Where support for Germany's far-right AFD is growing and why
Should the party end up with a vote share on this scale, it would be its best ever result in a national election. It would change the face of the German parliament and force mainstream parties into difficult questions about their longstanding refusal to work with extreme parties.
The AFD's roots are in nationalistic and racist movements. It continues to take an ultra anti-immigration stance and, in this election, is calling for 'demigration' – effectively the deportation of migrants.
In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, Rolf Frankenberger, an expert on right-wing extremism at the University of Tübingen in Germany, explains where the AFD draws its support from and what type of Germany it wants to return to.
Frankenburger has found two clear trends in the geographical distribution of AfD voting. The first is common among far-right parties around the world:
' There are always exceptions, of course, but the main pattern is that around the big cities like Berlin, like Hamburg, Bremen, Hanover, Münster, Stuttgart, Munich, Frankfurt in these cities and their direct environment and suburbs, the AFD is less important. Whereas in the specific rural areas, like in Saxonia, in the Erzgebirge, in Baden-Württemberg, in the Black Forest, in Rhineland Palatinate, in the more rural areas, they have their strongholds.'
The second, however, is unique to Germany. Support for the AFD is far more concentrated in the east of Germany. This region was the part of the country that made up the communist German Democratic Republic between 1949 and 1990, before German reunification.
'Reunification in Germany produced winners and losers. And in the view of many East German people – and much of it is true – there are inequalities that were produced by reunification.'
These divisions are being exploited to push what Frankenburger terms a form of white supremacist, traditionalist 'Völkisch nationalism' – not a term that is well understood outside of Germany but which resonates heavily in domestic politics.
'And so the AFD comes in and says 'hey, there's something wrong with the state, there's something wrong with democracy, and there's something wrong with our heritage. So we have a strong German heritage. We have an identity, we have an idea and all the others are trying to destroy it'. So it's a kind of protest.'
To find out more about narratives pushed by the AFD, listen to the interview with Rolf Frankenberger on The Conversation Weekly podcast.
This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Mend Mariwany and Gemma Ware. Sound design was by Michelle Macklem, and theme music by Neeta Sarl.
Clips in this episode from AFP News, AfD in English, DW News and Al Jazeera English.
Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Rolf Frankenberger does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Billions in federal funding for schools on hold
WASHINGTON – School districts nationwide are in a new state of financial limbo after the U.S. Department of Education missed a key deadline to allocate billions of dollars for programs supporting underserved children. The agency hasn't released roughly $6.2 billion across five federal programs, including awards meant to help states support migrant students and English-language learning, advocates say. The money on hold represents more than a tenth of federal education funding for all states and territories, according to the Learning Policy Institute, an independent education research nonprofit. The policy change has impacted more than $400 million in education funding for schools in New York state, researchers estimated. In California, that number is over $800 million; in Texas, it's roughly $660 million. Typically, the allocations are made available to states and districts on July 1 each year. That timeline is important so that schools can budget for summer programs and the upcoming academic year. Read more: Teens face hiring chill as they hunt for summer jobs But a notice sent to congressional staff on June 30 and reviewed by USA TODAY warned lawmakers that states wouldn't be getting their funding estimates on time. The money, the notice said, is under review due to the recent change in presidential administrations, and "decisions have not yet been made concerning submissions and awards for this upcoming academic year." "The Department remains committed to ensuring taxpayer resources are spent in accordance with the President's priorities and the Department's statutory responsibilities," wrote Brandy Brown, a top Education Department official. Asked about the funding pause, an Education Department spokesperson referred USA TODAY to the White House Office of Management and Budget. OMB spokespeople did not respond to requests for comment. School funding advocates, including Carissa Moffat Miller, the chief executive officer at the Council of Chief State School Officers, were alarmed by the delay. "These funds were approved by Congress and signed into law by President Trump in March," Miller said in a statement. "Schools need these funds to hire key staff and educate students this summer and in the upcoming school year." The new financial concerns for school leaders came as a coalition of states launched a legal battle to restore a separate stream of federal funding for schools. In April, the Trump administration discontinued roughly $1 billion in grants meant to bolster the number of counselors and psychologists in schools. At the time, the Education Department argued the grants violated civil rights laws by incorporating diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI. Grantees who had their contracts discontinued could appeal the decision. Read more: Trump administration discontinues $1 billion in school mental health grants New York State Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, called the reversal unconstitutional and ideologically driven. "By cutting funding for these lifesaving youth mental health programs, the Department of Education is abandoning our children when they need us most,' she said in a statement. Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Billions in federal school funding on hold
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows States Hitting Trump With Major $6.8 Billion Lawsuit
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Nearly half of the country's states and the District of Columbia (DC) sued the Trump administration on Monday for $6.8 billion over education funding being withheld. The coalition of 24 states and DC launched the suit against President Donald Trump, Linda McMahon in her capacity as secretary of education, the Education Department, Russ Vought as the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the OMB. The suit alleges that the Trump administration has "unlawfully frozen over $6 billion in education funding for K-12 schools and adult education." The states say the freeze is unlawful because the funds were appropriated by Congress to be given to the states on July 1 and are currently being withheld by the president for a "review." The Education Department and OMB have been contacted via email for comment. Why It Matters The states suing the Trump administration allege these funds are vital for several key educational programs and needs, including those for people learning English, technology in the classroom lessons, and extracurricular programs. The plaintiffs have said that withholding these funds "will irreparably harm the Plaintiff States, their schools, and the students and families they serve." This is one of several suits faced by the White House over withholding congressionally approved funds. What To Know Education Secretary Linda McMahon speaks during a Senate Appropriations hearing, Tuesday, June 3, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Education Secretary Linda McMahon speaks during a Senate Appropriations hearing, Tuesday, June 3, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File/AP Photo The suit alleges that the Trump administration is withholding these funds "without any statutory or constitutional authority," as Congress has already earmarked this money and the White House has no legal right to prevent congressional funds from being used. The plaintiffs said they are eligible for the funding due to compliance with the conditions set out by the Education Department, and have submitted state plans which were approved by the Education Department. They have been receiving these funds for decades without incident until this year. According to the plaintiffs, they received the following letter from the Education Department on June 30, the day before they were set to receive their funds: "Given the change in Administrations, the Department is reviewing the FY 2025 funding for the [Title I-C, II-A, III-A, IV-A, IV-B] grant program(s), and decisions have not yet been made concerning submissions and awards for this upcoming academic year. Accordingly, the Department will not be issuing Grant Award Notifications obligating funds for these programs on July 1 prior to completing that review. The Department remains committed to ensuring taxpayer resources are spent in accordance with the President's priorities and the Department's statutory responsibilities." This suit was launched by attorneys general from 22 states with the governors of Pennsylvania and Kentucky, all Democrats. It comes as the Supreme Court ruled Trump can lay off nearly 1,400 workers from the Education Department, overruling a previous judge's ruling to reinstate the workers. Discussing that suit, Secretary McMahon said: "The U.S. Department of Education will now deliver on its mandate to restore excellence in American education. We will carry out the reduction in force to promote efficiency and accountability and to ensure resources are directed where they matter most—to students, parents, and teachers." The Department of Education has not released a statement yet on this lawsuit. What People Are Saying Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell in a press release: "The President does not have the authority to decline spending funds appropriated by Congress, and as long as this Administration continues to violate our laws, I will continue to hold him accountable." Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul in a press release: "With the start of the school year only a month away for many Illinois students, the Trump administration's illegal funding freeze is wreaking havoc on school budgets, suspending programs and causing stress and anxiety for families who depend on them." Education Secretary Linda McMahon on the Supreme Court's ruling in a press release: "Today, the Supreme Court again confirmed the obvious: the President of the United States, as the head of the Executive Branch, has the ultimate authority to make decisions about staffing levels, administrative organization, and day-to-day operations of federal agencies." What Happens Next The states are suing for injunctive relief, meaning they want the freeze to end and the funds allocated to them away of the upcoming academic year. This case, like many others against the Trump administration, will likely find itself in court.
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Top German court rejects case over US drone strikes in Yemen assisted by base in Germany
BERLIN (AP) — Germany's highest court on Tuesday rejected a case brought by Yemeni plaintiffs who argued the German government failed in a duty to protect relatives who they say were killed in a 2012 drone strike against an attack controlled with help from a U.S. military base in Germany. Ruling in a case that has been making its way through the German judicial system for over a decade, the Federal Constitutional Court found the German government can have a concrete duty to protect foreign citizens abroad in some cases. But it said that only could apply when there is a 'sufficient connection' to the German state's authority and 'a serious danger of systematic violation' of international law. It found the case at hand didn't fulfill the requirements. The plaintiffs argued the U.S. military's Ramstein Air Base in southwestern Germany plays a key role in relaying flight control data used for armed drone strikes in Yemen via a satellite relay station set up with the knowledge and approval of the German government. A lower court ruled in 2019 that the German government had partial responsibility to ensure U.S. drone strikes controlled with help from Ramstein are in line with international law, but judges stopped short of ordering the ban human rights activists had called for. The following year, a federal court overturned the ruling. The supreme court said the evidence submitted didn't lead to the conclusion the U.S. applied criteria that were unacceptable under international law in determining legitimate military targets in Yemen. The European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, which argued the case for the Yemeni plaintiffs, said 'at a time when the adherence of state action to international law is increasingly being called into question, the court has failed to send a strong signal,' adding that 'individual legal protection remains a theoretical possibility without practical consequences.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
