Managing the fallout following the AfD’s victory

It was the middle of the night in Germany, following a historic day, when the man who had enjoyed the greatest success in the Saxony-Anhalt elections returned to X, this time to express his gratitude. Not to his voters – Ulrich Siegmund, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) candidate, had already done so at length. Instead, he directed his gratitude toward the world’s richest man. Elon Musk had commented: “Well done” under a post by AfD leader Alice Weidel, who was celebrating the party’s victory in the state of 2.2 million inhabitants. Siegmund, who could soon become the new Minister-President of Saxony-Anhalt, replied promptly: “Thank you for your support and for your clear and highly significant vision.” He added that, should the AfD come to power, he would welcome close cooperation: Germany, after all, would once again become a place worth investing in.

It is precisely on this point, however, that those who know the country best harbour the strongest doubts. It remains entirely unclear what will happen in the coming days of negotiations, let alone in the years to come, should the AfD come to power in Germany’s second-smallest state (by area).

The far-right party, which includes openly extremist members, has secured a surprisingly clear victory in Saxony-Anhalt. Some have described it as an earthquake; in some cases, even a tsunami. Chancellor Friedrich Merz, appearing in public for the first time since the vote, admitted that his party had been shaken “to its very foundations” and that the country’s main moderate parties – those forming the government – were “seriously threatened”. The shock he described, and which many Germans felt on Sunday, was clearly visible on his face. Merz appeared in public alongside the outgoing Prime Minister of Saxony-Anhalt, who immediately conceded defeat and made it clear that he no longer had a mandate to govern. Throughout the election campaign, however dire the polls became, the Christian Democrats had continued to insist on their determination to keep the AfD out of government. In light of the result, this strategy has now changed. Merz himself had already said, during crisis meetings within his party, that Germany would probably have to come to terms, for the time being, with a “far-right minister-president”.

The AfD did not secure an absolute majority. Yet there was little to suggest that the much-discussed scenario prior to the vote – a united front by the other parties against it – would actually materialise. There is, however, much to suggest that Sahra Wagenknecht’s alliance, the Bsw – a splinter group from Die Linke (The Left) that narrowly secured a seat in the regional parliament – might tolerate an AfD government. This would be enough for the AfD to form a minority government. Ulrich Siegmund had ruled out this possibility, only to later describe it as an option. In any case, calls are growing louder in favour of simply letting the party govern the state, perhaps in the hope that it will be ‘exposed’ once forced to take on concrete responsibilities. It is already well known that it has no answers to the most pressing problems, and that its programme is based on unrealistic promises. The budget it has proposed, for example, has a shortfall of at least 2 billion euros.

Saxony-Anhalt is the German federal state with the oldest population and is economically weak. In many areas, it already relies heavily on foreign workers. The ‘Immigration and Repatriation’ section is the longest in the AfD’s manifesto. It contains 43 subsections, almost all of which focus on refoulement, repatriation or the withdrawal of rights. The party is surprisingly explicit – and surprisingly out of touch with reality – in proposing to tackle the shortage of skilled labour through ‘a reversal of the birth rate trend and an end to the brain drain of Germans’.

Even today, many hospitals and care homes, service providers and businesses in Saxony-Anhalt rely on immigrants. All of the state’s employment growth is driven by foreign workers. Without them, things would become more complicated.

The message that the AfD’s political agenda sends abroad is disastrous, and German business organisations have long been denouncing it. The idea that national isolation could represent a viable path to the future seems to be supported only by this party. Concern is growing over the damage to Germany’s image. The ‘new beginning’ referred to by candidate Siegmund and party leader Weidel is a rhetorical trap. The party is not looking forwards, but backwards. And it is precisely this that makes it so appealing to many of its voters. And it is also this that is already undermining Germany’s competitiveness today. The AfD promises security whilst creating uncertainty.

It is certainly not a climate conducive to investment, whether or not Siegmund invites the tech billionaires. And yet it is far from certain that the most effective way to take the wind out of the party’s sails is to let it govern – that is, to force it to turn its many words into concrete actions. There are now examples from other countries from which lessons can be learnt: the priority of this type of party is often the gradual transformation of the state, accompanied by the weakening of its institutions. And when the government becomes incapable of acting, the blame is shifted elsewhere: onto the federal government, onto the European Union. In constructing narratives, the party has proved, in recent months and years, to be extremely effective.