A commentary by our author Klaus Bastian:
Ahead of the state election in Saxony-Anhalt, the discourse surrounding a potential AfD victory is taking a worrying turn. An anonymous call from within the Antifa milieu threatens to “storm” the Magdeburg state parliament in the event of an AfD win. Sven Hüber, deputy head of the police union (GdP), is discussing scenarios for police resistance under an AfD government. At the same time, politicians specializing in interior affairs are considering withholding sensitive information from a potential AfD state government and holding ministerial meetings without its representatives present. Furthermore, Dieter Hallervorden has described voting against the AfD as a form of “pest control.” This commentary is expressly not intended to take the side of the AfD. One can reject and oppose the AfD and consider it politically dangerous. This text defends democracy and the principle that the results of legitimate elections must be respected, even when one dislikes the outcome.
Democracy does not end with an unwelcome election victory
An election is only meaningful if its outcome is subsequently respected. Therefore, anyone is free to politically oppose the AfD, demonstrate against it, and sharply criticize its platforms. Those who consider the party hostile to the constitution may also invoke the established legal procedures designed for such cases. However, a legally authorized party remains part of the democratic process unless a competent court rules otherwise. Millions of votes do not lose their value simply because politicians, officials, or celebrities deem the result “wrong.”
Image: Shutterstock
An anonymous call to action on Indymedia illustrates where the opposite approach can lead. It states that in the event of an AfD victory, “we will storm the Magdeburg state parliament with a large contingent of anti-fascists from across Germany.” The planned action is thus directed squarely against the outcome of an election; consequently, it does not constitute a defense of democratic norms. Anyone seeking to storm a parliament simply because citizens voted in a way they disapprove of is placing violence above the will of the electorate.
“Pest control” evokes Germany’s darkest eras
Hallervorden’s choice of words also highlights the extremes to which political discourse has descended. “Folks, I’m actually very successful at pest control,” he says in a recent TikTok video. He then explains that he achieves this simply by not voting for the AfD. In doing so, he verbally equates the party—and by extension, its voters—with vermin. In Germany, of all places, such language recalls the darkest chapters of our history, when opponents were dehumanized through rhetoric and ostracized from the community. Nazi propaganda deliberately employed aggressive language and the exclusion of perceived enemies.
The situation becomes particularly serious, however, when state power enters the equation. Hüber, a deputy chairman of the GdP (Police Union), writes that civil servants might have to offer resistance should an AfD government violate the Basic Law. He also discusses the deployment of riot police and federal police to restore constitutional order. GdP leader Jochen Kopelke subsequently defended Hüber, describing him as a valued colleague and an expert on civil service law. In contrast, the North Rhine-Westphalia branch of the GdP explicitly disagreed, labeling parts of the arguments as legally incorrect.
Special rules targeting election winners set a dangerous precedent
Current deliberations regarding a potential AfD government in Saxony-Anhalt go even further. Domestic policy experts are discussing the implementation of so-called “Chinese walls” to restrict access to sensitive intelligence data regarding the protection of the constitution. There is also talk of holding separate ministerial meetings that would exclude a potential AfD Interior Minister. Proponents justify these measures by citing security concerns and the need to protect confidential information. However, constitutional law experts see legal issues with several of these proposed arrangements.
This is precisely where the crucial line is drawn. The state must halt concrete legal violations by a government, and specific security risks can indeed justify statutory protective measures. Yet, imposing restrictions solely because of the outcome of a legitimate election undermines the will of the voters—and, by extension, democracy itself. Treating elected government representatives differently as a preemptive measure simply because their party is unwelcome calls into question the principle of equal democratic rules. Today, this mechanism affects the AfD; tomorrow, a completely different political majority could be the target.
It is therefore possible to take a firm stand against the AfD while simultaneously advocating for the recognition of its election results. There is no contradiction here; rather, this is the essence of a functioning democracy. One need not like a political opponent, but a legitimately won election victory must be respected. Subsequently, the opposition, the courts, parliaments, and the public can scrutinize that opponent’s policies. Anyone who contemplates force, special rules, and institutional exclusion even before the election takes place is embarking on a dangerous path.
The true test of democracy, therefore, does not begin when one’s own party wins. It begins the moment citizens decide differently than oneself. Those who accept the election result in such instances are not defending the AfD, but democracy itself. Conversely, those who only recognize elections when the desired outcome is achieved turn the right to vote into a conditional exercise. In that scenario, the final decision rests not with the voters, but with those who seek to dictate which results are acceptable.
Author: Klaus Bastian – Blackout News
Sources: Focus (18.08.26) – Welt (17.08.26) – Gewerkschaft der Polizei (14.08.26) – Deutschlandfunk (13.08.26) – Welt (27.06.26)