“Democracy is not so much a form of government as a set of principles.”
—Woodrow Wilson
February 2025: It was my third year serving on one of Berlin’s integration advisory boards, an appointment I had eagerly sought as a way to help residents in my district who had fled their homelands for a safe haven in Germany. But my enthusiasm at being appointed to my first German advisory body had long since fizzled out.
We’d spent most of the first six months arguing about the Geschäftsordnung (rules of order). Much of the conflict was about how much power the Board Chairman and other Directors would have, a foreshadowing of the drama that was to unfold a year later when the Chairman was ousted.
Our board had a vague mandate to “advise and support the district office in all matters relating to the participation, integration and equal participation of people with a history of migration.” But we had no concrete responsibilities. With little direction from local officials, our first two years had been mainly spent participating in intercultural events and adopting somewhat bland policy statements.
But plans were now afoot to sponsor a candidate forum prior to Germany’s federal elections on February 23rd. The forum was targeted towards newly enfranchised voters from a migration background and all the main political parties would be invited. A civic education expert would first explain Germany’s complicated rules for parliamentary elections. Attendees could then meet and interact with the Bundestag candidates or their representatives at tables set up in Rathaus Zehlendorf, one of two city halls in our district. Translators would be on-hand for voters who spoke Farsi, Arabic, Turkish, and Russian.
With the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) polling at 20% ahead of election day, its highest level of popularity since its launch in 2013, the stakes were high for new and seasoned voters alike. But what about inviting the AfD to the forum? Our Chairperson requested a vote on this prickly question. Would any of our integration board members really be in favor of inviting an extreme right wing political party’s candidate to our event?
To my dismay, the Board’s leadership opted for an anonymous online vote. Voting instructions were sent by email with the leadership’s opinion that the AfD candidate for our district was “sociable and did not have any behavior problems”. This suddenly felt like a lobbying campaign. But the Board had a long-standing policy to send all messages via bcc (a practice I opposed and that was not necessitated by Germany’s data protection requirements) so there was no opportunity for discussion over email. Each Board member could simply cast their vote without fear of the other members knowing if it was a yea or nay.
The results of the secret ballot were not shared with the advisory board members prior to the candidate forum. But when the event took place, it was hardly a surprise to see the AfD in the line-up of party representatives. Not only had our local Board flaunted standard democratic voting protocols, it was contributing to a pattern of normalizing the participation of the AfD in local political affairs.
At the Board’s next public meeting after the candidate event, I finally learned that only four of the 15 members had voted against inviting the AfD to our forum. Under questioning, the chairperson conceded that she had failed to forward the results of the vote to our members. A Green party official in attendance urged the Board to vote on such significant matters in an open public session rather than through a secret online ballot. At least someone understood the need for transparency.
Our local integration board is just one of many groups that will grapple with decisions about including the AfD in public events and activities. Complicating matters are the dual developments of the AfD’s further rise in the polls, up to 23%, since its second place finish in the February elections, and a new report by Germany’s domestic intelligence agency designating the AfD as extremist.
After the February elections, AfD party leader Alice Weidel claimed that the firewall erected by Germany’s main political parties, i.e. the agreement not to cooperate with the AfD, was undemocratic. This is simply false. Limiting the participation of a party that promotes anti-Islamist views, calls for mass deportations, and uses banned Nazi slogans can only help to maintain the strength of German democracy.
But where should democracies draw the line on limiting the dissemination of extreme right or left wing views? In a recent Der Spiegel article, Bernhard Poerksen, a media studies professor, discusses various dilemmas regarding inclusion of extremist views in the public discourse. It’s a thoughtful piece that examines how one publication has tried to discern what it means to be fair and neutral and at the same time support the continuation of liberal democracy. Poerksen was addressing media coverage of the AfD, but the dilemmas he explores have relevance outside of the media context.
One such dilemma is the “participation and representation” dilemma. As Poerksen says, airing competing perspectives can create a danger of providing “a veneer of acceptability to rather disgusting viewpoints.” In its own balancing act, Der Spiegel’s in-depth coverage of the AfD stops short of reporting on the party’s parliamentary inquiries “because the publication does not want to turn itself into a mouthpiece for right-wing propaganda.” Deciding where to draw the line may not be easy, but limiting the dissemination of extreme views is part of a healthy democracy.
Germany has already enacted stricter migration and integration rules since Friedrich Merz’s center-right government assumed office in May. The changes include a suspension of family reunification rights for approximately 380,000 people with a protected status in Germany. With growing pressure from the far-right for further changes to Germany’s migration policies, now is not the time for broadening the public’s exposure to the AfD’s extremist views.
I wasn’t happy about how our local integration board chose to invite the party that advocates “remigration” and other anti-democratic views to our candidate forum. Democracy suffers when the quest to promote participation and inclusiveness is taken too far. Treating the AfD like any other party in the electoral process is part of a trend toward normalization of the party and further creates cracks in the firewall that is intended to protect the rights of all citizens by keeping this extremist group out of the government.
Donna Swarthout is a member of the Steglitz-Zehlendorf Advisory Board for Participation and Integration in Berlin, Germany. She is the editor of A Place They Called Home. Reclaiming Citizenship. Stories of a New Jewish Return to Germany (Berlinica 2018) and the author of numerous publications about citizenship, identity and integration.
The Far Right Alternative for Germany (AfD): Another Crack in the Firewall