Summary

German lawmakers are debating whether to pursue a ban on the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), but many fear the move could backfire ahead of the Feb. 23 national election.

The proposal, backed by 124 lawmakers, seeks a court review of whether the AfD is unconstitutional.

Critics, including Chancellor Olaf Scholz, warn a failed attempt could strengthen the party, which is polling at 20%.

The debate underscores concerns over the AfD’s extremism but also the risks of fueling its anti-establishment narrative.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Welp, their inability to make a decision almost ensures they will follow the same technocratic/autocratic path as the US.

    Who’d have thought the thing to kill democracy would be Admin rights being tantalizing to techbros as a stand in for authoritarianism.

      • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        10 months ago

        technocracy != Elon Musk as president

        technocracy is when you have political scientists and engineers as politicians, not billionaires and lawyers.

          • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            That might be what people think the word means when they first hear it, but that doesn’t mean we should use it that way.

              • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                10 months ago

                So we should just do away with definitions, and go with whatever people think a word means the first time they hear it? Why?

                • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  If one person or a few people have a definition wrong, that’s a thing that can be corrected.

                  If the majority of people think that’s the definition, and it’s been that way for decades, then you have the definition wrong.

                  • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    When the “good faith effort” requires changing definitions, it’s not a good faith effort from the other side.