AfD and Germany’s Election: When National Priorities Are Falsely Branded as Extremism
- NGO Watchlist
- May 2
- 2 min read
Germany’s political establishment faces a serious challenge as the Alternative for Germany (AfD) continues its rapid ascent in national polls. Once dismissed as fringe, AfD has now become the country’s most supported party. This historic shift has been driven by public frustration over mass migration, rising crime, and cultural upheaval. For many Germans, AfD’s platform offers straightforward proposals. These include strengthening borders, reducing illegal immigration, and putting the interests of German citizens first. Yet these positions have been met not with debate, but with a wave of institutional repression.
The German domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, recently escalated its campaign against AfD. It officially designated the party as a right-wing extremist organization. This allows for broader surveillance and monitoring tactics usually reserved for terror groups. The classification targets not only AfD leaders but also candidates and supporters, treating them as threats to Germany's constitutional order.
AfD’s leaders reject this label, and international figures have joined in questioning the justification for this aggressive response. U.S. Secretary Marco Rubio sharply criticized
Germany’s government for its actions. He called the extremist designation tyranny in disguise and argued that targeting a political party for opposing illegal immigration is not democratic. Rubio warned that Germany is engaging in political persecution, silencing opposition through government power rather than public debate.
The personal background of AfD’s co-leader, Alice Weidel, underscores the absurdity of the extremist accusation. Weidel is openly gay and married to an Asian woman. Poking a hole in the claims that the party promotes hate or exclusionary nationalism. Despite this, critics continue to push the narrative that AfD is a threat to civil society for promoting policies that were once considered mainstream. These policies include border security, cultural preservation, and prioritizing national interests.
The hostility toward AfD speaks volumes about the ruling establishment. Instead of confronting AfD’s arguments in the public square, they have chosen to stigmatize and isolate the party. The so-called firewall strategy prevents coalitions with AfD regardless of voter support. Some officials have even floated the idea of banning the party entirely. This reflects the establishment's growing fear of losing control of the political landscape.
Branding AfD as extremist is not about defending democracy. It is about protecting the status quo from a rising movement that challenges progressive globalist policies. Voters across Germany are rejecting forced multiculturalism, open borders, and economic policies that neglect local prosperity. AfD's growing support reflects a public eager to restore national sovereignty and civic order.
Rather than engage voters with honest discussion, political elites appear more interested in silencing them. As AfD's popularity continues to increase, it becomes clear that the real threat to democracy comes from those who seek to suppress opposition through classification and intimidation. The German people, however, are showing they will not be intimidated so easily.
