The Christian Democratic Union (CDU)'s principle of non-cooperation towards the AfD appears to be facing an unprecedented test. The party conference in Stuttgart in 2018 approved the “firewall” policy, and most other German parties, with the exception of the Sara Wagenknecht (BSW) coalition, committed to refusing to cooperate with the party.
It is noteworthy that the expressions "firewall", "firewall", or "political buffer wall" are an implicit agreement between the German parties based on not participating in any coalition that allows the "Alternative" party to rule.
The "firewall" faces a difficult test
The aim of this policy was to limit the growing popularity of the AfD and prevent it from reaching positions of power.
However, the electoral results over the past years, according to a report by the German Tagesspiegel website, indicate that the first goal was not achieved, and with the elections in the state of Saxony-Anhalt, achieving the second goal may become more difficult as well.
Although Chancellor Friedrich Merz adheres to the strict separation policy, Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Söder believes that the current approach is no longer successful. “The concept of the wall has failed,” he said on the “Maischeberger” program on the ARD channel. This raises a question that has become strongly present in the German political debate: Has this strategy become a thing of the past?
Constitutional protection or the will of voters?
Populism expert Philipp Adorf of the University of Bonn argues that the “firewall” has been “crumbling a long time ago.” He explains that the idea of isolating the Alternative Party from power was mainly linked to keeping it a party with limited electoral influence. Dealing with a party that wins between 10 and 15 percent of the votes is radically different from dealing with a party that wins more than 30 percent.
On the other hand, political analyst Konstantin Worthman from the University of Mainz confirms that the issue is not only related to the election results, but rather to protecting the democratic system itself. In his opinion, preserving democratic institutions has become more important than ever after the Saxony-Anhalt elections.
This case highlights a fundamental dilemma in modern democracies: Which should take precedence, the will of voters or protecting the democratic system from forces classified as extremist?
In Saxony-Anhalt, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution classifies the AfD as a confirmed far-right movement, and at the same time the party received 43.8 percent of the vote in the state elections.
According to a report published by the German Channel 1's Tages Show website, Worthman stresses that recognizing the will of voters does not necessarily mean political cooperation with any party. Populist parties often consider what they call “the will of the people” the only source of democratic legitimacy, while liberal democracy is based on other elements as well, such as the protection of individual rights and the independence of the judiciary.
Adorf uses a striking analogy to illustrate his point, saying that democracy cannot be reduced to numerical voting alone, otherwise it becomes more like “two wolves and a sheep deciding what will be for dinner.” He believes that the independence of the courts and constitutional guarantees constitute an essential part of any liberal democratic system.
Meretz's future hangs in the balance
The debate over the "firewall" also raises questions about Chancellor Friedrich Merz's future and his position within the Christian Democratic Union. This policy represents one of the pillars of his political position, and any retreat from it may be seen as a weakening of his leadership.
Adorf believes that a gradual shift within the party towards more open positions towards the AfD would constitute a strong blow to Meretz's standing. The existence of cases of local cooperation between members of the Christian Democratic Union and the Alternative Party at the local level increases the sensitivity of this issue.
As for Worthman, he believes that the most important issue is not the future of Meretz, but rather the ability of the Christian Democratic Union to maintain its political distinction from the Alternative for Germany party. He warns that a decline in this differentiation may lead to increasing blurring of the German party scene.
On the other hand, defenders of the firewall rely, according to the analysis, on the results of multiple studies indicating that populist parties often emerge stronger when they participate in governance, while traditional parties with which they enter into political partnerships decline.
However, Markus Söder calls for a different approach based on confronting the AfD politically and directly. According to his football expression, the matter requires “engaging in confrontations” instead of being satisfied with political isolation. He believes that the best test for the party is to confront its theses in the daily political debate and hold it accountable for practical solutions instead of just criticizing others.
As this controversy continues within the camp of the Christian Democratic Union and the Christian Social Union, it seems that the debate about the feasibility of the firewall and its political function will not abate in the near future. Rather, it may become one of the most prominent files that will determine the shape of German political life in the coming years.
