I am a humanist. And that is why what happened in Saxony-Anhalt on September 6, 2026, frightens me. <\/p>\n\n
Not because, in a democracy, a party whose political positions I reject was elected. Democracy must be able to withstand dissent. It must be able to accommodate conservative, left-wing, liberal, and even far-right positions. <\/p>\n\n
But democracy must not remain indifferent when a party becomes exceptionally powerful\u2014a party whose state chapter has been classified by the relevant domestic intelligence agency as having confirmed far-right extremist aims\u2014and in which the agency explicitly identifies attacks on human dignity and the principle of democracy.<\/p>\n\n
According to exit polls on election night, the AfD received about 44.5 percent of the vote in Saxony-Anhalt. In 2021, it was 20.8 percent. The CDU, which at that time had been by far the strongest party with 37.1 percent, has fallen to about 18.5 percent. The AfD has thus more than doubled its share of the vote within a single legislative term and achieved its strongest result to date in a state election. <\/p>\n\n
44.5 percent.<\/p>\n\n
We should let that number sink in for a moment.<\/p>\n\n
Because when the numbers are this high, it’s no longer enough to say, “A few people voted out of protest.”<\/p>\n\n
We need to ask ourselves what has changed in our society.<\/p>\n\n
Not every AfD voter is a right-wing extremist\u2014but every one of them has made a choice<\/p>\n\n
From a humanistic perspective, I believe one distinction is important.<\/p>\n\n
I don’t think much of labeling more than four out of ten voters as Nazis or right-wing extremists across the board. People have different motives. Anyone who wants to understand why democratic societies change must not try to avoid the answer by resorting to insults. <\/p>\n\n
But the opposite conclusion would be just as wrong:<\/p>\n\n
People had simply voted out of protest and didn’t really know who they were voting for.<\/p>\n\n
This explanation will become increasingly implausible in 2026.<\/p>\n\n
Since November 2023, the Saxony-Anhalt State Association has been publicly classified as a confirmed far-right extremist organization. The rationale for this classification is public. The organization\u2019s platform is public. Statements by leading officials are public. <\/p>\n\n
Anyone who votes for this party today, therefore, does not need to be familiar with every statement made by a party official or have read every page of the party platform.<\/p>\n\n
But it is hard to claim anymore that the basic political direction is unknown.<\/p>\n\n
That’s why the uncomfortable question isn’t:<\/p>\n\n
How can thinking people vote that way?<\/p>\n\n
Rather:<\/p>\n\n
How is it possible that people know what a political party stands for\u2014and yet still vote for it, or in some cases precisely because of that?<\/p>\n\n
That’s much more troubling.<\/p>\n\n
The reasons: fear, anger, social insecurity, and a loss of trust<\/p>\n\n
Initial election analyses paint a picture of a country with significant concerns about the future.<\/p>\n\n
Seventy percent of those surveyed expressed concern that, given the current economic trends, they might eventually be unable to pay their bills. Social security was a particularly common deciding factor in voting decisions. Saxony-Anhalt is also a state with comparatively low incomes and an aging population. <\/p>\n\n
Added to this is widespread dissatisfaction with federal policy.<\/p>\n\n
59 percent said the federal government deserved a lesson in this state election. In the poll, Chancellor Friedrich Merz received just nine percent approval. <\/p>\n\n
These aren’t just made-up worries.<\/p>\n\n
People are facing rising prices. They fear social decline. In some rural areas, infrastructure, businesses, medical care, and public services are disappearing. Some feel that politicians and institutions no longer take them into account. <\/p>\n\n
A democratic government must take these problems seriously.<\/p>\n\n
But the same applies here as well:<\/p>\n\n
An explanation is not an excuse.<\/p>\n\n
Social uncertainty explains why people can become susceptible to simple answers.<\/p>\n\n
She doesn’t make misanthropic responses correct.<\/p>\n\n
What the Classification as “Far-Right Extremist” Is Really About<\/p>\n\n
In political debates, the term \u201cconfirmed far-right extremist\u201d is now sometimes treated as if it were merely a particularly harsh insult.<\/p>\n\n
That’s not him.<\/p>\n\n
The Saxony-Anhalt Office for the Protection of the Constitution explicitly justifies its classification by stating that the political agitation of the AfD\u2019s state chapter is directed against \u201cessential principles of the free democratic basic order\u201d \u2014in particular, against the guarantee of human dignity under Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law and against the principle of democracy.<\/p>\n\n
According to the agency, the concept of \u201cthe people\u201d advocated by certain factions within the state association is particularly problematic.<\/p>\n\n
The Office for the Protection of the Constitution describes an ideology that categorizes people based on their supposed ethnic origin and strives to create societies that are as homogeneous as possible. It also documents terms used by officials such as \u201cinvaders,\u201d \u201cintruders,\u201d \u201cwelfare migrants from different cultures,\u201d or \u201cGerman by passport only.\u201d <\/p>\n\n
In my view, this is where the fundamental contrast with humanism lies.<\/p>\n\n
For humanists, a person\u2019s dignity does not stem from their passport.<\/p>\n\n
Not because of his parents’ background.<\/p>\n\n
Not because of his religion.<\/p>\n\n
Not because of his sexual orientation.<\/p>\n\n
Not because of its usefulness.<\/p>\n\n
Nor is it based on the question of how well he fits into a notion of cultural or ethnic homogeneity.<\/p>\n\n
He possesses dignity because he is human.<\/p>\n\n
This is also the radical core of Article 1 of our Basic Law:<\/p>\n\n
“Human dignity is inviolable.”<\/p>\n\n
\u201cRemigration\u201d is not just a passing buzzword<\/p>\n\n
The term \u201cremigration\u201d plays a central role in the AfD Saxony-Anhalt government platform. MDR describes it as the platform\u2019s guiding principle. Among other things, the platform calls for a significantly tougher stance on deportations and asylum, centralized housing, and far-reaching changes to immigration policy. <\/p>\n\n
Of course, it’s okay to debate the issue of migration.<\/p>\n\n
It is acceptable to want to limit immigration.<\/p>\n\n
It is acceptable to want to speed up asylum proceedings.<\/p>\n\n
It is permissible to call for consistent deportations following asylum proceedings that have been rejected in accordance with the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n
All of this is part of democratic politics.<\/p>\n\n
The key issue, therefore, is not whether we talk about migration, but how we talk about people and what concept of belonging underlies those discussions.<\/p>\n\n
At the end of 2025, Saxony-Anhalt had a population of approximately 2.12 million. The Central Register of Foreign Nationals listed 192,155 people with foreign citizenship\u2014approximately nine percent of the population. More than half of these people are from Europe. <\/p>\n\n
In 2025, Saxony-Anhalt once again had a net migration gain of 7,918 people. At the same time, this figure was significantly lower than in 2022, when the net migration gain had been over 40,000 people. <\/p>\n\n
Social reality is therefore more complex than the narrative of a constantly escalating \u201cinvasion.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
And what do the crime statistics show?<\/p>\n\n
Here, too, a serious discussion requires that we neither conceal nor exploit unpleasant statistics.<\/p>\n\n
In 2025, a total of 172,776 crimes were reported in Saxony-Anhalt. That was 6.2 percent fewer than in 2024. The total number of suspects also fell by 5.9 percent. <\/p>\n\n
Of the 63,873 suspects identified, 16,764 were non-German nationals. Including violations of immigration law, this represents 26.2 percent. If crimes that, by definition, Germans cannot commit\u2014such as certain violations of residency law\u2014are excluded from the calculation, the proportion of non-German suspects is 22.7 percent. <\/p>\n\n
This means that the proportion is higher than the proportion of foreign nationals in the resident population.<\/p>\n\n
It’s okay to call it that.<\/p>\n\n
But even this statistic does not simply answer the question: \u201cAre foreigners more likely to commit crimes?\u201d Age distribution, gender distribution, socioeconomic status, immigration status, living arrangements, double counting, and the fact that statistics on suspects are not the same as statistics on convictions all play a role. <\/p>\n\n
Above all, however, the fact that certain groups have higher crime rates does not in any way imply that people belonging to those ethnic or religious groups are inferior or have lost their individual dignity.<\/p>\n\n
Humanism requires that we not deny problems.<\/p>\n\n
However, it also requires that people not be held accountable for the actions of others in their group.<\/p>\n\n
Violence by the far right is also a reality<\/p>\n\n
While public discussion focuses heavily on crime committed by migrants, there is another statistic that deserves equal consideration.<\/p>\n\n
In 2025, Saxony-Anhalt’s law enforcement agencies recorded 3,007 crimes related to right-wing politically motivated crime. These included 90 violent crimes motivated by right-wing ideology. <\/p>\n\n
The same applies here: The majority of cases involve propaganda offenses, not acts of violence.<\/p>\n\n
But 3,007 crimes motivated by political ideology are no small matter.<\/p>\n\n
They are just as much a part of this country’s reality as other forms of crime.<\/p>\n\n
This ideological conflict is particularly evident in the concept of the family. But who decides which way of life is \u201cright\u201d? <\/p>\n\n
According to the government’s platform, the family consisting of “a father, a mother, and as many children as possible” is to once again become the societal ideal.<\/p>\n\n
The problem here is not so much that a political party wants to promote this type of family.<\/p>\n\n
Of course, a traditional family consisting of a mother, father, and children is also worthy of protection.<\/p>\n\n
Problems arise when other ways of life are devalued.<\/p>\n\n
In the draft program, the low birth rate was linked, among other things, to the fact that \u201csexual deviations and non-reproductive lifestyles\u201d are now more widely accepted by society.<\/p>\n\n
This is no longer about family support.<\/p>\n\n
This creates a linguistic norm\u2014and people whose lives do not conform to this norm are labeled as deviants.<\/p>\n\n
Lesbian and gay people.<\/p>\n\n
Childless couples.<\/p>\n\n
Single parents.<\/p>\n\n
Blended families.<\/p>\n\n
People who consciously choose not to have children.<\/p>\n\n
Humanism counters this with a different idea:<\/p>\n\n
People do not have to live their lives according to a model prescribed by the government, as long as they respect the freedom and rights of others.<\/p>\n\n
Self-determination is not a social flaw.<\/p>\n\n
It is a human right.<\/p>\n\n
Democracy\u2014More Than Just the Rule of the Majority<\/p>\n\n
A common phrase following such election results is:<\/p>\n\n
“That’s just how democracy works.”<\/p>\n\n
Yes.<\/p>\n\n
The fact that people are allowed to vote for the AfD is what democracy is all about.<\/p>\n\n
The fact that a party with 44 percent of the vote might lay claim to political influence is, at first glance, also a democratic reality.<\/p>\n\n
But democracy does not mean:<\/p>\n\n
The majority can do whatever it wants.<\/p>\n\n
The Basic Law has drawn precisely this lesson from German history.<\/p>\n\n
Our democracy is a liberal democracy based on the rule of law and committed to human rights.<\/p>\n\n
A majority may change tax rates.<\/p>\n\n
She has the authority to make decisions regarding infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n
She is allowed to change education policy.<\/p>\n\n
It has the right to vote governments out of office.<\/p>\n\n
But even 90 percent of the population should not be allowed to decide that the remaining 10 percent have less human dignity.<\/p>\n\n
Fundamental rights protect precisely those who do not belong to the majority.<\/p>\n\n
It is therefore noteworthy that the AfD in Saxony-Anhalt intends to fundamentally overhaul the Office for the Protection of the Constitution in its government platform. According to the program, the assessment of anti-constitutional activities would be based primarily on a propensity for violence or violations of the law. At the same time, state-funded associations would be required to demonstrate not only a commitment to the democratic order but also a \u201cpatriotic mindset.\u201d Absentee voting would also be significantly restricted. <\/p>\n\n
These demands should not automatically be interpreted as calling for the abolition of democracy.<\/p>\n\n
But one might ask:<\/p>\n\n
Who actually decides what counts as being \u201cpatriotic\u201d enough?<\/p>\n\n
And what happens to civil society organizations that strongly oppose a government?<\/p>\n\n
When a democratic state is declared a \u201cdictatorship\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Even more problematic is the language used by certain officials and party factions.<\/p>\n\n
The Office for the Protection of the Constitution has documented that representatives of the AfD in Saxony-Anhalt have repeatedly portrayed the Federal Republic of Germany as a \u201cdictatorship\u201d or a \u201cdictatorship of opinion\u201d and have compared democratic politicians to totalitarian regimes.<\/p>\n\n
The security agency does not view this as merely a verbal provocation.<\/p>\n\n
She warns that constantly portraying the democratic state as an existential threat could foster the idea among its supporters that nonviolent political resistance will eventually no longer be enough.<\/p>\n\n
One documented case is particularly alarming: According to the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the AfD\u2019s Wittenberg district chapter openly called for a military coup against the German government.<\/p>\n\n
You have to remain careful:<\/p>\n\n
That does not mean that every AfD official is calling for violence.<\/p>\n\n
It certainly does not mean that every AfD voter supports violence.<\/p>\n\n
But it means:<\/p>\n\n
Such developments are real.<\/p>\n\n
They are documented.<\/p>\n\n
And they must not be dismissed as mere exaggerated political rhetoric.<\/p>\n\n
And then the question arises: 1933?<\/p>\n\n
I’ll admit it: That thought crosses my mind, too.<\/p>\n\n
But precisely because of our historical responsibility, we should be careful how we use this comparison.<\/p>\n\n
Germany in 2026 is not the Weimar Republic.<\/p>\n\n
Our democracy today is built on institutions that were deliberately created in response to the failure of the Weimar Republic: a strong Federal Constitutional Court, a federal system of government, inalienable fundamental rights, the \u201ceternity clause\u201d of the Basic Law, a strong civil society, and Germany\u2019s integration into the European Union.<\/p>\n\n
And the AfD cannot simply be equated with the NSDAP either.<\/p>\n\n
Such a simplistic view is of no historical use.<\/p>\n\n
But it would be just as wrong to refuse to draw any historical parallels at all out of fear of making an inappropriate comparison.<\/p>\n\n
The figures are remarkable.<\/p>\n\n
In the Reichstag election on July 31, 1932, the NSDAP received 37.3 percent of the vote.<\/p>\n\n
In November, it fell to 33.1 percent.<\/p>\n\n
Hitler did not, therefore, come to power with an absolute majority of the population. He was appointed Reich Chancellor by Reich President Hindenburg on January 30, 1933. <\/p>\n\n
It was not until the Reichstag election on March 5, 1933\u2014which had already taken place under conditions of massive state repression and intimidation\u2014that the NSDAP won 43.9 percent of the vote.<\/p>\n\n
The similarity between that percentage and today’s figure of about 44.5 percent is striking.<\/p>\n\n
But historically speaking, it doesn’t prove anything at all\u2014at least not at first.<\/p>\n\n
More important are the mechanisms that can threaten democracies.<\/p>\n\n
What We Should Really Learn from Weimar<\/p>\n\n
The rise of the Nazis did not occur because, one morning, millions of Germans had suddenly become staunch Nazis.<\/p>\n\n
It took place against a backdrop of a severe economic crisis, widespread fears of social decline, a loss of trust in democratic institutions, political radicalization, and the growing belief that parliamentary democracy could no longer solve the country’s problems.<\/p>\n\n
The Federal Agency for Civic Education explicitly describes how, in the context of that time, there was a link between the fear of social decline and the hope for national resurgence.<\/p>\n\n
Even back then, political opponents were portrayed not merely as people with differing opinions, but as enemies of the people.<\/p>\n\n
Even back then, the complexity of social problems was reduced to clearly identifiable culprits.<\/p>\n\n
Even back then, democratic institutions were gradually losing public trust.<\/p>\n\n
And perhaps one of the most important lessons from history is:<\/p>\n\n
Democracies do not always disappear simply because a majority decides one morning that it no longer wants to live in a democracy.<\/p>\n\n
They can erode.<\/p>\n\n
Institution by institution.<\/p>\n\n
Standard by standard.<\/p>\n\n
Border by border.<\/p>\n\n
A statement that seemed unthinkable just yesterday is now being made in a provocative manner.<\/p>\n\n
It will be discussed tomorrow.<\/p>\n\n
The day after tomorrow, he’ll be back to normal.<\/p>\n\n
And eventually, hardly anyone asks anymore when the boundary actually shifted.<\/p>\n\n
That is exactly why we need to take a closer look before it’s too late\u2014not after the fact.<\/p>\n\n
What does this mean for us humanists?<\/p>\n\n
For me, it means, first and foremost:<\/p>\n\n
We must not remain silent.<\/p>\n\n
Humanism is not political neutrality in the face of misanthropy.<\/p>\n\n
Anyone who defends the equal dignity of all people inevitably takes a stand when people are disparaged because of their background, religion, gender, sexual identity, or lifestyle.<\/p>\n\n
But at the same time, we should be careful not to adopt the very mechanisms we criticize.<\/p>\n\n
To dismiss 44 percent of voters as stupid, uneducated, or morally inferior would not only be wrong.<\/p>\n\n
It would also be politically unwise.<\/p>\n\n
We have to disagree.<\/p>\n\n
We have to argue.<\/p>\n\n
We need to state the facts.<\/p>\n\n
We must call out statements that are degrading to human dignity.<\/p>\n\n
And at the same time, we must listen to where people are genuinely afraid of social decline, where infrastructure is collapsing, where integration policies aren’t working, where people no longer feel represented, or where policymakers have made mistakes.<\/p>\n\n
Humanism does not mean making the world sound better than it is.<\/p>\n\n
On the contrary.<\/p>\n\n
Enlightenment requires the courage to face reality.<\/p>\n\n
Even when the numbers challenge our own beliefs.<\/p>\n\n
But enlightenment also means resisting the temptation to turn complex problems into simplistic stereotypes.<\/p>\n\n
My greatest unease<\/p>\n\n
Maybe, in the end, it isn’t even the number 44.5 that scares me the most.<\/p>\n\n
It’s normalization.<\/p>\n\n
The fact that a party can hold such positions\u2014and yet, for a great many people, it remains a viable political choice despite this or perhaps because of it.<\/p>\n\n
That people with German passports can be classified as \u201cpassport Germans.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
That other ways of life are labeled as \u201csexual deviations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
That officials declare the democratic Federal Republic of Germany a dictatorship.<\/p>\n\n
That a faction within a political party could bring a military coup into play.<\/p>\n\n
And that we then discuss whether maybe we shouldn’t take all of this so seriously.<\/p>\n\n
Yes, it is.<\/p>\n\n
We should take it seriously.<\/p>\n\n
Don’t get hysterical.<\/p>\n\n
Not oblivious to history.<\/p>\n\n
Not with excessive Nazi comparisons.<\/p>\n\n
But very serious.<\/p>\n\n
After all, learning from history doesn’t mean seeing the year 1933 in everything.<\/p>\n\n
Learning from history means recognizing trends before a comparison with 1933 eventually ceases to be an exaggeration.<\/p>\n\n
And yet: Democracy is not lost<\/p>\n\n
Despite all my concerns, I don’t want to end this text on a note of fear.<\/p>\n\n
Because that would be exactly the wrong conclusion.<\/p>\n\n
A democracy is not lost simply because an anti-democratic or illiberal political force gains strength.<\/p>\n\n
It is lost if the Democrats stop defending it.<\/p>\n\n
When they withdraw.<\/p>\n\n
When they give up.<\/p>\n\n
When they start distributing fundamental rights based on popularity.<\/p>\n\n
Or if they believe that democracy consists solely of checking a box every few years.<\/p>\n\n
Democracy needs people who speak out.<\/p>\n\n
People who start clubs.<\/p>\n\n
People who explain democracy to young people.<\/p>\n\n
People who help refugees.<\/p>\n\n
People who speak out against injustices.<\/p>\n\n
People who work in journalism.<\/p>\n\n
People who are active in local councils.<\/p>\n\n
People who talk to each other even though they disagree.<\/p>\n\n
And people who draw the line when an opinion turns into contempt for others.<\/p>\n\n
For us humanists, there is something else to consider.<\/p>\n\n
We have no hope that some higher power will ultimately save our society.<\/p>\n\n
It’s up to us humans.<\/p>\n\n
Our reason.<\/p>\n\n
Our compassion.<\/p>\n\n
On our courage.<\/p>\n\n
In our willingness not only to demand freedom for ourselves, but also to defend it for those whose lives, backgrounds, or beliefs differ from our own.<\/p>\n\n
Perhaps that is why this particular election night is a mission.<\/p>\n\n
Not less democracy.<\/p>\n\n
More democracy.<\/p>\n\n
No less controversy.<\/p>\n\n
A Better Argument.<\/p>\n\n
Don’t exclude people just because they voted the wrong way.<\/p>\n\n
But we must firmly oppose the exclusion of people.<\/p>\n\n
And above all:<\/p>\n\n
Don’t stay silent.<\/p>\n\n
Because human dignity is non-negotiable.<\/p>\n\n
Not even with 44.5 percent.<\/p>\n\n
Nor with a majority.<\/p>\n\n
<\/p>\n\n
Bibliography and further information:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n Federal Agency for Civic Education (bpb): Federal Agency for Civic Education (bpb): Ministry of the Interior and Sports of the State of Saxony-Anhalt \/ Saxony-Anhalt Office for the Protection of the Constitution: Ministry of the Interior and Sports of the State of Saxony-Anhalt \/ Saxony-Anhalt Office for the Protection of the Constitution: Ministry of the Interior and Sports of the State of Saxony-Anhalt \/ Saxony-Anhalt Office for the Protection of the Constitution: Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk (MDR): Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk (MDR): Saxony-Anhalt Police: Saxony-Anhalt Police \/ Saxony-Anhalt Ministry of the Interior and Sports: Saxony-Anhalt State Statistical Office: Saxony-Anhalt State Statistical Office: Saxony-Anhalt State Statistical Office: