> AfD is not democracy. AfD is antidemocracy even if it would get elected democratically.
Here's a fun thing language-game to try: expand your definition of "democracy" to encompass your partisan political positions, don't tell anyone, yell from the rooftops that your opponents are "anti-democratic" and banning them is "democratic."
Then observe how you only convince yourself of your own righteousness, and further alienate the people you wished to persuade.
This is certainly what could be the case, except it isn't. It was decided in 1949 what the current understanding of democracy in Germany is. You could of course decide to define democracy as broad so that it also encompasses the Athenian democracy, but that is not what we currently mean when we speak of a liberal democracy.
If party A, being labeled as communist by party B, and party B, being labeled as fascistic by party A, both agree, as well as all other parties in-between, that you are a threat to democracy, maybe you are.
If you are looking for a party that labels itself democratic and all others anti-democratic, you need to look at the AfD themself.
I think the paradox of tolerance has been interpreted by many on the left in a way that flatters them and is convenient to their political ends. Forces that actually threaten democracy and tolerance are frequently ignored or swept under the rug, while the left's political opponents are demonized as not being tolerant enough to participate in democracy so they can be summarily dismissed.
IMHO this tactic is one of the drivers in the falling trust in institutions that we see across the western world. You can't simply dismiss your opposition as not tolerant enough as a way of winning a political argument.
I'd recommend reading up on German constitutional theory and consider the historical precedent that might've lead them to realize the importance of having their democracy be defensive - something they're failing to live up to right now.
