AfD victory in Saxony-Anhalt: What issues make the right so strong?

After the AfD's election victory in Saxony-Anhalt, the social left is struggling to interpret the debacle - and the resulting conclusions for the fight against the right. The focus is on the question of whether the right-wing rise is interpreted as a result of social inequality and perceived disadvantage or as a racist reflex to migration. On closer inspection, the survey to which both sides refer suggests that both are true and cannot be clearly separated from each other.

This is about a post-election survey by Infratest dimap on behalf of ARD, parts of which were also presented on television on election evening. At first glance, their results look as if it was not migration but “social security” that was decisive for most people’s voting decisions. A quarter of all respondents said this, followed by “peace”, “economy”, “internal security” and “education”. Only then comes the topic of “immigration”, which was mentioned by just 9 percent of those surveyed.

However, it was primarily voters from the democratic parties who said “social security”: among AfD voters it was only 18 percent. To put it bluntly: no group of voters cares more about the issue than the right-wingers.

However, this finding becomes blurred upon closer inspection. If you just look at the AfD voters, “Social Security” comes in second place with 18 percent. But just as many also said that “immigration” was crucial for them. The only issue ahead of this shared second place is “internal security,” which was mentioned by 24 percent of AfD voters.

However, it is obvious that AfD voters understand “internal security” as part of the “immigration” complex. In any case, the party systematically mixes Islamism, terrorism and migration. And even outside the right-wing bubble, the topics are often thought of together, as the debates about migration and asylum law that reliably arise after every Islamist attack show. The same applies to the topic of “crime”, which was the fourth most frequently mentioned topic by AfD voters.

And even “social security” is probably related to immigration for some AfD voters, because immigrants are seen as competition for jobs, housing and state benefits. Conversely, this could also mean that some of those who find immigration most important actually mean “social security”. The concern about receiving less pension because the money is supposedly spent on asylum accommodation is essentially more about poverty than really about refugees. And it could probably be better addressed with a fair reform of the welfare state than with the next tightening of asylum laws.

This leads to the question of whether simple studies like those by Infratest dimap do justice to a complex phenomenon such as the resurgence of right-wing extremism. In-depth social psychological studies have shown in the past that misanthropic and authoritarian ideas have at least partly to do with insecurity, which can also be socio-economically related. It is usually less about measurable poverty and actual decline and more about the fear that this could happen. Those who fear losing wealth and status deal with this by devaluing those who are weaker.

The survey on the issues crucial to the election in Saxony-Anhalt does not penetrate these depths. However, in some places it does provide evidence that the perceived socio-economic situation is more important for the decision to vote for the AfD than it initially seems. This happens where the study authors do not directly ask for reasons for the voting decision, but simply for assessments of their own socio-economic situation. Around two thirds of AfD voters say they received “less than that” compared to other people in Germany. Among voters from other parties it is only around 40 percent. And among those who rate their financial situation as good, only around 27 percent vote for the AfD. Of those who see themselves in a poor financial situation, the figure is 65 percent.