What's going on with the far right in Germany?

What's going on with the far right in Germany?

A few days ago, despite an ongoing pandemic, nearly 40,000 people poured into the streets of Berlin to express outrage at the government's handling of the crisis. Some of them called on Putin and Trump to "liberate" the country.

Many observers have since interpreted the mass protests as a show of strength by Germany's far-right movement, particularly the populist Alternative for Germany party (AfD), the largest opposition party in the Bundestag that triumphed in the 2017 national elections. But is this really a sign of the growing prominence of the far right, or are there other dynamics at play?


Who's marching? While some AfD members have made a splash in attending the recent demonstrations, anecdotal evidence suggests that they are simply one faction of a motley crew made up of pandemic denialists, anti-vaxxers, far-right agitators, libertarians, nationalists, and affiliates of the Reichsbürger movement, which claims that the German government created after World War II is illegitimate.

While the focus of their ire includes mandatory mask-wearing and restrictions on movement, what really unites the group is mutual outrage at the political establishment that governs Germany.

Why is the AfD making noise like this right now? The AfD has been on its back foot lately, in part because of Angela Merkel's effective (and popular) leadership during the pandemic, and in part because of infighting within the AfD. Its national support fell to 9 percent this summer, down from 14 percent earlier this year.

Internal power struggles, combined with the German intelligence agency's symbolic decisions to classify part of the party as "extremist" — and place its leaders under surveillance — have caused a crisis of faith for the party, long deemed a potent political force within German politics. (Consider that nearly 50 percent of Germans polled in February said they think the AfD would form part of the government by 2030.)

Additionally, Germany has done an objectively decent job at mitigating the spread of infection compared to many other countries. As a result, most restrictions have already been lifted. Therefore, the far right's twin warning of an ongoing government crackdown on civil liberties and of a country in disarray, is failing to resonate across the political spectrum. Indeed, the AfD's overtures to populist fringe groups currently hogging the spotlight likely reflects the party's underlying anxiety about Germans' diminishing appetite for its extreme nationalist agenda.

Is any of it working? The answer is mixed. While the AfD has experienced only a marginal bump in the polls over the summer months (one percent), anti-government sentiment is having some effect on policy.

For instance, despite a rise in coronavirus cases in recent weeks that have sparked fear of a second wave of infection, Germany's health minister ruled out another nationwide lockdown, and said that the government would have done things "differently" this past spring, striking a better balance between health and safety, and personal freedoms.

But the biggest challenge is that Germans overwhelmingly support what Merkel (who is a trained scientist) is doing. Only one in 10 Germans say they oppose virus prevention measures like mask-wearing, and support for Chancellor Merkel, which waned in recent years as populist sentiment swept parts of the country, has skyrocketed to 86 percent.

What's next for Germany? Germany's federal elections are only a year away, and the race to replace Angela Merkel, the country's second-longest serving chancellor, will surely ramp up in the near term.

The German government has managed to keep COVID-19 deaths relatively low, thus allowing schools to reopen, while also pumping millions into financial aid programs. But if a second wave of coronavirus comes in the winter, and unemployment surges, the AfD may get a new opening to exploit that discontent to boost its prospects.

That's Bank of America's new target in its Environmental Business Initiative in order to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon, sustainable economy.

Here's how it will drive innovation to address climate change.

On Tuesday, a major US intelligence report said the top threat to America right now is China. A day later, John Kerry, the Biden administration's "climate czar," got on a plane to... China.

Such is the drama of ties between the world's two largest economies these days.

More Show less

Should the Biden administration "reverse course on China" in the hope of establishing a friendlier relationship, as diplomat Kishore Mahbubani argues in a recent Financial Times op-ed? Ian Bremmer and Eurasia Group analyst Michael Hirson take out the Red Pen to explain why it's not that simple.

And today, we are talking about the United States and China. The relationship between the two most powerful nations in the world is the worst it's been since the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Pundits and policymakers alike all around the world are trying to figure out how Washington and Beijing can at least stop the bleeding because a reset is nowhere in the cards.

That's the topic of the op-ed that we are looking at today. It's from the Financial Times, written by Singaporean diplomat Kishore Mahbubani, and the title summarizes the key argument: "Biden should summon the courage to reverse course on China." Meaning, he should throw out the Trump era approach and open the door to more cooperation and kinder, gentler relations.

More Show less

More than a dozen COVID-19 vaccines have been fully approved or are currently in early use globally, and COVAX, the global initiative started last year by the World Health Organization and other partners, is pushing for equitable access to vaccines for all. But most of the half billion jabs given so far have gone to citizens of wealthy countries, with half going to the US and China alone. What's the problem with so-called vaccine nationalism? Ian Bremmer explains that besides the clear humanitarian concerns, the continued global spread of COVID increases the risk of new mutations and variants that can threaten the entire world, vaccinated or not.

Watch the episode: Vaccine nationalism could prolong the pandemic

Should wealthy individuals and nations shoulder more of the burden in addressing climate change? Pulitzer Prize-winning climate journalist Elizabeth Kolbert argues that Big Tech leaders like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk should shift more of their focus to fighting for our own planet's survival, instead of space exploration. "We're doing as much as we can to make life difficult on planet Earth for ourselves. But there's virtually nothing we could do to make it as difficult as life on Mars, where there's, among other things, no oxygen." Kolbert, the author of Under a White Sky, discusses why it's so crucial for a few rich countries to bear most of the climate burden, since they're also the biggest emitters. Her conversation with Ian Bremmer is featured in the upcoming episode of GZERO World, airing on US public television stations starting this Friday, April 16. Check local listings.

In recent days, Northern Ireland has seen some of its worst street violence in over a decade. The anger has subsided a bit this week, but post-Brexit fears leave many uncertain about their future in a deeply divided land with a long history of political violence between Irish republicans and UK unionists.

More Show less

Fighting climate change is about making the planet get less hot. The more quickly countries slow down their carbon emissions, the faster that'll happen. All the more important for the nations that pollute the most — but not all of them are on board. Although the majority, including China, are setting future targets to go Net Zero, India doesn't want to commit (yet) to when to stop burning fossil fuels to spur economic growth. We take a look at when the world's top polluting economies intend to go carbon-neutral, compared with their share of global emissions, of renewable energy as a source of electricity, and percentage of global coal consumption.

Peruvian runoff: Perú's presidential election is going to a runoff in June between two surprise and polarizing contenders, each of whom won less than 20 percent of votes in a highly fragmented first round. Pedro Castillo, a far-left union leader and teacher who benefited from a late surge in the polls, will battle rightwing populist Keiko Fujimori, daughter of the country's imprisoned former strongman. Castillo wants to rewrite the constitution to weaken the political influence of the country's business elite and maybe to allow the state to nationalize parts of the mining sector to pay for social programs for the poor. Fujimori wants to use mining revenues to create jobs by investing in infrastructure and healthcare. The runoff will probably be a national referendum on Fujimori, a divisive figure running for the top job for the third time. No Peruvian president has ever left office without facing corruption charges, but Fujimori already faces several — and she'll avoid jail time if she wins.

More Show less

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter, Signal

The GZERO World Podcast with Ian Bremmer. Listen now.

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal