The only thing that can still prevent a Nazi state premier in Saxony-Anhalt
Volksverpetzer
In a German state parliament, a far-right politician could become head of government for the first time since 1945. A close vote will be decisive: Is it enough to abstain? What responsibility does the conservative party bear—and what scenarios remain for the democratic parliamentary groups?
In mid-December, far-right extremist Ulrich Siegmund intends to have himself elected Minister-President of Saxony-Anhalt. It would be the first far-right government in Germany since 1945. Whether it succeeds ultimately depends on a single vote. And the CDU has so far refused to commit to an urgently necessary no. We show which scenarios exist, why abstention is not an option, and what the Christian Democrats must absolutely do now in order not to betray democracy.
Social teaser: The AfD fascists want to seize power in Saxony-Anhalt. The democrats can only stop them under very specific circumstances. The CDU's announcements are not enough for that. Everything now depends on it.
Third round of voting: Why the CDU must prevent fascists with this chair
On December 15, for the first time in the history of the Federal Republic, a far-right extremist could become Minister-President. That has not happened since the Nazis in 1945. The AfD in Saxony-Anhalt, classified by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution as confirmed far-right extremist, has 39 of the 83 seats in the state parliament. Fortunately, that is not a majority. But it does not need one.
In the first two rounds of voting, fascist Ulrich Siegmund needs 42 votes to be elected, meaning three from other parliamentary groups. If he fails, a third round of voting follows after a vote on new elections. And there, whoever receives more yes than no votes wins. Even if it is not an absolute majority. Abstentions do not count. Abstentions count practically the same as yes votes. Only no votes can prevent him. (Incidentally, the third round of voting can also be postponed!)
Let's work it out: The CDU, SPD, Greens and Left together have exactly 39 seats, precisely as many as the far-right AfD. The BSW intends to abstain. If all 39 vote no, the result is 39 to 39 and no one is elected. If even one is absent, is sick, abstains or secretly votes yes, Siegmund becomes Minister-President. Then fascists will once again hold power in Germany.
But a tie is not the end. According to former state constitutional judge Michael Kilian, voting will then continue until there is a majority. The democrats therefore have to be present in full force every time. The AfD only has to get lucky once. So this is not a lasting success either. Chan-jo Jun has also published an analysis of this alongside me:
Siegmund lies; his word cannot be trusted
Perhaps you have read that Siegmund does not actually want to be elected through abstention. He calls that a "high risk". Don't believe a word he says.
Siegmund is a fascist and a liar. He was already present at the far-right Potsdam secret meeting, he spreads lies nonstop, and he changes his statements as it suits him. During the election campaign, he wanted to govern only with an absolute majority. He does not have one, yet he is still running. He broke his election promise the very day after the election. Here is the direct comparison:
Then he wanted to stand as a candidate in only a single round of voting. Now he is keeping the second and third open. His party leader Alice Weidel puts it more honestly: Which round he is elected in is "completely irrelevant".
Believing a liar and fascist is naive. We must assume that the AfD will do everything it can to seize power. So let us plan for the third round of voting if it does not work in the first two, regardless of what Siegmund says again next week.
The CDU can bring Siegmund into office on its own, but cannot prevent him on its own
We have known since October that secret yes votes are not paranoia. AfD politician Tobias Rausch was elected president of the state parliament with 48 votes, four more than the AfD and BSW have together. The SPD, Greens and Left had announced a no. The CDU leadership had recommended that its people abstain, but only five abstentions were counted. The vote was secret, so nothing can be proven conclusively. But the most obvious explanation is: CDU lawmakers elected a far-right extremist to the highest office in the state. We have to assume that this is what happened, and the conduct afterward of some CDU lawmakers also shows this; some of them quite obviously lied about their voting behavior: Eight claimed to have abstained—but there were only five abstentions. If they had not voted for far-right extremists, why would they have to lie?
The CDU itself assumes this as well and no longer trusts itself. In the first two rounds of voting, its parliamentary group wants to leave the chamber so that no one comes under suspicion of secretly voting for Siegmund. That is already a shameful admission. Former parliamentary group leader Guido Heuer has already announced that he will remain seated anyway.
To be fair: The CDU is not the only uncertain party. The BSW has announced that it will vote for Rausch, is submitting joint motions with the AfD and no longer wants the firewall "anymore". If its five lawmakers voted no, the matter would be settled. They will not do so, and their pledge to abstain is just as unverifiable in a secret vote as anyone else's. But I no longer expect anything from the BSW.
That leaves the CDU. It can make Siegmund Minister-President entirely on its own; one empty seat is enough. It cannot reliably prevent him on its own; for that, it needs the SPD, Greens and Left all present at its side. But without it, it cannot be done either.
“Not voting for” is not “preventing”
CDU parliamentary group leader Sven Schulze says: "We will not vote for an AfD Minister-President." Sounds good. In the third round of voting, however, this sentence is worthless. On the contrary, it is precisely such a betrayal.
Because no one has to vote for Siegmund there. If the CDU abstains as a bloc, the result is 39 yes votes against 24 no votes, and Siegmund is elected without a single Union vote. The CDU does intend to be back in the chamber for the third round of voting. How it will vote then, "depends on what the situation is", Schulze says. He has not committed to a no. He now wants to decide on AfD motions "on a case-by-case basis".
That is why I will say it clearly: In the third round of voting, the CDU must vote “No” as a bloc or vote as a bloc for a counter-candidate, no matter whom. Anything else is a betrayal of democracy. A complete abstention is also a betrayal. Because a complete abstention is de facto and knowingly a vote in favor of Minister-President Siegmund. If one wanted to reject him, one could express that by voting no. This is not even a symbolic protest!
Abstention is agreement by a roundabout route
When a fascist is standing for election and a party cannot even manage to vote against him, it has betrayed democracy just as much as if it had elected him. Anyone who remains neutral when democracy is under attack is not defending it. They are helping the attacker. An abstention is not rejection. It helps Siegmund, and of course the CDU knows that. The fact that a democratic party can no longer guarantee this and does not even want to promise it is a historic disgrace. Adenauer would turn in his grave.
No one can control this in a secret vote, that is true. But the result does not lie: Either there will be 39 no votes in the ballot box at the end or there will not. On December 5, the state CDU will meet for its party conference. It could resolve precisely this there. I recommend that people from Saxony-Anhalt urge the party to stand at the side of the democrats. And not watch from the sidelines as democracy is buried.
Blockade or counter-candidate: Both come at a price
There are two ways to stop Siegmund.
The first is a blockade: 39 no votes, as often as necessary. For this, the democratic parliamentary groups need to agree on nothing except rejecting a far-right extremist. Of course, this cannot be a permanent solution. Schulze would remain in office in an acting capacity, without a majority and for an indefinite period. The AfD would exploit this gleefully. And the front would have to hold every time there was a new attempt. This is not a good solution.
The second way is a counter-candidate. The Left is putting Eva von Angern forward, but only for the first two rounds of voting and without any prospect of 42 votes. In the third round of voting, a joint candidate would need more votes than Siegmund, meaning 40. That is only possible with at least one vote from the BSW, which itself has already put a non-partisan candidate into play. It would be the most likely way to permanently prevent Siegmund and give the state a government. And everything would depend on a party that cannot be trusted. But it would be the only way to keep the far-right extremists from power.
The democratic parties must clarify among themselves which path is the right one. The main thing is that they find one. If they cannot—or do not want to—come together, the AfD wins. Not because it has majorities. But because the democrats fail.
The CDU is now deciding which side it is on
Honesty requires acknowledging this: Even if the CDU remains solid and votes no as a bloc, Siegmund can still become Minister-President. One sick lawmaker from any parliamentary group would be enough, or secret votes from the BSW. That would be bitter. But then the CDU would have stood on our side, and we will not forget that.
In every other scenario, the Christian Democrats will have destroyed a trust that will never return. Then they can never again be recommended as a reliable partner against far-right extremists, not in Magdeburg and not in Berlin or at the next election. One must always fear that a vote for the CDU is actually a vote for fascism. This must be clear to each of the 15 lawmakers before they take the ballot paper in December.
There is already great concern that one or two conservatives will betray us. The fact that we even have to discuss this is a disgrace for this party. It still has one month to prove the opposite.
Parts of the article were created with machine assistance. How Volksverpetzer uses AI.