Assessing the AfD's Election Program: How Compatible Are the Right-Wing Populists?

The political landscape in Germany is witnessing significant shifts as the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) prepares for the upcoming elections. Analyzing their election program reveals a complex relationship with mainstream parties, particularly in the realm of migration policy, which stands out as a notable area of contention.

The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution evaluates the AfD based on three core principles: respect for human dignity, adherence to democratic principles, and commitment to the rule of law. Despite criticisms regarding its extremist tendencies, the party's election program does not overtly conflict with these principles, aside from certain ambiguous elements that suggest a more radical agenda.

Historically, the AfD's election programs have fluctuated in their intensity. In the lead-up to the 2017 Bundestag elections, the party's manifesto was notably more aggressive than its foundational program. However, recent iterations indicate a strategic moderation in key areas while still advocating for stringent stances on asylum and immigration. The program also addresses economic, environmental, and European issues, albeit with a predominantly radical tone.

Collaboration with other parties appears unlikely, particularly given the AfD's stance that the Eurozone is a flawed construct and that the European Union should revert to a confederation model. On foreign policy, particularly regarding Russia, the party echoes past SPD positions, advocating for the lifting of sanctions and the restoration of trade relations, while promoting a neutral stance on Ukraine.

In economic policy, the AfD champions a simplified tax code and emphasizes the importance of maintaining fiscal discipline. Their commitment to a balanced budget resonates with traditional liberal values, aligning them somewhat with the Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

However, the party's environmental policies starkly contrast with those of other political factions. The AfD proposes the elimination of the carbon tax, the abandonment of plans to phase out combustion engines, and a rejection of the EU's Green Deal. Their call for an increased reliance on coal and nuclear energy starkly opposes the mainstream political consensus on climate change.

When addressing migration, the AfD's program reflects a shift from outright rejection to a more nuanced approach. The party advocates for a return to the 'ius sanguinis' principle for citizenship, emphasizing bloodlines rather than birthplace. They propose stricter immigration guidelines, focusing on the integration and willingness of migrants to adapt to German culture.

The AfD's position on asylum aligns with their broader skepticism towards EU policies, proposing a withdrawal from collective asylum strategies and advocating for a more stringent national framework. Their rhetoric surrounding 'remigration'--the concept of returning migrants to their countries of origin--remains contentious, straddling the line between mainstream discourse and extremist implications.

In terms of religious policy, the party's rhetoric towards Islam has softened slightly, acknowledging the role of Muslims who integrate into society while maintaining that political Islam poses a significant threat. Nonetheless, they continue to advocate for restrictions on Islamic practices, reflecting an ongoing tension in their approach to religious diversity.

The AfD also critiques the established political system, labeling it as an 'oligarchy' and suggesting that the current ruling class is undermining national interests. Their calls for direct democracy, including national referendums, echo a populist sentiment aimed at reclaiming power for the electorate.

In summary, while the AfD's election program reveals some strategic adjustments aimed at broadening their appeal, particularly in migration policy, their overall stance remains largely divergent from that of other parties. The potential for collaboration appears limited, as the party's radical positions in most areas signal a significant ideological divide.