The AfD’s breakthrough in the Saxony-Anhalt state election on 6 September 2026 was historic. Led by Ulrich Siegmund, the AfD emerged by far the strongest political force, achieving its best-ever result in a German state election with almost 44 per cent of the vote. This was not some passing protest vote that could be dismissed with a few concerned panel discussions in Berlin. It was a political earthquake.
The message from voters was simple: they want a different course. One that shows greater respect for ordinary people’s finances, takes migration more seriously, restores greater national self-determination and reduces the distance between those in power and the population. ARD’s voter analysis showed that 59 per cent believed the federal government deserved a rebuke at the ballot box. Chancellor Friedrich Merz had a positive approval rating of just nine per cent among those surveyed in Saxony-Anhalt.
Yet Berlin’s response was astonishingly detached from reality.
At the government press conference the day after the election, there was no sign of the political soul-searching the result might otherwise have prompted. Instead, the government spokesman insisted that this was “merely” a state election and pointed out that the parties’ internal bodies would first have to discuss the result.
Merz later chose to emphasise that 56 per cent had not voted for the AfD and that, in his view, the party cannot win an absolute majority in Germany. It is a remarkable response to a historic election result: rather than asking why so many citizens have turned their backs on the established parties, one simply counts those who did not vote for the AfD, as though that somehow nullified the voters’ verdict.
This is precisely the kind of arrogance that has brought German politics to this point. The political establishment would rather manage public discontent than understand it. It would rather preserve its political Brandmauer — the “firewall” excluding the AfD — than pursue policies that might render that firewall unnecessary.
And as if that were not enough, there is still talk of banning the AfD. In the Bundestag, the Greens’ Katharina Dröge called, just days after the election, for formal proceedings to examine the case for an AfD ban. The CDU in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia is calling for the same.
This is a warning sign for democracy. When a party that has just achieved its strongest-ever election result is met with talk of prohibition rather than political opposition, it is difficult to escape the impression that parts of the political system would rather ban the voters they cannot persuade.
Lower Saxony: When Opponents Can Decide Who Is Allowed to Stand
Developments in the state of Lower Saxony are even more troubling. Here, the municipal election law was amended in the spring of 2026 so that, where a local electoral committee has “substantiated doubts” about a candidate’s loyalty to the constitution, it may involve the municipal supervisory authority. That authority can obtain information from Germany’s domestic intelligence service, the Verfassungsschutz, and subsequently issue a recommendation to the electoral committee.
It is important to understand what this means in practice. There is no requirement for a court first to establish that a person has committed an unlawful act. Among the material that may be considered are social-media activity, participation in demonstrations, memberships and roles in organisations classified by the authorities as extremist. The local electoral committee then decides whether the candidate is allowed to stand.
Ahead of the local elections on 13 September, 18 candidates were investigated. Five were rejected: the AfD politicians Thorsten Moriße, Stephan Bothe, Martin Sichert and Justin Vogel, as well as the independent candidate Eugen Nazarenus in Weener. These were candidacies for mayor, lord mayor or district administrator — not a general prohibition on the AfD participating in the local elections.
Martin Sichert, for example, was rejected as a candidate for district administrator in Friesland. In doing so, the electoral committee followed a recommendation from Lower Saxony’s Interior Ministry. According to NDR, the grounds included assessments of his statements about National Socialism and an alleged “ethnopluralist” worldview.
In Herzberg am Harz, the electoral committee rejected AfD mayoral candidate Justin Vogel on 27 July, arguing that he allegedly did not provide sufficient assurance that he would at all times uphold the free democratic basic order.
One may, of course, think whatever one likes about the individual candidates and their statements. But in a state governed by the rule of law, the crucial question should be this: Who should have the power to deprive a candidate of the right to stand for election before voters have had their say?
In Lower Saxony, that decision does not lie with an independent court, but with a seven-member electoral committee: the returning officer as chair and six members appointed by the returning officer. In practice, they are generally local politicians nominated by the political parties, with representation reflecting the balance of power at the previous local election. A television clip showed them sitting over coffee and cake as they made their decision.
This does not mean that every individual member necessarily acts out of partisan political motives. But it does mean that it is misleading to portray the arrangement as entirely apolitical. In practice, candidates can be rejected by a body whose members are typically drawn from the established parties that are themselves competing with the candidate for political power.
Moreover, effective judicial review generally comes only after the election. The rejected AfD candidates failed in their applications for emergency relief. The courts emphasised that electoral disputes should normally be dealt with after an election in order to ensure that the electoral process can proceed. At the same time, however, the court stressed in Sichert’s case that its decision did not determine whether the exclusion itself was lawful.
It is difficult to describe such protection as effective. If a candidate is kept off the ballot paper, the damage has already been done on election day. A subsequent court ruling may, at best, lead to a rerun of the election — but it cannot give voters back their original choice.
Democracy Must Be Able to Withstand the Voters
Saxony-Anhalt and Lower Saxony are two sides of the same development.
In Saxony-Anhalt, voters are effectively told that their verdict does not really count because the AfD failed to win an absolute majority. In Lower Saxony, we see a system in which candidates can be kept out of an election through an interplay between electoral committees, public administration and the domestic intelligence service — before a court has fully examined the case.
We should hold fast to one simple principle: democracy must not become a system in which the established parties both field candidates, appoint those who scrutinise the candidates, and then determine which political competitors are allowed to face the voters in the first place.
The AfD’s breakthrough in Saxony-Anhalt ought to make Berlin listen. Instead, we hear excuses, threats of political isolation and renewed dreams of banning the party. That is not strength. It is the sign of a political system that has lost touch with the people it exists to represent.
On 20 September, elections will be held in the states of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Berlin. In the former, opinion polls put the AfD at 38 per cent. It will be interesting to see whether the established parties learn anything from all this.
Unfortunately, the answer is likely to be a dispiriting one: hardly.
