. Sources also include voices — historians and commentators — who argue AfD is not identical to historic totalitarian movements but note real dangers if mainstream parties fail to check its advance [12].
9. Key limitations and what reporting does not say
Available sources do not provide a comprehensive causal account proving the AfD will dismantle democracy if in government; they document concerning patterns, public warnings and legal designations but stop short of certainties about future behavior (not found in current reporting). Sources also vary on the extent to which AfD’s electorate rejects democracy itself, with some analysts saying voters are motivated by policy grievances rather than a hatred of democracy [12].
10. Bottom line for readers
Judgment depends on weighting security findings, electoral momentum and political context: Germany’s intelligence service and many civil‑society actors treat AfD as a real and present danger to minorities and to democratic norms; AfD and some commentators reject that characterization and frame the designation as political repression [2] [4] [2]. Readers should treat the BfV designation and the party’s electoral strength as central facts shaping the assessment [1] [3].