The AfD has yet to serve in a German government, but its narratives have had a powerful impact on German policy debates. New research from Rachel Herring and Maximilian Tkocz shows the AfD’s influence lies in the fundamentally different story it tells about what the German nation is or should be.
The Alternative for Germany (AfD) has long been viewed as a disruptive force in German politics. The party is also seen as posing a significant challenge to traditional German foreign policy, notably in relation to its position on the Russia-Ukraine war. But given the party has yet to participate in a German government, how can we explain this perceived challenge to the framing of foreign policy?
In a recent study, we find that AfD speeches are most disruptive when it comes to issues that politicians consider important for Germany’s national identity. We propose a new focus on the so-called “ontological” aspect of political discourse: that is, the discourse about national identity and the national “self”.
It is here where the AfD’s challenge appears most concerning for other members of the political elite. Interventions by the AfD have not yet significantly impacted policymaking, but they disrupt parliamentary debates about key foreign policy issues. We term this type of disruption “ontological nuisance”.
Put simply, the AfD tells a fundamentally different story about what the German nation is or should be. Even though the party is in opposition, other parties react to and engage with these narratives, which are often perceived as being disruptive and problematic. This shapes how foreign policy is both reproduced and contested.
The AfD’s image of the German nation
The AfD challenges established ideas about Germany that have guided the country’s foreign policy for decades. The most striking example of this is the subversion and reinterpretation of historical language.
There has traditionally been a widespread consensus in German political discourse that, following the Nazi regime, Germany has a responsibility to continually engage with its past and pursue ongoing processes of reconciliation.
The AfD not only challenges established interpretations of Germany’s past – the AfD’s Alexander Gauland infamously described the Nazis as “just some bird shit in over 1,000 years of successful German history” – but appropriates historical language to support its own positions.
For example, in the case of Germany’s relationship to Israel and the conflict in Gaza, AfD politicians frequently refer to the persecution of Jews to promote an anti-Islam agenda. This subversion of framings of Germany’s “special relationship” with Israel is often met with outrage and disgust in the form of interjections by politicians from other parties in the German parliament.
In this way, AfD speakers disrupt one of the key foundations of German foreign policy by breaking the consensus on historical responsibility and using historical arguments to support competing agendas.
Challenging established partnerships
A second element of the AfD’s disruptive impact is its questioning of long-standing German partnerships and affiliations. Commitment to EU membership and integration, as well as strong identification with western allies such as the US, have long been tenets of German foreign policy.
However, AfD speakers take a sceptical stance toward many of Germany’s traditional partnerships, expressing euroscepticism and arguing that relationships with key partners such as France and the US sacrifice German interests. Their interpretation of the EU is particularly subversive: German politicians from other parties are portrayed as complicit with elites in Brussels in signing away German sovereignty.
The AfD’s EU discourse is deeply disruptive in the German context. Although German parties frequently disagree over particular EU policies, there has long been a consensus that the EU complements German interests and is a central part of German identity. In contrast, the AfD presents the EU as external to German identity – a separate entity that is at best incompetent and at worst hostile. This often provokes strong reactions from other parties during parliamentary debates.
An alternative vision of the international order
Finally, the AfD represents an alternative worldview when it comes to Germany’s place on the global stage. AfD politicians buy into an understanding of international politics that is led by power and interests rather than cooperation and win-win outcomes.
As such, they favour pragmatism and non-alignment on issues such as Germany’s relationships with China, Russia and the US. This has led AfD speakers to take a significantly “softer” stance on Russia than all other parties apart from the Left since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Instead of foregrounding the idea that Germany has a historical responsibility to support Ukraine, AfD speakers raise concerns about the effect of sanctions on the German economy, demonstrating their national interest-based approach.
Meanwhile, AfD speakers are also sceptical towards the US, presenting Germany as a victim of US hegemonial interests. This non-aligned approach clashes with a German foreign policy tradition that has been deeply committed to western alliances and institutions.
Challenging boundaries
The AfD brings a new kind of political disruption to the German parliament. They serve as an illustration of how opposition parties can shape discourses about national identity and challenge boundaries through their rhetoric that were once considered off limits.
Our findings suggest that trying to keep certain parties out of government does not prevent them from being a potentially disruptive force in politics. Even though they are in opposition, parties such as the AfD are already part of the discourse and can therefore disrupt it.
For more information, see the authors’ recent study in Global Studies Quarterly.
Note: This article gives the views of the authors, not the position of LSE European Politics or the London School of Economics.
Image credit: Juergen Nowak provided by Shutterstock.
Discussion about this post