The 32^nd federal party convention of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) will be held in East Germany’s city of Leipzig this upcoming Friday and Saturday (22-23 November). During this convention, a new leader will not be elected but the future projections of the party will be addressed and determined. Given the fact that the Social Democrats (SPD), the junior partner of the current grand coalition government since March 2018, are also heading into the final phase of their leadership search at the end of this month, the CDU’s party convention might be of general relevance and importance too.

In order to clarify the party’s future plans and goals during the convention, CDU party chairperson and the federal minister of defence Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer called on her opponents to openly state their criticisms thus paving the way for possible controversial debates during the convention. It is a move that Kramp-Karrenbauer most likely hopes will present her as a strong leader who is able to cope with harsh criticism from her party’s ranks.

Kramp-Karrenbauer’s more recent decisions have been the subject of criticism by other party members, such as her surprising call for an internationally controlled safe zone in Northern Syria. Party members have also called for a new negotiation of the current coalition with the Social Democrats. However, in a recently published interview, Kramp-Karrenbauer once again stated that there were no concerns about the existing coalition agreement with the CSU and SPD and thus rejected new negotiations on it.

Furthermore, the youth organization of the party called for a new process to determine the party’s future chancellor candidate which would involve the participation of all CDU members. This recommendation was interpreted as a challenge against AKK personally. But the youth organization is not the only group seeking a new process, five other CDU associations on the state and local levels are also in agreement. However, it is expected that these recommendations will be rejected at the convention, despite the youth organization’s suggestions being taken into serious consideration by the party members.

Kramp-Karrenbauer on the other hand, has constantly tried to portray a rather strong and self-confident image of herself while calling her party’s members to criticize and even discredit the CDU’s policies, and she does this by pointing to the positive achievements of the CDU’s coalition since 2005. However, more recently Kramp-Karrenbauer has become self-critical of her one year performance as chairperson and the party’s decreasing vote shares according to polls.

In addition to several criticisms against Kramp-Karrenbauer, it seems that she still trying to hold a stable position which her intra-party opponents –at least at the moment– do not dare to challenge openly. However, recent polls indicate that for CDU members Kramp-Karrenbauer is not the most popular figure as the next chancellor candidate, but Friedrich Merz. For the moment, however, Merz is not openly challenging Kramp-Karrenbauer, who he lost the leadership race to last December. During that leadership contest, Kramp-Karrenbauer received 517 of the 999 all valid votes while Merz only received 482 votes. Whether a rather different result might occur today is an interesting question which has not been not openly addressed. This is actually related to Merz’ most likely secure strategy.

Merz currently denies any kind of “showdown” at the convention against the CDU chairperson and also strengthened his official stance supporting her. However, even though Merz rejects any kind of a debate on a new chairperson of the CDU, he has said that he will continue his critical statements concerning specific issues.

The CDU currently elects the chancellor candidate within narrow party committees where Merz would have less chances to persuade the party’s delegates. But if all CDU members would be able to determine the next chancellor candidate then Merz would have more chances compared with Kramp-Karrenbauer. Although Merz officially does not favour such an option, at least for the moment, his supporters have tried to push for this method. Therefore, it seems that Merz will eventually welcome some new processes for the election of the party’s future chancellor candidate.

On this upcoming Friday and Saturday, the CDU is unlikely to challenge its current chairperson. The party’s leading figures will most likely address other topics, among them Turkey’s EU process, which will be also problematized once again, and most likely in a rather unfortunate way due to Turkey’s recent legitimate operation in Northern Syria. But the leadership question of the CDU will most likely continue to be on the party’s table at least until the next parliamentary elections in 2021. Until then, it seems a very clever move by Merz not to risk any chances to challenge the current chairperson Kramp-Karrenbauer who he would most likely lose against, a loss that might result in the end of his political career. Due to this, Merz prefers to officially support Kramp-Karrenbauer while simultaneously continuing to appear as an alternative in any future leadership crisis, something which might occur in the next months.

While Merz is most likely aiming to solidify his own position as a long-lasting alternative, Kramp-Karrenbauer must currently persuade her party members of her future performance. In addition, the SPD’s ongoing leadership search and their final decision in December whether to continue the coalition with the CDU is also an important topic that concerns the entire coalition.

For a long time, Germany’s political system has been regarded as stable without any need for change. However, recently some voices have begun calls for reform. Among them is Germany’s Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy, Peter Altmaier, a close ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel. He recently called for a fundamental reform of Germany’s political procedures, which should be launched even this year. In a German newspaper, Altmaier wrote that “it seems as if the traditional political system of our country has been in a kind of permanent crisis” pointing to the recent state elections in Thuringia, where the Left Party and the far-right AfD received more than 50 percent of the votes.

Altmaier argued, that “it’s no longer about any new chairman, chancellor candidate or minister, it’s not about coalition compromises, it’s about fundamental issues of trust and acceptance”. According to Altmaier, “politics would be responsible, when the proportion of voters who no longer voted for a party represented in the German government had doubled”. Altmaier thus states that all parties – particularly the big parties – should be ready for fundamental political changes that will involve citizens into the decision-making process.

However, his concrete proposals are currently limited to reducing the number of members of the German parliament (Bundestag). Although the German constitution requires a minimum number of 598 MPs, there are currently 709 MPs in the Bundestag. The disparity in the number of seats can be explained by Germany’s electoral system which awards seats on the basis of votes received for individual constituencies and a party list. Procedures that aim to balance the outcomes between these two categories create so called overhang seats (Überhangmandate) in which further seats are added to party’s total allocation. More recently, this system has been accused of unfairly favoring the CDU.

According to Altmaier, however, the number should gradually be reduced to an “appropriate number” and the number of cabinet ministers should also be limited to fifteen. In addition, the high number of secretaries of state (currently 35), and government employees should also be reduced by one third in the next government’s tenure. Finally, Altmaier also suggests that the tenure in the federal legislature should be increased from four to five years, and that federal and state elections should coincide; that is to say, Altmaier does not agree that there should be a permanent mood of election campaigning in the country due to state and federal elections taking place during different times, and which also has an impact on the federal government’s agenda.

Until now, Altmaier’s calls have not led to any actual serious debate though some opposition politicians from the Free Democratic Party (FDP) and Greens have criticized Altmaier and his CDU for being responsible for the current conditions. They blame Altmaier and his government for increasing the number of secretaries of state. On the other hand, the FDP blasted Altmaier for not talking with his own party about the matter and instead talking to the media.

A further criticism came from the AfD, who argued that the fact that secretaries of state as members of the executive are also simultaneously MPs of the legislative body undermines the separation of powers. However, it is not clear what kind of a solution Germany’s parliamentary system should bring regarding the AfD’s criticism. Furthermore, besides prime ministers or chancellors, nearly all cabinet members are also members of the parliament, and although this may not be the best way of separating powers, it is actually quite typical across parliaments.

Furthermore, a few days later and independently from Altmaier’s remarks, the leader of the FDP, currently in the federal opposition, also called also for a substantial change to current regulations. Christian Lindner proposed a two-term limit on the tenure of the German Chancellor to 5+5 years. Some senior voices opposed this idea stressing that German citizens decide every four years who can be the Chancellor, and, that Germany is not a presidential democracy where term limits are meaningful. However, others supported Lindner’s –call.

The question of who should decide what arises. In Germany, the Chancellor is elected by the Bundestag, not by the citizens. In a presidential democracy, the citizens directly elect the president. Thus, it is also asked why term limitations should be wrong in Germany while being right in a presidential democracy?

Well, as one notices, there are currently some occasions for debating Germany’s political system which has become even more interesting due to the decreasing importance of centrist parties over the last couple of years. In such conditions, a country with a robust political system or system of government generally will proves itself against several challenges. Given Altmaier’s and Lindner’s proposals, it seems that the long-lasting tenure of Chancellor Angela Merkel has highlighted some difficulties regarding Germany’s post-1945 parliamentary democracy, even though there are not that many voices both in political and media circles that have raised these issues.

Besides Altmaier’s somewhat superficial proposals, it’s with no doubt a meaningful idea to consolidate federal and (16) state elections, which currently causes a de facto permanent election environment. This most likely constrains already fragile coalition governments at the federal level, particularly recently. A fresh debate concerning new opportunities or even proposals about the political system would not be that bad for Germany. However, it should be kept in mind that making some fundamental changes to the system will not eliminate problems caused by the rise of the extreme right and left. For this, other a changes in political content as well as structural adjustments are needed.

As two German federal states Saxony and Brandenburg head to state elections on 1^st September, German political parties have increased their campaigns and statements.

With no doubt, most of the attention over the past few weeks has focused on the Saxony election campaign and the CDU’s activities both at the federal and state level, in particular the highly public inter-party conflict between senior CDU members. CDU’s federal chairperson, Annegret Kramp-Karenbauer, and CDU Minister President of Saxony, Michael Kretschmer, both had controversial disputes with the former chief of Germany’s federal domestic intelligence and fellow CDU member, Hans-Georg Maaßen. As a representative of the so-called “union of values” group, a right leaning faction within the CDU, Maaßen was supporting the CDU in their election campaign in Saxony, a state the CDU is losing ground to the right-wing AfD. He also attended some campaign events until he decided to stop supporting the CDU’s Saxony election campaign due to criticism he received from Kretschmer.

In the previous weeks, though, it was Kramp-Karrenbauer who surprisingly criticized Maaßen, even stating that: “There are high hurdles for expelling someone from the party, and for good reason. But when it comes to Mr. Maaßen’s attitude, I don’t see anything that really connects him with CDU”. This was interpreted as a call for Maaßen’s exclusion from the party. These statements provoked anger among CDU politicians, particularly in Saxony. Later on, Kramp-Karrenbauer revised her statement by saying that she did not mean a party ban for Maaßen, and that “the CDU is a party with more than 400.000 members, that makes everyone have their own opinion, that makes us interesting.”

Saxony’s incumbent Minister President Kretschmer, criticized Maaßen due to his campaign activities, leading Maaßen to declare that he will not participate in any further election activities in Saxony. He also added that he will concentrate on the CDU’s activities and election campaign in Brandenburg. This is despite the fact that Maaßen does not have any official roles nor any future goal of being elected in that state. Maaßens’s mood was remarkable as he stated that “I wanted to help my party in Saxony but if the Minister President Kretschmer does not see this as necessary, I quit and wish the CDU Saxony good luck!”

CDU cannot afford additional huge losses in Saxony and Brandenburg, which might also undermine the future position of Kramp-Karrenbauer as CDU’s federal chairperson.

Furthermore, Maaßen recently invited Kramp-Karrenbauer to meet in order to explain his positions. However, this was  indirectly rejected due to her busy election campaign agenda in Saxony.

These recent incidents can be viewed from a negative and positive point of view. On the one hand, it is quite a good sign that leading CDU figures have started to openly criticize Maaßen due to his stances that contradict the CDU’s main lines. Although there are some new perspectives within the party, following the main CDU party line is an aim by the party’s leaders. This is despite right-wing oriented groupings in the party openly comparing themselves with rightists and actually admiring AfD’s perspectives. In such circumstances, it is a difficult decision to determine at what point a center party can tolerate dissenting voices and where to draw a clear line in order to ensure the party’s unity.

Unfortunately, it also shows how populist sentiment has struck center parties, even as the CDU. Considering these issues, it needs to be reminded that there has been a huge lack of criticism of stances held by Maaßen’s or others within the party’s right wing. Consequently, keeping silent and allowing Maaßen to speak for a long time during an election campaign in Eastern Germany, can regarded as a miscalculation from leaders in the CDU.

Thus, it becomes clear that in the aftermath of the upcoming state elections on Sunday, the CDU will most likely clarify the party’s future positions by solving its intra-party conflicts. For this the party cannot afford additional huge losses in both federal states, which might also undermine the future position of Kramp-Karrenbauer as CDU’s federal chairperson.

Last week, Germany’s main conservative party, the Christian Democrats (CDU), surprisingly achieved some important success in certain areas of political significance. On the one hand, former defense minister and a close ally of Angela Merkel, Ursula von der Leyen (CDU), was elected as the new European Commission President. On the other hand, the CDU’s chairperson and another close ally of Merkel, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (AKK), was appointed as the new defense minister in Merkel’s current coalition government, succeeding von der Leyen.

Merkel has made some tactical moves. Although these moves were not aggressive in nature, they do eventually promise success. Merkel is ambitiously preparing the CDU for the post-2021 era, when she will ultimately quit active politics, as she had already declared at the beginning of this year. Besides her moves of domestic political significance, Merkel also supported a very well-known name on the EU platform- that is to say, von der Leyen- in order to become the European Commission President for the next five years. A real success.

Of course, there has been heavy criticism with regard to both Ursula von der Leyen- even from the coalition partner, the Social Democrats- and also regarding AKK as the country’s new defense minister. The liberal FDP criticized AKK on the basis that she had recently declared she will not join Merkel’s cabinet and only focus on her task as party chairperson. However, according to FDP’s defense expert, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, AKK undermined her credibility by doing the exact opposite. Some voices also casted doubt on AKK’s expertise and experience as a minister of defense and in the specific field in general, while some academics and military officers addressed the issue with a rather critical perspective.

These critical voices may be taken into consideration while Germany’s military is also being criticized domestically and abroad for its lack of capacity, which became public during the last years under Ursula von der Leyen.

The main controversial statement however came from the far-right and populist AfD. The AfD’s parliamentary group leader in the German state of Rhineland-Palatinate (Rheinland-Pfalz), Uwe Junge, who was a former officer in the German military until he quit his job in 2016 for a career in politics stated, “If this (AKK) is the best personality of our old parties with regard to one of the most important offices of our #nation, this says a lot about the state of our country! When will it come finally to the uprising of the #generals?” (“Wenn das die beste Personalie der alten Parteien für eines der wichtigsten Ämter unserer #Nation ist, sagt das viel über den Zustand unseres Landes aus! Wann kommt endlich der Aufstand der #Generale?”)

As expected, Junge’s statements received harsh criticism from some circles that perceived it as a call for a military coup. According to Junge, though, the German word “Aufstand” cannot be counted as a call for a coup against the defense minister. Nevertheless, one has to clarify some basic points before elaborating such difficult statements, which is not something that occurs often in German politics – at least since 1945.

Interestingly, last week, I addressed in this column whether another military coup could occur in Turkey while analyzing the recently July 15, 2016, coup attempt. However, it seems that a potential putschist mentality or mentalities that ignore the democratic civilian control of the military may occur anywhere in the world, no matter what degree of democratization the country has achieved.

Regarding Junge’s statement one should also mention that he was a military officer (lieutenant colonel) of the so called PsyOps (psychological operations/Zentrum Operative Kommunikation der Bundeswehr).

How can one elaborate on these –not entirely representative of the AfD- but very controversial statements with regard to civil-military relations, which are believed to be on a very democratic standard in Germany? It would be, no doubt, a mistake to take a single statement of an AfD member and accuse it of being representative of the whole party, even if the party is located on the far-right. However, the continuation of the party’s (in general) controversial, racist and deliberately manipulative statements with double-meanings contributes to the image of how a potential AfD government in the future could look like. This and several other controversial statements and even scandals illustrate what kind of democracy understanding is currently present among AfD members and what it might evolve into in the future.

It is not legitimate to call any members of the military for an uprising or rebellion against the country’s legitimately appointed defense minister. If this basic point is not accepted by any politician, then something is definitely wrong. By this, I do not mean any concrete factual statements, legal recommendations or reports by army members about certain fields that concentrate on their expertise and where of course a minister’s expertise may lack. The call for an uprising (Aufstand) is, however, an expression with an absolutely extreme controversial content. Whether the Chancellor’s decision is wrong or right, this does not give current or former military personnel the right to react in this way against the democratically elected and legitimate Chancellor’s mandate.

Nevertheless, the statements made by alleged “moderate” AfD members could be taken as a notice as to how a potential future government constellation with the AfD will end.

Germany has a lot of domestic problems that the government and each responsible federal office have to face. No day passes without a new superficial dispute focusing on Islam and Muslims living in Germany arising on the top of the political agenda. There have already been similar disputes in the recent years on whether Islam belongs to Germany or not, and additional issues related to Muslims and their general lives, participation, and preferences in Germany. Throughout last year, I addressed some of these topics as well (I>; II>; III>; IV).

In compliance with this unfortunate trend, a new debate was triggered when Christian Democratic Union (CDU) parliamentary group leader Ralph Brinkhaus stated in a recent interview that a Muslim could be a future CDU leader and the Chancellor of Germany. The interview was published in February, when Brinkhaus stated that there wouldn’t be any problem if a Muslim, who is a good politician and who represents their party’s values and political views, becomes CDU chair and even Chancellor. One might initially think that this represents quite a liberal stance, which is in compliance with the German constitution. However, last Wednesday, Germany’s most read paper, the Bild, published these statements with the title “A Muslim as CDU Chancellor? Then delete the C in your name.”

Ralph Brinkaus’ words therefore shocked various CDU members, while others had some courage to support this reasonable stance. Those that opposed the idea of a Muslim chancellor stressed the so-called incompatibility of Islam with CDU values. On the other hand, Muslim CDU members, and the only Muslim on the party’s executive board, Mrs. Guler, stated, “anything other than what Brinkhaus said doesn’t belong in a mainstream party or one that takes the constitution seriously.” By mentioning a “mainstream party,” she implied the CDU. Though, the weirdest statement came from CDU MP Eberhard Gienger, who openly dismissed the idea of a Muslim becoming Chancellor by arguing that “having a Muslim chancellor would imply that Muslims would constitute the majority in Germany … This is not the case.” According to this sectarian position, one would assume that all non-Christians, Muslims and Jews in Germany don’t vote for any party because they are dominated by Christians. This is not the case. The center-left coalition partner of the CDU, the Social Democrats (SPD) also criticized the entire debate by describing it as “completely idiotic.”

In response to Ralph Brinkhaus’ statements on the possibility of having a German Muslim Chancellor, Germany’s Bild stated: “A Muslim as CDU Chancellor? Then delete the C in your name.”

Regardless of the question as to whether German parties or society in general has connections to Christianity as a religion, it has to be mentioned once again that pious Muslims are generally excluded from political participation in Germany and across Europe. In this sense, a report titled “Political Engineering and the Exclusion of Religious Conservative Muslims in Europe” revealed that “even the existence of Muslim-origin representatives in various European parliaments does not translate into advocacy and support for Muslims’ religiously specific rights, needs and demands.” In Germany in particular, even though there is a so-called “descriptive representation” of Muslims in politics, this does not mean an actual representation of particularly pious Muslims in German politics – despite the large and majority determining numbers of these German Muslim citizens.

Before elaborating or commenting on the possibility of a future Muslim chancellor, facts such as the increasing Islamophobic discourse have to be considered. For instance, it is unfortunately obvious that in some regions in Europe, Islamophobic behavior has increased in the last years up to a rate of 70-80 percent.

If there is a concrete and sincere intention to facilitate the conditions of political participation for German Muslims, all mainstream parties could start by opening their doors to this group of people. 

As an interesting comparative stance, with regard to the recent dispute over a potential Muslim chancellor, a German politician with Palestinian roots asked the Bild daily on social media whether they would write such a comment if Ralph Brinkhaus had said he can imagine a Jewish chancellor? Would the Bild daily then also advise the CDU to delete the “C” from its name?” Most likely not. In a similar critical way, a journalist pointed to the U.K. as a comparison, where the country’s London Mayor and Interior Minister are both Muslims, whereas his comments received harsh criticism from German rightist circles on social media in the form of complaints to Twitter.

Thus, one has to keep in mind that there are definitely no legal obstacles in front of a Muslim German citizen to become a successful politician or the future chancellor. Germany’s constitution does not exclude such a possibility and the legal conditions in Germany do not differentiate between Muslims, Christians, or Jewish citizens. Such discussions about the “rejection of a Muslim chancellor,” unfortunately, only deteriorate the already tensed societal mood and existing prejudices. But if there is a concrete and sincere intention to facilitate the conditions of political participation for German Muslims, all mainstream parties could start by firstly opening their doors to this group of people. Only focusing on and preferring specific groups who do not represent the interests of the majority of Muslims cannot solve anything.

After 18 years of ruling Germany’s Christian Democrats (CDU), Chancellor Merkel’s official role in the party came to an end on Friday. However, this does not mean that her ability to control the party in a continuous way will diminish. As was guessed in this column and as was estimated by recent polls, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer was elected as the new chair of Germany’s still strongest conservative party. Thus, Friedrich Merz, the actual rival of Merkel, lost his struggle for party leadership once again – as he had competed back in 2002. Consequently, German dailies preferred the headline “don’t mess with Merkel” in order to stress the Chancellor’s strength – at least within the party – to mobilize her supporters.

However, it should definitely be kept in mind that Karrenbauer was narrowly elected as party chair by receiving 517 of the 999 votes (51.8 per cent) while Friedrich Merz received 482 votes. It was also not a surprise that the young conservative-populist Jens Spahn did not become the party’s new leader – at least for now. Karrenbauer will succeed Angela Merkel who had similarly been elected in 2000 as the party’s chair when she was similarly holding the party’s secretary-general office.

Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer’s challenging chief purpose is to unify Germany’s Christian Democrats (CDU) ahead of crucial regional and European elections in 2019.

In general, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer’s main purpose for the near future can be described as unifying the party ahead of crucial regional and European elections in 2019. While she will technically lead the party, it’s most likely that Chancellor Merkel will continue to govern the country by dominating its political agenda and direction. It could be suggested that Merkel may insist to control the party through her close ally, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer.

It would have been a problem if a rather conservative personality such as Merz would have become the party’s leader, as this would have caused a probable power struggle between both poles. However, due to the fact that Karrenbauer is a close ally of Merkel, and despite her statements that she will or might also challenge Merkel when needed, it seems rather unlikely that huge disputes will emerge. Thus, it’s quite sure that Merkel will most likely finish her last period as Chancellor until 2021 without facing any problems with the party chair. Rather, she will cooperate with the party’s new chairperson.

Here are seven challenges for Karrenbauer: 1) intra-party reconciliation between different camps, 2) clarifying relations with Merkel, 3) setting future goals and the agenda, 4) positioning the CDU vis-à-vis the AfD, 5) winning back votes lost to the Green Party, 6) starting a new dialogue with the CSU, 7) mobilizing the party for the upcoming elections.

Subsequent to the party convention, one notices that German media outlets have addressed a list of new challenges that Karrenbauer has to deal with in the upcoming months. According to such a piece, there are seven aspects that Karrenbauer will face. First of all, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer has to start a so-called reconciliation process in order to bring all party camps together. That is to say, she has to find a balance between conservatives and the centrists. In a second point, Karrenbauer has to clarify her relations with Angela Merkel. Even though she underscores her own career path by pointing out her individual positions, the general societal perception positions her in Merkel’s shadow. This critical issue has to be clarified as it could otherwise lead to a de-facto “dual-leadership” crisis.

The third aspect is about Karrenbauer’s potential goals and projects for the future on which she has to focus on herself. It’s argued that only with such a focus will her popularity be maintained. Furthermore, the new chair has to think about the CDU’s position vis-à-vis the AfD, while having to challenge the far-rightists. Similarly, Karrenbauer must plan how she will bring back voters to the CDU, who recently preferred the Green Party. Unfortunately, these dynamics do not seem very comfortable.

As the sixth point, it is argued that the new chairperson has to find a new dialogue with the CDU’s Bavarian sister party and coalition party, the CSU. In the recent past a couple of disputes between the CDU and CSU leaders almost ruined the coalition government. Karrenbauer has to keep in mind these potential problems while working together with the conservative CSU, particularly in policy fields such as migration. Finally, the new elected chair will have to show that she is able to mobilize the party by aiming to win elections. Indeed, 2019 will definitely be an interesting year as local elections and EU elections are planned.

Thus, with a new chairperson, a new era has begun for the CDU. It’s too early yet to make any concrete predictions about the future of German politics in general. However, there is still an argument – even stressed by the former Chancellor and SPD leader Gerhard Schröder – which criticizes the election of Karrenbauer as chair. According to this view, it’s a mistake that the rather conservative politician has not been elected as chair only because with him Germany’s social-democrats and Christian Democrats would have had the chance to differentiate themselves from each other. And as a consequence, a conservative person such as Merz might have weakened marginal parties such as the AfD. But to be honest, despite the fact that the conservative Karrenbauer is not a one-to-one imitation of the rather liberal-oriented Merkel, it’s obvious that the German public would always vote for “original” far-rightists like the AfD instead of preferring a new-conservative such as Merz.

It’s estimated that the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party convention on 7-8 December will concretize the likely future of German politics in a general perspective. On the one hand, it’s expected that a newly elected party chairperson will either cooperate with the current German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the format of a de-facto dual-head of the government or, on the other hand, trigger a new power struggle, in which Merkel won’t be able to end her current government until 2021. Thus, despite current polls stating that most Germans are satisfied with Chancellor Merkel and that circa 56 percent want her to serve out her full term until 2021, the December party convention result will clarify the uncertainties.

Will the new chairperson of the CDU cooperate with Angela Merkel, or will it give birth to a new power struggle? 

There are three different candidates running for CDU chairmanship, who aim to be elected as the new leader of Germany’s -sill- strongest conservative and center-right party. While the current secretary-general of the CDU, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, is as a close ally of Chancellor Merkel and who is supported by Merkel as a successor, both two other candidates are known as personalities opposing Merkel’s certain policies, such as migration and identity. Even though Friedrich Merz, a former active CDU-politician until 2009, does not accept that he has been reduced by media outlets to a so-called “anti-Merkel” image, the general political mood is perceived in this direction.

In addition, the current Federal Health Minister, Jens Spahn, who is also well-known for his sympathy regarding Austria’s populist and rightist young Chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, has also continuing hope to be successful during the party convention. But interestingly, despite some recent polls that indicate Kramp-Karrenbauer and Merz as the favorites, Spahn seems to have discovered how he might consolidate both CDU voters in general and the CDU delegates whose votes the candidates will need on 7-8 December.

Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, Friedrich Merz, and Jens Spahn are three candidates in the CDU race for presidency. Will the CDU remain on a pro-Merkel stance, or will it become more populist than ever? 

In this sense, it was not an unexpected move when Spahn recently addressed a very important topic for the German conservative and even rightist circles, namely, Turkey. Spahn stated that the accession talks between the EU and Turkey have to be ended due to the fact that “Everyone can see it, Turkey in its present state will never become a member of the EU. It would be honest to end the accession negotiations.”

My guess is that in the next days and in particular on the convention day, all three candidates will most likely address issues such as I) Turkey in general, II) Turks living Germany, III) Muslims in Germany, IV) dual citizenship of Turks living in Germany and V) Merkel’s refugee-friendly policies. In addition to the migration issue, emphasis may be placed on the Turkish community, Turkey, and Turkey’s EU path in general. Unfortunately, the declaration of similar –populist– positions have been seen witnessed several times in the past, and one should also keep in mind that not only conservatives in Germany but also certain leftist and social-democratic parties have thoughtlessly made use of accusing Turkey in order to consolidate their party constituent.

While the German media has begun to lightly discuss the distinctive features of the three candidates, one can expect for this to be the main agenda of Germany in the upcoming days. By this, the future goals in the case of becoming a potential CDU chairperson or even the next German chancellor must be elaborated in detail.

Both leftist and conservative parties in Germany have used Turkey in order to consolidate their party constituent. This is likely to happen during the race for CDU presidency. 

Due to this, some questions may be answered by the candidates in the coming weeks in order to exactly capture what their political position is, for instance, regarding relations with the United States. Do all three candidates agree with Chancellor Merkel in her backing of French President Macron’s initiative to establish a European army–even against the potential rejection by the U.S.–? What is the position of particularly Mr. Merz and Mr. Spahn with regard to these kinds of issues? We already know that Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer is quite close to Merkel, so the positions of Merz and Spahn would be more interesting to know.

Thus, similar additional concrete topics are also of great importance. For instance, what are the positions of these three Christian Democrats with regard to Muslims in Germany, German Muslims or Islam in Germany etc? Does Mr. Merz, who is currently known and active as a very business-friendly personality, still insist on his previously rightist position with regard to a so-called “German Leitkultur,” of which he was also the initiator? Furthermore, how do the candidates describe their main differences with regard to former policies of Chancellor Merkel, who was and still is being criticized for allegedly taking leftist positions. There are also several other issues, such as certain domestic and economic promises, which have to be addressed in a concrete way. Time will show whether we will have a fruitful debate on this issue until convention day, or whether populist topics will blockade our perceptions.

Even though the annual convention of the CDU’s youth wing held on 6 October got public attention due to some of the critical statements made against Chancellor Merkel’s leadership, one interesting stance by the CDU’s General Secretary Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, who is known as one of Merkel’s closest allies, has been partly disregarded in particular by the Turkish public.

The annual convention was elaborated as a first stage right before the CDU’s party congress in December, during which Merkel is hoping to be re-elected as the party’s chairperson. Despite several other potential and younger candidates, it seems quite obvious that Merkel is going to win the election in December. However, following the current period of her fourth government in three years, another CSU personality will most likely take over the party leadership.

It’s striking that potential candidates aim to push towards a rather nationalist bias by insistently making use of anti-Turkish discourse. This happened once again during the recent annual convention, as Mrs. Kramp-Karrenbauer addressed Turkey-Germany relations in the context of dual-citizenship for Turkish people living in Germany.

During her speech at the annual convention, Kramp-Karrenbauer criticized Turkey’s President Erdogan by stating, “If President Erdogan continues to push Turks into a loyalty struggle, the right to have dual-citizenship has to be reconsidered again. If Erdogan wants to divide the Turkish community in Germany, this topic will be on the table, in particular for Turks with a dual-citizenship.”

No doubt, the CDU’s General Secretary Kramp-Karrenbauer is trying to make us of anti-Turkish mood by falsely accusing the Turkish president in order to increase her profile in the eyes of the younger and more nationalist voters. One should remember that despite the CDU’s historical disapproval of the right for dual-citizenship, Chancellor Merkel was – together with and due to the pressure by the coalition partner SPD – able to pass an amendment to the citizenship law in 2014, which finally allowed for young and newborn Turks to hold both Turkish and German citizenship.

Other EU citizens already have this right. However, till this date, some CDU members have continued to problematize this step, in a rather blackmailing manner. Such politicians have implied, or directly threatened, Turks in cancelling this right, particularly in cases when either President Erdogan receives support from Turks in Germany, or if the CDU’s votes decrease due to domestic problems.

In such conditions, politicians do not hesitate to make use of a nationalist discourse as in the most recent case of Kramp-Karrenbauer. However, on the other hand, no concrete steps are taken or no sincere statements are made by CDU politicians when Turks or Muslims in Germany face difficulties in their daily lives, caused especially by far-right and anti-Islam circles.

It’s very likely that people would rather welcome statements by Germany’s conservatives who are not playing in the hands of far-right voters and dividing society by themselves. In recent years, the bias of conservatives in Germany has reached a peak of absurdity.

Although these kinds of topics have nothing to do with Germany’s current problems, politicians with certain future career goals regularly and insistently address similar populist and Turkey related topics. This is a fundamental problem for major conservative parties and circles.

My estimation is that Kramp-Karrenbauer will be the CDU’s next chairperson, unless more controversial and even more nationalist personalities such as Jens Spahn are able to mobilize more supporters. In this context, Kramp-Karrenbauer was appointed by Merkel as the party’s new General Secretary in February and quit her job in the German state of Saarland.

The reason for this was the fact that federal CDU members became increasingly critical against Merkel’s policies and her weakness to build a new federal government. Consequently, in order to silence criticism, Merkel brought a close ally into the federal stage who is also a rightist and more conservatively oriented in societal topics. Kramp-Karrenbauer appeared in the media in 2017 when she banned Turkish politicians from holding election campaigns in Saarland – despite the fact that no politician from Turkey had actually planned to campaign in Saarland.

One notices a similar pattern and a symbolic act of which certain politicians regularly make use of in order to achieve some populist goals within a party. But these kinds of abnormalities cause an unrest among the Turkish community, encourage far-right circles and contribute in a negative way to Germany’s image. One has to consider these ambivalent and populist maneuvers in depth and decide who is dividing German population.

On 14 October, parliamentary elections in the German state of Bavaria will be held. Bavaria is one of Germany’s most important political and economic federal states. The south-eastern German state is a fundamental part of Germany’s strong economy and is an attractive destination for many people due to the quality of education that it provides. Between 1966 and 2008, Bavaria has been ruled by a single party – the Christian Social Union (CSU).

As one may guess, the citizens of the federal state are more conservative in contrast to other parts of Germany. Following a coalition government with the Bavarian FDP (liberals) between 2008 and 2013, the CSU once again gained a majority enough to form a government on its own. Since 2013 the CSU has been ruling Bavaria alone. However, this will most probably change with the elections on Sunday.

The point with the so-called Bavarian conservatives is that on the federal level, the CSU is the sister party of the Christian Democrats (CDU). Accordingly, the CDU is represented in all other 15 federal German states, except in Bavaria, where the conservatives are quasi represented only by the CSU. On the other hand, the CSU is the usual ally of the CDU on the federal level. For example, one of the most important offices of the current federal government is in the hands of CSU Chairman Horst Seehofer. Seehofer was the previous state prime of Bavaria until he was challenged by Markus Söder, particularly during 2017.

Following, Seehofer decided to change to the federal level, and thus became his party’s main candidate in the 2017 federal elections. Subsequently, he was appointed as the country’s Federal Minister of the Interior by the CDU leader and Chancellor Angela Merkel. In this context, Markus Söder became Bavaria’s new state prime, while Seehofer is still continuing his efforts to become chair of the CSU.

Even though the CDU and CSU have many similarities, there are a lot of disputes between the leading figures and bases of both parties. Without getting into too much detail, it ought to be underlined that a serious disagreement, what one can actually call a dispute, arose between the former Bavarian state premier Horst Seehofer and Chancellor Merkel.

It’s no secret that Markus Söder, Seehofer, and the CSU in general, are at odds with Merkel due to a decision she made in 2015 to open Germany’s borders to over one million Syrian refugees and migrants. Since then, Seehofer and the CSU insisted that no other country is able to take in unlimited numbers of migrants and refugees. Thus, the federal decision-makers had to do something against this policy of Merkel, which ultimately happened.

Besides, several other disputes occurred within the cabinet, especially in the last 6 months, after the new fragile government consisting of the CDU/CSU and SPD had been formed as a final option. These include disagreements with regards to issues such as refugees in Germany, Islam as a part of Germany and recently the case of Hans-Georg Maaßen, the former chief of Germany’s federal intelligence.

The CSU is currently struggling to win the elections in Bavaria on Sunday. The party is increasingly shifting to the right due to the rise of the far right and populist AfD, which will most likely enter the Bavarian parliament, as it has not already entered the federal parliaments of various states but has also entered the federal parliament of Germany, the Bundestag.

By aiming to limit the loss of votes to the far-right AfD, the CSU on the one hand prefers more populist discourses and quasi nationalistic reflexes. However, on the other hand, the party tries to stress its differences with the AfD by addressing that the CSU stands for liberal values and does not tolerate anti-Semitism, xenophobia, or right-wing extremism.

However, despite all maneuvers resembling far-right populists, according to recent polls, the CSU has achieved a historic low. Under these current conditions, it does not seem possible for the CSU to form a single-party government in Bavaria. Theoretically, it is even possible for a potential coalition government of 4 parties in Bavaria – except the AfD – to come together to form a new coalition government. Of course, on Sunday evening we will see whether the polls rightly prophesied the historical defeat of the CSU. Currently, the CSU still rejects to build a potential coalition government with the AfD.

Thus, it does not, and should not, surprise anyone that the party’s leader Seehofer and the state prime Söder are currently looking for a scapegoat. While Seehofer has been trying to highlight that he does not make any campaigns for the Bavarian elections, Söder has been claiming that tensions on the federal level have contributed in a negative way for the CSU’s image in Bavaria. It’s quite obvious that both politicians do not want to take any future responsibility.

The main problem is that the AfD is increasing the number of its voters on both the federal and state levels. The Bavarian elections will thus have a crucial role in the long-term future of German politics and whether the pressure to build a potential government, in which the AfD might also exist, will become true.

There is some hope in the German public and media that the AfD will neither become the second strongest party nor the main opposition party. However, the more the CSU or other parties in Germany resemble AfD discourses, and even imitate similar stances, the more likely it is for people to vote for the original base of these ideas – the AfD.

The elections to be held on Sunday will show how the future of conservatives in Germany will be shaped, how the fragile federal government led by Merkel will react to a major success of the AfD, and how the people will elaborate a likely shift to a more far-rightist and populist type of politics in general.

2017 seems to be a crucial year for the world politics. Donald Trump’s coming to power, the elections in Austria, Netherlands, France and Germany, and Turkey’s recent referendum are all significant events. Long before the actual date of the referendum in Turkey, Europe had been reunited in saying “No” to the referendum. State-sponsored and financed propaganda campaigns in Germany against a possible “Yes” aroused disappointment and frustration for many Turks. Not only were private media corporations such as Spiegel, Stern, and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung constantly, almost daily, apparent with their traditional tools of anti-Turkish headlines, images and cartoons—who made every effort to strengthen the “No” camp—but also state institutions such as the TV-Channel ARD, which broadcast propaganda regarding Turkey’s referendum by presenting false claims to their audience. Perhaps the most brutal case was the denial of Turkish ministers’ entry to Europe in order to campaign for the referendum.

It is of no surprise that after the referendum which resulted with the victory of the proponents of the constitutional change, populist and racist remarks began to flood in the media: AFD’s Beatrice von Storch tweeted that those Turks who voted for the constitutional change (in her words “Islamic dictatorship”) should please immediately leave Germany. Voices of the political center from the CDU to the liberals FDP spoke in favor of breaking up negotiations with Turkey for a EU-membership. This seems to represent the current state of mind of many Germans: according to a survey done by ARD-DeutschlandTREND, 64% are in favor of ending the negotiations with Turkey. But, in the same survey, a restriction was postulated which would effect their fellow citizens directly. 58% of Germans took a clear stand against dual citizenship. Around 3 million people of Turkish origin are living in Germany, out of whom 1.4 million have only a Turkish nationality whereas around 500,000 have dual nationality. The suggestion against the legality of multiple nationalities comes not out of nowhere and is not a new threat against the Turks either. Since a pro-democracy rally in Cologne in the aftermath of the coup attempt in 2016 in Turkey, the validity of dual nationality had become a heated debate topic. But why is the question of a legal status of such an important matter when it comes to Turks?

Before answering that question, it is necessary to outline the development of the right of citizenship for non-natural Germans. The first nationality law was created in Prussia in 1842, in which it was written that German citizenship was based on the right of the blood (Ius Sanguinis). Hence, naturalization was not possible. In 1913, the legal definition was changed and naturalization was allowed. This law lasted until 2000, and in order to be naturalized as a German, one had to reside in Germany for 15 years. One of Angela Merkel’s closest CDU politicians, Peter Altmaier, and a new generation of different party members started to question this legal regulation in the midst of the 1990’s. The coalition of SPD and Alliance 90/The Greens renewed the nationality law in 2000— the so-called “model of options”—which extends German citizenship based on the right of the soil (Ius Soli). The children of immigrants born in Germany— for example whose parents live in Germany for 8 years or have permanent residence— would have dual citizenship until their twenty-third birthday, at which time they were supposed to choose only one nationality/option to keep.

Additionally, since 2008, German language skills are required to fulfill the naturalization. The general rule for citizenships of other nationalities is quiet simple: if you are elected to become a citizen of another country, you lose German citizenship, which is relative due to many exceptions of having dual citizenships. For Turkish citizens, the right to have dual citizenship was denied for a long time. The younger generation was favored by the most up-to-date reform in 2014, which is the center of conflict today. The model of options was eliminated for those children of immigrants from non-EU countries who still had the option to chose amongst the citizenships, and also either lived at least 8 years until their age of 21 in Germany, went to school for 6 years, or have an adequate verification of education.

After 400,000 Turks voted “Yes” in the referendum (63.1 % of the total), the governing party CDU and her allies made it clear that the dual citizenship for Turks would be a central election topic. Stephan Mayer from the CSU was quoted in the newspaper Die Welt as saying, “I think it is important that in the next legislative period we revoke the easement of the dual citizenship.” CDU’s Thomas Strobl told the same journal that “Germany must react with clear consequences towards the dual citizenship of Turks in Germany.” The argument for those claims is that one who lives under the liberties of Germany in a constitutional parliamentary democracy cannot vote for such a system change in Turkey.

Following the remarks made in 2010 by Chancellor Angela Merkel which suggested that multi-culturalism had failed, integration now seems to be a failure (again). But the dominant arguments in the German public have, for quite some time, ignored social, political and cultural dimensions of decisions in Turkey made by the Turkish diaspora. Firstly, Turkey has become neither an autocracy nor a dictatorship—both being result of a persistent propaganda that created a clear prejudice in minds.

No doubt, it can only be considered a bad adaptation of orientalism by persons such as Julia Klöckner of the CDU who characterizes the Turkish President as the “despot of the Bosphorus.” The historical legacy of the term “Despotizm”, used from Montesquieu to the colonial British power in the 19th and 20th century intended to degrade the legal order in Ottoman Turkey, saying that their leaders are despots – not bound by law. And why and with which right is the political maturity of Turkish citizens voting for a “Yes” to be disregarded? This actually resembles a paternalistic, arrogant attitude which is best summarized by Gustav Le Bonne who simply put it as “for the people, despite the people.”

Finally, the political atmosphere in Turkey can hardly be compared to any other institutionalized country in the West. Having a war on its border in Syria, overcoming a coup attempt on July 15th, and having been threatened by three main terror organizations within and outside his borders, namely the PKK, FETÖ and DAESH, the Turkish people are predominantly looking for security, economic prosperity, and, above all, social service. And this is what the AK Party and, its leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan has provided the Turkish people over the last 15 years as a government.

After the referendum, self-reflection and critique has not been common among the German public. But it should be remembered that there is a deep divide among Turks and German authorities as well as, sadly, the common citizens. If Germany was able to both take a positive step towards the Turkish minority and refrain from demonizing Turkey, the country would have acted culturally in a more modest and proper manner. However, discussing the abandonment of dual citizenship for Turks means continuing the deteriorating pattern which will bring about nothing more than injustice.

With parliamentary elections coming in 2017, the party conference under the motto “Unsere Werte. Unsere Zukunft” (Our Values. Our Future) was the prime opportunity for Angela Merkel to show that she was willing to struggle against the opposition within and outside her party. Many asked what the most pertinent election tool to get back the votes and support which was lost could be. For this purpose Islam was an appropriate target. Parallel societies, Sharia Law and the face veil were the particular themes she addressed. “Law and Order should be and shall remain as the foundation for us living together,” Merkel said. “Over here in Germany the laws of our country are applicable for everyone in the same way without any exception…Our proposal declares that we do not want parallel societies and where they exist we have to go against it. Our law has priority before honor codes, tribal or family rules and the Shariah.”Surprisingly, the chancellor had made a u-turn when it came to her position towards the legal conformity of the face veil. “This also means that in inter-human communication, which plays a fundamental role, we show our face. Therefore the face veil is not appropriate over here and it should be banned wherever it is legally possible. It does not belong to us,” Merkel said. Her demand and appeal to the legal experts of her government was underpinned by standing ovations by her fellow party members, and it seemed to have a higher priority than the economic and political crisis within the European Union (EU) or the rising xenophobia in Germany, if measured by the intensity of the applause. Just a few weeks before the party conference Merkel sounded radically different. In September she was defending the freedom of religion, even if some practices or manifestations in public “may appear strange to us,” she said then, arguing against a total ban of the face veil.

Of course the attitude against the face veil is not a unique German phenomenon. Today it fits into safeguarding and implementing “European Values” for some member states of the EU. Already in 2010, France banned and even criminalized the burqa. The “burkini” ban was a heated debate in 2016, and the European Court of Human Rights upheld France’s burqa decision in 2014 in which the art of “living together” (vivre ensemble) was seen as a legitimate reason to ban the face veil from public.

Other countries, such as Belgium, Bulgaria, and just recently the Netherlands, followed suit. Lately the cabinet of Germany approved a ban for the face veil for public servants. Merkel seems to have figured out that making Islam a key theme in the election campaign would win back votes that were lost to the AfD. But the AfD should not be seen as the main perpetrator for the current right-wing political tendency. Within the CDU there are politicians who used similar Islamophobic vocabulary and arguments, even before the AfD was founded, personalities such as Heinz Buschkowsky, Jens Spahn, Katharina Klöckler or Wolfgang Bosbach.

The young party members in the circle of the CDU (the Junge Union) seem to act in the same manner. Jenovan Krishnan, President of the youth organization linked to the CDU, the Ring of Christian Democratic Students (RCDS) – a child of Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka who came to Germany in the early 90s – was one of most persistent voices calling for a face veil ban. In general the youth organization of the CDU – the Young Union – pledged against the will of Angela Merkel, for a reintroduction of the duty to choose between citizenships, and took a stance against the concept of multiple citizenships, which was subsequently abolished in 2014.

It seems, even though German society becomes ethnically, religiously and culturally more diverse, the political trend goes back to the idea of the so called Leitkultur (meaning core or dominant culture), a social philosophy which stems from the Syrian political scientist Bassam Tibi, an academic in the line of neo-conservative thought on the likes of Samuel P. Huntington. His idea of Deutsche Leitkultur states that there have to be certain superior norms that are binding on everyone, but especially immigrants, on the cultural level, such as adopting the dominant language and a number of other cultural practices. The final aim, which resembles the American “melting pot,” is to assimilate “the stranger.”

With the rise of Leitkultur at the end of the 1990s, a more liberal approach was developed around the concept of multiculturalism, which the Americans described as the “salad bowl.” Hereby the cultural, ethnic and religious identities of people are respected and people live side by side as the pieces of a mosaic. Since the beginning of the year 2000, these two models seem to be the two extremes of dealing with diversity. It can be said that after 9/11 the idea of Leitkultur is the dominant but not sole political instrument. In 2010, Merkel famously stated that multiculturalism has failed, even as the other option of Leitkultur was praised silently.

But today Leitkultur has even become an integral part of a legal document. The integration law of Bavaria, which was passed just recently, literally mentions the importance of Leitkultur and the respect and obedience immigrants have to show for it. Without exaggeration, it can be said that both models are far from being satisfactory. While the one assimilates, the other deepens the crisis of relativism, due to the fact that a common good, the standard goal for how immigrants must assimilate, is nearly impossible to define.

In the search for a societal model which correlates with Germany’s Zeitgeist of the present, it should be the one framed by the sociologist Dolf Sternberger, a disciple of Karl Jaspers, in the 1970s and advanced by Jürgen Habermas, which is called Verfassungspatriotismus (constitutional patriotism). According to this idea the highest commonly binding norm is the constitution, and diversity has its limits within the rights and responsibilities of this legal document as well its order of values. The constitution as a modus vivendi for its people has to be seen as the benchmark for everyone. Logically, the Constitutional Court of Germany is the key actor and provides the final word in the debates around integration, diversity and a peaceful coexistence. The court demands the state be the homeland of all its citizens. Therefore the statement “my Leitkultur is the constitution”, in the words of Guntram Schneider, former Minister of Integration of North-Rhine Westphalia, could be reasonable for everyone.

The recent decisions by the Constitutional Court – including granting permission for state employees to wear the headscarf at German state schools and kindergartens – are in the spirit of constitutional patriotism and Germany’s sociological reality today. How should a possible face veil ban be seen in this context? Prof. Christoph Möllers, a legal philosopher from the Humboldt-University of Berlin, asked in an article for the Süddeutsche Zeitung for a valid reason for a burqa or full face veil ban, as not a single one was provided by the policy’s political proponents. The civil rights of other people, Möllers pointed out, don’t seem to be violated. Could societal discomfort from sharing a public sphere with women dressed like that be a valid argument? In terms of public or constitutional law, this is untenable, with the consequence that there is no legal justification for a full face veil ban in public.

Another fallacy is that the political measures against the face veil are often presented as directed only against an extreme form of an Islamic dress code, and not against the majority of law abiding and integrated Muslims in Germany. But even not outwardly identifiable Muslim members of the CDU felt offended by this idea at the party conference in Essen. Neda El Saghir, managing director of CDU’s Union der Vielfalt (Union of diversity) said that: “It was surprising how the people reacted when she [Merkel] spoke about the face veil. I’m fed up to speak about this topic over and over again. I am myself a Muslim and we talk about a few women. There are much more important topics than the face veil. And to see how we reacted to that frightened me a little bit at that moment to be honest.”

Germany, a country known for creative neologisms, names debates like the one on the face veil as Stellvertreterdebatte (meaning dummy, or substitute debate). However in reality it is a statement against a marginally visible form of Islamic appearance, without social or factual relevance. The goal of these debates is still to spark a debate about Islam in general. While it is understandable that showing the face, making eye contact, and using the natural tools of gestures is a common practice in many Western countries, the question of actual women wearing the burqa (the full face veil) or the niqab (partial face veil, in which the eyes can be seen) show us the minuscule relevance: an estimated 300 women in Germany wear a niqab which is about 0.01% of the German Muslim population. The most publicly visible women wearing niqab are the wives of rich Saudi citizens, who regularly shop in expensive stores, especially in cities like Munich.

The parliament of Saxony-Anhalt just refused a burqa ban for a simple reason – the obvious lack of necessity for such a law. In a press conference, the spokesperson of the government was asked if any data was available regarding the actual number of women who wear a full face veil in Germany. The answer at the end was that no actual statistic is available. To help the government, it should be pointed out that the percent or concrete number is plain and simple: zero.