Electoral success of the AfD: How the concept of democracy is being destroyed

Imagine going to the supermarket to do your weekly shop. You have a selection of products in front of you - different types of bread, milk and even the fruit shelf offers you a colourful variety. You decide what you like best. Now imagine someone comes and tells you that your choice is wrong because it doesn't match the preferences of the majority. Would you think that was fair? Probably not. And yet that's exactly what happens when it comes to democratic elections.

Many people in Saxony and Thuringia voted for the AfD, a party that is polarised and controversial. There was an immediate outcry: "That's undemocratic!" But what does that actually mean? Isn't democracy exactly that: the freedom to express your opinion, even if not everyone likes it?

This is where the problem begins. If an election is labelled undemocratic because the result doesn't fit the desired picture, then democracy itself is called into question. The freedom of choice of responsible citizens is thus reduced to absurdity. Or how would it be if you could only choose between a handful of "authorised" products when shopping in the supermarket? It would be a farce, wouldn't it?

Democracy means that everyone is allowed to choose what they want - even if it doesn't suit everyone. It's like saying to people: "You can vote, but only for the right thing!" But who decides what the "right thing" is? Such an attitude is dangerous because it undermines the foundation of our democracy: the diversity of opinions and the freedom of choice.

Of course, it is uncomfortable when people vote for parties that represent extreme positions. But instead of reflexively demonising this voting decision, the question should be asked as to why so many people choose exactly that. Isn't it more democratic to take these votes seriously and deal with the concerns and fears behind them instead of simply dismissing them?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the AfD, but I am certainly a fan of democracy. I therefore have great respect for electoral decisions, even if I don't always like them.

Firewalls and their impact on democracy

Another topic that makes the discussion about democracy particularly explosive is the so-called "firewalls" that other parties are erecting against the AfD. There is no party that is prepared to work with the AfD, even if it was elected as the strongest force by far in some regions. But what does this actually mean for democracy? If a third of the votes are simply ignored because the other parties refuse to co-operate with the elected force, the voting decision of these voters is de facto undermined.

Imagine you go to vote and your vote ends up in the ballot box - only to find out that it hardly carries any weight in political reality because none of the other parties are willing to co-operate with the party of your choice. It feels like ordering a pizza and then being told: "Sorry, we're only serving salad here because that's what the others have decided." This is not only frustrating, but also undermines trust in the democratic process.

What you end up with is the risk that a minority government will be formed - a government that most voters do not want. The result? A political landscape that no longer reflects the will of the majority, but the will of the political elite, which tries to control unwelcome voices by marginalising them.

Such a practice can be dangerous because it drives people into the arms of the extremes and leads to a further division of society.

Conclusion: Live democracy, don't destroy it

At the end of the day, it's about truly living democracy - with all its challenges and contradictions. It's not about liking everyone or agreeing with everyone. It's about respecting the freedom for everyone to make their own choices, be it in the supermarket or at the ballot box. That's what democracy is all about: the freedom to choose - and to accept that choice, even if we don't like it.

If the other parties really want to maintain the firewalls, they need to ask themselves whether they are not destroying the very thing they want to protect in the long term: a democratic, open society in which every vote counts. Because if we forget that, if we start to question the legitimacy of election results because they don't suit us, then we run the risk of destroying the very concept of democracy. And in the end, all that remains is an empty word that has lost its true value.

This topic is really difficult and complex. There are many perspectives and opinions on it and it is not easy to find a definitive answer. I would therefore be very happy to read your opinions in the comments. What do you think about firewalls and dealing with election results that don't fit the desired picture?

Let's discuss it in the comments!