A Weak German Chancellor and a Threat to Democracy

The threat to democracy is not the AfD, it is the ruling coalition and their total disregard for the voters in the attempt to ban the most popular party in the country.

From The European Conservative

By Dieter Stein

Friedrich Merz limps into office while Berlin moves to ban the main opposition party.

After a day of mayhem in the German parliament in Berlin, the principal loser is Friedrich Merz. He starts off as a weak, damaged new Chancellor, having failed to secure enough votes to be elected in the first vote. 18 MPs of his coalition, most likely disgruntled Social Democrats, refused to vote for him in the first round. For the first time in post-war German history, a candidate to become Federal Chancellor lost the first round of voting.

This surprise defeat was a total fiasco for the leader of the Christian Democrats (CDU), a disaster beyond all expectations. Merz’s stony-faced expression said it all. Some were even talking about an imminent national crisis. True, Merz then managed to get voted in by the skin of his teeth in a hastily arranged second round on Tuesday afternoon. But the damage is done.

Far from the European strongman image he projects, Merz is now seen as a weak figure. His coalition has been exposed as unstable. They cannot rely on the small majority in the Bundestag that CDU, their sister party CSU, and the social democratic SPD have after their weak election results in the national poll of February 23rd (only 28% for the Christian Democrats and 16% for the SPD).

At present, the three parties would even fail to gain a majority, according to the most recent opinion polls. Those polls have shown a remarkable rise in support for Alternative für Deutschland(AfD), the right-wing populist challenger party, despite the constant stream of denunciations they receive in the mainstream media.

Germany has been going downhill for quite a while now. The former economic powerhouse of Europe has lost competitiveness and suffered a serious decline in its main industries. After two years of recession, we are likely to have another year of stagnation now, according to economic forecasts. The main economic burdens are exorbitant energy costs driven by costly and irrational ‘green’ climate policies, excessive taxes, and overwhelming bureaucratic red tape for businesses.

Furthermore, we have seen more than ten years of mass immigration, mainly from Islamic countries. This mass wave of asylum seekers, mostly from the Middle East and Africa—which former Chancellor Merkel (CDU) allowed in with her open door policy for so-called refugees, more than three million in one decade—has created massive social problems, higher crime and huge financial burdens in the tens of billions each year. All this contributed to a massive level of discontent, evidenced by the strong results for AfD, which now enjoys the support of roughly a quarter of voters.

Shooting the messenger

Yet, instead of addressing the problems and finding solutions, the parties prefer to shoot at the messenger. It is frightening to see how fast Germany is transforming into a semi-totalitarian country these days. The attempts to ban AfD, the leading opposition party, have intensified. Would you call a country that eliminates an unwelcome opposition party a democratic country? Banning the largest opposition and chilling the free speech of their supporters would make Germany resemble a ‘People’s Republic of Germany’ rather than a free country.

Chancellor Merz, who is not popular at all—in fact, his approval ratings are miserable and only one-fifth of all Germans consider him fit to lead the country—might be tempted to rid himself of the biggest competitor to his centre-right CDU party. Polls indicate that many voters and also many CDU supporters are deeply unhappy with the coalition plans: a massive increase in public debt and no clear steps to curtail irregular mass immigration. With voter dissatisfaction high, the establishment could be even more tempted to eliminate the largest opposition party.

The pressure has mounted in recent days on AfD after the domestic spy agency (the ‘Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution,’ the Verfassungsschutz) published a press release designating AfD a “proven extremist” party.

This is in itself a scandal because the so-called Verfassungsschutz did not disclose the alleged evidence backing up this verdict. The spy agency has assembled a 1,100-page report with supposed evidence, but they keep this report secret. Would you consider this a state under the rule of law, where a defendant is charged and publicly denounced by a government body, but does not get a chance to see the evidence and therefore cannot effectively defend himself?

The ‘Office for the Protection of the Constitution’ alleges that AfD undermines the free democratic order and violates the principle of human dignity by denying migrants the same rights as ethnic Germans. Alleging that there is a German people defined by common ethnic ancestry is paramount to ‘ethnic nationalism’ and unconstitutional, the agency claims. Some small parts of the report of the spy agency have been leaked to the press.

The quotes that the agency has assembled as evidence are extraordinary. One tweet on X by an MP that the office finds scandalous reads: “Misguided migration policy and the abuse of asylum have led to the 100,000-fold importation of people from deeply backward and misogynistic cultures.” Why is this expression of opinion unconstitutional? 

Another MP declared at a public meeting that Germans “must be allowed to decide again who actually belongs to this people and who doesn’t.” He also spoke of a “law of nature” that means “each and every one of you has more in common with me than with any Syrian or Afghan.” A third AfD politician is quoted with this statement: “Diversity means multiculturalism. And what does multiculturalism mean? Multiculturalism means loss of tradition, loss of identity, loss of homeland, murder, manslaughter, robbery, and gang rape.“ Yes, you can argue that he is highly polemical. But unconstitutional? What about free speech?

AfD leader Alice Weidel, who is married to a woman of Sri Lankan origin, has blasted the attempts to ban her party as deeply undemocratic and has vowed to fight the denunciation by the Verfassungsschutz. She and her co-party leader have promised to “continue to take legal action against this defamation that jeopardizes democracy”. Even U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the intelligence agency’s ruling, calling it “tyranny in disguise.”

It might sound shocking to non-German ears that the spy authority is already allowed to use wiretaps, hack into computers and emails, infiltrate the party with undercover agents, and even send agents provocateurs in order to “gain information”. Especially in East Germany, many citizens arereminded of the methods of the former GDR secret service Stasi to subvert and destroy the opposition.

A Damocles sword over the German democracy

What is happening in Germany is highly alarming. If the mainstream parties vote to start the process of banning the AfD, it will ultimately be decided by the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. The legal procedure will take several years, but it could be completed before the next regular date for federal elections in 2029. Thus, the AfD could be banned by the next election, and around one-fourth of the electorate could be disenfranchised.

The totalitarian fantasies of those who purport to “save democracy” by attempting to suppress the main opposition party are laid out quite clearly by the explanation given by the CDU politician Marco Wanderwitz, one of the main proponents of a ban: 

We would basically pull the plug on this party. The party would be banned and its assets confiscated. All the people who work for the party would immediately lose their jobs. All mandates, from honorary local councilors to seats in the European Parliament, would be annulled immediately. All employees of MPs and parliamentary groups at all levels would instantly lose their jobs. We would reduce the structure of the AfD to zero.

That, according to Wanderwitz, would be “a breathing space for democracy.” Others might call it the suffocation of democracy.

It now all comes down to the decision of Merz and the CDU leadership whether to support a vote in the federal parliament on starting the legal process to ban the AfD. They seem to hesitate. Some invoke tactical arguments against it. AfD might gain further support in the short term from citizens enraged about the suppression of opposition and free speech. Others point to legal hazards. It is not guaranteed that the court in Karlsruhe would follow the request to ban the AfD. However, the court is packed with former party politicians of CDU, SPD, and Greens, and most are very close to the ruling class. While a ban by the court is not automatic, many observers doubt that the judges will uphold the principles of a free country.

All this hangs like a sword of Damocles not only above the head of the AfD but above the whole German democracy. Banning popular opposition candidates from running has become something of a fashion in EU countries, as we have witnessed in Romania and France lately. Banning an entire party—in fact, the largest party at present—would turn Germany into an authoritarian ‘controlled democracy.’My newspaper has started a petition (Petition für Demokratie – NEIN zum AfD-Verbot! JA zur Demokratie!) to stop this development. The petition is fast gaining the support of tens of thousands of people. Ultimately, even if you are a strong opponent of AfD, we must not remain silent when faced with a murder attempt against the foundations of our democracy.