In the span of three years, the Alternative for Germany has grown from a small group of Eurosceptic malcontents into a far-right populist party in a position to undermine Chancellor Merkel’s coalition government. Founded in 2013, the party’s anti-bailout and anti-euro platform initially garnered minimal electoral success. However, the party’s anti-eurozone ideology and desire for political relevance left it open to embracing more nationalistic tendencies. On July 4, 2015, the party elected Frauke Petry as its principal speaker, and under her leadership, the party’s message shifted towards sharply anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric. With the Syrian refugee crisis still dominating public discourse in Europe, the AfD’s staunch anti-migrant policies are gaining it ground amongst conservative voters: it has earned a significant portion of the vote in five states—including a grand showing in Berlin—and even beat out Chancellor Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, her home state. The combination of German conservatives’ threatened national identity and the failure of the establishment to reconcile these fears have created a favorable environment for the AfD to achieve substantial electoral success.
It is no coincidence that the Syrian refugee crisis coincides with the increasing popular appeal of the right-wing ideology of the AfD. Although Chancellor Merkel’s mass immigration policies were initially widely supported, the recent success of the AfD, and new opposition among key figures of her coalition, demonstrate that public opinion is quickly shifting against large-scale asylum. In a 2008 Gallup poll, only 18 percent of Germans believed that people with religious practices different from their own threatened their way of life. However, immigration insecurities have risen sharply under Chancellor Merkel’s mass-immigration policies. According to a Pew poll published in July, 61 percent of Germans believe accepting refugees will increase terrorism; 31 percent say they are an economic burden; and 35 percent say they contribute more to crime than other groups.
While concerns over national security remain at the core of their argument in the wake of the recent string of attacks in France and Brussels, AfD officials have cited a different potential casualty of Chancellor Merkel’s immigration policy: German identity. In an interview with Spiegel, Petry stated, “The immigration of so many Muslims will change our culture.” She asserts that if such a change is desired, that it must be through a democratic process supported by a large majority. “But Ms. Merkel simply opened the borders and invited everybody in, without consulting the parliament or the people.” As nationalism has been essentially extinct for most of post-World War II Germany’s political history, such statements are almost unprecedented on the modern political stage.
Chancellor Merkel refuses to legitimize concerns that refugees are inherently dangerous or will erode German culture. She has frequently asserted that those who have been most in danger during the crisis are the refugees themselves. She stated at a press conference in 2015 that the refugees are “in need of protection,” a stark contrast to the narrative presented by the nationalists, which claims German identity to be the primary victim of the crisis. In an interview with the Suddeutsche Zeitung, Merkel responded to concerns about national identity, saying “Germany will remain Germany, with all that we hold most precious and dear.” Chancellor Merkel embraced what Max Weber called the “ethic of conviction”—the idea that she must pursue what she believes to be morally correct, despite the political concerns of her party.
Although Chancellor Merkel continues to harshly condemn the AfD’s rhetoric, it has clearly influenced her policy decisions, and she recently came out in support of setting refugee quotas for EU nations. These quotas would more evenly distribute the burden of caring for refugees than the current Dublin Regulation, under which the nation whose territory an asylum seeker lands on is initially responsible for caring for them. This move, however, is less a concession to prevent more conservative voters from leaving the CDU than it is an expression of frustration for the limited aid some European countries have given refugee resettlement efforts. From a domestic political viewpoint, this policy does not fully address the concerns of the conservative elements of her party, and it is unlikely to reverse the unusually weak performance of the CDU in recent elections. According to a poll by T.N.S.-Emnid, 60 percent of Germans want a cap imposed to limit the number of refugees allowed in each year, a policy that the chancellor has repeatedly rejected. Many Germans are made anxious and exhausted by accepting and caring for the massive influx of refugees. The chancellor’s proposed quota plan would require the cooperation of multiple nations to ease the burden on Germany. Given the initially disorganized international response to the crisis, many Germans are hesitant to trust the European community’s will or ability to coordinate such efforts.
There is a growing disconnect between Chancellor Merkel and her conservative German voters. The CDU has traditionally been a center-right party, having roots in the Catholic Center Party and supporting a social market economy and tax cuts. However, the chancellor’s mass-immigration policy in the wake of the refugee crisis has exacerbated fears of Germany losing its identity, creating fertile ground for the AfD’s nationalistic and Islamophobic messages to take root. Her continued commitment to humanitarian aid is admirable, but her refusal to make any compromises with the growing anti-immigration movement has pushed more conservative voters into the arms of the far-right opposition party. Should other EU nations accept the quotas and lower the burden on Germany, perhaps the right-wing populist party will lose ground. If not, the CDU may be forced to choose the lesser of two evils: to make generous concessions at the expense of the refugees, or to risk the proliferation of a new, dangerous breed of nationalism.