Union européenne

There are six nominees for the 2017 Sakharov Prize : Asia Bibi, Aura Lolita Chavez Ixcaquic, Selahattin Demirtas and Figen Yuksekdag, the Democratic Opposition in Venezuela, Dawit Isaak and Pierre Mbonimpa nominated for Sakharov Prize 2017.

The next steps are:

• 10 October: the foreign affairs and development committees vote on a shortlist of three finalists
• 26 October: the Parliament President and the political group leaders announce the laureate(s)
• 13 December: award ceremony takes place at the Parliament in Strasbourg

Press release on the nominees for 2017
Audiovisual : Presentation of the candidates
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

L'agence américaine de crédit Equifax a annoncé que près de 700 000 clients britanniques avaient été affectés par le piratage massif de ses bases de données, qui avait touché également 145 millions de clients aux Etats-Unis et 8 000 au Canada.

Le président séparatiste catalan Carles Puigdemont a prononcé mardi 10 octobre un discours au Parlement régional évoquant une déclaration unilatérale d'indépendance sans l'annoncer vraiment mais en précisant toutefois qu'elle était « suspendue ». Le gouvernement espagnol est réuni en urgence ce mercredi pour décider d'une réponse à la signature.

Emmanuel Macron était à Francfort en Allemagne ce mardi. Le président français est venu inaugurer la grande Foire du livre de la ville. Il en a surtout profité pour afficher son entente avec Angela Merkel.

Carles Puigdemont, le président de la région catalane, a pris la parole avec une heure de retard mardi soir devant le Parlement régional à Barcelone. Il s'est exprimé sur les « conséquences politiques » du référendum catalan, soulignant la nécessité de « réduire les tensions » avec les autorités de Madrid. Selon lui, la Catalogne a gagné le droit d'être un Etat indépendant.

Le groupe de défense britannique BAE Systems est en très légère baisse à la bourse de Londres après l'annonce d'un vaste plan de licenciement. BAE a perdu quelques plumes (-0,32% à 616,50 pence) après avoir annoncé la suppression de plusieurs milliers d'emplois, notamment à cause de la réduction de  la production de l'avion de combat Eurofighter Typhoon. Un responsable du principal syndicat britannique « Unite », affirme que cette décision va saper les capacités de défense britannique, alors que la direction souligne vouloir garantir une production à des coûts plus compétitifs.

Rebondissement dans l'affaire des migrants soudanais en Belgique : le tribunal de Liège condamne l'Etat belge et estime que leur expulsion est illégale. C'est « une décision sans précédent », selon la Ligue des droits de l'homme, à l'origine de la requête auprès de la justice. Le secrétaire d'Etat belge à l'asile et à la migration, Theo Francken, a en effet coopéré avec le gouvernement soudanais le mois dernier pour qu'il identifie ses ressortissants afin de procéder à leur renvoi au pays. Deux personnes ont déjà dû quitter la Belgique. Le tribunal de première instance de Liège interdit désormais les expulsions de Soudanais.

En Grèce, les citoyens pourront demander à changer leur identité de genre sur leurs papiers sans avoir à passer devant un psychiatre et sans opération. 171 députés contre 114 ont adopté cette loi qui officialise une décision de justice de l’année dernière. La gauche radicale de Syriza a voté pour, mais certains membres de la coalition parmi les souverainistes des Grecs indépendants n'ont pas voté pour le texte. Des absences compensées par les centristes de La Rivière. Ce texte contient un article qui a fait particulièrement débat, car il étend la possibilité de changer d’identité de genre aux mineurs de 15 ans.

REUTERS/Christian Hartmann

La loi sécuritaire d’Emmanuel Macron, la énième depuis les attentats de janvier 2015, est soi-disant destinée à permettre de sortir de l’état d’urgence. En réalité, elle l’inscrit dans le droit commun, ce qui constitue une atteinte sans précédent à l’état de droit puisqu’elle donne des pouvoirs disproportionnés aux autorités administratives (préfets, police) en privant le juge judiciaire, le juge des libertés, de presque tous ses pouvoirs de contrôle. Cette loi ne s’arrête pas en si bon chemin en n’hésitant pas à établir un lien entre terrorisme et immigration irrégulière, ce qui a poussé le pourtant très répressif Bernard Cazeneuve, ancien ministre de l’Intérieur et Premier ministre, à demander la saisine du Conseil constitutionnel. Je ne suis pas le seul à le dire, loin de là : les juristes, les ONG de défense des droits de l’homme ou encore le défenseur des droits, Jacques Toubon, dénoncent ces inquiétantes dérives. Le chef de l’État, qui est si fier d’affirmer qu’il fait ce qu’il a promis durant sa campagne, fait pour le coup l’exact contraire : il débute son quinquennat là où François Hollande à terminé le sien, en faisant adopter par sa majorité (hormis quelques députés En Marche, souvent des anciens policiers ou magistrats, qui ont sauvé l’honneur) un texte que le Front National pourrait endosser sans difficulté.

Je ne peux que souscrire à cette dénonciation de l’affaiblissement de l’état de droit : « La volonté des terroristes est de déstabiliser le pays, de l’atteindre dans ce qu’il a de plus fondamental. C’est, au fond, la démocratie qui est visée, notre cohésion qu’ils veulent ébranler, nos valeurs auxquelles ils veulent porter un coup décisif. Dans ces circonstances, le rôle premier du président de la République est, en tant que chef des armées et garant de nos institutions, de protéger les Français. Cela ne consiste pas, comme je le vois ici ou là, à céder à quelque surenchère pour répondre à l’événement tragique qui endeuille notre pays. Être prêt à assumer les responsabilités de l’État, en matière de lutte contre le terrorisme, c’est avoir une vision claire, des objectifs précis et présenter des priorités d’action. Je sais que les Français n’ont pas peur, que nous n’avons pas peur. Je sais que nous saurons rester fidèles à nous-mêmes, à notre histoire, que nous saurons maintenir notre unité. À chaque fois, la nation française a été forte. Dans ce moment crucial pour l’avenir de notre pays, dans ces instants décisifs pour notre démocratie, je pense aux mots de Victor Hugo : «Tenter, braver, persister, persévérer, être fidèle à soi-même, prendre corps à corps le destin, tenir bon, tenir tête. Voilà l’exemple dont les peuples ont besoin et la lumière qui les électrise.» Je le dis avec beaucoup de force : remettre en cause la légitimité de l’autorité judiciaire, c’est affaiblir l’autorité de l’État et l’autorité dans l’État, et ça n’est pas compatible avec une vraie politique de sécurité dont notre pays a aujourd’hui besoin. La justice a la haute fonction de punir, donc de distinguer le vrai et le faux, le normal et le disproportionné, le juste et l’injuste. Nul autre ne peut s’arroger ce droit, aucun responsable politique, quel que soit le contexte, ne peut s’arroger ce droit. Parce qu’alors, il décide de fragiliser l’État de droit dont nous sommes toutes et tous, avant tout, les gardiens, et de fragiliser en même temps les institutions dont chacune et chacun, dans cette élection, prétend à terme devenir le gardien. » L’auteur de ces lignes ? Emmanuel Macron… Il est vrai qu’il était alors en campagne et qu’il s’agissait de séduire les électeurs déçus par la politique sécuritaire de François Hollande (extrait publié par Libération en juin dernier).

Patrick Weill, directeur de recherche au CNRS et professeur à Yale Law School, spécialiste de l’immigration qui a été à la pointe du combat contre la déchéance de nationalité pour les terroristes, a publié dans Le Monde du 29 septembre une superbe tribune sur un des aspects passé inaperçu de cette loi. Il est en accès payant alors qu’il est d’utilité publique. Je ne peux donc que publier sa version anglaise. Néanmoins, Le Monde m’a autorisé à publier les deux premiers paragraphes en français : « Pour lutter contre le terrorisme, l’arme la plus forte, la plus essentielle, c’est l’unité des Français. Chaque citoyen doit la rechercher autour de soi, dans sa vie quotidienne. Et ce doit être bien sûr la priorité absolue du président de la République, qui en est le garant. C’est pour avoir brisé cette unité, en proposant de distinguer dans la Constitution deux catégories de Français – afin de pouvoir déchoir certains d’entre eux de leur nationalité –, que François Hollande a, en 2015, profondément choqué – et a dû finalement reculer. Pourtant, Emmanuel Macron semble avoir décidé de suivre le même chemin, et d’aller beaucoup plus loin encore. Si le projet de loi que son gouvernement soumet au Parlement pour lutter contre le terrorisme était adopté, des millions de Français, résidant notamment dans les zones urbaines, seraient soumis aux contrôles d’identité, sous le prétexte de la lutte contre l’immigration illégale. Le traitement auquel ils risquent d’être soumis n’a qu’un précédent dans notre histoire : le code de l’indigénat. Voici comment et pourquoi ».

La loi Macron ressuscite le code de l’Indigénat

« In the fight against terrorism, the strongest and most crucial weapon is the unity of French citizens. Everyone must search for it in his or her daily life. And this must be of course the top priority for the President of the Republic, supposed to be its guarantor. It is for having broken this unity, by proposing to distinguish between two categories of French citizens in the constitution – in order to be able to strip some of them of their nationality – that, in 2015, François Hollande deeply shocked part of the nation and eventually had to back down. However, Emmanuel Macron seems to have decided to go much further down this same path. If the bill that his Government is submitting to Parliament to combat terrorism were to pass, millions of French citizens, especially those living in urban areas, would be subject to identity checks, under the pretext of the fight against illegal immigration. The treatment to which they would be subjected has only one precedent in French history: the code de l’Indigénat. Here is how and why.

In order to combat terrorism, the bill proposes to codify the exceptional provisions of the state of emergency – house arrest, administrative searches – in ordinary law. That this power to undermine fundamental liberties is given to administrative authorities, rather than judges, already represents in itself a disturbing and unprecedented break with the rule of law. At the end of the bill appears a provision, article 10, that seemingly comes from nowhere. The Schengen Agreement establishes a common border in continental Europe that, once crossed by foreign visitors, allows them to move easily throughout the countries party to this agreement. In order to avoid irregular crossings, this agreement has, since 1993, allowed limited document checks to take place in train stations, seaports, airports and within 20 kilometers of each Schengen countries’ borders. The proposed bill would expand the space in which these checks can take place, reaching up to 20 kilometers from airports and train stations that receive international arrivals. It would thus extend the police’s authority to perform these checks on people suspected of an irregular legal status across 28% of the French territory, in which 67% of the French population lives.

In a 2009 study about police methods at two of Paris’ major train stations– the Gare du Nord and the commuter rail hub at Châtelet – two researchers, Fabien Jobard and René Lévy showed that men were between 3.5 and 10 times more likely to be stopped than women, Blacks 3.3 to 11.5 times than Whites, and North Africans between 1.8 and 14.8 times than Whites. 7.5% of the passengers exiting, for example, one international train Thalys, are Black, but they represent 31% of the people stopped by police. Young people, especially those who appear to dress like it, shatter this ceiling: They are stopped 5.7 to 16.1 times more frequently, depending on the station, and two-thirds of this group are Black or North African.

This is the exceptional regime – today applicable only to airports, seaports, train stations and to some international trains– that the new bill aims to extend to the majority of France’s population. It claims to be required by the emergence of a new situation, namely the fight against terrorism. But in fact, it take place in a part of France’s history – sometimes ignored, often repressed. Codifying exception – here the identity checks – in permanent law, in order to target a particular population, France has already done this on its territory. It was in 1881, in Algeria – when Algeria was part of France – and then in the rest of Africa, with the code of the Indigénat. For more than 60 years, French colonial subjects were subject to administrative authority, which could arbitrarily impose special punishments applicable only to colonial subjects. This ran parallel to the judiciary power of ordinary law. General de Gaulle put an end to this regime in 1944. But some may say, about Macron’s new bill, that there is no special punishment, that it is just an identity check. At this massive and unprecedented scale, however, the special punishment is the identity check itself. It is this very procedure, the public interrogation, before fellow countrymen who never get stopped and who are staring at you. Imagine the humiliation that we would feel, each one of us who lives in a city big or small, if we were stopped, every day, without any reason other than the color of our skin, our age, our clothes, in front of our neighbors, our classmates, our colleagues, or anonymous passersby.

Illegal immigration has nothing to do in a bill to fight terrorism. Except to create, by way of a cynical connection, the worst situation. One can indeed set a goal to eradicate terrorism and hope to achieve it. But never, despite the bluster of President Macron and Minister of the Interior Collomb, will illegal immigration ever end. Much less important than they claim, illegal immigration is the normal consequence of France being an open democracy and the most touristed country in the world. Aspects of the state of emergency transferred in ordinary law in order to fight terrorism could thus, one day, be suspended, the identity checks, justified with reference to illegal immigration, will never end.

So, faced with terrorism, instead of creating bonds and unity, we create division and senseless stigma. We set up a permanent and durable apparatus for identity checks, causing physical and symbolic violence that will far surpass any hypothetical advantages. Unacceptable from the point of view of our fundamental liberties, it is at heart a political crime, against the Republic. This project gives a mortifying satisfaction to the two extremes of French politics: the extreme Right, which considers it legitimate to treat differently those they call undesirable Frenchmen, but also a certain extreme Left, which claims the Republic is an extension of colonization. So, republican members of parliament, wake up – those on the Left, of course, but also those on the Right, Gaullists or Christian Democrats, deeply attached to the values of the Republic. MP of the majority, you were not elected for this, quite the contrary. You have not signed up for your name to sit in the text of a law that creates within the Republic, parallel to the rule of law, a discriminatory police state. Each of you has the duty to stand up, to say no, and to prevent this unacceptable abuse of power».

Les touristes suspendent leur voyage, les banques fuient la région, les entreprises sonnent l'alarme : la pression est à son comble en Catalogne, le Parlement ouvre ses travaux ce soir à 16h (TU) pour une séance cruciale. Comment les indépendantistes catalans sont devenus presque majoritaires au sein de la population catalane alors qu’ils n’étaient qu’une poignée il y a quelques années ?

The idea of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) emerged during the 2000s into the “Brussels bubble”. After all this time, during the past plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, the legislative institution adopted the principle of the creation of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office. This Prosecuting Authority will entry into force in 2019 or 2020 (depends on the comments) and must be approved by the European Council, by the unanimity of this members.

The EPPO will have the power to prosecute all crimes against European financial interests, including money laundering or cross-border VAT fraud (estimated at a total of at least €10 million damage in the European budget). All offences against the Union’s financial interests are defined under the “PIF Directive” adopted in July 2017.

The main goal of this European Prosecuting Authority is to enhance cooperation and collaboration between the member states. Moreover, the Public Prosecutor can participate in harmonizing national regulations to shape a real European policy in the matter of financial justice.

For now, only 20 member states have agreed with the Commission’s proposal. It can be noticed that the UK, Ireland and Denmark have an automatic opt-out from the EU justice initiative. Nonetheless, every member states can adhere to the process at every moment.

This authority will coordinate national law enforcement efforts with the European police and both law agencies Europol and Eurojust, and the anti-fraud office OLAF. The prosecutor will be present in every member states involved, taking the form of a decentralized structure. The European Prosecutors present at national levels will have a double role: acting on behalf of the EPPO and exercising functions as national prosecutors. In order to ensure an effective coordination and a unique European approach, a Central Office would be composed of the European Chief Prosecutor, the College (composed by national European Prosecutors per member states), the permanent Chambers and the Administrative Director.

The vote, which took place this October, the 5th during the European Parliament plenary session, has been applauded by Vera Jourova, European commissioner for Justice.

After the vote, some European experts have already called for the opportunity to add new powers to the EPPO, especially to tackle crimes like trafficking and terrorism.

Jean-Hugue Baraër

For further information:

European Parliament: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2017/608711/EPRS_ATA(2017)608711_EN.pdf

Euronews: http://www.euronews.com/2017/06/08/eu-nations-back-plans-for-prosecutors-office-to-fight-financial-fraud

Eurativ: http://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/european-union-to-get-a-single-public-prosecutor/

Politico EU: http://www.politico.eu/article/eus-jourova-wants-funds-linked-to-new-prosecutors-office/

Classé dans:Fact of the day

La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme a condamné mardi la Russie pour ne pas avoir assez enquêté sur la mort de 21 civils, le 5 février 2000, à Grozny, en Tchétchénie.

On the occasion of the World and European Day against the Death Penalty, on 10 October, Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D, IT), Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights stated:

"I would like to reaffirm our strong, united and collective stance against the Death Penalty in all cases and under all circumstances. Capital punishment is not a deterrent against crime and renders miscarriages of justice irreversible..."

Press statement in full
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

On the occasion of the World and European Day against the Death Penalty, on 10 October, Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D, IT), Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights stated: "I would like to reaffirm our strong, united and collective stance against the Death Penalty in all cases and under all circumstances. Capital punishment is not a deterrent against crime and renders miscarriages of justice irreversible..." (Full text below)
Further information
Press Statement in full
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

La cinquième session des discussions sur le Brexit, le processus de sortie du Royaume-Uni de l'Union européenne, s'est ouverte le 9 octobre à Bruxelles. Un nouveau tour aux résultats très incertains.

Le président Emmanuel Macron inaugure ce mardi 10 octobre la Foire du livre de Francfort – plus grand événement du genre au monde – où la France est l'invitée d'honneur cette année. Il sera aux côtés de la chancelière allemande Angela Merkel pour défendre son projet de relance de l'Europe.

La Catalogne vit des heures d'extrême incertitude. Son président séparatiste Carles Puigdemont menace toujours de proclamer l'indépendance ce mardi 10 octobre, au risque d'aggraver la pire crise politique qui touche le pays depuis le rétablissement de la démocratie en Espagne.

Le compromis qu'ont trouvé les chrétiens démocrates de la CDU et leurs alliés bavarois de la CSU dimanche 8 octobre sur des questions les opposant depuis des mois n'est qu'une base de travail pour d'autres discussions qui commencent la semaine prochaine entre les conservateurs et leurs alliés potentiels au sein d'une future coalition.

L'ambassade américaine à Ankara a annoncé dimanche 8 octobre la suspension immédiate de la délivrance de visas aux citoyens turcs. En réponse, le pouvoir d’Ankara a immédiatement décidé de faire de même contre les ressortissants américains. Cette suspension « à durée indéterminée » pourrait avoir des conséquences économiques importantes. A l’origine de cette guerre des visas, l’arrestation en Turquie d’un employé consulaire la semaine dernière.

On Sunday, 24th September were held the latest German legislative elections, where more than 76% of the German population eligible for voting went to the polls to decide on Germany’s future. Not surprisingly, Angela Merkel’s party, the CDU/CSU (Christian Democratic Union) has gathered the largest share of the polls, winning 246 seats in the Bundestag. Even though this was not enough for the party to govern on its own, and therefore making it look for a potential collaborator to be able to rule the country, it allowed Angela Merkel to be the German Chancellor again. Thus, she starts her fourth term as Chancellor, and becomes the longest ruling European head-of-state as of late. While being a significant enough win to be important in German politics and catch the attention of medias (even if this was the lowest score by the CDU since 1949), the CDU’s victory was not the main event of that day. Indeed, the German far-right party AfD (Alternative for Germany) made a breakthrough during these elections, and managed to take the third place in the elections, gathering 12.6% of the votes. With these 12.6%, the AfD actually obtains more than 90 seats within the Bundestag, which represents 13.5% of all seats in the German legislative body. It is then placed right after the CDU/CSU, which gained 32.9% of the votes, and the SPD, which secured around 20.5% of the ballots, getting 153 seats in the German Parliament.

While this could be a bit less alarming in other countries such as France, the Netherlands or Poland, where far-right parties have had their places in Parliament for quite a while, the fact that the AfD got this far into national legislative elections is a rather worrying fact in German politics. In fact, Sunday’s electoral results constitute the first time a far-right party managed to get access to the German Parliament in more than 50 years. This result is especially troubling when considering European politics as a whole.  Certainly, after the resurgence of popularity populist movements have witnessed these past years across Europe, both the defeats of the French ‘Front National’ (FN) and of the Dutch ‘Partij voor de Vrijheid’ (PVV) during national elections seemed to announce the “beginning of the end”, or at least an electoral slowdown for far-right parties in the Old World. Even though far-right parties’ results always seem to have shocked public opinions, it felt like their scores were actually starting to decrease. However, with the AfD’s unexpected high score, it almost feels like all hopes of populism fading away have been torn down in the blink of an eye. Indeed, the threat that populism poses to the European Union is that these political movements and groups – which can belong to the far-right political spectrum or not – are promising to answer all issues their countries are facing by appealing to the people and telling them what they want to hear. Right-wing populist parties such as the FN, the PVV and the AfD also thrive because they create a distinction between what they call the ‘real people’ and the political elites, swearing they are representing a new kind of politicians who only want to give the power back to the people. Nonetheless, they appear to all look the same, having similar political agendas, claims and using the same methods to win over people’s confidence and trust. What is it then?

What is the AfD party and how did it become so important in German politics?

The AfD, ‘Alternative für Deutschland’ in German, has been founded in 2013, right after the Eurozone crisis struck the European Union. Originally, its purpose was to oppose the way the crisis was dealt with by German leaders, backed up by a few economists who thought the Euro was more a burden than an efficient currency. Later in 2013, some AfD members started to campaign for the federal elections, but gathered only 4.7% of the votes, which is below the required 5% for getting seats in the Bundestag. This was the heaviest defeat the AfD ever underwent before running for the European legislative elections and winning their first seats in a Parliament.

During the 2014 European elections, the AfD actually succeeded in reaching the EU Parliament’s benches, taking the fifth place in Germany and obtaining seven seats for their members to become MEPs. Following this first political victory, more and more Germans started to assemble around the party’s manifesto. They won several other state elections in 2014 and 2015, getting 14 seats in the Landtag (regional parliament) of Saxony, 11 in both state parliaments during the Brandenburg state election, 8 seats in the Hamburg parliament and finally another one in the Bremen parliament. Finally, during the 2016 state elections, the most salient issue in Germany was linked to migration, which translated into a debate between the main political formations. Alternative for Germany always pushed forward and never hid their anti-migration stances, criticizing the Schengen area and advocating for a better control of Germany’s borders. This way of thinking started to seduce an even larger part of the German electorate. Again, it led the far-right party to increase its share of votes in several other state parliaments, sometimes taking the second place right behind the mainstream parties such as the CDU or the SPD. These victories marked the beginning of the rise for the AfD, which eventually led the party to gather 12.6% of the votes during these latest national elections.

With the increasing of its political influence, the AfD also started to capture the attention of a few other hard-right parties throughout Europe, very extreme ones amongst them. The party had first been integrated within the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, a Eurosceptic and anti-federalist group within the European Parliament, at the beginning of its mandate in the EU legislative body. However, its members eventually got expelled as they started to get closer to the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ), a political group especially known for its extreme stances on immigration and for its pan-Germanic vision of Austria. As a consequence, AfD MEPs joined other parliamentary groups such as the Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF) group which already hosts the members of the French FN and of the Dutch PVV, and the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group.

The AfD thus managed to attract more and more German voters, in a very short period of time. When looking at far-right populist parties, there seems to be more than one similarity between them, in terms of their political stances, the way they appeal to the people, or the importance they give to their own nation regardless of international institutions.

The AfD’s ideology and political stances 

The party’s beginnings were mainly marked by its economic claims that the Euro and the Eurozone were not appropriate monetary tools and should therefore be removed. At the time, the AfD – which was primarily considered as a centre-right conservative movement – did not encompass the usual populist claims that their nation, and the German people, would be better off on their own rather than being part of something greater, in this case the EU. It was more focused on dismantling the Eurozone, rather than being completely opposite to the EU in general.  Still, it was already opposed to immigration and further European integration.

These were the main political stances the AfD fostered before 2015. However, it started to become more and more extreme in its viewpoints, especially considering immigration, its rejection of the European Union and the centrality of Germany and its people. This was the result of a leadership shift, as the AfD undertook a reorganization mid-year 2015 after a disagreement occurred between the two main heads of the movement, Frauke Petry and Bernd Lucke. Consequently, two factions arose, one following Lucke’s economic and ‘soft’ Euroscepticism policies, which led him to found a new party (Alliance for Progress and Renewal, now called the Liberal Conservative Reformers); and Petry’s anti-immigration and German-centred ideas, representing the new AfD.

Following this transition, the political party adopted a more populist and far-right approach. It now shares similarities with other very conservative political groups, such as nationalism, anti-immigration, rejection of modern feminism, denying of global warming and climate change, only to name these ones. Despite this alarming change of direction, what is even more worrying is the greater share of the electorate the AfD is now seducing in Germany.

How did the AfD become Germany’s third-biggest party?  

When it comes to hard-right populist parties, what seems to be the most important piece of legislation voters are attracted by is the anti-immigration one. More precisely, as the EU has been facing a massive refugee crisis since 2015, and even before then, refugee hosting and illegal immigration now seem to be even more divisive issues among politicians and populations. As one of many parties thriving on opposing immigration, the AfD has called for the immediate closure of Germany’s borders, and for doing everything that can be done to stop mass immigration. That way, the party has effectively attracted voters who believe putting an end to mass immigration would actually be a good thing for their country. Moreover, as no other party really addresses the issue of immigration – therefore not opposing the deterministic vision embodied by the AfD – German voters seem to have no other choice than to look towards the far-right, which indeed deals with these issues and concerns.

In addition, there seems to be a general trend in current Western politics which can explain why far-right populist parties have known such a resurgence in Europe and abroad. To put it simply, people in Western democracies more and more have the feeling that they are left on the side-lines by politicians. They feel like their elected representatives do not care about their well-being anymore, do not address the issues that they are concerned about, and thus are very dissatisfied with the way politics is now handled. These people, who belong to very different social groups and have very different social situations, are united because they do not trust mainstream politicians any longer. This can be seen as one of the main reasons why populist parties have been on the rise for a few years now. And if head of states keep on letting people’s concerns down, not addressing popular issues and forgetting some parts of the population, this trend is not likely to stop.

What is Germany going to do about it?

The rise of a far-right party in Germany has not gone unnoticed and unanswered. When the election results were released on the night of the 24th September, Berlin dwellers, who historically always rejected the hard-right political spectrum, started to gather up in front of the club the AfD was celebrating its victory. No one wanted to believe a populist party, which had already been compared to the Nazis in the past, became the third-biggest political movement in Germany. Thus, protesters began to chant anti-Nazis songs, while the party members and a few selected guests were celebrating and singing the German national anthem. A real division has appeared between supporters of Merkel’s “open-door” policy, which helped welcome more than a million refugees and migrants into the country, and supporters of the AfD, who believe Germany’s biggest challenges are Islam, capitalism and Europe. In the streets of Germany or within the walls of the Bundestag, there should be a real clash of ideas between representatives of these two opposite visions, while protest voters who voted for the AfD as a punishment against government parties might not identify to any claims formulated by these two factions, therefore not supporting either the government nor the opposition.

On the government side, a coalition will have to be reached, as Merkel’s CDU/CSU has not accumulated a large enough share of the seats in the Bundestag to be able to govern without another party by its side. In addition, as Martin Shultz’s party, the SPD, did not do as well as they expected, they already announced their willingness to become the next leader for the opposition to Merkel’s government. This leaves only one choice for the Chancellor, which is to collaborate with both the libertarian Free Democrats party and the Greens, forming a tripartite coalition, called the “Jamaican option”, to rule the country. However, this will not be an easy task to achieve, as a lot of disparities between these three parties may hinder the process of negotiating the coalition. If the negotiations succeed, the “Jamaican” coalition – named that way due to the three different parties symbolized by the black, the yellow and the green, the same colours as the Jamaican flag – will have to face attacks from both the SPD and the AfD. This means that the coalition will need to stay strong in all cases, which is not going to be mean feat.

Raphaël Moncada

For further information:

DW: http://www.dw.com/en/afd-what-you-need-to-know-about-germanys-far-right-party/a-37208199

Euronews: http://www.euronews.com/2017/09/22/the-afd-the-rise-to-power-of-germany-s-far-right

Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-elections-alternative-fur-deutschland-far-right-afd-bundestag-parliament-angela-merkel-a7965041.html

New Republic: https://newrepublic.com/article/144946/alternative-germany-strikes-fear-hearts-germans

Press Release Point: http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/merkel-says-alternative-germany-party-entering-parliament-big-challenge

The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/24/germany-elections-afd-europe-immigration-merkel-radical-right

The Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/merkel-s-election-win-eclipsed-by-resurgence-of-german-far-right-3r8zrj2rs

The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/without-a-populist-tide-in-germany-far-right-afd-could-still-gain-critical-foothold/2017/09/02/69bfd6ca-8cfb-11e7-9c53-6a169beb0953_story.html?utm_term=.9f879b6df26b

The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/09/25/the-rise-of-germanys-far-right-leaves-merkel-stuck-with-the-jamaican-option/?utm_term=.97a0bca86d90

University of Denver: Interview of Professor Donald Abenheim: https://www.du.edu/korbel/ceuce/media/documents/abenheim-afd-full-interview-11-2016.pdf

Classé dans:#LaReplique, Face au populisme