Germany’s New Chancellor Must Do the Unthinkable
If he wants an effective governing majority, Chancellor Friedrich Merz must invite the AfD into the government.
Germany’s election this week put the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU) in the lead, but no informed observer is celebrating. Everyone can see doom on the horizon. Party head and presumptive next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, will form a coalition with the center-left SPD because he thinks he must. However, the SPD, now in a humiliating third place after their arch-enemy, the far-right “Alternative for Germany” (Alternative für Deutschland or AfD), has made its opposition to Merz’s core principles absolutely clear.
They have opposed his previous parliamentary efforts to address the immigrant crisis. As coalition partners, they would be in a position to block his agenda—an agenda that a clear majority of Germans is vociferously demanding. Merz is allowing himself to be blackmailed by the so-called “firewall” principle—the notion that the AfD is beyond the pale and cannot be interacted with in any way.
This leaves him with only the SPD to partner with and only the leftist Greens and the far-left splinter parties as partners for passing legislation. All of those groups are steadfastly clinging to policies that will careen Germany into ruin: costly and unrealistic environmental and energy policies and spendthrift welfare programs that the country cannot afford. With a government like this, the economy will soon be unable to pay pensions or cover medical entitlements. Forget the significant investments in military defense that are urgently required in light of developments in NATO and the newly stated U.S. posture towards Europe—these will neither be affordable nor will the Left agree to them.
Merz has an alternative—literally. Merz must form a coalition with the AfD. They overlap with him on the issue of greatest concern to the electorate: uncontrolled immigration. The two parties can restore domestic security by finally deporting criminal immigrants, promptly sending home those who didn’t qualify for asylum status, and turning back new arrivals at the borders (existing EU regulations require refugees to seek asylum in the first EU country they reach, instead of wandering across Europe in pursuit of the most munificent welfare system).
These measures can stem the tide and let Germans enjoy the peaceful socializing and safe public spaces of their pre-immigrant years. The AfD will support cuts to politically correct welfare spending and be more pragmatic on energy policy. They will be willing to ramp up defense spending.
The voters have been clear: they do not care about a notional firewall. Merz and his party have expressed an understanding of the public’s concerns about safety, enforcement of laws, and cultural integrity. That is why the CDU/CSU did so well in the election. They recognize that people are tired of burying innocent victims of yet another crazed immigrant attack and of seeing yet another beloved tradition, such as the Christmas Markets, distorted by anxiety, fear, and bloodshed. They see that the societal and economic costs of illegal immigration are an intolerable burden. However, verbal expressions of empathy are not enough; deeds and actions must follow. The SPD, let alone the Far Left, will never permit that. Let’s remember that Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) denounced the CDU/CSU in histrionic terms to prevent them from voting for their immigration bill merely because the AfD was expected to vote in its favor.
The AfD is also the logical coalition partner. They came in second in the election and are projected to have thirty-two more seats in parliament than the SPD. If it were not for the “firewall”—a purely propagandistic construct with no legal foundation—the SPD would otherwise not be considered for a coalition. A “grand coalition” between the current largest two parties would be a logical move.
Some fear the AfD because they believe them to be a rebirth of Nazi fascism. But there is no actual evidence for this. Post-WWII Germany put strong laws in place to guard against any return of Nazi ideology and fascist political activism. If their critics had any evidence that they were a fascist party or shared the beliefs of the Nazis, the AfD would have been expeditiously outlawed. Also, the facts disprove the “marginalize them, and they will fade away” theory. Despite or more probably because of their marginalization, their rise has been meteoric.
In 2013, the AfD captured a mere 4.7 percent of the popular vote. In this election, they topped the 20 percent mark. Some of these votes—perhaps many of them—are protest votes because they are the only party consistently strong on illegal immigration.
At the RAND Corporation, I worked for years in a division that dealt with strategies and methods of de-radicalization, and weakening extremists by pulling them towards the mainstream is a key approach. The way to dilute AfD radicalism is to take the wind out of their sails by addressing their defining issues effectively and genuinely with reasonable mainstream measures.
As for the AfD, if they want to make the jump from protest to actual governance, they need respectability. They know this and have already expressed their willingness to work with the CDU/CSU. Merz needs to acknowledge and respond to the will of the voters on the issue that concerns them most. The AfD is his best and, in the long term, only real option.
Merz faces a stark choice. He can enter the history books of Germany as a tragic figure—the person who knowingly presided over his country’s slide into a doomed political future. Or he could take the bold and controversial step necessary for Germany’s future success.
Mr. Merz, have courage!
Dr. Cheryl Benard was a program director at the RAND National Security Research Division. She is the author of Veiled Courage, Inside the Afghan Women’s Resistance; Afghanistan: State and Society; Democracy and Islam in the Constitution of Afghanistan; and Securing Health, Lessons from Nation-building Missions. Currently, she is the Director of ARCH International, an organization that protects cultural heritage sites in crisis zones.
Image: photocosmos1 via Shutterstock.