When Political Outlawry Replaces Political Argument

When a political establishment finds itself unable to convince the electorate, the temptation to simply outlaw political competition becomes overwhelmingly sweet. In Germany, where governing parties are watching their voter base crumble under the weight of public discontent, the impulse to silence political rivals is no longer even hidden.

The latest display comes courtesy of Baden-Württemberg’s Green Minister-President Cem Özdemir and Social Democratic Defense Minister Boris Pistorius. Facing upcoming state elections in Saxony-Anhalt, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, and Berlin—where the Alternative for Germany (AfD) sits comfortably at nearly 30 percent in polls—the political establishment has decided that the voters themselves are the problem. Combined, the Greens and Social Democrats barely reach 25 percent in these regions. Rather than adjusting their own failing platforms, the response is a coordinated effort to remove their strongest competitor from the ballot.

In a joint op-ed published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, Özdemir and Pistorius wrapped their attempt at power preservation in the cozy blanket of civic duty, claiming that our Germany is, despite all problems, the best Germany there has ever been. For those residing in the east, Özdemir has even scheduled a campaign tour of ten events, offering unsolicited lessons to voters while declaring: I want Saxony-Anhalt to remain Saxony-Anhalt and Magdeburg not to become a suburb of Moscow.

The irony is as rich as it is telling. A Green premier from a prosperous southern state travels across the country to instruct eastern citizens on how to vote correctly, under the guise of protecting democratic norms. Wrapping party self-preservation in the national flag does not turn an undemocratic reflex into a civic virtue. It merely exposes a ruling class so thoroughly detached from public frustration that it views open political competition as a systemic defect.

Democracy relies on the fundamental trust that citizens are mature enough to decide who represents them. When politicians move to disqualify choices simply because those choices threaten their own hold on power, they reveal a profound contempt for the sovereign voter. A state that seeks to outlaw opposition to shield itself from public judgment is not defending freedom—it is exposing its own frailty.

Written by Sandy van Dongen sandy.vandongen@alpineweekly.com