(de-news.net) – In discussions over how Germany’s constitutional system should react to a possible AfD-led state government, Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig and CDU parliamentary leader Thorsten Frei have emphasized legal means of opposing unconstitutional state action, while former Constitutional Court judge Hans-Jürgen Papier warned against exaggerating the threat to democracy. In the meantime, the Greens demanded reforms meant to restore public confidence in government and cut bureaucracy, and the CDU gave Chancellor Friedrich Merz support on his political path.
Political debate over how Germany’s federal institutions should respond if the AfD seeks to form a state government and pursues policies considered unconstitutional has intensified following the party’s resounding victory in Saxony-Anhalt. At the center of the discussion is the question of how far the federal government could go to enforce constitutional rules if a state government were to violate them.
Thorsten Frei, leader of the CDU parliamentary group, argued that the Federal Government would have to use every constitutional mechanism available to protect democracy if a future AfD-led government breached constitutional principles. As a possible last resort, he pointed to Article 37 of the Basic Law, which provides for what is known as “federal coercion.” Under the provision, the federal government can issue directives to state authorities and compel a state to fulfill its legal obligations, provided the Bundesrat gives its approval. The mechanism represents an exceptional constitutional instrument and has never been used in the history of the Federal Republic.
Frei characterized such intervention as an ultima ratio, emphasizing that it would be reserved for circumstances in which other safeguards were insufficient. At the same time, he argued that Germany’s constitutional order was deliberately equipped with instruments to protect democracy, the rule of law and the free democratic basic order when necessary. The possibility of federal coercion had also been raised before the election by political figures and constitutional law experts, including FDP politician Wolfgang Kubicki and legal scholar Hans Michael Heinig.
Hubig emphasizes constitutional limits on state governments
Federal Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig, meanwhile, stressed that any state government remains fully bound by the Basic Law. The issue, she argued, also extends to the officials expected to implement government decisions: Their constitutional oath requires them to comply with law rather than simply follow political instructions without question. Against that backdrop, Hubig urged civil servants in Saxony-Anhalt to raise formal objections if a future state government issued unlawful directives. Her remarks underscored the role of individual officials within the constitutional system and the limits placed on government authority even when instructions originate with elected political leaders.
Hubig also distinguished between the judiciary and public prosecutors. Judges, she noted, are constitutionally independent and therefore expected to resist attempts at political interference. Prosecutors occupy a different position because they are part of the executive branch and operate within a system that includes ministerial authority to issue directives. That authority, however, is subject to legal limits. Hubig said she expected prosecutors, too, to reject instructions that were unlawful.
The minister also pointed to the principle of federal comity, under which federal and state governments are expected to respect one another’s constitutional responsibilities. Federal coercion would represent an additional constitutional safeguard, while the Federal Government could turn to the Federal Constitutional Court if a state failed to meet its legal obligations. Hubig illustrated the issue with a hypothetical situation in which a state government instructed its authorities to disregard existing legislation, such as by refusing to process naturalization applications or recognize same-sex marriages. In such a case, the federal government could potentially direct state authorities to apply the relevant laws, provided the Bundesrat approved the measure.
The debate, however, has also drawn calls for caution. Hans-Jürgen Papier, a former judge of the Federal Constitutional Court, warned against presenting the AfD’s electoral success as an immediate threat to German democracy. In his assessment, an AfD-led state government would remain constrained by the principles of federalism and the rule of law. He said there was currently no evidence that the party was capable of dismantling that constitutional framework.
CDU defends Chancellor Merz’s course
Amid growing criticism of Chancellor Friedrich Merz and declining polling figures for the CDU, party Secretary General Anne Katrin Hoppmann defended the government’s overall political direction. She argued that short-term changes in public support should not dictate the party’s strategy and maintained that Merz continued to represent a clear vision for where Germany should be headed. Hoppmann pointed to the government’s pension reform agenda as an example of why longer-term political objectives should be pursued despite unfavorable polling. The reforms are intended to improve future pension benefits while, over time, reducing the burden of contributions. In Hoppmann’s assessment, reaching those goals requires sustained political effort rather than a change of course prompted by temporary political setbacks.
The issue also has an electoral dimension. With the Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania state election approaching, Hoppmann urged CDU supporters to prevent the AfD from securing a majority. She argued that achieving that objective would require the CDU, as well as the broader Union, to be as strong as possible at the ballot box.
Greens call for state reform
Following the election in Saxony-Anhalt, Green Party co-leader Franziska Brantner called for a fundamental reorganization of the relationship between citizens and the state. Her argument went beyond simply defending existing democratic institutions. She said political leaders also needed to make democracy more responsive and restore public confidence in citizens’ dealings with government.
Brantner focused in particular on the growing gap between the speed of public debate and the comparatively slow pace of political and administrative processes. Digital platforms and increasingly short news cycles have accelerated the exchange of information and political discussion, while government institutions continue to operate through slower procedures and extensive administrative requirements. In Brantner’s view, that imbalance can contribute to growing frustration and, over time, weaken trust in public institutions. She argued that excessive bureaucratic demands, combined with an institutional tendency to approach citizens with suspicion, risk creating a relationship in which people experience the state primarily as an obstacle rather than as a responsive public authority.
The alternative proposed by the Greens would place greater initial confidence in citizens and businesses while maintaining more focused enforcement against deliberate violations. Rather than subjecting everyone to extensive controls, the approach would seek to concentrate scrutiny where serious misconduct is suspected. Brantner cited planned reductions in reporting requirements under the Green-CDU coalition in Baden-Württemberg as an example of how bureaucracy could be reduced without abandoning targeted oversight. In that model, easing general administrative requirements would be paired with continued enforcement aimed at serious misconduct, reflecting her broader call for a more responsive relationship between citizens and the state.
