Far-Right in Germany Archives - Politics Today https://politicstoday.org/tag/far-right-in-germany/ Tue, 10 Mar 2026 07:52:17 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.8 Germany’s Iran Policy in the Dilemma of International Law and Israeli Interests https://politicstoday.org/germanys-iran-policy-in-the-dilemma-of-international-law-and-israeli-interests/ Tue, 10 Mar 2026 07:38:21 +0000 https://politicstoday.org/?p=30063

Germany, along with many other European countries, moved away from its classic "critical dialogue" policy towards Iran and adopted an approach aligned with the pressure and sanctions policies of the U.S. and Israel.

The post Germany’s Iran Policy in the Dilemma of International Law and Israeli Interests appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>

S

ince Donald Trump took office as president of the United States at the beginning of 2025, his desire to annex Greenland, his openly expressed intentions to annex Canada, and his threats of higher tariffs against European countries have led Germany, like many other European countries, to express its desire for a “rules-based international order.” Almost everyone, including politicians, journalists, academics, and various segments of society, is trying to understand how the U.S., which Germany has relied on until now, is behaving so lawlessly and moving towards a ruleless world. Faced with this overt power politics from their “ally” across the Atlantic, even targeting Europe, they are expressing both disappointment and are now trying to develop strategies to adapt to this new world.

Defending the Rules—Selectively

Germans and other Europeans take great pleasure in portraying themselves as the new protectors of the rule of law, as the United States, which emerged as the “founder and protector” of the post-World War II international political system, has transformed into a power that threatens this rules-based order. They enjoy making statements along the lines of, “America betrayed the rules-based order, but we will continue to defend it and uphold the rule of law.” They particularly favor Ukraine as an example, explaining how a significant portion of Germany and other Europeans heroically supported Ukraine’s “struggle for rights and freedoms” against the Russian occupation.

However, when it comes to the Middle East, Germany appears to be pursuing a policy that completely disregards the rules of international law. A country that champions a rules-based international order and criticizes others for violating it would be expected to oppose Israel’s genocide in Gaza, its attacks on Lebanon and Syria, and its unjust war of aggression against Iran. Similarly, Germany, which claims to value the rules, should also oppose the U.S. attack against Iran. Indeed, in 2015, it was one of six countries that signed an agreement with Iran to peacefully resolve the issue stemming from that country’s nuclear activities.

When the U.S., with Trump’s presidency, decided to withdraw from the agreement and reimpose harsher sanctions against Iran, Germany and other EU countries had the opportunity to keep Iran in the agreement. They could have defied U.S. sanctions and maintained trade and economic relations with Iran, thereby ensuring Tehran’s adherence to the agreement despite Washington’s stance, but they failed to do so. At the time, they created The Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX) mechanism, giving the impression that they were trying to maintain trade with Iran, but subsequently succumbed to U.S. sanctions and were unable to effectively operate this mechanism.

Read: European Populist Parties: Alternative for Germany

Support for Israel

In the subsequent period, Germany, along with many other European countries, moved away from its classic “critical dialogue” policy towards Iran and adopted an approach aligned with the pressure and sanctions policies of the U.S. and Israel. The point we have reached now is that Germany, which once called on the U.S. to exercise restraint on Iran, has been replaced by a Germany that openly supports the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran. Particularly during the presidency of Friedrich Merz, who took office in May 2025, Germany’s stance towards Iran hardened, resulting in further deterioration of relations between the two countries due to the reactions and statements from Iran.

German Chancellor Merz’s statement during the 12-Day War, which began with Israel’s attack on Iran, that “This is Israel’s dirty work for all of us,” was a clear endorsement of an attack and an aggressor launched in violation of international law. Merz, who justified this attack as “part of Israel’s right to protect its existence and ensure the security of its citizens,” did not bother to explain how such legitimacy could be possible in a war of aggression. When Germany speaks of a “rules-based order,” the first element that comes to mind is international law, and according to international law, “war of aggression” is explicitly prohibited. Only the use of military force in self-defense or in accordance with a UN Security Council resolution is legitimate.

Neither of these justifications existed in Israel’s war against Iran, which began on June 13; there was no Security Council resolution authorizing military intervention against Iran, nor was there any Iranian attack targeting Israel. Israel’s attempt, like the U.S. on numerous occasions before, to legitimize its attack on Iran by framing it as a preventive war and claiming it as self-defense is not an acceptable approach under current international law. Despite this, the German Chancellor’s support for this war, which violates international law, constitutes a clear distortion of the principles of a rules-based international order.

Recommended

Anti-Iranian stance

Germany’s stance of supporting Israel in its unjust attack on Iran, as it did during the Gaza genocide, has further deteriorated relations between Berlin and Tehran. During this process, Germany, traditionally known for its more moderate and conciliatory policy in Iran-Western relations—a natural consequence of its status as a trading nation—has increasingly adopted a harsher stance towards Iran. This tension is evident in the statements of German Chancellor Merz. Following the widespread protests in Iran in January, which resulted in thousands of deaths, Merz stated that the Iranian regime’s days were numbered and demanded that the Revolutionary Guard Corps be added to the EU’s list of terrorist organizations.

Germany’s stance, targeting the Iranian regime and supporting Israeli aggression, has provoked strong reactions from the Iranian side. In a social media post in January, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that “Of all governments, the one in Germany is perhaps the worst placed to address ‘human rights’,” and asked, “What, then, does Mr. Merz have to say about his wholehearted support for the mass murder of 70,000 Palestinians in Gaza?” Araghchi’s message on February 5 on X, stating, “Germany was once the engine of Europe’s progress; now it has turned into an engine of regression… We Iranians have unfortunately been faced with several other examples of Merz’s political naivety and distasteful character,” is significant in demonstrating the current state of German-Iranian relations.

Germany’s stance targeting Iran continued even during the period when the U.S. was preparing for an attack on the country and increasing its threats. During this process, Chancellor Merz adopted a supportive position towards the U.S., stating that they “supported the U.S. initiatives to remove Iran as a factor destabilizing the region.” This stance by Merz was met with criticism from some in the German opposition. Fabio de Masi, leader of the BSW party, criticized Germany for not taking a similar decision to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s statement that the UK would not allow the U.S. to use its military bases in a potential attack on Iran, and accused Merz of acting like “Trump’s lackey.”

Referring to the stance of then-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who openly opposed the illegal U.S. aggression against Iraq in 2003, he stated that the current German government should adopt the same approach, saying, “Merz must stop being Donald Trump’s lackey and refrain from indirectly dragging Germany into an aggressive war that violates international law.”

The influence of the Zionist lobby on Germany’s policy towards Iran and the Middle East in general has been significant. However, as de Masi points out, during the Iraq War under Social Democratic Chancellor Schröder, Germany was able to take an anti-war stance despite this lobby and pressure from the U.S. Now, the Social Democrats are partners in the coalition government, but they are not raising an effective voice of opposition to Merz’s excessive subjugation of German-Iranian relations to the influence of the Zionist lobby and the U.S.

Beyond Germany moving far from the independent foreign policy of the Schröder era under Christian Democratic foreign policy leadership, the Merz-Wadephul duo appears to be bringing Germany’s Middle East policy closer to the Israel-U.S. axis even more than during the terms of previous Christian Democratic chancellors. The fact that Germany is doing this at a time when it views Trump’s foreign policy as a threat to the “rules-based international order” seems to require explanation.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

The post Germany’s Iran Policy in the Dilemma of International Law and Israeli Interests appeared first on Politics Today.

]]> The Future of Far-Right Parties in Europe https://politicstoday.org/the-future-of-far-right-parties-in-europe/ Sat, 02 Sep 2023 04:08:02 +0000 https://politicstoday.org/the-future-of-far-right-parties-in-europe/

Europe is likely to see more far-right parties come to power in the next few years, which will translate into more anti-migrant sentiments and Islamophobia.

The post The Future of Far-Right Parties in Europe appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>

F

ar-right and racist ideology in Europe has a deep-rooted history and has shown the ability to transform itself into a political movement through political parties. Due to the basic functions of political parties in pluralist democracies, namely representation, agenda setting, public relations, awareness raising, and aspirations to power, political party status is a tremendous tool for the social organization of far-right and racist movements.

Especially in recent years, far-right parties have experienced a serious upward trend in European politics and have strengthened their presence in all regions of the European geography. Far-right parties have gradually gained popular support in several European countries, especially in Germany, France, and Italy, and have achieved significant electoral success. They have thus succeeded in becoming integrated actors in European countries’ political institutions.

Political parties are an important instrument for the functioning of democracy. They represent different segments of society, formulate policies, and seek to reflect the will of the people through elections. The inability of left-wing, liberal, and conservative political parties to offer convincing alternative solutions to the electorates’ problems, and the fact that they are too fragmented and divided to form coalitions, is seen by far-right parties as a window of opportunity to gain power in the coming years.

Read: The Far Right Is the “New Cool” in Europe

Ideology of European far-right parties

Although the ideologies of far-right parties in different parts of Europe differ to some extent, they are based on common points and references. These can be defined under four headings:

– Nationalism and cultural identity: Far-right and racist parties emphasize nationalism and cultural identity, placing great importance on the superiority and interests of a country or nation. Far-right parties try to attract support by focusing on national pride, national values, and cultural identity. They usually seek to unite society under the guise of a “sense of belonging” by distinguishing between “us” and “them.”

– Authoritarianism and strong leadership: Strong authoritarian leaders influence their followers by advocating discriminatory and authoritarian policies. They try to exploit society’s security concerns by emphasizing issues such as safety, order, and harsh punishment. Authoritarian leadership is used by the far right to achieve its political goals and to govern society.

– Racism and anti-immigrant sentiment: Far-right parties adopt ideological elements such as racism and anti-immigrant sentiments and show discrimination and hostility towards other groups, while defending the superiority of their own ethnic or national group. Anti-immigrant sentiment is central to the policies of these parties and often includes harsh restrictions on immigrants, racial or cultural discrimination, and policies of ethnic cleansing.

– Populism: Far-right and racist parties often use populist rhetoric. Populism aims to mobilize support by exploiting people’s emotional and economic concerns. Far-right parties present simplistic messages and answers to appeal to broad sections of the population.

The ideologies of far-right parties are based on elements such as nationalism, authoritarianism, racism, and anti-immigrant sentiments. These ideologies can spread under the influence of factors such as social discontent, economic crises, cultural conflicts, and security concerns.

Read: Will the Far-Right Lead Europe?

History of European far-right parties

The Nazi and Fascist movements represent one of the darkest periods of the twentieth century. The Nazi movement arose in Germany under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, while the Fascist movement arose in Italy under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. The origins of the Nazi movement in Germany are linked to Germany’s economic crisis and social discontent in the aftermath of World War I.

The heavy war reparations and economic conditions imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles led to great social discontent. By exploiting this sentiment, Hitler promised to restore German national pride and power. Nazi ideology was based on authoritarianism, nationalism, racism, and anti-Semitism. The Nazi Party, led by Hitler, came to power in 1933 and transformed Germany into a totalitarian regime.

The Fascist movement emerged in Italy under the leadership of Benito Mussolini who adopted the Fascist ideology in the environment of social and political turmoil following the end of World War I. The origins of the Fascist movement can be traced back to the postwar period when Italy was struggling with problems such as an economic crisis, unemployment, and political instability. Mussolini used this discontent and uncertainty to establish the Fascist movement. After the event known as the “March on Rome” in 1922, Mussolini came to power and transformed Italy into a Fascist state.

The emergence and rise of both movements in the years of social and economic depression following World War I were made possible by a combination of historical, political, and social factors. Taking advantage of people’s loss of dignity, economic hardship, and social unrest, these movements spread their authoritarian and totalitarian ideology and gained power, leading to the catastrophe that was World War II.

Read: The Global Rise of the Far Right: Four Books on Recent Trends

Following another devastating war in Europe, destruction and humanitarian disasters were omnipresent across the continent. The suffering caused by the war led to discontent and insecurity in society, and political instability and economic difficulties paved the way for the emergence of far-right parties. Meanwhile the banning of ideologies such as Fascism and Nazism caused some far-right groups to operate underground.

Thus, Europe’s dominant countries, especially Germany, did not accommodate far-right parties into their political systems and ensured that they remained marginalized for a long time. During this period, far-right parties transformed themselves in order to win votes in elections, taking into account local social developments and the cyclical variability of world politics.

Until the 1980s, neofascist political parties generally carried on the mission of the Fascist and Nazi parties of the past. Labor migration in Europe in the 1960s and 1970s led to an increase in the immigrant population. With the periodic economic crises since the 1990s, some segments of society have become concerned about immigrants and different cultures. Economic uncertainties such as rising unemployment, ever-worsening financial difficulties, and income inequality have led to anti-immigrant sentiments among the local populations.

Read: Is it Possible to Stop the Far-Right in Europe?

Since the 2000s, there has been a new wave of migration to Europe and an increase in the foreign population on the continent due to terrorist attacks, economic problems, and the Arab Spring. Although far-right parties have not completely changed their neofascist formation so as to turn this dynamic into an opportunity, they have mobilized and expanded their existing support base by resorting to populist politics that rely on social discontent and concerns, anti-immigration sentiments, and xenophobia in order to reach large masses. Now, far-right parties have changed their guise and softened their neofascist and Nazi rhetoric in order to win the support of non-radicalized conservative masses. Islamophobia and anti-immigrant policies against “non-white” immigrants have increased their popularity and begun to win votes.

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, far-right parties have undergone their second evolution. True to their racist and anti-immigrant agenda, they have declared war on the globalizing world. Globalization refers to worldwide economic, political, social, and cultural interaction and integration, including elements such as advances in communication and transport technologies, free trade and investment policies, and the strengthening of international institutions. Globalization also features drawbacks such as income inequality, social and cultural conflicts, environmental degradation, and inequitable distribution of resources. The main reasons why far-right parties oppose globalization are nationalism, concerns about the loss of national sovereignty, economic effects (loss of wealth), and the preservation of cultural identity. While globalization brings about economic and cultural change, some parts of society react to this change.

Far-right parties, which have become the self-proclaimed “protectors” of the masses that find themselves on the losing end of the new globalized world, aim to convince the isolated masses that there are easy solutions to their problems through populist discourses and by mobilizing their thoughts and emotions against a specific enemy. Far-right parties, with their hatred of Islam and immigrants, and their stance against globalization, have gained serious momentum with the economic crisis triggered by the pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine War.

Read: The European Convention on Human Rights Bans Desecrating the Quran

The rise of far-right parties in Europe

The rise of far-right parties in Europe has attracted attention and concern in recent years. Understanding the factors behind this rise will help us to understand the popularity and influence of far-right parties. Factors such as migration, economic uncertainty, cultural concerns, emphasis on national identity, and political crises are important factors influencing the rise of the far right.

Migration is an important factor in the rise of extreme right-wing parties. The large waves of migration and the so-called refugee crises in Europe have raised security concerns and fears of cultural conflict in certain milieus. Far-right parties use the issue of migration to spread fear and anxiety among the population and advocate harsh and restrictive immigration policies.

Economic insecurity and social injustice are other factors that have increased the popularity of far-right parties. Problems such as economic recession, unemployment, and income inequality drive people towards far-right parties. In particular, the loss of people’s welfare due to the global economic devastation caused by the pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine War have led to the far right’s emphasis on economic nationalism and protectionist policies finding a response in society.

Cultural concerns in Europe and the emphasis on national identity can also be linked to the rise of far-right parties. The issues of cultural diversity and the protection of cultural values are an important concern for a significant part of society. By emphasizing national identity, far-right parties exploit cultural concerns and advocate cultural protectionism.

Recommended

In addition, political crises have triggered the rise of far-right parties by fueling the public’s loss of trust of government and discontent. Society’s loss of confidence in the political system can lead to far-right parties being seen as valid alternatives. Political scandals, exposed corruption, perceptions of elitism, and the weakness of political institutions increase the support for far-right parties.

In conclusion, the rise of far-right parties in Europe is the result of factors such as migration, economic uncertainty, cultural concerns, emphasis on national identity, and political crises.

In recent years, Europe has witnessed an increase in the number of far-right parties while in the 2022-2023 national elections governments across the continent were formed by or in partnership with far-right groups. The latest such examples come from Italy, Sweden, and Finland. In addition, in Germany and France, far-right parties failed to enter government in national elections, but managed to win a high proportion of the vote.

The recent uprising in France by North African immigrants against the racist behavior of the French security forces will undoubtedly contribute to the rise of far-right parties across the European continent. Europe is likely to see more far-right parties come to power in the next few years, which will translate into anti-migrant sentiments and Islamophobia. Only time will tell when and where this far-right wave will stop in Europe.

The post The Future of Far-Right Parties in Europe appeared first on Politics Today.

]]> Still Waters Run Deep: Germany’s Far-Right Extremism Problem https://politicstoday.org/germany-far-right-extremism-problem/ Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:06:04 +0000 https://politicstoday.org/germany-far-right-extremism-problem/

Since the reunification of Germany, Muslims have been the main target of right-wing extremist attacks.

The post Still Waters Run Deep: Germany’s Far-Right Extremism Problem appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>

On February 19, 2020, the right-wing extremist terrorist Tobias R. shot nine people with a migration background in a café in Hanau, Germany. The xenophobic attack targeted Muslims and showed that Germany has a serious problem with radical right-wing terror. The new German government declared that it wants to fight right-wing terror, and now, the question is how serious Germany is about this declaration.

Right-wing extremism is not a new phenomenon

Since the end of World War II, right-wing extremist ideas have been a taboo in Germany, and the aim has been to “de-Nazify” the German population. The strategy was to prevent a similar scenario to that which occurred between 1933 and 1945. Despite this, right-wing extremist political currents can still be found today. In addition to the minor parties NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany) and Der Dritte Weg (The Third Path) or the right-wing extremist movements PEGIDA (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the Occident) and Identitäre Bewegung (Identitarian movement), the AfD (Alternative for Germany) is a symbol of how strongly right-wing extremism is present at the political level in Germany.

The entry of the AfD into the German parliament in 2017 as the biggest opposition party and the re-election of the right-wing extremist party to parliament in 2021 show that right-wing extremism is not a temporary problem but one that has deeper roots.

Read: “Racism is not an opinion, it is a criminal act!”

Although right-wing extremist attacks were a problem for society as a whole in Germany, it was not until the reunification of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1990 that the Federal Criminal Police Office of Germany (BKA) began to collect statistics for victims of right-wing extremist attacks. In 2002, the BKA introduced the system of definitions known as “Politically Motivated Crime” (PMK-System) in order to better record the number of victims. The system is considered inaccurate, and as a result the BKA’s victim figures differ from the victim figures of non-governmental organizations.

The federal government has been recording the number of victims of right-wing extremist attacks since 1990; as of September 2020, 109 victims have been registered. The newspapers Frankfurter Rundschau, Der Tagesspiegel, and Die Zeit, after a joint investigative research, recorded 187 victims for the same period; the Amadeu Antonio Foundation counts at least 213 victims.

Muslims are the main target

Since the reunification of Germany, Muslims have been the main target of right-wing extremist attacks. Between 1991 and 1993, there was an increase in racist attacks among the German population. At that time, the asylum debate was a very controversial issue, which is why asylum seekers were the main target of right-wing extremist attacks. The riots in Hoyerswerda (1991) and Rostock-Lichtenhagen (1992) were sensitive because the police, in particular, took a passive stance and even fuelled the mood against foreign citizens through populist statements.

VIDEO: Why the Far-Right Is Rising Globally – Emergence (Part I)

The first major event was a right-wing extremist attack on a Turkish family in Solingen in 1993, when several right-wing extremist perpetrators carried out an arson attack on a flat inhabited by primarily by Turkish citizens, killing five people of Turkish descent and injuring 17 others.

Along with the arson attack in Solingen, the NSU (National Socialist Underground) murder series was one of the biggest state crises in Germany since the end of World War II. Between 2001 and 2006, the terrorist organization killed nine people with a migration background (including eight Turkish citizens and one Greek citizen) in various major German cities. Until the murders were solved in 2011, the media had labeled them “kebab murders,” adopting a xenophobic – if not specifically Turkophobic – stance.

German police and media claimed that the victims of the NSU murders had links to mafia groups and were killed because of debt-related issues. Racially motivated homicide was considered a possibility at the time. Even today, the NSU murder series is considered a sad climax of racist attacks and a highlight of German state failure.

Read: Germany Made Its Decision: No Future for the Far Right?

Attack in Hanau – Insecurity grows for Muslims

On February 19, 2020, a right-wing extremist attack occurred in Hanau in which nine people with migration background were killed, six of them were Muslims. Politicians reacted to the attack with shock. Angela Merkel, chancellor at the time, said that racism is a poison and that such attacks were aimed at dividing society. The far-right party AfD did not make a clear statement and did not classify the attack as politically motivated or right-wing extremism, but as an act of a a lone wolf.

German public reacted with shock to the attack in Hanau shows that Germany does not realize the problem of right-wing extremism.

The fact that the general public reacted with shock to the attack in Hanau shows that Germany does not realize – or does not want to accept – the problem of right-wing extremism, especially against Muslims. The number of right-wing extremist attacks on Muslims and their religious institutions increases every year. In 2020, the German Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI) recorded 1,026 Islamophobic attacks, 103 of which were directed against mosques.

In 2010, the BMI recorded “only” 22 attacks on mosques. In 2022, armed attacks on mosques and Muslims continue. A desecration of 30 Muslim graves in Iserlohn, an arson attack on a mosque in Chemnitz, and an armed attack on praying Muslims in Halle are current examples of how Muslims in Germany have to live – namely, in fear of hate attacks because of their faith.

Recommended

Federal government remains passive – until now?

Under Merkel, Germany did not always prioritize the problem of right-wing extremist attacks. The statements by former interior minister Horst Seehofer (CSU) that Islam does not belong in Germany, the book by Thilo Sarrazin (SPD) Germany Abolishes Itself (Deutschland schafft sich ab), and the xenophobic statements by Tübingen mayor Boris Palmer (Greens) show that Islamophobic ideas can be found in all political parties. With the murder of politician Walter Lübcke (CDU) in 2019, Germany was punished for its passivity: the district president of Kassel had spoken out in support of refugees and was subsequently killed by right-wing extremist Stephan Ernst.

The roots of right-wing extremism in Germany run deep. The AfD and other parties have members who hold xenophobic views. The new minister of the interior, Nancy Faeser (SPD), at least gave some hope of Islam being accepted in German politics and society when she stated, “Islam, of course, belongs in Germany.

However, the number of victims and attacks on mosques show that the tendency further excludes Muslims from society. If Germany wants to preserve a stable political environment and avoid further polarization in society, it must be more active. Otherwise, Otherwise, more German state officials could become victims of right-wing extremist terror along with countless other innocent civilians, as in the case of Walter Lübcke.

The post Still Waters Run Deep: Germany’s Far-Right Extremism Problem appeared first on Politics Today.

]]> Germany Elections: The Right-Wing strengthens, but Centrists hold on to Power https://politicstoday.org/germany-elections-the-right-wing-strengthens-but-centrists-hold-on-to-power/ Thu, 05 Sep 2019 07:52:36 +0000 https://politicstoday.org/germany-elections-the-right-wing-strengthens-but-centrists-hold-on-to-power/

A nightmare has not come true – for now. The political elites from Germany's centrist parties and those from the federal but fragile “grand coalition” government have been saved. But this must not mislead anyone.

The post Germany Elections: The Right-Wing strengthens, but Centrists hold on to Power appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>

The state elections in Germany’s Saxony and Brandenburg states were held this past Sunday. As was previously expected, the far-right AfD heavily increased its votes, tripling it in Saxony and doubling it in Brandenburg.

The Christian Democrats (CDU) emerged as the final winner of the elections in Saxony with 32 percent of the votes, but suffered losses of around 7 points compared with 2014. While the AfD became the second strongest party in Saxony by receiving more than 27.5 percent of the votes. This means that the AfD made an increase of 17 points compared with 2014.

But one has to be careful when analyzing the results. A look back at the Saxony results from the September 2017 federal election will show that the AfD had also received 27 percent of the votes while the CDU had achieved only 26.9 percent at that time.

It cannot be said that the current election results are an actual success for centrist parties, especially the Social Democrats (SPD) which continued its trend of voter losses. However, the Saxon parliament results have been interpreted as a partial improvement by some optimistic voices, when compared with the September 2017 federal election results in Saxony. According to which the CDU even increased its votes from 26,9 to 32 percent.

On the other hand, when looking at the results across both states an unpleasant picture emerges. Namely, the AfD received the highest number of votes with a combined total of 892.959 votes, while the CDU came second with 892.483 votes. The SPD came third with only 498.618 votes in total. Thus, is it reasonable to talk about an actual victory of the CDU based on the facts?

The election in Brandenburg also revealed that the SPD (by achieving 26.2 percent of votes) is still a strong centrist party, at least in traditionally left-wing dominated federal states. Although the party has continued to lose votes at both the federal and state level – as was the case in Saxony where it received only 7.7 percent of the votes.

However, the gap between the SPD and the AfD in Brandenburg has narrowed. The AfD gained 23.5 percent of the votes in Brandenburg, separating the two parties by only 2.7 per cent. This becomes more significant if one notices that the conservative CDU achieved just 15.6 percent of the votes in Brandenburg – that is to say the AfD has now become second party of choice.

Recommended

In a concerning outcome, one fourth of all the voters across both states voted in favor of a far-right or extremist party. This leads to the possible danger that the far-right will continue to be normalized within Germany’s political landscape. How far this trend will continue is still a main concern among Germany’s Christian democrats, as the main or closest de facto competitor of the far-rightists.

Besides the continuing risks of the far-right becoming mainstream and the increasing strength of the far-right within the political establishment, the focus now is on how the coalition governments will be shaped in the upcoming days. As one should remember, all major parties rejected a coalition with the AfD, but continuing with pre-existing coalitions in both states will not be enough to form a government. Each coalition will need to find an additional partner.

As predicted in a report published prior to the elections, it is likely that in Saxony the CDU will form a coalition together with the SPD and the Greens. In Brandenburg, a SPD-Left Party-Greens coalition might be formed as is currently case in the state of Berlin.

German media and politicians have also been focusing on the fact that surprisingly, the CDU did not lose even more votes to the AfD. The reason why this did not occur can be answered by pointing to the visible efforts of Saxony’s incumbent Minister President Michael Kretschmer (CDU). Kretschmer distanced himself from the federal CDU and also criticized CDU politicians such as Hans-Georg Maaßen, who often expressed stances similar to the AfD.

It seems most likely that some center-right voters were persuaded by Kretschmer’s dedicated personal stance. Whether an imitation of AfD rhetoric by a CDU politician would have resulted in the same outcome seems unlikely. It would likely be worse because voters are often biased towards the parties which are first to articulate a political message or movement, which in the sense of populist and far-right rhetoric is definitely epitomized by the AfD.

Regarding Brandenburg, it is argued that despite the fact that the SPD is still the strongest party, it is much more difficult to establish a stable coalition government consisting of three parties. The losses of the Left Party make it impossible to continue an SPD-Left Party coalition in Brandenburg.  This will most likely lead to a three-way coalition as it the case in Berlin. In the end, the elections are a quasi-success for the AfD in that in the long-term it destabilizes the previous political equilibrium in which centrist parties would dominate.

All in all, it is argued by Western media and politicians that a “nightmare” has not come true – for now. However, the next state elections will be held towards the end of October in Thuringia where the AfD is also strongly motivated. The bad news is when Thuringia’s election day arrives, the focus will not simply be on the CDU or SPD coming first at the ballot. This was recently the case last Sunday, and unfortunately distracted from the grim reality of both party’s losses in each state. In the short-term, the political elites from Germany’s centrist parties and those from the federal but fragile “grand coalition” government have been saved. But this must not mislead anyone.

The post Germany Elections: The Right-Wing strengthens, but Centrists hold on to Power appeared first on Politics Today.

]]> Three State Elections That Could Shake Up German Politics https://politicstoday.org/three-state-elections-that-could-shake-up-german-politics/ Fri, 16 Aug 2019 03:11:04 +0000 https://politicstoday.org/three-state-elections-that-could-shake-up-german-politics/

In the upcoming months, elections of three federal state parliaments will be held in Germany. The elections in Brandenburg, Saxony and Thuringia will not only have implications at the federal state level but also on a national level.

The post Three State Elections That Could Shake Up German Politics appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>

In the upcoming months, elections of three federal state parliaments in Germany will be held. Elections in the states of Brandenburg and Saxony are both scheduled for 1 September 2019, while the elections in Thuringia will be held on 27 October 2019. These elections not only have implications at the federal state level but on a national level.

The importance of these elections are based on two fundamental points. First, the party or parties that receive the majority of votes will subsequently establish government which will govern the federal state for the next five years. Secondly, voters in each federal state also indirectly determine who will have a seat at the Bundesrat of Germany, the legislative body representing Germany’s sixteen states at the national level.

The new government of a state appoints members to the Bundesrat that will represent their state. The emergence of a new majority in the Bundesrat, which may oppose the federal government, might cause future challenges for the continuation of the current federal coalition government consisting of the CDU/CSU and SPD. This is based on the fact that legislative decisions of the Bundestag, Germany’s federal parliament, must also require approval from the Bundesrat. A function akin to the role of an upper house of parliament such as the House of Lords in the UK or the US Senate. Therefore, where there are opposing political parties representing each body, the process of consent can be frustrated limiting the legislative capacity of a governing party. This was the case in 2005, when the SPD-Greens federal coalition government called for early federal elections after it lost some state elections.

Germany will face a turbulent autumn during which the continuation of the current federal government will be tested.

Despite these possible political implications, more alarming problems might be faced in the near future. The likelihood that for the first time in German history since the end of the second world war, a far-right party may become the strongest party in a state and even form part of a government. Even though most moderate voices do not believe in this possibility, polls indicate differently. For example, recent polls on Saxony note that the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, represented in the Saxon state parliament since 2014, is currently receiving the most votes in the poll with 23 percent. This means that a far-right group are the strongest party in the most eastern part of Germany. On the other hand, the current coalition government in Saxony consisting of the Christian Democrats (CDU) and the Social Democrats (SPD)  received  only a combined total of 33 percent of the votes (CDU: 22 percent, SPD: 11 percent). An amount which will not be enough for the continuation of the current coalition government. According to the same polls, other parties in Saxony such as the Left Party received 14 percent while the Greens 11 percent.

The only good news –at the moment– are statements of the Christian Democrats who have ruled out the possibility of establishing a potential new coalition or cooperation with the far-right AfD. This leads to the likelihood that a potential CDU-led coalition government might consist of one, two or even three other coalition parties after election day.

Recommended

There are clear differences between projected votes on a state and federal level. According to similar recent federal polls for instance, the CDU/CSU received 27 percent of the votes, while the AfD received only 12 percent. In addition, Germany’s second strongest party, the Greens’ achieve an average of 25 percent of votes at the national level, while the SPD receives 13 percent.

Whether a very weak government coalition in Germany’s three federal states will be established or a far-right party will win the elections is a question of great importance.

The ongoing election campaigns in Brandenburg, Saxony and Thuringia will also be shaped by developments at the federal level. For instance, discussion about the SPD’s potential new chairperson(s) which will be determined in October, how the federal government will continue its agenda and whether the alienation of German voters away from center parties will continue with the ongoing manipulative moves by far-rightist AfD politicians.

As demonstrated for instance, in a recent study which found that AfD members systematically overinflated the actual numbers of foreigners who were accused of crimes in Germany. Other developments do not seem very promising. A former and controversial high-ranking bureaucrat, who has received harsh criticism from center parties for statements and positions have resembled those of AfD politicians is now rumored to be a future interior minister within the ranks of the CDU in Saxony.

Germany will face a turbulent autumn during which the continuation of the current federal government will be tested. Whether a very weak government coalition in Germany’s three federal states will be established or a far-right party will win the elections is a question of great importance. Unfortunately, the rise of right-wing parties is a significant development that may seriously affect the current constellation of German politics in the long-run.

The post Three State Elections That Could Shake Up German Politics appeared first on Politics Today.

]]> Germany in Danger: Who Cares About Far-Right Extremism? https://politicstoday.org/germany-in-danger-who-cares-about-far-right-extremism/ Wed, 03 Jul 2019 11:45:02 +0000 https://politicstoday.org/germany-in-danger-who-cares-about-far-right-extremism/

Germany must face right-right extremism as soon as possible and start a collective struggle against the threat on political, societal, and of course bureaucratic platforms. But above all, should prepare for this threat in Germany’s security apparatus.

The post Germany in Danger: Who Cares About Far-Right Extremism? appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>

During the past weekend, former head of Germany’s federal domestic intelligence, that is to say, the country’s previous federal “spymaster,” Hans-Georg Maaßen, gave a very controversial speech in the southern German city of Weinheim. Maaßen is the person who in the near past openly came against Germany’s Chancellor, Merkel – to the person whose authority he was actually working under. The title of his one-hour long speech was “Germany in danger – why we have to defend our security.” The event was organized by the local Christian Democrats (CDU) and the so-called “Werteunion” (union of values), which can be described as an association of conservative CDU members, who challenge Merkel’s rather liberal policies.

Maaßen has also been a member of this association since February this year. The former domestic intelligence chief was invited to hold a speech and due to his current work as an advisor/consultant and advocate/lawyer in the private sector, there was no obstacles for him to do so. When one focuses on the content of the speech, it is possible to notice that Germany has an urgent problem with far-right extremism and the main problem within this is the fact that the threat emanating from this issue is under-estimated.

Hans-Georg Maaßen gave a very controversial speech in the southern German city of Weinheim with the title of “Germany in Danger: Why we have to defend our security”

It is quite known that –particularly German nationalists- are generally cautious when explaining their actual positions. Due to this, they tend to use sentences such as “one should be allowed at least to say this or these things…” in order to legitimize their – generally – either prejudiced, racist, or far-right sentiments. Similarly, Maaßen stated, “I’m always happy when I can leave Germany,” due to the alleged fact that by temporarily leaving Germany for a trip abroad, he is then able to convey his opinion. This, according to him, is not possible in Germany.

It is interesting and of course –ultimately- legitimate that Maaßen is not a supporter of a positive migration policy in contrast to Merkel, as he stresses his stance by mentioning, “I’m not a friend of immigration policy,” which his CDU audience in the room applauded with joy.

Maaßen continued his words, which he most likely elaborated as being a mouthpiece for all “quiet but angry conservatives” with his controversial statement:

“I did not join the CDU thirty years ago to allow 1,8 million Arabs come to Germany today” (Ich bin vor dreißig Jahren nicht der CDU beigetreten, damit heute 1,8 Millionen Araber nach Deutschland kommen), while adding that –allegedly- none of these people are both able or willing to integrate.

These statements are not unacceptable because the person who made them held a very high position in office until only recently. It would be nonsense to problematize the ethnic-stigmatizing language and word preferences of a person who did not act as an official person free of biases during his reign, but quite the opposite, rather protecting and maintaining actions of obvious far-right circles. One may just remember what happened towards the end of Maaßen’s tenure in office.

Hans-Georg Maaßen said: “I did not join the CDU thirty years ago to allow 1,8 million Arabs come to Germany today.”

Recommended

For instance, in September 2018, Maaßen had doubted the authenticity of a video that showed openly racist violence in the German city of Chemnitz. Furthermore, he ignored and even challenged the official view of the country’s Chancellor. In addition to his previous statements, similarly underestimating and even relativizing positions regarding far-right extremism, led the federal minister of the interior to ultimately change the head of domestic intelligence. Even though the ultra-conservative federal minister of the interior, Horst Seehofer (CSU), initially resisted to dismissing him, he appointed a new name to the office due to heavy pressure from both moderate government circles and the media.

Despite Maaßen’s recent discriminating tone with regard to “Arabs” and its generalizing incline, which is not acceptable from a global enlightened and even humanist point of view, which also contradicts the German constitution, it seems that the new head of domestic intelligence, Thomas Haldenwang, unfortunately prefers similar biases – or at least discourse until now – which recently became obvious. For instance, following the publication of the annual security report of the domestic intelligence service, the new head once again relativized the far-right threat.

Despite Maaßen’s recent discriminating tone with regard to “Arabs”, it seems that the new head of domestic intelligence, Thomas Haldenwang, unfortunately has a similar bias.

Furthermore, although there has not been an increase in Islamic extremism-related crimes compared to right-wing extremist ones, both the media, politics and intelligence officers have focused on the former rather than the later. In this context, Haldenwang said: “…we have had to see the emergence of right-wing extremism in recent years depends on many circumstances. … In my opinion this has a relation with current political developments and possibly also with the refugee and migration policies since 2015,” thus criticizing Angela Merkel without addressing the actual reasons for the increase of far-right extremism.

All these statements were made in a recent time period when a district president in Germany, Walter Lübcke, who was a member of the conservative and ruling CDU, had been assassinated in his home. Also during a time period in which almost every day a new kind of scandal breaks out, such as the current news that a German far-right group “used police data to compile a death list.”

Although there has not been an increase in Islamic extremism-related crimes compared to right-wing extremist ones, both the media, politics and intelligence officers in Germany have focused on the former rather than the later. 

Under the current conditions and developments in Germany, the former intelligence chief’s unacceptable statements have to be taken seriously into account, in particular by rational politicians from all political blocs. It is unfortunately an increasing trend that far-right discourses and even expectations are becoming more and more “normal.” This must not occur. However, voices among the democratic conservatives are decreasing and social-democratic parties are being reduced to an insignificant meaning within German politics. At the current moment, it does not look very positive for Germany’s political landscape and its equilibrium in the near future, if one also observes statements by Hans-Georg Maaßen who oddly describes his political stance as “realistic.” In addition, Maaßen’s elaboration regarding the question whether he is the “Thilo Sarrazin in the CDU,” by answering, “No, because unlike Sarrrazin, I believe that I am not alone with my opinion” unfortunately seems to be the reality.

Germany must face right-right extremism as soon as possible and start a collective struggle against the threat on political, societal, and of course bureaucratic platforms. But above all, should prepare for this threat in Germany’s security apparatus.

The post Germany in Danger: Who Cares About Far-Right Extremism? appeared first on Politics Today.

]]> Germany: From the Refugee Problem to the Crisis of the Liberal Democratic System https://politicstoday.org/germany-from-the-refugee-problem-to-the-crisis-of-the-liberal-democratic-system/ Mon, 03 Dec 2018 05:43:53 +0000 https://politicstoday.org/germany-from-the-refugee-problem-to-the-crisis-of-the-liberal-democratic-system/

The current crisis in Germany is a representation of what is also happening in other European countries governed by liberal democracy.

The post Germany: From the Refugee Problem to the Crisis of the Liberal Democratic System appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>

The isolationist and protectionist policies of the U.S., the rising influence of Russia and the rise of China are considered as clear signs that the current global system is in a serious crisis. The operational weaknesses of international organizations such as the UN as well as increasing attempts at finding alternatives to them shows that international organizations are also under stress. The Eurozone crisis, the ongoing fiscal crises in Italy and Greece and the matter of refugees have lead people to think that Europe as a whole is also in crisis.

While social and political movements have increasingly gained momentum in Germany, the existing dominant structures and political parties have continued to lose power and influence. It’s the first time since the Weimar Republic that the German public are mentioning a crisis of democracy and the liberal system this often. As a result of the waves of refugees that were caused by the Syrian Civil War and especially Merkel’s “We will manage” principle and open door policies, the public no longer refers to a “refugee problem” but a “refugee crisis.” Thus, this crisis led to a fast erosion of power for centrist parties leading German politics, the CDU and SPD, and Merkel from losing their positions.

The peculiar aspect of this situation is that while Germany seems to be in a period of economic prosperity with low unemployment rates and a high budget surplus, it is reflecting the image of a country under many crises. Especially at this point it can be said that Germany, which has managed to maintain its stability even through the 2008 crisis, is not undergoing an economic but a social, political, and ideological crisis. The leading indicator of this crisis is the faltering trust in the existing political power structure and the shift in public preference towards political and social movements that present themselves as alternatives to the existing system and centrist political powers such as the CDU and SPD, which have failed to find themselves an ideological orientation and identity.

The leading indicator of the crisis in Germany is the faltering trust in the existing political power structure and the shift in public preference towards political and social movements that present themselves as alternatives to the existing system.

Loss of trust and a search for alternatives: Has liberal democracy reached its limits?

Unlike the 20th century, it cannot be stated that any great social movement or political change has occurred in Europe in the 21st century. However, anti-establishment social movements of this age, considering them as being results or parallels of recent far-right parties in Europe and social movements such as Five Star in Italy and Pegida in Germany, have at their heart nationalist, protectionist, and far right doctrines. According to a poll in Germany, the results of which were announced in October, AfD has for the first time reached 18% of total votes, and with SPD’s votes decreasing to 15%, the AfD has become the second most popular party in Germany after the Christian Democrats.

It is now better understood that AfD’s success in the 2017 general elections was not a one-off and temporary political reaction. Taking into account fundamental changes in the global arena, the rise of far right and nationalist discourse as well as isolationist policies, not only in Germany through AfD, but in Europe and around the world, can be considered not a temporary phenomenon but a manifestation of the objection and distrust felt towards the existing political, social, and economic order.

The ideological aspect of the political crisis in Germany also needs to be considered. It can be seen that the public is gravitating towards peripheral parties developing new discourses, offering the public something new on the basis of ideology and identity, rather than parties offering to maintain the status quo.

According to a poll in Germany, the results of which were announced in October, AfD has for the first time reached 18% of total votes, and with SPD’s votes decreasing to 15%, the AfD has become the second most popular party in Germany after the Christian Democrats.

The loss of trust in existing centrist parties among the German public is a clear expression of a desire for change. The strength of this desire for change can be evaluated by looking at the successes of peripheral political organizations that offer the public no solid program but merely project an image of being new and an alternative option. This is how AfD, despite offering no concrete programs or solutions for the problems of the country in its party program, has managed to become the second most popular party among the public. Similarly, the fact that the Greens, which had once emerged as an alternative, is again on the rise can be explained by this framework of “search for an alternative” discourse. While far right groups politically blame the centrist parties, socially they prey on the weakest and culturally most distant groups – namely, foreigners and refugees – in order to project an image of unity and belonging.

According to the Indian intellectual Pankaj Mishra, author of the book Age of Anger, both far right organizations around the world that question the existing political structures, as well as terrorists and people with radicalization tendencies, reflect the anger of individuals and societies that feel betrayed by liberal democracy. According to the author, who claims that while liberal Western democracies promise that “Everyone can live in prosperity and have equal rights” they’ve failed to make this a reality, such pursuits are aimed at the liberal democratic stance and institutions that have failed to deliver on their promise. Among those who have lost their trust and faith in these structures, those who seek a solution within the system gravitate towards the most “alternative” and new among the existing movements, while those who seek a solution outside the system and feel relatively powerless tend towards terror and radicalization.

Crisis of representation: “The public” or “the economic, media and political elite”?

While talking about the crisis of democracy in Germany, it can be said that this in some part is a crisis of representation and is not only happening in Germany but also in other European countries governed by liberal democracy. The plainest way to explain this crisis of representation is that great masses of the public are unable to see their influence exerted on political decision mechanisms and ultimately political actions.

Recommended

The current crisis in Germany is a representation of what is also happening in other European countries governed by liberal democracy. The explanation for this is because the public do not see themselves as part of the decision making mechanisms. 

It can be stated that the effects of elections and ruling parties on political decisions has been continuously decreasing. The fates of people living in European countries are determined more by decisions made in EU commissions than by their national parliaments, moreover pressure is exerted on elected governments by international financial centers, experts, courts and the bureaucratic elite, “independent” NGOs financed by certain groups and the media.

On this issue some political scientists in the west talk about the “democratization of democracy.” Arguments such as the claim that existing institutional political tools and mechanisms, along with the media cartel, are only being used to manipulate democracy by a small group of financially powerful people to maintain the current system for their own interests, are gaining traction.

Considering that global-scale decisions are shaped according to the opinions of certain groups with shared interests and credit centers, public masses that think their own interests are not represented in this system tend to prefer far right organizations such as the AfD, which presents itself as an alternative rather than the centrist parties which have been enablers of the system.

The social contract

It is known that the idea of liberal and modern democracy is built upon the ideal of a “social contract.” Liberal democracies foresee that under a legal unity and a social contract, groups with heterogeneous political, social and economic beliefs can peacefully coexist. Habermas’s thesis of “Deliberative Democracy” emphasizes this culture of discussion and consensus, stating that democracy in essence is better characterized by the process of reaching a consensus through discussions among the public with contribution from groups with differing interests and social statuses, than simply voting to approve predetermined decisions.

But considering the fact that conventional media tools, which are controlled by certain powerful families operating on the global scale, paint a surprisingly homogeneous picture of reality, along with the existence of a monopoly on manipulation and information, the culture of discussion Habermas has foreseen cannot be said to be functioning today. For example, had it not been for the anti-refugee campaigns of the German mainstream media that turned the refugee matter into the refugee crisis, would an average German person still be as afraid of Muslims, foreigners and refugees as they are today? According to a poll conducted by FORSA, 84% of the German public have not experienced a problem with their foreigner neighbors. Specifically in Germany, the discussions on Leitkultur are important in that they show the limitations of the ideas of freedom, liberalism and the neutral state.

On one hand, individuals separated from their traditional social structures are being promised freedom and equality by the liberal system and modernism, on the other hand within the framework of a social consensus and constitution they are expected to find unity.

Had it not been for the anti-refugee campaigns of the German mainstream media that turned the refugee matter into the refugee crisis, would an average German person still be afraid of Muslims, foreigners, and refugees as they are today?

What then will be the values that are supposed to keep the public and society united? Will individuals separated entirely from their tradition via enlightenment and promised freedom, equality and rule of law be able to find anything other than an image of a common enemy, foreigners, to reunite themselves as a nation?

Within this context, through AfD and other far right groups, the discussions on how much democracy can “democracy” tolerate and the limitations on the ideas of freedom and equality have been rekindled. While the rule of law and a binding constitution are supposed to ensure that democracy will prevent movements against it, if one day far right organizations such as the AfD become partners of a ruling coalition through elections, no one will be able to object to the situation by claiming that it is against democracy.

Thus while some experts work to determine the limits of democracy by the rule of law format, the rule of law itself needs to be built on democratic and liberal principles. At this point, the claim of the Enlightenment that the hegemony of mind will be shaped by rational governments and rational demands of mature citizens seems shaky.

Similarly, the immigration of new social groups who make religious references in their everyday life, which has no rationality according to European society, to Europe presents a new dilemma for the secular-liberal Western democracies. While this clash can for now temporarily be ignored, this is not a possibility in the long term. The greatest example of this is how Muslim minorities are only able to gain their democratic rights via vegans who have established a place for themselves on the basis of rationality, and some of their freedoms through laws passed for the interests of LGBT groups.

It does not seem possible for the current crisis of the liberal system and democracy to be resolved within the framework of the rule of law and by ignoring the far right element without re-directing the system into a new direction and developing an alternative, new discourse.

The post Germany: From the Refugee Problem to the Crisis of the Liberal Democratic System appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>