While a couple of questions concerned the SPD’s policy toward the Ukraine War, most had to do with social politics, from working conditions to pensions, or education. A recent poll presents a different but not directly contradictory picture. When Germans were asked to choose the three topics that concern them the most about their country, migration was in first place closely followed by poverty and social inequality, and inflation. Military conflicts were in a more distant fourth position.
Germans have diverse concerns ahead of the elections. Even so, migration, and the often conflated but distinct topic of domestic security, together with military security occupy a great deal of attention in the current political debate — from the covers of the main newspapers to the TV talk shows. These two topics will also figure prominently in the negotiations to form a coalition after the elections. As long as the CDU/CSU keeps their promise not to reach a coalition agreement with the AfD, the conservatives are likely to reach an agreement with the SPD. The Greens, who poll at 14%, have fewer chances of being in the government. Robert Habeck, their chancellor candidate and Minister of Economic Affairs, has higher ratings than Scholz. This could be observed on Jan. 18, when Habeck visited Munich and filled a large event hall. More than 500 people overflowed the room, watching Habeck’s speech on several screens. Still, the Greens are disliked by broad sectors of the CDU/CSU and this is likely to complicate a future coalition. The FDP might not make it into parliament but if they do, they would be an obvious coalition partner for the CDU/CSU if a three-party constellation is needed to reach a majority.
*
To say that migration has been “securitized” refers to narratives that construct migrants as security threats. This kind of narrative has reached new heights in the ongoing campaign. The election manifestos already offered a taste of what was to come. The CDU demands a complete stop to the entry of migrants and asylum-seekers into Germany and wants to invest in the latest border security technology. The conservatives argue Germany is entitled to take this step because it only borders safe countries where it is possible to claim asylum. In practice, this would greatly increase the pressure on countries at the EU’s external borders like Italy and Greece. It would also imply a de facto stop in the right to asylum, which is inscribed in the German constitution as a lesson from the Nazi past but has been subject to attacks by the CDU leader and likely future chancellor Friedrich Merz throughout his political career.
The AfD takes CDU’s demands even further, asking for a “remigration” agenda. Once a fringe concept connected to the great replacement conspiracy theory, the term gained notoriety after it was revealed that mid-ranking AfD members had attended a secret meeting in Potsdam focused on “remigration.” The attendants discussed the forced deportation of asylum seekers, non-Germans with residency rights, and “non-assimilated” German citizens. The concept of “remigration”, which made it to the AfD’s election program, is defined by the party as the “constitutional and lawful repatriation of those required to leave the country.” This is the definition of the term for public consumption. But there is a darker, more real meaning that is far closer to what was discussed in Potsdam and some AfD leaders explicitly condone. Björn Höcke, who led his party to the first regional election win in Thuringia last September, recently renewed his calls for “well-tempered cruelty” in applying a “remigration” program. No AfD politician represents better than Höcke the party’s successful efforts to push the limits of Germany’s political language. Five months before his election win, Höcke had to answer before a judge in Halle for having twice used the Nazi slogan, “Everything for Germany.” On the first day of the trial, in a show of how radical language has become increasingly normalized, a man outside the court building told another one that he didn’t understand why Höcke could be judged for using an “everyday sentence.”
*
The demands in the election manifestos of the CDU and the AfD come at the end of a year in which the Scholz-led government has already implemented harsher migration policies. Following a terrorist attack in Solingen by a Syrian who had been denied asylum, the government imposed border controls at all German land borders in September 2024. The following month, it approved a so-called “security package”, with measures such as the loss of asylum status (with a few exceptions) for refugees traveling back to their countries, or the reduction of social benefits for some asylum-seekers. During the first half of 2024, there was a doubling in the number of migrants (and, reportedly, also asylum-seekers who were not allowed to file asylum claims) being forced back at the German borders. In the whole of 2024, the volume of asylum applications decreased by 30% and deportations rose by 20%. The Social Democrats broadly promise to continue with the current migration policy and want to work within the framework provided by the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, expected to come into force in mid-2026.
In Dec. 2024, already into the election campaign, an attack in Magdeburg took hold of the political conversation. The Saudi-born man who drove a car into a Christmas market killing six people had expressed Islamophobic views and support for the AfD. This did not preclude the far-right party from instrumentalizing the attack to agitate against migrants. Meanwhile, Merz called for double citizens to lose their German citizenship if they commit criminal offenses.
But there was still space for further political escalation, as shown after an Afghan man with a history of mental health issues attacked a group of children in Aschaffenburg in Jan. 2025. In early February, Merz brought a non-binding motion to the German parliament asking to turn back more migrants at the border. It passed due to the votes of the AfD — the first time in Germany’s postwar history that a parliamentary majority was reached with the help of the far right. Merz’s decision was criticized by former German chancellor and fellow CDU member Angela Merkel, and brought thousands of protesters to the streets. Two days later, a bill that was put to vote by CDU calling for an end to family reunions for migrants with subsidiary protection was narrowly defeated despite the alignment of CDU and AfD on the matter once again.
*
US President Donald Trump has called for an immediate end to the Ukraine War, leaving many doubts on the future of US weapons deliveries to Kyiv and prompting Germany to discuss whether to increase support for the Ukrainian army. Trump’s demands for NATO spending increases, to 5% of GDP, have further increased uncertainty. Germany has been the second-largest provider of military aid for Ukraine in absolute terms since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Last year, Germany reached the official NATO target of 2% of GDP. The increase was made possible by the approval of 100€ billion in special funds for the army after Russian troops marched into Ukraine. These funds, expected to run out by 2027, did not come from the regular budget. They were made possible by a constitutional amendment that allowed the government to bypass, only for defense expenditure, the “Schuldenbremse” (debt brake), a provision introduced to the constitution in 2009 to limit the government’s capacity to take public debt to only 0.35% of the GDP.
Neither the CDU nor the AfD are willing to reform the debt brake, but both parties want to provide the army with more funds. Whereas the Christian Democrats say the 2% target is simply a “lower limit,” AfD’s candidate for chancellor, Alice Weidel, says spending 5% of the GDP on defense is “very likely.” This would mean that nearly half of the government expenditure would go to the military. The SPD also sees the 2% target as a minimum but favors a reform of the debt brake, which would provide more fiscal room for the government.
*
It is not only the budget that is undergoing militarization, but society as a whole. Advertisements to join the army have become far more present in German cities. The CDU and the AfD favor reintroducing the military service in Germany. The SPD advocates for maintaining the current policy. Since last year, men who turn 18 have been asked about their availability to serve in the military, but military service remains voluntary.
During his period as opposition chief, Merz had pressed the German coalition government to deliver Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine. Merz promised that if he were to become chancellor, he would ask Russian president Vladimir Putin to stop attacking Ukraine’s civil infrastructure in 24 hours, moving forward with the delivery of Taurus missiles if the Russian leader did not comply. Although the Greens and the FDP supported this step, Scholz had the last word as chancellor. He used it to block the delivery of Taurus, arguing that Germany would otherwise become an active party in the war since the missiles could reach deep into Russia.
It is not only the budget that is undergoing militarization, but society as a whole.
On this matter, Scholz has tried to position himself between the AfD, which calls for the immediate stop of military aid for Ukraine, and the CDU’s demands to increase it. Within the SPD, there were hopes that Scholz’s Ukraine policy could help him recover ground in the polls. The chancellor has an overall low popularity rate at 23% but defends a majority position regarding Ukraine. Fifty-seven percent of Germans want Germany to continue providing military support for Kyiv but 61% do not want the government to deliver Taurus. The SPD has focused on presenting Scholz as a prudent choice, while framing Merz as hot-headed and lacking experience in government at a time of international crises. The strategy does not appear to be working for the SPD if we are to judge by the constant gap in the polls between the Social Democrats and the CDU. It certainly does not help the SPD that, as Merz inches closer to the chancellorship, he has not repeated his Taurus ultimatum.
*
The economic situation in Germany has also received considerable attention during the election campaign. The German GDP contracted by 0.2% in 2024, the second year in a row of economic downturn. Some key economic sectors such as the automotive or steel industry are undergoing major difficulties, in part because of the higher energy costs since Germany stopped importing Russian gas after the invasion of Ukraine. The AfD differs from the CDU in that they want to restore economic relations with Russia. Other than that, the CDU and the AfD want to secure economic growth with tax reductions, supposedly funding them with cuts in the provisions for the unemployed and asylum-seekers. Meanwhile, the SPD sees the way back to growth in, among other measures, a tax bonus for investments in the future, for instance in climate-friendly technologies.
The economic insecurities among the German population, however, have less to do with growth figures than with more specific worries. In a recent poll, half of the population expressed their preoccupation about not being able to pay their bills if prices rise further. During the last four years, the price of groceries has increased by 15% overall, while the cheapest brands have increased by 29% — a burden that falls on the most economically unstable. At the same time, real wages have been falling. To protect citizens from the inflation in food prices, the SPD wants to decrease the value-added tax for groceries from 7% to 5%. The CDU and the AfD do not have any specific proposals on the matter.
Another major worry among Germans is housing. Thirty-seven percent of the population (8% more than four years ago) is concerned about not being able to afford to live in their current house or apartment in ten years. Since 2020, the average rent has increased by 8%. Scholz, who ran in 2021 as “chancellor for affordable housing”, has not fulfilled his promise. Whereas the SPD demands the continuation of the current rent cap, the CDU and the AfD reject governmental intervention in the housing market.
What would an economic policy that addresses these many insecurities look like? The economist Isabelle Weber sees Germany’s debt brake as a self-imposed restriction that “prevents democracy from meeting the enormous challenges it is currently facing.” In the current context of scarcity, the AfD has it easy to present itself as the only alternative to the status quo. Weber believes the removal of the debt brake would allow the German state to invest in infrastructure and promote a social-ecological economic transformation. The cost of living crisis similarly offers many opportunities to the far-right, who attribute these problems to immigrants. Weber defends the necessity of a rent cap as well as more decisive action on food prices. Four companies in Germany dominate 75% of food retail sales, which allows them to maintain profit margins at the expense of consumers during high inflation periods like the current one. Against this monopolization, Weber proposes strategic price controls, buffer stocks in warehouses, and stricter antitrust laws.
With several attacks in Germany during the last months and the ever-present threat of an expansion of the Ukraine War, it is only logical that physical security plays an important role in the election campaign. However, it is highly unlikely that agitation against migrants and escalating military budgets will lead to greater physical security. At the same time, if Germany’s many other insecurities remain unanswered after the next elections, the dangers could be even greater the next time around.
Cover image: Election placards of the SPD and the CDU in Chemnitz, Saxony, on Jan. 15, 2025.
