by Devon Williams
These readings were a fascinating look not only into the political landscape and growing polarization within Germany and the AfD, but also into the nature of journalism exposing such politics. When a paper like Correctiv is able to show the reality of partisan extremism to the public, the response is swift and radical in the populous with protests, millions of clicks and shares, and commentary from other parties. Yet later, calls of false news or dramatization of the story also surface, and the story that shook the country is apparently now “pulled out of thin air.” I was left confused, unsure what to believe of this story after its criticisms– but also the strength of this counterargument makes me feel as though they are afraid of what they know to be the truth, even if they won’t reveal this to the public.
The “Secret Plan Against Germany” felt at first like the kind of investigation that should fundamentally change this party’s standing in the public eye, as the discussion of “remigration” for citizens and non-citizens alike and cancelling of passports for dual citizens should be eye-opening for anyone. Their methods as well, completely covert and spurred on by leaked invitations and supported by hidden cameras and planted photographers, both corroborated the honesty of this meeting the politicians believed they were having in secret, but also called into question the journalistic ethics of concealed truth and identity within reporting. Is it worth it to cross this boundary in order to achieve such a landmark story? When is it okay to break that rule of integrity? Still, this story would not have been made possible without it, and news of journalistic curiosity could have stopped the meeting from occurring altogether.
The reading about the AfD’s electoral growth also called into question the role of polarization in the country’s political landscape. The Economist made clear that struggling parts of the Ruhr are increasing support of the AfD substantially while wealthy and educated areas saw more minimal change in performance. Like the US with MAGA, Germany is “growing apart” through economic decline, fear of immigration, and distrust of established parties creating a pessimistic view of the future allowed polarization to grow to such an extent that the AfD’s message no longer sounds like the dogwhistle that it is.
It seems that the AfD does not have to govern to change German politics (already made impossible by their institutionalized “firewall” against far-right extremists), rather it can put pressure on mainstream politicians to adopt stricter immigration policy and other issues to compete for these same voters. The Economist described this as a recurring event with both the SPD in the Ruhr and CDU politicians generally, showing the weakening of this “firewall” even if it can never fully fall.
In this way, these readings called into question for me the power and role of journalism in divided countries. Correctiv revealed powerful information about an extremist party gaining support, yet it cannot stop this support or the allegations that this truth is a falsehood just because it is contrary to a polarizing party. It can, however, expose the reality of these entities to the public and hope they can mobilize themselves through voting, protests, social media, and at minimum ensure voters have all the information possible when deciding the fate of their country.
