By Dmitri Stratievski, PhD in Political Science, political scientist, historian, Director of the Berlin Center for Eastern European Studies
Ahead of a series of regional elections in Germany this September, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is riding a wave of euphoria. Since April 2026, it has led nationwide opinion polls and has all but secured first place in two eastern German states—Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Saxony-Anhalt. It currently holds leads of seven and 18 percentage points, respectively, over its closest rivals.
It is in Saxony-Anhalt that the AfD has, for the first time in its history, a chance to become the governing party. Its candidate for state premier, Ulrich Siegmund, has presented an additional programme for the first 100 days in office, adopted at the party’s regional conference in July. It is built around 10 points that the party pledges to implement as a priority if it comes to power.
What do the AfD’s plans contain, and how realistic are they?
1. Withdrawal from the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty
The AfD proposes that the state withdraw from the basic agreement under which public television and radio broadcasting — and, in today’s world, online broadcasting as well — is financed in Germany. All residents of Germany are required to pay a monthly fee of €18.36. The idea is that, by helping to finance broadcasting, citizens guarantee its objectivity and independence from both politics and big business, while also making it possible to produce non-commercial educational content. The states, which have their own broadcasting organisations and are linked by a framework agreement, have a significant say in all key decisions related to broadcasting.
This model has been criticised for various reasons, ranging from excessive costs — including production and licensing expenses and the salaries of top managers — to the excessive number of regional broadcasters, frequent repetition in programming schedules and content that no longer meets current audience demands. An expert commission has developed a package of measures aimed at cutting costs and streamlining broadcasting. By the end of the year, three television channels and seven radio stations will be taken off the air, while many programmes are expected to be merged.
Germany’s far-right circles have traditionally opposed the model for other reasons. The broadcasting fee is denounced as a “compulsory levy”, while the system itself is portrayed as a form of “ideological indoctrination” in which only the “correct” opinion is allegedly allowed to be expressed, while “alternative viewpoints” are ostracised or excluded from television programmes altogether. Although AfD politicians are regular guests on popular talk shows aired by Germany’s public broadcasters, the party advocates abolishing the current model altogether, in line with the wishes of its electorate and its image as a “persecuted opposition”.
In theory, a state can withdraw from such an agreement, since signing and terminating treaties with the federal government and other states falls within state jurisdiction. In practice, however, the situation is more complicated. Saxony-Anhalt shares a public broadcaster with Saxony and Thuringia. Even if Magdeburg terminates the agreement, broadcasting would continue, and the withdrawal itself would take effect only after two years. There are also rulings by Germany’s Constitutional Court requiring the states to contribute to the financing of public broadcasting and, if they withdraw from the existing treaty, to ensure that the population still has access to news and information programming. As a result, the AfD would gain neither ideologically nor financially from such a move, while revising the existing system would most likely prove more expensive for the state.
2 and 3. Fast-track deportations of foreign nationals and mandatory work for asylum seekers
The AfD proposes a plan for the accelerated deportation of foreign nationals whose asylum applications have been rejected, effectively disregarding the humanitarian and legal factors that often complicate the process. The party also wants to convert the refugee reception centre in the town of Stendal into a closed, prison-style deportation facility. For the AfD and its electorate, migration remains one of the party's core political issues.
Matters related to the entry and residence of foreign nationals in Germany fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal government. State legislative and executive authorities have no power to change these rules. However, because the police are under state control, a regional interior ministry could technically speed up deportations by more efficiently locating and detaining individuals who are legally required to leave Germany but are deliberately evading removal. Cases of such deliberate evasion are recorded in every German state.
However, the overwhelming majority of foreigners who remain in Germany despite deportation orders are legally entitled to a suspension of removal on humanitarian grounds, including employment or education, illness, close relatives legally residing in Germany, or the impossibility of deportation to countries experiencing armed conflict. Some individuals also lack valid passports, while others cannot be deported because their countries of origin refuse to accept them. All of these issues are governed by both German and international law. Converting the Stendal reception centre into a deportation facility is legally possible, but it would require considerable time and certainly could not be completed within 100 days.
"Forced labour" is explicitly prohibited by Germany's Basic Law (Article 12). If such an obligation were imposed on a specific group, such as asylum seekers, it would almost certainly trigger legal challenges that the state government would lose. Experts and government officials also question the practical value of such a policy, even if it were legally permissible. Current legislation already allows recipients of state assistance to perform community service, such as auxiliary work, in exchange for modest compensation while retaining their benefits. In practice, however, the administrative costs of creating such positions, regulating and supervising them, ensuring they do not conflict with regular employment, and coordinating arrangements between public authorities, businesses and non-profit organisations often exceed the value of the work performed.
4. Reducing funding for NGOs and government programmes
The AfD is referring here to ending public funding for projects it considers ideologically unacceptable, including initiatives combating racism, right-wing extremism, homophobia, sexism and other forms of discrimination, as well as programmes supporting democracy and countering disinformation. The party has long described such spending as not only "pointless" but also "harmful" and a "tool for suppressing the opposition and dissent."
Large civil society projects are generally financed through a mix of funding sources. Most of their budgets come from federal and European funds, while state and municipal funding, along with support from private organisations, typically serves as supplementary financing. If state-level funding were cut off, the greatest impact would be felt by small grassroots projects run by local NGOs, while the largest organisations would likely continue operating.
Most state-funded programmes are designed to run for several years, making it practically impossible to terminate them within three months.
A key factor is a ruling by Germany's Constitutional Court requiring public authorities to observe political neutrality and treat all grant applicants equally. The state is, of course, not obliged to finance every civil society initiative, and many NGOs do not meet the required criteria. However, if authorities were to refuse funding for a programme aimed at combating far-right extremism among young people while simultaneously approving funding for the promotion of German culture under otherwise comparable conditions, the decision would almost certainly be challenged in court, with a predictable outcome.
For the AfD, such an approach could ultimately backfire, as initiatives that are ideologically closer to the party would also be affected.
5. State financial support for obtaining a driver's licence for vocational trainees and volunteers
It is somewhat surprising that the AfD included such a niche issue among its top 10 priorities for the first 100 days in office. Nevertheless, this is perhaps the only proposal that has attracted little criticism even from the party's opponents.
There is indeed a practical need for such a measure. Saxony-Anhalt is not only sparsely populated but also unevenly populated. Settlements are located far apart, public transport is unavailable in some areas, and in many cases owning a car is essential. There are no legal obstacles to introducing such a subsidy. The state adopts its own annual budget and may provide various benefits to specific groups of residents, except in areas regulated at the federal level, such as benefits for people with disabilities, pensioners, low-income households or young parents.
The main obstacle is financial. Saxony-Anhalt is one of Germany's poorest states, its budget is limited, and funding such a programme would require cuts in other areas of spending.
6. Separate classes for children from asylum-seeking families and security at "problem schools"
German and European law guarantees all children equal access to education. Separating pupils on the basis of their residence status in Germany would be considered discriminatory.
AfD supporters argue that the proposed model is merely a modified version of the existing "welcome classes," which provide initial instruction for children with insufficient German-language skills. However, there is a fundamental difference between the two concepts. Welcome classes were designed as a temporary measure to help children transition into regular schooling. Since minors generally acquire a new language relatively quickly, they typically remain in such classes for no more than one year. Moreover, welcome classes apply only to subjects requiring German language proficiency, while lessons such as art or physical education are attended together with other pupils.
The proposed "special classes," by contrast, would isolate refugee children from their peers, significantly reducing both their opportunities and their speed of learning German. The AfD also leaves unanswered how it would deal with children from asylum-seeking families who were born in Germany and have already learned the language. In such cases, selection would be based solely on their residence status.
Germany has no nationwide system for school security. A state parliament could approve funding for private security companies at the request of the government, but doing so would impose significant costs on the state budget. There would also be difficulties in determining which schools qualify as "problem schools," since the term has no legal definition. Even if that issue were resolved, another problem would remain. Employees of private security firms have no authority to check identification documents or conduct personal searches, as these powers belong exclusively to the police.
Even the AfD has not proposed permanently stationing police officers at "problem schools," particularly given existing staff shortages.
7. Banning the display of LGBT symbols in schools by decision of state authorities and requiring the daily raising of the German national flag
This proposal is difficult to comment on, although it could, in principle, be implemented within the state's legal powers.
8. Replacing the regional promotional slogan "Think Modern" with "Think German"
The AfD's motivation is clear: the party wants to emphasise Saxony-Anhalt's German identity, its commitment to tradition and patriotism. However, the purpose of the current campaign is quite different. The average age of the state's residents is 48, the highest in Germany. The region's population continues to decline each year and is projected to fall below two million by 2040, with the average age reaching 57.
The goal of the promotional campaign is to present Saxony-Anhalt as an attractive, modern place to live, study, work and invest. No one questions the state's place within Germany. In fact, Saxony-Anhalt has the lowest proportion of residents without German citizenship in the country, at 9%, and the majority of foreign nationals living there are Ukrainian refugees with temporary residence permits.
9. Reducing the number of ministries
One of the AfD's key slogans is reducing bureaucracy. Given the high level of bureaucratisation in many areas of German public life, this message resonates with voters. The underlying logic is also straightforward: fewer civil servants, particularly at senior levels, should mean lower personnel costs.
The state premier has the authority to reduce the number of ministries and government departments. But whether this would be practical is another matter. Saxony-Anhalt currently has eight ministries, while German states typically have between nine and ten. Most ministries in Saxony-Anhalt already oversee several policy areas. For example, the Ministry of Labour is also responsible for social affairs and health, while the Ministry of Economic Affairs covers tourism, agriculture and forestry.
Further consolidation would be difficult to implement and would place a significant burden on staff, creating considerable administrative confusion in the distribution of responsibilities. In practice, ministries would simply become large bureaucratic structures operating under a single formal umbrella. The AfD has said it wants to eliminate "one or two ministries," but has deliberately avoided specifying which ones.
Instead, AfD politicians tend to focus on policy areas they consider undesirable, such as equality and environmental protection. However, these issues are not handled by separate ministries but by departments within existing ministries.
10. Establishing an investigative commission to examine Germany's response to the COVID-19 pandemic
A significant share of the AfD's electorate consists of former anti-lockdown and anti-COVID restriction activists who opposed the government's pandemic measures. The party actively embraced COVID-sceptic sentiment, although this was not always the case. At the beginning of the pandemic, AfD leaders criticised Angela Merkel's government for failing to act and condemned the continued staging of mass events, such as football matches and concerts, while other European countries had already imposed lockdowns.
After recognising the views of its supporters and reassessing its political strategy, the AfD changed course. As a result, the party now has a strong political incentive to push for such an investigative commission.
Critics accuse the AfD of populism and of attempting to divert attention from current challenges. Most pandemic restrictions in Germany were lifted four and a half years ago. However, if the party considers such an inquiry necessary, it does not need to be in government to establish one. It is sufficient to submit a proposal through its parliamentary group. That is exactly what AfD lawmakers have done in the state parliaments of Hesse, Saxony and Thuringia, where such commissions have been established at the party's request.
A state-level commission would require considerable financial and human resources, but its conclusions would carry no legal force. If, for example, in 2030 it were to conclude that the mask mandate could have been lifted two weeks earlier than it actually was, the finding would simply be recorded in the official report without producing any legal consequences.
Different powers are held by the commission already operating at the federal level, which includes experts, medical professionals, government officials and members of the Bundestag.
Its task is to examine mistakes made during the pandemic and develop new protocols for responding to any future pandemic, with recommendations intended to have practical effect.
Populism and ideology
One could argue that the AfD's programme for its first (hypothetical) 100 days in office may have disappointed even some of its own supporters. Not one of its 10 priorities is devoted to the economy in the broad sense, from budget planning and regional infrastructure projects to attracting investment, even though these issues would normally form the core of an opposition party's platform in one of Germany's poorest states, with an ageing and shrinking population.
Instead, the AfD in Saxony-Anhalt has chosen to focus on secondary issues, such as flags, a regional branding campaign, a review of measures taken during a pandemic that ended years ago, and targeted financial support for obtaining driver's licences. These are the kinds of proposals that other parties typically place in the middle or at the end of their election manifestos, while governments usually approve them through routine administrative decisions.
State elections impose clear limits on political parties. The focus is expected to remain on regional policy, while campaigning on nationwide issues is generally regarded as inappropriate, since even a party that wins a majority in the state parliament must still operate within Germany's constitutional division of powers.
The AfD in Saxony-Anhalt could not completely avoid addressing its core political themes, but it also chose not to run an openly federal campaign at the state level. Instead, it opted for a middle ground. Calls for stricter immigration controls were placed at the top of its agenda, while the party attempted to present them as measures that an AfD-led government in Magdeburg could realistically implement.
The practical and legal limitations that would largely prevent these proposals from being carried out were, however, left unmentioned.
