Democracy protects opposition and its own foundations.
Parties may criticise government and propose major changes. This belongs to political competition. A ban must therefore not depend on whether a government or majority likes a party’s views.
The constitutional assessment goes far beyond the brief exam answer. It requires conduct directed against the protected democratic order and concrete indications that the unconstitutional objectives have a prospect of being achieved. The competent court examines this through the prescribed procedure.
The other three answers
The other three reasons do not by themselves justify a party ban.
if its election campaign is too expensive
High campaign spending is not an independent basis for banning a party. Financing is governed by other legal rules.
if it criticizes the head of state
Criticism of the head of state is not automatically an attack on the democratic order. Officeholders may also be criticised.
if its program suggests a new direction
New political directions generally belong to democratic debate. Novelty alone is not grounds for a ban.
This does not decide the status of a particular present-day party.
This guide explains the standard without judging a current individual case. An application, a public demand and a legally effective ban are different things.
Exclusion from state party funding is a different procedure with partly different requirements. It is not equivalent to a party ban.
Article 21 · Basic Law ↗Not mere criticism, but a constitutionally assessed attack.
The brief exam wording requires strict conditions in actual proceedings.
Three words for this question
- das Parteiverbotparty ban
- Judicial dissolution of a party under constitutional conditions.
- verfassungswidrigunconstitutional
- Incompatible with the applicable constitutional rules.
- das Verfahrenproceedings
- The legally prescribed process for reaching a decision.