Extremist Parties: Too Far or Part of Democracy? - Essay Sample

Introduction

Extremist Political Parties Should Not Be Banned

Parliamentary democracy is hardly conceivable without political parties. The task of the parties is to represent the different interests of citizens in modern society. The parties participate in the political will-formation of the people and should stimulate and deepen political education, promote the active participation of citizens in political life, and educate citizens capable of assuming public responsibility. The parties' fields of action also include setting up candidates for federal, state and local elections, helping to shape political developments in parliament and government, developing political goals and introducing them into the process of forming the state's will, and establishing a connection between the people and the state organs promote. Parties are an expression of an existing democracy, and their function is to bring together the wishes of voters. For this reason, as long as they respect the liberal-democratic order, the constitution, non-violence, and human rights, extremist political parties should not be banned. While good reasons for banning extremist parties could still be found in the 1950s, these reasons have now disappeared. Democracy must be seen as so stable and robust that it can also be trusted with dealing against right-wing parties rather than banning them.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Extremism is a complex phenomenon, and it is not easy to discern the complexity. At its simplest, it can be defined as activities (comprising of beliefs, actions, attitudes, strategies, and feelings, etc.) of an individual or group who have radical opinions. In other instances, extremism includes the use of violent means to voice views on certain matters. A party is called an extremist if it opposes liberal views and supports a cause or idea adamantly. They mostly include far-right politics, fanaticism, fundamentalism, radicalism, and reactionism. Far-right politics includes aspects of nativism and authoritarianism, among others.

There are several reasons why it is not right to ban extremist political parties. The first reason why extremist political parties should not be banned is that even after a ban, the right-wing extremist ideas will not disappear. A ban would not have any effect on the minds of party members and supporters. Members would find other parties after a ban, set up successor groups, and may even become more radicalized. A ban could, therefore, be a pseudo-solution that does nothing to change the real problem of right-wing extremism among some citizens. Extremists do not disappear; among other things, they reappear in other parties. Therefore, toughness alone, be it through bans and restrictions on the right of assembly, does not help in the long run.

Secondly, every party should have the opportunity to present their opinion to the people. It may be that their views contradict the majority of the population, but in principle, this falls under the law of freedom of expression. Although a person or a government can be against what a represents, everyone should have the chance to form an opinion about politics, and that is not possible with a party ban. The dissolution of a political party constitutes a non-negligible restriction on the right to create a political party and on the freedom of association (as stipulated in the European Convention on Human Rights), and it also reduces political pluralism.

Thirdly, a democratic state cannot avoid dealing openly and directly with its enemies (extremist political parties) since this affects not only politicians and police officers but every citizen. It is impossible to get rid of the duty to defend a state's free constitutional state by leaving it up to politics or the judiciary to issue bans. Attitudes and beliefs cannot be forbidden. At best, they can be pushed back, but only by educating and at the same time openly showing and articulating to all citizens that there is no room for National Socialism, racism, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism in the country. A party ban may appear to be the more convenient solution, but it would be the reaction of an anxious state that does not trust itself and its people much. In any case, this attitude does not correspond to an understanding of democracy.

Fourth, a ban on any party would go against democracy. People's sovereignty is the constitutive element of democracy. The state cannot prescribe how the citizens organize themselves politically. Democracy must also endure extremists and deal with them politically. Moreover, a ban is not effective because it increases the fascination of a radical party or sympathizing with the party. On most occasions, what is prohibited is all the more attractive. Moreover, when a party is banned, it will start organizing underground activities. If that happens, then the constitutional protection can no longer monitor the party, and this would be a triumph for the party. The party will conduct its activities without being monitored. Legal sanctions by the courts or the police cannot suffocate political extremism on their own. Often there is also a need for civic commitment, courage on the part of democratic leaders, and ultimately the credibility of democratic institutions. Only when these conditions are met can democracy be defended effectively.

Fifth, those who support the banning of extremist political parties want to see the structures of the party destroyed and the economic foundations (especially from state party funding) removed. A ban could certainly stop the growth of that party but probably not in the long run. There are several examples that suggest this because, since the German unity in 1990, around 40 neo-Nazi associations have been banned in the Federal Republic. Their followers often withdrew after the bans but not their management cadres, and they usually continued - in other structures and forming other different parties. Experience also showed that banning and state repression of extreme-right political parties led to more membership.

After the bans on neo-Nazi groups just mentioned in the early to mid-1990s, neo-Nazi comradeships were established. They were loosely organized and, therefore, more difficult to control and grasp compared to their predecessors. Particularly, radical cadres of the banned parties and organizations turned to their new parties in large numbers and continued their work within the party. Moreover, the fact that Nazi symbols that were openly displayed from the mid-1990s onwards were pursued more sharply and that, for example, the use of spring boots, for example, was increasingly banned during right-wing extremist marches, was one of the reasons that the extreme right was aesthetically modernized and the autonomous nationalists (AN) emerged. When the AN group National Resistance Dortmund was banned, its management cadres quickly joined the newly founded party Die Rechts.

On the one hand, to defend the existence of these parties, it is important to refer to the Karl Popper tolerance paradox. Popper explains that unlimited tolerance, tolerance for the intolerant, can lead to ending tolerance itself. Thus, he believes that the intolerant should not be tolerated, but this does not mean to prohibit it, but to use the same freedom of expression, which allows that intolerance, to propitiate an ideological debate and curb these opposing ideas with reasoned arguments. The ban should only come when there is resistance to refute ideas when it is intended to impose thoughts, and when there is no room for debate and violence is used to win the ideological battle. This main idea of defending an open, tolerant, and democratic society does not mean, however, that there are no arguments for banning these extremist parties.

On the other hand, leaving aside the current legislation and focusing, solely and exclusively, on the moral level, the permissibility of entering the democratic game of parties with extremist ideologies is, per se, intolerable. The goal of every party is to lead the nation, to promote its ideas from the government in both foreign and domestic politics, ideas that are compatible with plural and diverse population, and defense of minorities. The institutionalization of extremes, whether left or right, leads to destabilization, loss of rights, and the abolition of freedoms. The state should do more to support civil society in the fight against right-wing extremism since that is more effective than a party ban.

There are several instances when there would be no problem when an extremist political party is banned. Parties which, according to their goals or according to the behaviour of their members, tend to infringe the liberal and democratic constitutional order, to overthrow it, or to jeopardize the existence of the country, are unconstitutional and should be banned. The political party must be such that it rejects the fundamental values of the constitution and be militant and aggressive.

Political parties whose aims or activity are contrary to criminal law, or which are directed against the constitutional order or the idea of understanding between peoples, should be prohibited. Extremist political parties that would either cause discrimination, hatred or violence towards a person or a group of people because of their origin or their membership or non-membership of a specific ethnicity, nation, race or religion or propagate ideas and theories tending to justify or encourage this discrimination, hatred or violence should be banned. Any party founded on a cause or with the aim of illicit activity, contrary to the laws, good morals, or which would have as aim to attack the integrity of the national territory and the republican form of the government should be banned.

Because parties are so crucial for parliamentary democracy, only the highest courts can ban them in countries such as Germany. In countries with a long democratic tradition, such as Great Britain or the United States, party bans are entirely unknown and would be considered a serious interference with freedom of expression. However, to prevent a party with anti-constitutional goals from coming to power legally, some countries such as Germany and Poland have deliberately provided for the possibility of a party ban to defend or fight for democracy. According to this concept, the state can act against enemies of democracy and, for example, (within a minimal framework) deprive citizens of fundamental rights or ban parties.

If a political party is dangerous for society, and violence is being used by the extremists (including attacks, kidnappings against a ransom, and killing innocent people), it should be banned. In France, the government intended to ban certain extremist groups or parties during the European elections in 2009, such as the list of the humorist Dieudonne who is singled out for his anti-Zionist remarks towards the Jews and the relativization of the Holocaust. In the Netherlands, an Islamophobic candidate, Geert Wilders, made remarks that were contrary to the principle of secularism and integration of minorities. These two examples highlight the need to suppress extremist parties, because they can cause the Republic to falter and can set up a sort of totalitarian regime, as was the case with the former USSR under Stalin, for example. Governments can restrict the freedom of expression of certain political parties when these harm minorities in the country.

A ban on extremist parties or those that are designated as such for competitive reasons would mean that dissenters are excluded from democratic decision-making, which would ultimately lose the characteristic of democracy. A confident democracy has to face the challenge of arguing against a right-wing party. A democracy must, therefore, be able to endure beliefs that are outside mainstream thinking or a current populist campaign. A ba...