With no surprise German Chancellor Angela Merkel won the federal elections on 24^th September while major parties, including her own, suffered the worst-ever losses in German political history since 1949. In her early statements subsequent to the initial projections of the election results last Sunday, Merkel commented on the results with the words “we reached the strategic goals of our election campaign.” During a time period where Europe and so-called “Western values” are facing populist and right-wing challenges, Chancellor Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) will once again become the only group able to build a coalition government in order to rule Europe’s most ‘powerful’ country for an additional four years.

Due to the deficit of the German parliamentary system, the building of a coalition including the negotiation process can last until Christmas of this year, or even longer. Merkel, who just started a new election campaign on the state level in Lower Saxony with regard to the elections on 25 October, will once again arrange a new coalition government. On the federal level, it is currently impossible to build a coalition government against the Christian Democratic parties by all the other five parliamentary groups. By gaining only 32,9% of the votes, Merkel’s Union will have 246 seats while the Social Democratic SPD (20,5%) 153 seats, the right-wing populist AfD (Alternative for Germany) party (12,6%) 94 seats (92 without Frauke Petry and Mario Mieruch who recently quitted their party), Free Democratic FDP (10,7%) 80 seats, the left-wing Linke (9,2%) 69 seats and the Greens (8,9%) 67 seats in Germany’s Federal Parliament, the 19^th German Bundestag.

With regard to the current number (709) of deputies in the parliament, the support of at least 355 MPs is required in order to elect the Chancellor of the new federal government. Another important result of the recent election is the fact that the two major parties reached just 53 percent of the total vote, which is the lowest combined share ever in German political history (for instance in 1987: 81,3%; 1998: 76%; 2013: 67,2%). The rationale behind this can be elaborated as a new trend according to which the German electorate diminish their traditional party allegiance and vote for other, small and even extremist parties.

Since its establishment in 1949, Germany has been governed by Christian Democrat Chancellors for approximately 48 years. For instance CDU leader Merkel has been governing the country for twelve years – and will most probably l continue her job as Chancellor for an additional four years. On the other hand, the Social Democrats have only occupied the powerful Chancellor position for 20 years in total. Generally the federal governments in Germany consisted of two party coalitions with a major and junior partner; or, as was recently the case, between 2005-2009 and 2013-2017, of a so called “grand coalition,” which is a constellation of the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats.

With the disastrous election results for both major parties, a new debate started whether a grand coalition undermines the efficient political culture in Germany. Even though Merkel still considers a potential grand coalition, the Social Democrats do not share the same feelings towards Merkel’s such ambition. According to the current election result, the SPD ruled out joining any grand coalition due to the fact that the AfD –as the third largest parliamentary group– will become the main opposition party. A no-go in post-war Germany? According to the SPD the answer to this question is yes. However, Angela Merkel did not speak against this possibility. Actually, it is too early to predict a concrete government constellation. An additional reason for the harsh position of the SPD is most likely the fact that the Social Democrats’ two worst election results since WWII have come directly on the heels of playing the role of CDU/CSU’s junior coalition partner (2009 & 2017). Consequently the SPD, still led by Martin Schulz and who took the responsibility for the worst election of the party after WWII, does not prefer to join Merkel’s government once again.

Although the SPD is tendentious to become the main opposition in the Bundestag, Angela Merkel called the Social Democrats to rethink their decision. However, Schulz rejected this offer by elaborating it as ‘waste of time.’ It is interesting to observe that mainstream media, in particular left-wing voices, also insist on preventing such a ‘grand possibility.’ The German political elite, German mainstream media, business circles and big companies call for a so-called “Jamaica Coalition” – despite its difficultness and differences with regard to the involved parties’ programs. A ‘Jamaica Coalition’ – so called because of the three parties’ colors black-yellow-green – seems to be the only likely government constellation consisting of the CDU/CSU, Liberals/FDP and the Greens. This will be a first in German history as there has never been a three-party coalition forming government on the federal level. This option is also problematic as was reflected in the recently established Jamaica coalition in Schleswig-Holstein, where the parties needed several months to reach a coalition agreement.

While the German political system does not provide a deadline for a coalition to be set,  the new 19^th Bundestag must come together by 24^th October. Within this instability, Merkel is ruling out the option of holding a second election by emphasizing respect for “the German voters’ decision.” With regard to a Jamaica coalition, it is likely that the first negotiations with party representatives of the CDU/CSU, FDP and the Greens will be postponed until the end of the state elections in Lower Saxony on 15 October.

The 24 September federal election also revealed some interesting issues with regard to the German political environment and particularly concerning some leaders’ approaches.

For instance, while not resigning from the party leadership position, SPD’s Schulz took responsibility for the party’s defeat and made it clear that he will not act as the party’s parliamentary group leader. If one examines his statements, it becomes apparent that Schulz still appears very aggressive for instance by addressing Chancellor Merkel. For instance, during the “elephant round” which generally takes place right after the election, Schulz was actually in a fighting mood against the Chancellor. For some minutes Schulz harshly attacked Merkel by literally calling her as “the biggest loser.” Furthermore, Schulz charged Merkel with being responsible for the AfD’s strong result by stating “Ms. Merkel has led a scandalous election campaign.”

The same can be said for the newly elected SPD parliamentary group leader Nahles who attacked her former Cabinet colleagues from the CDU/CSU by stating “Starting tomorrow, we’ll be right in their face.” It also seems that members in the SPD do not have courage to criticize and speak up against Schulz’ over-confident decisions and sharp statements. Nevertheless, the current situation of the SPD suggests that the party will become a platform of competition between Nahles and Schulz in the course of the upcoming party congress in December this year, where Schulz, once again, will aim to run for party leadership.

As a result, it can openly be stated that the entering of AfD into the Bundestag is a federal reflection of the German political reality, which is currently the case in 13 of 16 German federated state parliaments. With the federal election on 24 September, the contemporary reality ultimately reached the federal capital of Germany. Thus, despite the disappointment and frustrated statements on media outlets and in political circles, it is not true that this result caused an actual shock wave in German society. Moreover, instead of being surprised the mainstream parties have to reorganize and create efficient approaches and alternatives.

To some extent, the result was predictable and now this has to be addressed seriously without an overestimation of the AfD. With no doubt the striking number of right-wing, extremist and populist AfD deputies in the federal parliament is perceived as a new challenge for the German political elite in Berlin. Thinking about the potential total number of MP assistants and other AfD-employees of each AfD deputy, who will also enter into the Bundestag,  it becomes clear that the political mood in Berlin will be tense when trying to communicate with far-right politicians and affiliated employees. Nevertheless, Berlin-based political scientist Oskar Niedermayer states that the AfD in parliament should not be overrated; above all due to the fact that no political group wants to build a coalition with the far-right populists. However, Niedermayer also emphasizes the possibility that the Bundestag’s debate culture could be worsened due to some racist-nationalist AfD deputies’ actions and behaviors. In the context of the AfD, some polls revealed that more than 60 percent of current AfD voters cast a protest vote. Thus, this vote should not be considered as an expression commitment to the AfD’s party program. In addition, 50 percent of AfD voters described themselves as critical of the party for not doing enough to distance itself from the far right.

That is to say; first of all, the AfD should not be overrated as previously stated. Secondly, the right-wing populists should be prevented from dominating the Bundestag by abusing several mechanisms. Whether this will be possible is one of the main challenges the main parties, above all the government parties, the main opposition party and some key figures have to think about. Under these circumstances, the wrong path for mainstream parties would be imitating AfD’s racist discourses and populist statements. Unfortunately this was the case when CSU leader Horst Seehofer blamed the CDU/CSU for having left “the right flank open,” which, according to him, made it possible for this gap to be exploited by the AfD. But seriously, what should have been done? Be more racist than a racist party? Or solve the problems of the electorate by accurate and reasonable solution approaches? Preferably, the latter. As it is rightly stated, if a country accepts that right-wing extremists entered the parliament due to 890.000 refugees who came to Germany, what will this country do if a real crisis arises? This question has to be taken into consideration by all; not just by political parties.

While Germany’s Angela Merkel has secured a fourth term as Chancellor after Sunday’s election for a new Bundestag (the federal Parliament), her authority has undoubtedly diminished. The radical rightwing AfD has entered Parliament as the third-largest party, institutionalizing the rise of far-right ideology in Germany.

Merkel’s conservative block gained 32.9 percent of the vote, a decrease of 8.6 percent since the 2013 elections. The social democrats have also decreased their vote by 5.2 percent, leaving them with 20.5 percent of the vote. While the CDU/CSU secured 34.7 percent of seats in Parliament, the SPD remained at 21.6.

In analyzing the results and the decline of the two major blocs, it can be stated that the vote has been shared between the FDP, who are pro-business, and who increased its vote by 6 percent. However, the real deal is the fact that AfD entered Parliament with 12.6 percent of the general vote, securing 87 seats in Parliament.

This now means that Merkel’s new real opposition is the far-right.

AfD entrance not warm welcomed

With its increase of the national vote and seats in Parliament, hundreds of protestors gathered in the cities of Berlin, Hamburg and Frankfurt to show opposition to the hard-right party.

The protestors gathered at Berlin’s Alexanderplatz on Sunday, near a victory party for AfD and chanted slogans including “racism is not an alternative,” “AfD is a bunch of racists” and “Nazis out!”

“The whole of Berlin hates the AfD!” was also heard at the protest.

Riot police were alarmed and ensured to prevent the protestors from approaching the building where the AfD victory party was being held.

Turks once again under-represented

Considering the fact that Germany is home to 3 million Turks, the current under-representation in the new German Parliament raises questions regarding ethnic representation.

Only 14 lawmakers with a Turkish background have been elected to the 709-seat Bundestag, where the AfD have become the third largest group.

While the CDU/CSU and FDP have no Turkish members, the SPD has managed to draw the largest number of lawmakers from the Turkish community.

Ahead of the elections, the Turkish Community in Germany (TGD) association called on political parties to take measures, including setting quotas, in order to increase the representation of citizens with an immigrant background in the Bundestag.

The PKK rally in Cologne, Germany, on September 16 raised questions once again on Germany’s democratic standards and commitment to bilateral relations with Turkey.

The PKK, listed as a terrorist organization by the US and by the European Union, resumed its armed campaign in July 2015 regardless of government efforts to sit around a table and negotiate solutions. Since resuming its armed campaign, the PKK have been responsible for the deaths of some 1,200 Turkish security personnel and civilians, including a number of women and children.

The rally in Cologne saw a mass number of PKK members and sympathizers gather, chanting hatred against the Turkish President and freedom for the leader of the terrorist organization, Abdullah Ocalan.

While German federal elections are on the brink, and since an anti-Turkey political atmosphere has been evolved during political campaigns, allowing the PKK to hold a rally during this time has only served to deteriorate relations further. During the election campaigns German politicians including Merkel and Schulz called for the re-negotiations of Turkey’s membership bid to the EU.

While the government have been salient in ensuring a peaceful relationship with Germany is maintained, acknowledging that the elections climate has given rise to tensions, in response to the PKK rally in Cologne, Turkey summoned the German ambassador to Ankara.

In a statement published, the Foreign Affairs Ministry stated: “We condemn the organization of a rally in the German city of Cologne by the extensions of the PKK terrorist organizations, and the allowing of terror propaganda. We have voiced our reaction in a strong manner to Germany’s ambassador to Ankara, who was called to the ministry.”

Turkey’s fight against the PKK

The Turkish state have continued with their counter-terrorism policies and have, according to the Interior Ministry, neutralized 46 PKK terrorists in the past week.

In a statement detailing operations held between Sept. 11 and Monday, the ministry said: “During the operations, a total of 29 terrorists were killed; 11 of them surrendered while six others were captured alive.”

The operations were held in Diyarbakir, Mardin, Igdir, Sivas, Siirt, Bingol, Tunceli, Hakkari and Sirnak; 28 shelters and 49 improvised explosive devices were also destroyed.

We Are the Good Ones is a book written by Schreyer and Broeckers on how mainstream media in Europe and in the West in general tried to demoralise Russia during the crisis in Ukraine. Any steps by Russians or pro-Russian groups in Ukraine were seen as unjust, illegal, inhuman and anti-Western per-se. Although there was a previous rapprochement between Russia and Europe in the fields of counterterrorism, natural gas trade cooperation and others, just one conflict on interests turned Russia into an “other” for Europe.

There are two steps involved in making a bogyman out of someone. Firstly, in our case, it starts with referring to Europe’s unquestionable and essentialist attitudes of being good per nature. Europeans and Westerners in general are always the good guys, those who do not do anything bad. Since they have the self-vision of being cultivated, founders of liberal democracy and forerunners of all modern achievements in the world, their awareness of the self is simply being the good, independent of which kind of stance they have or what their actions are, while the rest does not really matter at all.

The Case of Turkey

The referendum on the 16h April of this year is a plebiscite on reforms to Turkey’s constitution. Shortly, citizens of the Republic of Turkey will decide on whether they want to change Turkey’s executive to a presidential democratic order or to remain in the present form of governance. Since 1.5 million Turkish citizens residing in Germany, along with hundreds of thousands living in mainly Western European states, will participate in the referendum and politicians from different factions are extending their campaigns into these countries. Whereas in every European country politicians and private persons can campaign for a ‘No’, this has not been the same for anyone campaigning for a ‘Yes’. A trend starting with the cancellation of the conference, which was to be given by the Minister of Justice, Bekir Bozdag, has continued, with further meetings legally registered but cancelled due to arbitrary procedures.

After the cancelation of meetings of the Minister of Justice, a few days later meetings of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, have been cancelled as well. Although the argument was made by German public servants that political campaigning by foreign politicians is not a fundamental right; this was not the case for others. For instance, the Leftist Party (die Linke) and the Greens (die Grüne), the third and fourth largest parties represented in the German parliament, are officially campaigning for a ‘No’’ which illustrates the political stances of political parties actively involving in foreign campaigns. The irony is between the prohibitions of politicians campaigning for their political agenda related to their own country to their own citizens living abroad and free activity of political parties campaigning for a foreign concern, in their own countries but to people who they consider foreigners.

The same case can be observed in the Netherlands, where Prime Minister Rutte declared he would not allow any meetings of ministers of Turkey in the Netherlands, yet the previous deputy minister of Turkey, Abdullatif Şener, actively campaigns for a ‘No’ and meets Turkish citizens living there.

Indeed, it is another aspect of the psychology of the Good Ones to characterize anyone who is an ally as also being good, regardless of their actions. Therefore, their agenda and raison d’être is legitimized and should not be questioned. It is, in other words, the illustration of how and why European politicians, public servants and journalists are applying double standards without even recognizing and comprehending it. It is sometimes an act springing from unconscious attitudes towards certain ideas, persons and topics. Indeed, a pro-PKK demonstration in Frankfurt on 20 March is therefore possible, although the PKK is officially recognized as a terror organization by Germany.

The events over the night of 11 March 2017 have their roots in this essentialist, prejudicial and arbitrary actions as well. However, it is not just rooted in an unconscious act but there is a certain agenda behind it. Speaking for the Dutch case, there have been General Elections on 15 March and the right-wing Populist Party leader Wilders was leading in the polls. Rutte, the current Prime Minister, has evidently misused his office as a prime minister to catch up with Wilders’ votes and to have a chance for a further re-election, which he in the end won as the primary party.

In other words, his means were values like liberal democracy, ideas like freedom of expression and assembly, and further characteristics on their proclaimed liberal democracy for not losing his office, and his power. Therefore, a bad person named Erdogan is always useful for being a good person named Rutte, Wilders, Schulz or good girls like Le Pen or Merkel. It is becoming more and more obvious, what would happen if an EU national politician would be detained in Turkey. However, this is the destiny; they do not even deserve fundamental rights, since they are basically, the Bad Ones.

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.