A far-right party in very low hours.
Alternative for Germany (AfD) held a congress this weekend aimed at agreeing on a socioeconomic program capable of capitalizing on post-pandemic frustration.
But the AfD congress ended up becoming an implosion attempt broadcast live.
The division of a party in which two souls coexist and which is torn apart as a result of a bloody struggle for power, was exposed in Kalkar, in western Germany.
Jörg Meuthen, co-leader of the formation and representative of the supposedly moderate current, delivered a speech on Saturday of clear defiance of the rebel sector, more ultra, unleashing a tide of protests the following day, Sunday.
The congress has physically brought together some 500 delegates and militants in the middle of the second wave of covid-19, while the rest of the German parties have opted for the telematic format or to postpone their appointments.
And as a backdrop, unpromising polls for ultra training.
“[Meuthen] knows that if the party is not more disciplined, we will fail.
Starting with seeing who we are demonstrating with;
how we behave in Parliament and what words we use.
We cannot be an anarchic party, "say party sources present in congress, who add that Meuthen's goal is" to make the AfD a serious conservative party in order to reach the maximum number of voters.
And he is willing to sacrifice part of the party if necessary.
The risk of spin-off is real ”.
To do this, Meuthen must first manage to stay afloat and survive the onslaught of a rebel wing that does not usually give up.
AfD entered the German Parliament for the first time with in 2017 with 12.6% of the vote, becoming the first opposition party.
With the arrival of the pandemic, however, the ultras have not stopped losing steam, while trying to get political gain from a very militant and noisy, but minority, covide-skepticism.
The latest Forsa poll gives him a 7% intention to vote, compared to 15% in the past.
Germany holds general elections next fall, the first after 15 years of Angela Merkel's chancellorship.
The idea in Kalkar was to agree on a socioeconomic program with a concept of pensions and health policy that would bring them closer to the concerns of citizens.
But in the end, the content was the least of it.
Meuthen's speech served as a spigot in a meeting in which there was shouting, anger and an amendment to the leader's own speech.
"We are not going to succeed any more by being more aggressive, tougher and more uninhibited," said Meuthen, calling for discipline and distance from "the provocateurs."
He condemned the use of terms such as “the dictatorship of the crown”, alluding to the words chosen by Alexander Gauland, former leader of the formation, recently pronounced in the Bundestag;
or that the extreme right stops comparing the new health reform with the law that ceded all powers to Adolf Hitler in 1933. “We are not in a dictatorship.
If so, we could not hold this congress, "argued Meuthen.
As expected, he uncovered the box of thunder.
Gauland, a figure still widely listened to in the party, responded in statements to television, rejecting a speech that he considered divisive and that bows to the German internal secret services, which threaten to put the entire formation under observation.
This Sunday morning, in full congress, Gauland, 79, left the appointment in an ambulance after feeling unwell, without it being known that he was seriously ill.
The seeds of discord were planted and the revolt was gaining importance in the room on Sunday morning, where the unrest was evident and where the interventions against Meuthen took place.
"I think that speech divides us even more," said one delegate.
Another accused him of echoing the "media narrative."
"This is an orgy for the press that is seeing it live," warned a third.
One more clamored for unity, recalling that "discipline is German virtue."
The show was served.
Meuthen alluded in his controversial speech to the increasingly radical protests against the coronavirus restrictions, in which neo-Nazi groups also participate and which in Berlin ended up as a pitched battle with the police ten days ago.
The difficult mission of capitalizing on the frustration that the pandemic arouses, in a country where the government's measures have the majority support of the population, has become a new source of discord in the party.
Regardless of the pandemic situation, the confrontation is not new in AfD.
In recent months, the internal battle has resulted in the formal dissolution of Der Flügel, the most radical wing, led by the charismatic Björn Höcke and who continues to fight an underground pulse for identity, but above all for power in AfD.
The coexistence of a radical, xenophobic discourse that often borders on anti-Semitism with a supposedly more moderate attitude has so far allowed the party to appeal to wide sectors of the electorate.
But that coexistence is in danger due to the intensity of the internal struggles, which are also fought in the courts, where the expulsion of a member of the radical wing with a neo-Nazi past is settled, who also settled his differences with a comrade with a clean fist.
To personal and strategic rivalries, socio-economic differences are added.
"AfD is divided between its nationalist and more statist wing, led by Höcke, and Meuthen's wing, neoliberal in economic policy," interprets Christoph Butterwegge, professor of Political Science at the University of Cologne.
The former, whose strength lies mainly in the east of the country, the former GDR, "defend a greater role for the state in economic policy, while the others advocate the privatization of certain benefits," says Butterwegge.
Masks by force
The celebration of the Kalkar congress has been surrounded by controversy from the first moment.
While the center-right has even decided to postpone to next year its appointment in which Chancellor Merkel's successor must be elected and the Greens opted for the telematic option, the far right opted for a face-to-face appointment.
The Administrative Court of Münster forced to respect the sanitary rules, against which the formation had protested before the justice, demanding the exemption of the use of the mask in the room.
Whoever was not intervening with the microphone had to wear a mask, the authorities ordered.
The decision did not allow an appeal and whoever did not comply with it could not participate in the congress.
In the room, however, you could see masks that left the nose exposed.
Some even did not wear a mask, despite the fact that the organizers insisted over the microphone that they were receiving calls for attention from the authorities.
Many also greeted each other with vigorous handshakes.