When Sahra Wagenknecht founded her new “Left-conservative” BSW party earlier this year, it seemed as if it might fill a gaping void in Germany’s political spectrum. In the UK, Maurice Glasman famously branded this combination “Blue Labour” — but until Wagenknecht broke from Die Linke to launch her alliance, nothing of the sort had existed in the Federal Republic this century. At long last, here was a social-democratic party that firmly defended the welfare state, yet equally rejected identity politics and mass immigration. And where much of the modern Left has become enamoured with Nato and rule by technocratic elites, the BSW takes a populist or even nationalist line.
Soon enough, though, the backlash against the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance began. Quite aside from the usual suspects — the Social Democrats and the Greens to name but two — Wagenknecht’s venture quickly attracted the ire of other recent insurgents: the Alternative for Germany (AfD). Alice Weidel, the AfD’s leader, has described her populist counterparts on the Left as mere “footstools of the establishment.” And to be sure, while the BSW has been quick to grab the anti-establishment mantle, it’s already in discussions to join three state governments in eastern Germany, partnering with the Social Democrats (SPD) in Brandenburg and the Christian Democrats (CDU) in Thuringia and Saxony.
In a country where the conservative CDU has held the chancellorship for 52 of the Federal Republic’s 75 years, and the SPD the remaining 23, you can’t get more establishment than that. Weidel, indeed, has argued that the BSW “allows the CDU to look for governing majorities on the far-Left as a way of excluding the AfD from participation in government.” After all, Wagenknecht was once a Communist, unsurprisingly anathema to the centre-right Christian Democrats until recently. In a sense, though, this populist bickering is irrelevant. Even if they don’t work together, after all, both the BSW and AfD are nonetheless transforming Germany — not least by pressuring more mainstream parties to do their bidding.
When the BSW first exploded onto the political scene, some in Germany wondered whether they might partner with the AfD to revolutionise German politics. From Ukraine to migration, after all, both parties agree on much — even as their leaders seemed to get on personally. That was clear enough when Wagenknecht and Weidel met in a much-discussed TV debate, finding themselves speaking as one on the origins of the Ukraine war and jointly rebutting the moderator’s lazy assertions that they were mirroring “Putin narratives.”
Since the BSW threw its lot in with the CDU, however, things have changed. Quite aside from her infamous “footstool” comment, Weidel has speculated that the BSW will fail to achieve its core demands. But things aren’t quite that simple. Recent developments, after all, show that Wagenknecht is trying to drive a hard bargain on an issue that is also on the top of the AfD’s agenda: settling the war in Ukraine. It would certainly be a political masterstroke if Wagenknecht could press the CDU closer to her own position here. Next to the Greens, no other German party is as hawkish. But Wagenknecht insists on a “peace provision” in any formalised coalition agreement. She’s also demanded that the CDU reject the stationing of US medium-range missiles on German soil.
For a while, this strategy appeared to bear fruit. In early October, a trio of politicians from the CDU and SPD published an op-ed in the Frankfurter Allgemeine where they called for a “ceasefire and negotiations” in Ukraine. All three authors want to lead eastern German states where elections were lately held. Equally relevant, all three need the BSW to get into office. Steffen Quasebarth, the BSW’s newly minted deputy speaker of the Thuringian state parliament, says the op-ed was lacking in parts, especially since the authors noticeably avoided an outright rejection of stationing the American missiles. Even so, he calls the article a “step in the right direction.” And as Wagenknecht herself pointed out in her debate with her AfD rival, you’re hardly a “footstool” if you push the establishment closer to your own politics.
Friedrich Merz, leader of the CDU and the party’s candidate for chancellor, was quick to rebut such ideas. Pushing back against the op-ed, he demanded that German-made Taurus be sent to the embattled Kyiv government. Soon enough, Wagenknecht herself piled on the pressure too, suggesting in an interview with Der Spiegel that local CDU parties in Germany’s east should distance themselves from Merz’s sabre-rattling. In essence, Wagenknecht was asking them to disobey their party leader in exchange for her seal of approval, something they’re hardly willing to do.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeInteresting to see these signs in Germany as well as in France of parallels between the fast growing populists, left and right and the pressures that, together, they can place on the ‘centre’ even if they don’t formally collaborate.
“After all, Wagenknecht was once a Communist, unsurprisingly anathema to the centre-right Christian Democrats until recently.” Not true. Angela Merkel was a Communist.
She has in the past been a apologist for the Stalin regime as well as the Hugo Chavez, that says a lot about a person. She is Tankie without image makeover and strong opportunist streak who appeals to malcontents who are dissatisfied with the status quo with offering any real solutions.
Looked up about Merkel: Merkel joined the Free German Youth (FDJ), the official communist youth organization, in 1968. She also worked at the Academy of Sciences in East Berlin, where she was secretary for “Agitation and Propaganda” in the FDJ youth organization at the institute from 1978 to 1989.
Do Angela effectively won the cold war for East Germany?
“The real question is how far the old establishment is willing to go to win over the hearts of the ever-growing share of voters who flirt with populism” – A fantastic phrase! Populism is when politicians agree with the voters that it is wrong to cut civilians on the streets.
.
Non-populist mainstream parties think it’s normal. Civilians should tolerate it. After all, it happened at a diversity festival.
Sounds like Scholz (“Olaf Scholz has demanded “deportations on a large scale””) and the AFD’s Springer (lead foreigners back into their own country by the millions) have the same idea. So Scholz must also be one of those terrible far-right racists!
She sounds as sincere as Kamala. Her astroturfed party is just a way to divide and placate the restless masses while the corrupt rulers remain in actual power.
It appears between Angela Merkel and the increasingly obvious police state in Germany and now this known communist that the long term victor of the cold war was not who it appeared to be in 1989