The reactions to the TV duel between Björn Höcke and Mario Voigt vary widely. Both can score points for themselves. The moderators are probably the most satisfied.
Berlin – Whether the duel was the successful unmasking of a right-wing extremist AfD politician or a breach of a taboo that gave Björn Höcke a nationwide stage for the spread of his ethnic ideas cannot be answered conclusively. After the much-noticed TV duel on the private broadcaster
Welt,
both sides, the Höcke camp as well as his opponent, the Thuringian CDU top candidate Mario Voigt, declared themselves the winners of the duel. The moderators provided the most important moment of the duel.
TV duel: AfD man Björn Höcke faltered violently
About halfway through the duel, which was scheduled to last 45 minutes but ultimately lasted 70 minutes, Höcke began to falter.
World
TV editor-in-chief Jan Philipp Burgard and
World
TV chief presenter Tatjana Ohm confronted the AfD politician with excerpts from his book almost five months before the state elections in Thuringia.
In it, Höcke accused the current SPD Bundestag Vice President Aydan Özoğuz of having “no specifically German culture” other than the language, which is why she “has no place in Germany.” Despite repeated questions, Höcke evaded the issue and refused to answer the moderator's questions about whether he wanted to expel a German politician. Finally he took refuge in the excuse that he couldn't remember exactly the passage in the book.
Höcke did not want to talk about his extreme statements
Also notable was Höcke's (planned or spontaneous) reinterpretation of the term “remigration” coined in the new right camp, i.e. the expulsion or expulsion of millions of people with a migration background. When asked about this, Höcke said that by the term he meant instead the repatriation of Germans abroad. If you look at past speeches by the right-wing politician, it becomes clear that Höcke has already used the term in the sense of right-wing schools of thought.
Moments like these made it clear that Höcke wanted to act statesmanlike on the big stage and did not want his most extreme statements from the past to be the focus. The
world
moderators didn't let him get away with it, even if they held back overall in the duel. The big stage for Höcke was a risk for the broadcaster - but ultimately those responsible should be satisfied with the outcome. Voigt also pointed out Höcke's evasive behavior. “I would have believed you had more courage to stand by your theses.”
Fact check: Höcke spread false statements
With a view to Höcke's statements, the TV team referred to a fact check that was running in the background but was only published the day after the duel. In addition to his reinterpretation of the “term of remigration”, further classifications would have been helpful during the broadcast. For example, Höcke said that energy prices are “going through the roof,” that “60 percent of Germans say you can no longer freely express your opinions in Germany,” or that “German” anti-Semitism is small compared to that of people with a migrant background be.
In fact, the prices for many forms of energy are now back to the level before the start of the Ukraine war. The number on freedom of expression is also incorrect. In the program, Höcke was probably referring to the Freedom Index 2023, in which people were asked the following: “Do you have the feeling that you can express your political opinion freely in Germany today, or is it better to be careful?” 40 percent of them Respondents answered “Can speak freely.” But that doesn't mean that 60 percent are convinced of the other extreme; there were more than two possible answers. His anti-Semitism comparison is also denied, at least by the Central Council of Jews, which continues to see right-wing extremist anti-Semitism as the greatest danger to Jewish life in Germany.
CDU politician Mario Voigt wanted to remain objective
And Mario Voigt? He went into the duel with the strategy of not swinging the Nazi club, but rather putting forward content: “It's easy to call him a fascist, a court has already done that. It's about the factual questions." When it came to the shortage of skilled workers and immigration, Voigt made it clear that Höcke's extreme anti-migration stance was unsuitable for guaranteeing German companies enough workers. “They are breaking the backbone of prosperity,” said Voigt, who accused Höcke and the AfD of populism: “Inflating your cheeks, describing problems, but not solving a single problem.”
Most of the time, the CDU politician managed to hold his line. However, Voigt came under pressure when Höcke confronted him with the European climate policy of the “Green Deal” by Ursula von der Leyen (also CDU) and the Merkel years and accused the CDU of too green policies. Höcke described Voigt as a “destroyer of wealth” and blamed his party for the disillusionment with politics in the country.
TV duel: There is no clear winner
Despite the debate heating up over the course of the duel - which, despite the upcoming state elections, hardly revolved around Thuringia - Höcke ultimately offered his CDU opponent a joint coalition. Voigt refused. The bottom line is that Höcke came under pressure more often than Voigt, he hardly wanted to comment on his most extreme positions, and Voigt's strategy of objective confrontation worked to a large extent.
There is still no clear winner, both camps can find arguments for themselves. As a previously relatively unknown politician, Voigt can now hope for greater reach. And Höcke managed to be invited to a top duel for the first time as a politician on the far right. It remains to be seen whether the duel in the state elections in September will still play a role in the voting decision.