Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Direct Democracy and the Impact of the Alternative for Germany (AfD)? “Populist” Demand for Popular Sovereignty as Latent Political Conflict

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sovereignty in Conflict

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics ((PSEUP))

Abstract

A fundamental conflict over sovereignty revolves around the question of who should decide about legislation: parliament or citizens? Traditionally, in Western Europe, left-wing parties were pushing hardest for more direct democracy. However, with the rise of populism, far-right parties have also become loud proponents. This chapter studies the conflict over direct democracy and assesses the impact of the far right in the case of Germany. First, it shows that long before the rise of AfD, almost all mainstream parties already favoured stronger direct-democratic instruments. Second, however, as unintended consequence of far-right strength, some became quieter about it or even changed their position towards more rejective stances. Third, in terms of outcomes, no changes towards more national-level direct democracy occurred. Fourth, while all parties address direct democracy, the issue is not high on the political agenda. High but unmet public demand for more direct democracy constitutes a latent sovereignty conflict in contemporary Europe. The chapter contributes to debates on sovereignty conflicts, democratic reform and the impact of populist radical right parties in European politics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abou-Chadi, T., & Krause, W. (2020). The causal effect of radical right success on mainstream parties’ policy positions: A regression discontinuity approach. British Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 829–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AfD. (2016). Programm für Deutschland. Das Grundsatzprogramm der Alternative für Deutschland.

    Google Scholar 

  • AfD-Fraktion. (2021). Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Einführung der Direkten Demokratie auf Bundesebene. Deutscher Bundestag 19. Wahlperiode, Drucksache 19/26906.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akkerman, T. (2012). Comparing radical right parties in government: Immigration and integration policies in nine countries (1996–2010). West European Politics, 35(3), 511–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arzheimer, K. (2019). Don’t mention the war: How populist right-wing radicalism became (almost) normal in Germany. Journal of Common Market Studies, 57(S1), 90–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basile, L., & Mazzoleni, O. (2020). Sovereignist wine in populist bottles? An Introduction. European Politics and Society, 21(2), 151–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, R.-U., & Weber, T. (2021). Die AfD setzt sich für Volksabstimmungen nach Schweizer Vorbild ein. Was sagt Mehr Demokratie e.V. dazu? www.mehr-demokratie.de/fileadmin/pdf/2021/2021-03-01_MD_AfD_Unterschiede_3.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2022.

  • Bedock, C. (2017). Reforming democracy: Institutional engineering in Western Europe. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedock, C., Best, V., Otjes, S., & Weisskircher, M. (2022). A policy like no other? The populist radical right challenge in the field of democracy reform. Party Politics, online first.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, V. (2020). Democracy reform as a populist policy supply. In S. Bukow & U. Jun (Eds.), Continuity and change of party democracies in Europe (pp. 203‒251). Politische Vierteljahresschrift Sonderhefte. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickerton, C., & Brack, N. (2022). Implementing the will of the people: Sovereignty and policy conflicts in the aftermath of the UK’s referendum on EU membership. Comparative European Politics, 20, 295–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickerton, C., Brack, N., Coman, R., & Crespy, A. (2022). Conflicts of sovereignty in contemporary Europe: A framework of analysis. Comparative European Politics, 20, 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Karp, J. (2002). When might institutions change? Elite support for direct democracy in three nations. Political Research Quarterly, 55(4), 731–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brack, N., Coman, R., & Crespy, A. (2019). Unpacking old and new conflicts of sovereignty in the European polity. Journal of European Integration, 41(7), 817–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. (2017). Zukunft wird aus Mut gemacht. Bundestagswahlprogramm 2017. https://cms.gruene.de/uploads/documents/BUENDNIS_90_DIE_GRUENEN_Bundestagswahlprogramm_2017_barrierefrei.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2022.

  • Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. (2020). “... zu achten und zu schützen ...” Veränderung schafft Halt. cms.gruene.de/uploads/documents/20200125_Grundsatzprogramm.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. (2021). Deutschland. Alles ist drin. Bundestagswahlprogramm 2021. cms.gruene.de/uploads/documents/Wahlprogramm-DIE-GRUENEN-Bundestagswahl-2021_barrierefrei.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  • CDU, CSU, & SPD. (2018). Ein neuer Aufbruch für Europa. Eine neue Dynamik für Deutschland. Ein neuer Zusammenhalt für unser Land Koalitionsvertrag zwischen CDU, CSU und SPD. 19. Legislaturperiode.

    Google Scholar 

  • CDU, Greens, & SPD. (2019). Gemeinsam für Sachsen. Koalitionsvertrag 2019 bis 2024. https://www.staatsregierung.sachsen.de/download/Koalitionsvertrag_2019-2024-2.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2022.

  • Chou, M., Moffitt, B., & Busbridge, R. (2022). The localist turn in populism studies. Swiss Political Science Review, 28(1), 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, H., Goodwin, M., & Whiteley, P. (2017). Brexit. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • CSU. (2016). Die Ordnung. Grundsatzprogramm der Christlich-Sozialen Union. www.csu.de/common/download/Grundsatzprogramm-Beschluss-Parteitag.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2022.

  • CSU. (2017). Der Bayernplan. Klar für unser Land. Programm der CSU zur Bundestagswahl 2017. www.csu.de/common/download/Beschluss_Bayernplan.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2022.

  • CSU. (2021). Das CSU-Programm. Gut für Bayern. Gut für Deutschland. https://www.csu.de/common/download/CSU-Programm_Gut_fuer_Bayern_Gut_fuer_Deutschland_final.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2022.

  • della Porta, D., O’Connor, F., Portos, M., & Ribas, A S. (2017). Social movements and referendums from below direct democracy in the neoliberal crisis. Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutscher Bundestag. (2021, February 26). Stenographischer Bericht. 19. Wahlperiode. 213. Sitzung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Die Linke. (2011). Programm. www.die-linke.de/fileadmin/download/grundsatzdokumente/programm_formate/programm_der_partei_die_linke_erfurt2011_druckfassung2020.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2022.

  • Duncan, F. (2010). Immigration and integration policy and the Austrian radical right in office: The FPÖ/BZÖ, 2000–2006. Contemporary Politics, 16(4), 337–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennser-Jedenastik, L. (2020). The FPÖ’s welfare chauvinism. Österreichische Zeitschrift Für Politikwissenschaft, 49(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FDP. (2012). Verantwortung für die Freiheit. Karlsruher Freiheitsthesen der FDP. www.fdp.de/sites/default/files/import/2016-01/378-karlsruherfreiheitsthesen.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2022.

  • FDP. (2017). Denken wir neu. Das Programm der Freien Demokraten zur Bundestagswahl 2017: „Schauen wir nicht länger zu“. www.fdp.de/sites/default/files/import/2017-08/4598-20170807-wahlprogramm-wp-2017-v16.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2022.

  • Franzmann, S. (2014). Die Wahlprogrammatik der AfD in vergleichender Perspektive. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Parteienrecht und Parteienforschung, 20, 115–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M., & Olsen, J. (2019). Flesh of the same flesh: A study of voters for the alternative for Germany (AfD) in the 2017 federal election. German Politics, 28(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay, C. (2007). Why we hate politics. Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, A.-S. (2022). Dealing with the populist radical right in parliament: Mainstream party responses toward the Alternative for Germany. European Political Science Review, 14(3), 333–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, A.-S., & Weisskircher, M. (2021). No strong leaders needed? AfD party organisation between collective leadership, internal democracy, and ‘movement-party’ strategy. Politics and Governance, 9(4), 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornig, E-C. (2023). Auf dem Weg zu mehr direkter Demokratie in Thüringen-was bringt die Einführung eines Volkseinwandes? In N. Braun Binder, L. Feld, P. Huber, K. Poier & F. Wittreck (Eds.), Jahrbuch für direkte Demokratie 2021 (pp. 55–84). Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • infratest dimap. (2017). Bundesweite Volksabstimmung, www.mehr-demokratie.de/fileadmin/pdf/2017-05-23_Umfrage-Volksabstimmung.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2022.

  • Koß, M. (2021). Demokratie ohne Mehrheit? Die Volksparteien von gestern und der Parlamentarismus von morgen. dtv.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kost, A., & Solar, M. (2019). Lexikon Direkte Demokratie in Deutschland. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kretschmer, M. (2019). Dem Volk das letzte Wort. https://www.zeit.de/2019/27/michael-kretschmer-cdu-sachsen-volkseinwand-wahlkampf. Accessed 18 September 2022.

  • Lord, C. (2023). Conflicting sovereignties and the sustainability of the Brexit State. In J. Rone, N. Brack, R. Coman & A. Crespy (Eds.), Sovereignty in conflict: Political, constitutional and economic dilemmas in the EU. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lutz, P. (2019). Variation in policy success: Radical right populism and migration policy. West European Politics, 42(3), 517–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzoleni, O., & Ivaldi, G. (2022). Economic populist sovereignism and electoral support for radical right-wing populism. Political Studies, 70(2), 304–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michels, A. (2009). Ideological positions and the referendum in the Netherlands. In M. Setälä & T. Schiller (Eds.), Referendums and representative democracy. Responsiveness, accountability and deliberation (pp. 56–74). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohrenberg, S., Huber, R., & Freyburg, T. (2021). Love at first sight? Populist attitudes and support for direct democracy. Party Politics, 27(3), 528–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morel, L., & Qvortrup, M. (2018). The Routledge handbook to referendums and direct democracy. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mudde, C. (2007). Populist radical right parties in Europe. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, J.-W. (2016). What is populism? University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Núñez, L., Close, C., & Bedock, C. (2016). Changing democracy? Why inertia is winning over innovation. Representation, 52(4), 341–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odmalm, P., & Super, B. (2014). If the issue fits, stay put: Cleavage stability, issue compatibility and drastic changes on the immigration ‘issue.’ Comparative European Politics, 12(6), 663–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J. (2018). The left party and the AfD: Populist competitors in eastern Germany. German Politics and Society, 36(1), 70–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center. (2018). Meinungen über politische Systeme nach Land. www.pewresearch.org/global/interactives/global-democracy-translated-german. Accessed 18 September 2022.

  • Rojon, S., & Rijken, A. J. (2020). Are radical right and radical left voters direct democrats? Explaining differences in referendum support between radical and moderate voters in Europe. European Societies, 22(5), 581–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rojon, S., & Rijken, A. J. (2021). Referendums: Increasingly unpopular among the ‘winners’ of modernization? Comparing public support for the use of referendums in Switzerland, the Netherlands, the UK, and Hungary. Comparative European Politics, 19, 49–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rone, J. (2022). Instrumentalising sovereignty claims in British pro- and anti-Brexit mobilisations. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, online first.

    Google Scholar 

  • Röth, L., Alfonso, A., & Spies, D. (2018). The impact of populist radical right parties on socio-economic policies. European Political Science Review, 10(3), 325–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, C., & Klandermans, B. (2019). When citizens talk about politics. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scarrow, S. (2001). Direct democracy and institutional change: A comparative investigation. Party Politics, 34(6), 651–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiffers, R. (2002). „Weimarer Erfahrungen“: Heute noch eine Orientierungshilfe? In T. Schiller & V. Mittendorf (Eds.), Direkte Demokratie. Forschung und Perspektiven (pp. 65–75). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solar, M. (2019). Länderebene. In A. Kost & M. Solar (Eds.), Lexikon Direkte Demokratie in Deutschland (pp. 128–136). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • SPD. (2007). Hamburger Programm. Das Grundsatzprogramm der SPD. https://www.spd.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/Beschluesse/Grundsatzprogramme/hamburger_programm.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2022.

  • SPD. (2017). Zeit für mehr Gerechtigkeit. Unser Regierungsprogramm für Deutschland. https://www.spd.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/Regierungsprogramm/SPD_Regierungsprogramm_BTW_2017_A5_RZ_WEB.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2022.

  • SPD. (2021). Das Zukunftsprogramm der SPD. Wofür wir stehen. Was uns antreibt. Wonach wir streben. https://www.spd.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/Beschluesse/Programm/SPD-Zukunftsprogramm.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2022.

  • Taggart, P. (2002). Populism and the pathology of representative politics. In Y. Mény & Y. Surel (Eds.), Democracies and the populist challenge (pp. 62–80). Palgrave.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tudzarovska, E., & Rone, J. (2023). The technocratic populist loop: Clashes between parliamentary and popular sovereignty in EU’s eastern and southern periphery. In J. Rone, N. Brack, R. Coman & A. Crespy (Eds.), Sovereignty in conflict: Political, constitutional and economic dilemmas in the EU. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volk, S. (2020). ‘Wir sind das Volk!’ Representative claim-making and populist style in the PEGIDA movement’s discourse. German Politics, 29(4), 599–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisskircher, M. (2020a). The European Citizens’ Initiative. Mobilization strategies and consequences. Political Studies, 68(3), 797–815.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisskircher, M. (2020b). The strength of far-right AfD in eastern Germany: The east-west divide and the multiple causes behind ‘populism.’ The Political Quarterly, 91(3), 614–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisskircher, M., & Berntzen, L. E. (2019). Remaining on the streets. Anti-Islamic PEGIDA mobilization and its relationship to far-right party politics. In M. Caiani & O. Císař (Eds.), Radical right movement parties in Europe (pp. 114–130). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisskircher, M., & Hutter, S. (2019). Idle democrats? Talking about politics in Germany. In C. Saunders & B. Klandermans (Eds.), When citizens talk about politics (pp. 77–95). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Political Science, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Manès Weisskircher

Authors
  1. Manès Weisskircher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manès Weisskircher .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy at CRASSH, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Julia Rone

  2. Cevipol & Institut d’études européennes, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

    Nathalie Brack

  3. Cevipol & Institut d’études européennes, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

    Ramona Coman

  4. Cevipol & Institut d’études européennes, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

    Amandine Crespy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Weisskircher, M. (2023). Direct Democracy and the Impact of the Alternative for Germany (AfD)? “Populist” Demand for Popular Sovereignty as Latent Political Conflict. In: Rone, J., Brack, N., Coman, R., Crespy, A. (eds) Sovereignty in Conflict. Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27729-0_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation