Yes, had the consequences been known that would have been a good idea. The same is true for the Bolshevik party in Russia, Mao's communist party in China, Chavez's party in Venezuela, Castro's in Cuba, Pol Pot's in Cambodia, Khomeini should never have been allowed back in Iran, Lenin should never have been allowed back into Russia, etcetera. Hindsight is always 20/20 but that does not help when deciding which parties are allowed to partake of the democratic process.
AfD is a right-wing nationalist party which - like many if not most right-wing parties - does have its cadre of people with more extreme views. There'll be right-wing extremists in CDU/CSU (Christian democrats and Christian social union) as well but far fewer than in AfD since that party is more right-wing than CDU and CSU.
The same is true for left-wing parties like the communist party which calls itself 'Die Linke' where you'll find a large host of extremists. It also happens to be the party which under another name was responsible for the Stalinist government of what was ironically called the 'German Democratic Republic', three words with only one - German - being truthful. The same goes for Die Grünen (the greens) which is a far-left party grown out of the environmentalist movement which has taken up the 'progressive omnicause' of climate, migration and "palestine" as their leitmotif. You'll find left-wing extremists in the SPD (social democrats) as well but far fewer than in Die Linke and Die Grünen since those parties are further to the left.
As to AfD as a party being "far-right", well... not really. Their program isn't extreme right-wing, it mixes centre-right with centre-left policies. Their leader, Alice Weidel isn't extreme right-wing - she'd have to banish herself for being a lesbian in a union with another lesbian which tends to not go over that well in far-right circles. What supposedly makes them "far-right" is the same as which supposedly makes other similar parties in other countries - PVV in the Netherlands, SD in Sweden, Vlaams Belang in Belgium, Reform in the UK, RN in France etc. - fit under that category: their stance on migration from mostly non-western, largely islamic countries. They oppose such migration because they consider the large influx of people who either do not want to assimilate or integrate or, even if they wanted to do so can not due to their sheer numbers as a threat to their cultures and societies. Many people agree with these positions which has given these parties a boost and often brought them into significant minority to actual majority positions. This is seen as a threat by those who consider immigration from those regions and cultures to be necessary for some reason - Protestant Christian idealism, import of new voters to replace the traditional workers who moved to AfD and similar parties, payment of some imagined debt of honour related to historical colonialism, import of conflicting cultures to destabilise society (i.e. 'deconstruction') to make it ready for revolution, etc. - giving rise to the application of labels like "far-right" - especially powerful in a country like Germany which has been ruled by extremists (left and right) before with disastrous results for both the country as well as the world - to dissuade people from voting for them. Since these groups tend to have control over most of the mass media they have used them to try to convince the populace that these parties need to be banished, forbidden, excluded and shunned.
What these "progressives" do not seem to have counted with is the strong rise of such parties every time they urged them to be excluded, disbanded or forbidden. Disbanding a party which only gets a few votes is doable given the control these groups have over the mass media. Doing the same to a party which gets 1/3 of the vote is a wholly different thing and raises the question who is the more "extreme", the "progressives" who want to use what are considered to be "Soviet-style" tactics to get rid of their opposition or the parties threatened with banishment? It gets even more fraught with error when those "progressives" call for the protection of "Our Democracy". Whose democracy is it, who is the "δῆμος" (dèmos, ancient Greek for "ordinary citizens" or "common people") they're talking about? If those ordinary citizens want to vote the opposition into power should they be allowed to do so? The answer is clearly "yes" for those who take the word Democracy seriously but just as clearly "no" for those who consider their own ideology more important than the will of the masses. These "progressives" often claim that once parties like AfD come into power they'll get rid of "Our Democracy" as a justification why they should not be allowed to participate in elections and, should they happen to have been able to do so and won a large number of votes their representatives should be excluded from any and all positions of power. Again, Quo Vadis, Democratia?
Even if the risk were real, should a democracy be allowed to vote itself out of existence by handing over power to one of the extremist groups whether those be far-right, far-left, islamic or otherwise? Is Popper's paradox of tolerance for the intolerant to be ignored?
AfD is a right-wing nationalist party which - like many if not most right-wing parties - does have its cadre of people with more extreme views. There'll be right-wing extremists in CDU/CSU (Christian democrats and Christian social union) as well but far fewer than in AfD since that party is more right-wing than CDU and CSU.
The same is true for left-wing parties like the communist party which calls itself 'Die Linke' where you'll find a large host of extremists. It also happens to be the party which under another name was responsible for the Stalinist government of what was ironically called the 'German Democratic Republic', three words with only one - German - being truthful. The same goes for Die Grünen (the greens) which is a far-left party grown out of the environmentalist movement which has taken up the 'progressive omnicause' of climate, migration and "palestine" as their leitmotif. You'll find left-wing extremists in the SPD (social democrats) as well but far fewer than in Die Linke and Die Grünen since those parties are further to the left.
As to AfD as a party being "far-right", well... not really. Their program isn't extreme right-wing, it mixes centre-right with centre-left policies. Their leader, Alice Weidel isn't extreme right-wing - she'd have to banish herself for being a lesbian in a union with another lesbian which tends to not go over that well in far-right circles. What supposedly makes them "far-right" is the same as which supposedly makes other similar parties in other countries - PVV in the Netherlands, SD in Sweden, Vlaams Belang in Belgium, Reform in the UK, RN in France etc. - fit under that category: their stance on migration from mostly non-western, largely islamic countries. They oppose such migration because they consider the large influx of people who either do not want to assimilate or integrate or, even if they wanted to do so can not due to their sheer numbers as a threat to their cultures and societies. Many people agree with these positions which has given these parties a boost and often brought them into significant minority to actual majority positions. This is seen as a threat by those who consider immigration from those regions and cultures to be necessary for some reason - Protestant Christian idealism, import of new voters to replace the traditional workers who moved to AfD and similar parties, payment of some imagined debt of honour related to historical colonialism, import of conflicting cultures to destabilise society (i.e. 'deconstruction') to make it ready for revolution, etc. - giving rise to the application of labels like "far-right" - especially powerful in a country like Germany which has been ruled by extremists (left and right) before with disastrous results for both the country as well as the world - to dissuade people from voting for them. Since these groups tend to have control over most of the mass media they have used them to try to convince the populace that these parties need to be banished, forbidden, excluded and shunned.
What these "progressives" do not seem to have counted with is the strong rise of such parties every time they urged them to be excluded, disbanded or forbidden. Disbanding a party which only gets a few votes is doable given the control these groups have over the mass media. Doing the same to a party which gets 1/3 of the vote is a wholly different thing and raises the question who is the more "extreme", the "progressives" who want to use what are considered to be "Soviet-style" tactics to get rid of their opposition or the parties threatened with banishment? It gets even more fraught with error when those "progressives" call for the protection of "Our Democracy". Whose democracy is it, who is the "δῆμος" (dèmos, ancient Greek for "ordinary citizens" or "common people") they're talking about? If those ordinary citizens want to vote the opposition into power should they be allowed to do so? The answer is clearly "yes" for those who take the word Democracy seriously but just as clearly "no" for those who consider their own ideology more important than the will of the masses. These "progressives" often claim that once parties like AfD come into power they'll get rid of "Our Democracy" as a justification why they should not be allowed to participate in elections and, should they happen to have been able to do so and won a large number of votes their representatives should be excluded from any and all positions of power. Again, Quo Vadis, Democratia?
Even if the risk were real, should a democracy be allowed to vote itself out of existence by handing over power to one of the extremist groups whether those be far-right, far-left, islamic or otherwise? Is Popper's paradox of tolerance for the intolerant to be ignored?