AfD on democracy and the state

The AfD wants state funding for political and civil society groups to be granted only if recipients pledge in writing to uphold the free democratic basic order. This pledge is to be checked.

Some groups get money from the state of Hamburg. They should first promise in writing to support democracy and the constitution. The state should check this promise. Without it, there is no money.

This concerns state funds for political and so-called civil society associations and activities. A written commitment to the free democratic basic order is to be a precondition. The AfD wants this commitment to be reviewed.

The AfD wants to terminate Hamburg's 2012 state treaty with Islamic associations. In its view, the treaty's integration goal has failed and some associations are controlled from abroad. The obligations of Islamic communities would then be set out by law.

In 2012, Hamburg signed a treaty with Islamic groups. The AfD wants to end this treaty. It says the treaty did not help integration. It says some groups are run from abroad. A law should later set the duties of these communities.

The program singles out DITIB-Nord, which it says depends on Turkey's religious affairs agency DIYANET. The AfD considers it unacceptable that such associations received funding to combat extremism. It stresses that, as registered associations, they can speak only for themselves. It also wants to prevent other German states from adopting the "Hamburg model."

The AfD wants to restrict the right of environmental associations to file lawsuits. In its view, their suits delay democratic decisions by Hamburg's parliament and senate and give individual interest groups too much influence.

Environmental groups can sue against decisions. The AfD wants to limit this right. It says the lawsuits delay important projects. Parliament and government should be able to act faster.

The program considers the influence of environmental groups to have little democratic legitimacy. As examples of lawsuits, it cites the deepening of the Elbe and driving bans for older diesel vehicles. Decisions should then be implemented more quickly.

The AfD rejects political correctness and measures against "hate speech," which it views as disguised censorship. The only limit on free speech should be criminal law.

The AfD wants more free speech. Everyone should be able to say what they think. The AfD sees rules against "hate speech" as censorship. Only criminal law should set a limit.

The program calls for comprehensive freedom of opinion and thought in practice as well. It wants a culture of debate in which political arguments are normal and no one fears voicing an opinion. The AfD views measures against "hate speech" as a pretext for censorship. Criminal law should be the only restriction.

The AfD wants a rule that no party can be denied use of city-owned or city-funded venues for events. It also wants the Verfassungsschutz (domestic intelligence agency) to stop monitoring legal parties and focus on political violence and terrorism.

All parties should be able to use city rooms. This is for meetings and events. The Verfassungsschutz is a secret service. It should stop watching legal parties. It should focus on violence and terror.

Venues owned or co-funded by the city should be open to all parties. This is meant to let parties that, in the program's view, are unpopular with the authorities assemble peacefully. The program calls the monitoring of legal parties an undemocratic special path taken by Germany and Hamburg. The Verfassungsschutz should concentrate on extremism in the form of political violence and terrorism.

The AfD wants citizens' referendums at the district level to be more binding. The Senate should no longer be able to override them by taking over the decision, but should instead call a citywide referendum when citywide interests are at stake.

People in districts can vote on local issues. Today the city government can overrule them. That should no longer be possible. If there is a conflict, all of Hamburg should vote.

Deviation from a district referendum should only be allowed if the Senate believes citywide interests are harmed. In such cases, the Senate's right of evocation, which lets it take over decisions, should no longer apply. Instead, the question should be put to all Hamburg voters in a citywide referendum. The program argues this preserves Hamburg as a unified municipality while ensuring that politicians cannot ignore the voters' will.

The AfD wants signatures for popular initiatives and petitions for referendums to be collectible digitally as well. Votes and elections, however, should continue to use paper ballots to maintain trust in these processes.

Citizens can start initiatives for a public vote. This needs many signatures. People should be able to sign online too. But elections should stay on paper. That way people can trust elections.

Hamburg residents should in the future also be able to sign popular initiatives and referendum petitions digitally. For elections and votes, the AfD insists on paper ballots. The program cites citizens' trust in the integrity of these processes as the reason.