Right-Wing Election Win in Germany: Liberal Europe Calls It a Threat to Democracy

Germany’s right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party won nearly 44 percent of the vote in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt on September 6, 2026, finishing three seats short of an outright majority with 39 of the state parliament’s 83 seats. Pre-election polling had projected AfD support at between 40 and 42 percent, meaning the final result exceeded expectations.

It is the closest a right-wing party has come to governing in Germany since World War II.

The AfD’s campaign in Saxony-Anhalt centered on an overhaul of migration policy. The party’s draft government program promises “deportation from minute one”, with the stated goal of removing as many illegal aliens from the state as possible.

The manifesto calls for a tenfold increase in deportation-detention facilities, mandatory work requirements for asylum seekers, and an end to state funding for what the party calls the “asylum industry.” It also proposes creating an “Asylum Search and Deportation Group”, which the party says would be modeled on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Ulrich Siegmund, the AfD’s candidate for minister-president in Saxony-Anhalt, described the plan as a “deportation and remigration offensive” that would begin if the party formed a government.

“People who are required to leave the country must be placed in deportation custody under our government,” Siegmund said.

National AfD co-leader Alice Weidel described the party’s broader position in similar terms: “We will cut all unnecessary spending, we will control our borders, we will deport everyone obligated to leave the country.”

The manifesto also proposes barring children without permanent residency from regular public schools and establishing a “Remigration Task Force” within the state government to coordinate asylum enforcement.

To address Saxony-Anhalt’s longstanding shortage of skilled workers, particularly in nursing and elder care, the party has proposed a “return program” offering a “return bonus” to encourage ethnic Germans living abroad to move to the state. The AfD has not specified how many returnees it expects to attract or how the program would be funded.

The term “remigration” carries a disputed meaning within the party. Siegmund has sought to distinguish his use of the term, which he applies to illegal aliens, from the version promoted by Austrian activist Martin Sellner, which extends to legal immigrants and their German-born children. Germany’s domestic intelligence service cited Siegmund’s attendance at a meeting where Sellner spoke about remigration when evaluating the AfD’s Saxony-Anhalt branch.

The result prompted street demonstrations. Thousands of protesters gathered at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate in the days following the election, carrying signs reading “For choice, for democracy, against AfD” and “Fascism is no alternative.” Organizers warned that the AfD could make similar gains in state elections in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania later in September.

In typical liberal fashion, if a party they oppose wins a free and fair election, it is no longer democracy. And if that party wins in two more states, then it is clearly fascism.

The protesters’ argument reflects a specific German legal concept, streitbare Demokratie, or “democracy capable of defending itself.” The doctrine permits the state to monitor or restrict political parties it considers threats to the constitutional order. It also provides the legal basis for the Verfassungsschutz’s classification of the AfD’s Saxony-Anhalt branch as a “confirmed right-wing extremist” organization.

Germany’s domestic intelligence agency issued the classification after concluding that the AfD’s ethnicity- and ancestry-based definition of German identity treats citizens with roots in predominantly Muslim countries as unequal. The agency based its conclusion on statements by AfD politicians in internal communications, speeches, and social media posts. It also cited the party’s statements about refugees and migrants.

Essentially, the AfD has been classified as right-wing extremist because it distinguishes ethnic Germans from Syrians, Iraqis, and Turks; wants to deport people who have already been ordered to leave the country; proposes ending Ukrainians’ asylum status. Under this reasoning, the party should not be permitted to hold the offices it won in an open election.

Most European leaders were appalled by the victory, of course, because it could threaten the illegal migration they seem so fond of. One exception was Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, who wrote on social media, “Fear? Terror? Danger? No, it’s called DEMOCRACY. Another Europe is possible.”

Spain’s Vox party leader Santiago Abascal, whose party remains in opposition, called the result “a great hope for Germany and for Europe.” His statement came as Spain granted legal status to 500,000 migrants and permitted tens of thousands of Moroccans to invade the Spanish city of Ceuta in North Africa.

The uproar is made even more laughable by the AfD’s limited authority over immigration. Under Germany’s federal system, asylum and citizenship laws, border controls, and visa issuance are governed by Berlin and the European Union. A state government cannot close Germany’s national borders or revoke federally granted refugee status.

Joschka Selinger, a migration-law expert interviewed by The Local, said comprehensive remigration “could hardly be implemented by a state government.” A state’s authority is largely limited to administrative practices, including how it exercises discretionary powers and allocates enforcement resources.

An analysis by the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology found that 21 of the AfD’s 56 proposed migration measures could be implemented only at the national or European Union level.

The AfD’s minority position leaves it dependent on a coalition to pass legislation. However, none of the left-wing parties is willing to partner with it.

Any attempt to halt asylum processing unilaterally or expel legally recognized refugees would also face challenges in German federal courts under the Grundgesetz and European Union law.

Where a state government does have authority is in administration rather than legislation. Saxony-Anhalt already limits cash withdrawals for asylum seekers to 50 euros per month under the Bezahlkarte payment-card system, a federal policy in place nationwide since May 2024. An AfD-influenced state government could administer that system more restrictively at the local level.

The party could direct local Ausländerbehörden, the municipal immigration offices that process deportation orders, to accelerate the removal of people whose claims have already been rejected under existing law. It could also reduce state-level funding for integration programs, language courses, and housing subsidies to the legal minimum. Because education and policing fall under state authority, it could also pursue the separate-schooling and curriculum changes outlined in its manifesto.

To most conservatives, these measures probably do not sound like a return to the gas chambers. They certainly do not represent the death of democracy or repression under a totalitarian regime.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz responded confrontationally to the Saxony-Anhalt result. Speaking in the Bundestag three days after the election, Merz told Weidel that the AfD’s remigration agenda amounted to “ethnic cleansing.”

Merz also canceled a scheduled call with President Trump that week after Trump praised the AfD’s victory on Truth Social. The Local described the cancellation as a shift in tone for a chancellor who had otherwise sought to maintain friendly relations with Trump.