A blue wave has swept over Germany, or at least the eastern part of the country. In the elections held in Saxony and Thuringia on September 1, 2024, Alternative for Germany (AfD) achieved more than solid results. The opposition party ranked first in Thuringia, while in Saxony, it narrowly trailed the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Some media outlets referred to this as an earthquake. However, this does not mean that it was unpredictable, nor that the media-political cartel did not do everything possible to prevent Alternative for Germany from gaining strength. Therefore, considering all the methods used to fight the opposition, the results appear impressive.
IN THE STYLE OF A PRIVATE STASI
It’s true that the media barrage against AfD has been ongoing since the party’s founding, intensifying over the years. At the start of the year, the situation took on new dimensions when the investigative collective Correctiv accused Austrian right-wing activist Martin Sellner and politicians from AfD and CDU of participating in a secret meeting where they planned the deportation of foreigners from Germany. In the style of detectives, or perhaps more like a private Stasi, “investigative journalists” from Correctiv organized secret surveillance and recording of the participants. Sellner was marked as the central figure, the mastermind behind the plan, and the main organizer of the future ethnic cleansing of Germany. However, it soon became clear that Correctiv’s story was a mere fabrication with no basis in reality. After all, it’s hard to speak of secret plans when considering that Sellner outlined his views on remigration in his book of the same name.
IGNORING (DOCUMENTED) SCANDALS
It’s also important not to overlook other significant points that shed more light on the situation. First and foremost, what stands out is that Correctiv and similar media outlets devote more attention to a non-existent right-wing scandal than to well-documented scandals involving politicians in power. For instance, the correspondence between Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer’s CEO, Olaf Scholz’s dubious conversations with representatives of a bank that defrauded the state for a nine-figure sum, or Nancy Faeser removing politically inconvenient officials from her position as Minister of the Interior. Neither migrant violence, the decline in internal security, nor the unresolved terrorist attack on Germany’s infrastructure (Nord Stream) concern Correctiv’s journalists as much as the supposed right-wing threat.
Another significant observation is that the mentioned journalistic collective is heavily funded by public money. Allegedly independent, the Correctiv team received €431,059.85 from the federal government in 2023 alone, plus another €145,338 from the North Rhine-Westphalia budget. This fact perhaps explains the selection of topics Correctiv focuses on (or avoids). Perhaps for this reason, the investigative team acts as an extension of the government, or as a corrective to the opposition, even though in any democratic society, the media should serve as a check on the government.
A CLUB AGAINST THE OPPOSITION
The third point to keep in mind is the strange synchronicity with which this story emerged just as large farmer protests were happening in Germany. The major investigative story about a right-wing conspiracy came just in time to divert attention from the protests and the demonstrators’ concrete demands.
In short, the right-wing in Germany does not only face the political elite but an entire media complex, as the Correctiv case vividly illustrates. Powerful structures consisting of NGOs, party elites, church leaders, and established media ensure that the dogmas of left-liberal politics are not questioned. Thus, the media become a tool for suppressing the opposition.
Shortly after the story broke, organized demonstrations followed, attended by government representatives, including Chancellor Scholz and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. They took to the streets to signal their virtue in the fight for democracy and against the supposed right-wing threat.
ANTIFA ON DUTY
Chancellor Scholz himself called for the demonstrations, but it seems that it didn’t stop at just appeals. If citizens themselves are not willing to take to the streets, there are ways to help them—enter the media—at least by creating the right atmosphere. It all appeared as though government supporters were fighting to replace the opposition with a more acceptable one that would be more to the government’s liking. The fact that politicians from the ruling parties solidarized with leftist extremists, who were present in large numbers at these gatherings, surprised no one, especially since the state had already allocated vast sums of money to fund the fight against the right, which ended up in the hands of violent Antifa groups.
A DEMONSTRATION SPECTACLE
In other words, the protests against the right-wing opposition seemed like a well-organized campaign in which the government enjoyed unlimited media support—a sort of pre-election general mobilization. While German rallies may not bus in crowds or feed them sandwiches, this doesn’t make the situation any better. Not only were the demonstrators mostly voters from the ruling coalition and well-paid professional fighters against the right-wing danger from leftist extremist circles, but in interviews with “ordinary citizens” on camera, the interviewees were mostly party members and media employees posing as concerned citizens. Only trusted people can be expected to give the correct statements.
The entire spectacle of the demonstrations served to clearly designate who the enemy and the black sheep of society is. That role belongs to the right-wing, specifically to Alternative for Germany (AfD), with the most attention focused on the head of the Thuringian branch: Björn Höcke.
NANCY FAESER’S PLAN
The demonstrations also served as a platform for Minister Nancy Faeser to present her new plan to fight the right, which in this case means suppressing free speech and targeting an opposition party, all under the guise of defending democracy. When introducing the plan, Minister Faeser stated that its goal is to use the rule of law to protect democracy. The entire introduction was full of generalities and pathetic oaths to democracy—to the point where it seemed that, according to the minister, “democracy makes our democracy.” The logical gymnastics and inflated use of the word “democracy” seem intended to conceal the true intention. “We want to break the networks of right-wing extremists, cut off their sources of funding, and disarm them.” Such an explanation is confusing and would hardly hold up to impartial analysis. Faeser thus announced that she would protect democracy by exerting pressure on the opposition from a position of power. If the enemy is clearly identified in the first step, it’s logical to expect action against them.
EXTREMISM AS AN EXCUSE
However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that right-wing extremism is merely an excuse here. “Right-wing extremists want to undermine trust in the stability and functioning of the state,” explains the minister. They share this goal with external actors who also have an interest in weakening democracy. Thus, “autocratic states” deceive people on the internet with fake social media accounts and various other means. This coordinated influence campaign seeks to manipulate free thought and political debate, thereby weakening democracy. Now, new teams will be formed to identify and cut off such attempts at the root. Publicist Martin Lichtmes called the minister’s words “an immeasurable insolence” in his commentary.
A CANDIDATE FOR THE DEVIL
On Twitter, Minister Faeser threatened to turn over every stone to find extremists, adding that those who mock the state will face a strong state. A government that threatens its citizens can hardly be called democratic, no matter how much it invokes openness and diversity. In any case, politicians in power are dividing citizens into two groups: those who are rightly aligned and extremists who are subject to special rules.
Critics have rightfully pointed out that Minister Faeser’s plan seems like a declaration of war on a large part of the population, while on the other hand, its implementation will not solve a single real problem facing Germany. On the contrary, such policies will only exacerbate them. It can’t be otherwise, since it is clear that the government is unable to critically reflect on its system, ideology, or policies. In this sense, the political-media class behaves like the party leadership in communist countries in the late 1980s. Back then, they also blamed “counterrevolutionary forces” and “agents of foreign powers” for everything and believed the best cure for the crisis of socialism was even more socialism. A ruling class that cannot recognize its own mistakes has no choice but to demonize its political opponents. As Martin Lichtmes writes, “others must be devils so that they can appear as angels, and who is a better candidate for the devil than the right-winger?”
A STRATEGY THAT MISSED ITS TARGET
This broadly outlines the political atmosphere in which first the European elections, and then the elections in two East German states, were held. The election results show that the entire strategy of combating the right-wing missed its target because in Thuringia, AfD, led by the mentioned Björn Höcke, is convincingly the strongest political force with over 32% support. On the other hand, in the same state, the ruling coalition parties together won about 10% of the vote, with Scholz’s SPD receiving around 6%, the Greens about 3%, and the liberals (FDP) performing the worst with about 1%. A similar situation is in Saxony, where AfD ranks second with just over 30% support, while the ruling coalition parties performed slightly better: SPD 7.3%, Greens 5.1%, and FDP around 1%. If polls are to be believed, similar results are expected in the upcoming elections in Brandenburg, where AfD is also projected to win, and the ruling parties are expected to suffer a heavy defeat. Once again, it has been proven that the government led by Olaf Scholz is likely the most unpopular in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany, although its officials refuse to acknowledge this or draw logical consequences from it. On the contrary, the less popular they become, the more nervous their reactions are.
THE OLD PARTIES ARE FULL
It’s worth noting that Minister Faeser herself experienced a debacle in last year’s regional elections in Hesse. Nevertheless, this has not shaken her confidence. Chancellor Scholz’s statements following the regional elections confirm this, as he accused the opposition of all the troubles in Germany, including issues with the economy. How an opposition party far from power can affect Germany’s global image but not the problematic statements of Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock is likely known only to the chancellor and his media team.
The elections also revealed that voters in both states show significant support for the newly formed Alliance of Sahra Wagenknecht, which shares several views with AfD. With 11.8% in Saxony and 15.8% in Thuringia, this party ranks third, confirming that voters are tired of the old parties and are looking for someone who will listen and understand their demands.
THE RIGHT-WING POTENTIAL OF THE EAST
After the elections, it became evident that AfD is best able to articulate the sentiments of the right. The attempt by former CDU member and former head of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Hans-Georg Maassen, to fill the space between AfD and CDU with his newly formed Value Union (WU) was a complete failure. Maassen’s party won less than 1% of the vote in both states. This confirms that any course within AfD that seeks to align with CDU would not be well-received by voters. In other words, AfD’s strong results in Thuringia are closely tied to Höcke’s firm stance, or simply put, voters, at least in the East, don’t want a party that could represent the old CDU version, but a new and clearly articulated right-wing party. The only new right-wing phenomenon worth mentioning is the newly formed Free Saxony party (FS), which won 2.2% of the vote in its region. The emergence of this party, which stands to the right of AfD and advocates for “Saxit,” or Saxony’s exit from the Federal Republic of Germany, shows that even though they won’t be represented in the state parliament, forces to the right of AfD still have potential—at least in the East.
A BARRIER AGAINST AfD
Looking at the future government, it becomes clear that the situation in both states is more than complex. CDU, with 23.6% in Thuringia and 31.9% in Saxony, has made it clear that it does not want to form a coalition with AfD, positioning itself as a barrier against AfD. Given these results, this means only one thing: cooperation with the Left, or the Alliance of Sahra Wagenknecht. How CDU plans to explain such a move to its voters is a big question, especially what might happen after the term ends and disappointed voters get ballots again. One thing is certain, though: it’s hard to believe that those who voted for CDU wanted to bring the Left to power.
This brings us back to the logical consequences of the fight against the right. Refusing to engage or collaborate with the right leads to the exclusion of nearly a third of voters from the political process, effectively discounting their votes simply because the political-media cartel deems they were cast for the wrong party. This not only undermines democracy and the institutions of the rule of law but also the very idea of political pluralism.
IGNORING A PEOPLE’S PARTY
On the other hand, the declared policy of suppressing the right leads both states into political crisis, as a stable coalition is difficult to form. This means that ignoring AfD, which has become a true people’s party in the East, cannot be a long-term politically wise move, nor can ignoring the legitimate concerns and fears of its voters. Knife attacks, declining internal security, rising crime, and the strengthening of Islamic extremism are clearly linked to open border policies, mass immigration, and unrestrained multiculturalism. Germans in the East know what cities in the West have become and do not want politicians to “bless” them with the same policies. Equally real is the decline in living standards due to inexplicable foreign and energy policies. Parties that try to formulate alternative answers to citizens’ problems may be labeled populist or far-right extremist. Their activists may be persecuted and attacked, protested against, and slandered in the media without the right to respond, but this won’t solve the problems. That is what politicians are tasked with. Therefore, after these elections, one thing is perfectly clear: at least a third of the citizens in two states are no longer susceptible to propaganda about a right-wing threat.
