The New Right
The report by the German intelligence services has caused quite a stir throughout the West. It essentially claims that the AfD is a movement that conflicts with the German constitution: logically, this should result in the party being banned and dissolved—even though it enjoys support from over 20% of voters.
Let’s first examine what the report actually says—something everyone talks about, yet few have truly analyzed.
The report—drafted with Teutonic precision—states what everyone already knows: there’s nothing to dispute.
It does not claim, in any way, that the AfD opposes freedom of expression or free elections. The main point seen as clashing with constitutional principles is that the AfD is opposed to Islam. Since many Muslim immigrants hold German citizenship, this hostility creates discrimination among citizens, which is incompatible with the principles of democracy. In other words, Muslims now take the place once occupied by Jews.
It should be noted that the AfD does not discriminate between atheists and believers, nor among various religions—Catholics, Protestants, or Eastern religions such as Chinese or Indian ones—but rather sees an incompatibility between democratic principles and Islam.
I would point out that, certainly, the compatibility between Islam and democracy appears to be a real, genuine issue—particularly within the family sphere—and remains difficult to resolve.
However, I don’t believe Muslims pose a danger. In Europe, they are only small minorities and, above all, have no significant influence. The idea that they could spread their culture here, as Oriana Fallaci once believed, is unthinkable.
I cannot imagine our women putting on veils—certainly not. There may be exceptions—there always are—but the idea that they could threaten our civilization seems out of touch with reality.
Paradoxically, the AfD is accused of opposing an anti-democratic mentality, and for that reason, is labeled anti-democratic itself.
The General Issue
But aside from the report, the issue is being raised across the Western world: people are debating the compatibility of democracy and what we could call the “new right”—from Trump to Meloni, from Orbán in Hungary to Le Pen in France—and there’s a growing belief that these figures pose a threat to our democratic institutions. Some even propose excluding them from elections (see the recent annulment of elections in Romania).
The question, then, is: in order to defend democracy, should these parties be outlawed?
Let’s ask ourselves:
Is the new right really a threat to democracy?
And even if it were, would banning it solve the problem—or perhaps make it worse?
The Concept of Democracy
"Democracy" can mean anything and everything. Without going back to the Greeks, even communist regimes called themselves (people’s) democracies.
Here, we take democracy to mean a political system based on freedom of expression and free elections.
With this definition, being anti-democratic means rejecting those core principles. Being against immigration, gay marriage, or even the European Union does not make one anti-democratic.
Democracy has been described as the system that, while full of flaws, is still the "least bad" of all political systems.
New right parties have never claimed they want to suppress free speech or abolish elections; in fact, it often seems to be their opponents who seek to limit freedoms—because if an authority decides what can and can’t be said, what can and can’t be voted for, then it’s no longer a democracy.
If one thinks the world is full of fools easily manipulated by new right parties—labeled “populists”—then democracy itself would be a foolish system. If the support a party receives doesn’t matter, then governments shouldn’t be elected at all.
The logical conclusion would be to replace democracy with another system—essentially a one-party state with a dictator, as seen in the communist and fascist regimes of the last century, based on some supposed higher consciousness of the people or the nation.
We also cannot equate rejection of democracy with fascism: there are many non-democratic regimes (communist, military governments, theocracies, etc.).
In the past, democracy was often absent—so if we equate fascism with non-democracy, the entire history of the world becomes a history of fascism.
But What Do We Mean by Fascism?
The Scelba Law defines a fascist party as one that rejects democracy—yet it’s been noted that this definition could also have applied to the Italian Communist Party at the time.
History sometimes evolves very slowly, sometimes suddenly: the era of fascisms disappeared forever within a few short years after World War II.
Moreover, fascism was a brief and tragic parenthesis in history: Nazism lasted just 12 years (6 of which were wartime); Italian fascism, the longest, lasted 20 years.
Even if someone today tried to revive the Fascist Party, they would be drowned in ridicule—just like anyone who tried to deliver Mussolini-style speeches today would be.
The Case for or Against a Ban
But let’s suppose for a moment that the new right movements are anti-democratic. Would it be appropriate to outlaw them?
Even Popper, at one point, argued that we must be intolerant toward the intolerant, because absolute tolerance leads to the end of tolerance.
I’m a great admirer of Popper, but I don’t agree with him on this point.
The essential issue is that banning parties with broad popular support does not reduce that support—on the contrary, it tends to increase it, because it becomes clear that the regime is no longer democratic but authoritarian—a kind of "reverse fascism," as some say.
One of the most important factors for a functioning democracy is that it be accepted by a broad majority.
It’s clear that if a major party is prevented from participating, we can no longer speak of democracy. It may seem paradoxical, but in fact, it’s a logical truth.
Democracy is a political regime that can only exist if a large majority supports it.
Indeed, in all countries where this is not the case, democracy collapses—as we’ve seen in the Middle East, where attempts to impose it (Iraq, Afghanistan, even Palestine) have failed. It also happened in countries where democracy was replaced by fascist or communist dictatorships in the last century.
It is not a valid argument to claim that in a democracy people vote against their own interests—that they elect an "anti-people" government.
If the people want to elect an anti-popular government, they must be allowed to do so.
Of course, we must first clarify what is meant by "anti-popular."
If a party is voted for by a majority of the people, it doesn’t make much sense to label it anti-popular.
The real issue is: who decides whether a party is pro- or anti-people?
In communist and fascist dictatorships, it was decided by the ruling party or the dictator; in democracies, it’s decided by the voters.
That’s the key point.
We can take the example of the PCI (Italian Communist Party) in our own history.
Few remember it, but the issue arose even in the early days of our democracy. The PCI was a party that modeled itself on Stalin ("Baffone must come," people used to say); not only that, it was led by Stalin’s right-hand man, Palmiro Togliatti.
However, if the nascent Italian democracy had ever outlawed the Communist Party, democracy in Italy would never have been born.
Democracy consists of free elections under conditions of free thought.
If one believes that a segment of the population cannot vote for what it believes, or that certain ideas cannot be expressed, then one is against democracy.
And if we don’t want to go back to kings ruling by divine right, then the only alternative is the 20th-century dictatorships.
In Conclusion
The new right parties are not a danger to democracy—but banning them would mean the end of democracy and would, in any case, be counterproductive.
Instead, we must challenge them democratically, in open debate.
Above all, I believe we must ask ourselves why these parties are successful: it’s foolish to assume their voters are simply fools.
It’s not that I support parties like the AfD—but I simply observe that democracy cannot exist without freedom of thought and of vote.