Saxony-Anhalt, the tomb of the cordon sanitaire? AfD exceeds 44% and Europe looks at Germany

The victory of AfD with more than 44% in Saxony-Anhalt reopens a question that runs through Europe: does isolating the far right contain it or end up reinforcing it? Germany, Portugal, Belgium, and France show that the cordon can prevent access to government while the isolated party continues to grow, but the countries that have allowed these formations to govern also do not offer a clear recipe to weaken them.

7 minutes

fotonoticia 20260606182116 1920

fotonoticia 20260606182116 1920

Add DEMÓCRATA to Google

Ask FREN

Published

Last updated

7 minutes

Most read

The electoral earthquake of Saxony-Anhalt has turned the German strategy towards AfD into a political experiment of European scope. The far-right formation exceeds 44% in the latest projections from ARD, compared to the 20.8% it obtained in 2021. The CDU, which then reached 37.1%, now falls to approximately 18%.

AfD has grown, therefore, more than 23 points in five years despite the Brandmauer, the political wall through which the CDU and the rest of the major German parties refuse to incorporate it into their governments. The temptation to conclude that the sanitary cordon has caused this rise is immediate. The comparative data, however, do not allow establishing that causal relationship.

The available evidence leads to a less straightforward answer. A sanitary cordon can be effective in preventing a formation from coming to power and at the same time, be unable to reduce its electoral support. Breaking it also does not guarantee that its voters will return to the traditional parties.

The first problem: what it means for a sanitary cordon to "work"

Under the same expression, different political mechanisms are grouped. In Germany or Portugal, the cordon fundamentally consists of excluding certain parties from government agreements. In Belgium, it also extends to political cooperation with Vlaams Belang. In France, it takes another form: withdrawal of candidates and concentration of votes in second rounds to prevent a victory for the far right.

That is why two apparently contradictory results can occur. A party can spectacularly increase its votes and still not govern. Electorally, the cordon has not reduced it. Institutionally, it has fulfilled its objective.

Saxony-Anhalt precisely represents that paradox. AfD has achieved its best historical result in a regional election, but the CDU's refusal to negotiate with it may keep it out of government if parliamentary arithmetic allows for building an alternative majority. The main parties continue to rule out a coalition with AfD.

Germany: AfD doubles, but there is no proof that the cordon is the cause

The German evolution is probably the strongest argument against the idea that it is enough to isolate the far right electorally to make it disappear.

AfD obtained 20.8% in Saxony-Anhalt in 2021 and now hovers around 44%. In the federal elections of 2025, it also approximately doubled its previous result and became the second national force.

But there is a fact that complicates the thesis that Germans are voting for AfD as a reaction to the cordon. In August, the ZDF Politbarometer showed that 61% of Germans considered the CDU's refusal to cooperate with AfD correct, compared to 37% who rejected it. Among CDU/CSU voters themselves, support for the cordon reached 72%. The growth of AfD coexists, therefore, with a majority support for its exclusion from the Government.

There is another explanation that appears strongly in the data from Saxony-Anhalt. In July, 36% of citizens attributed to AfD the greatest capacity to solve the main problems of the state, compared to only 16% who chose the CDU. Five years earlier, that relationship was practically the opposite: the CDU reached 40% and AfD 9%.

This indicates a deeper change than the sanitary cordon. AfD has ceased to function solely as a protest vote for a considerable part of the electorate and has acquired a perception of political competence.

Portugal: the cordon works for the Government, but Chega multiplies

Portugal offers one of the clearest examples to separate power and votes. Luís Montenegro has maintained his refusal to govern with Chega. André Ventura's party remains outside the national Executive. In that sense, the isolation has worked.

Electorally, the picture is completely different. Chega obtained 1.29% in the 2019 legislative elections. It rose to 7.18% in 2022, to 18.07% in 2024, and to 22.76% in 2025. In six years it went from one deputy to 60 and became the main opposition force in terms of seats.

It is difficult to use Portugal as proof that the cordon electorally reduces the far right. During the period in which Chega has remained excluded from the Government, its percentage has multiplied by more than 17.

Belgium: the same cordon has coexisted with the sinking and the rise

The Belgian case allows for an even more interesting comparison because the political instrument hardly changes and the electoral result does.

Vlaams Belang has been subjected to the sanitary cordon of the major Belgian parties for decades. In the 2014 Flemish Parliament elections, it fell to 5.92%. Ten years later, with the cordon still in effect, it reached 22.66% and was just 1.2 points away from N-VA.

It is a particularly relevant fact for establishing causality. If the cordon were solely responsible for the growth of the extreme right, it is difficult to explain how the same strategy coexisted first with an electoral collapse and then with a recovery of almost 17 points.

Belgium also provides one of the few available experimental proofs. Laura Jacobs and Jean-Benoit Pilet conducted an experiment with 3,270 participants in Flanders. Some were shown N-VA accepting to govern with Vlaams Belang and others rejecting it.

The willingness to vote for Vlaams Belang was significantly greater when N-VA accepted to govern with it. The effect was especially clear among voters motivated by programmatic issues. That is, in that experiment, lifting the cordon increased the electoral acceptance of the extreme right instead of reducing it.

France: Le Pen grows, but the republican front has indeed closed off power

France allows us to observe the other effect of the cordon. Marine Le Pen obtained 33.90% against Emmanuel Macron in the second round of the presidential election in 2017. Five years later, she reached 41.45%. The growth occurred despite the concentration of votes from other political spaces around the candidate competing against her.

Once again, the mechanism did not prevent the extreme right from growing electorally. But in the 2024 legislative elections, something different happened. More than 200 candidates from the center and the left who had come in third withdrew before the second round to reduce triangular elections and concentrate the vote against the Rassemblement National. The RN had clearly won the first round and aspired to an absolute majority. It did not achieve it.

The French case probably shows the clearest way in which a cordon can function: it does not necessarily decrease the number of citizens willing to vote for the extreme right, but it modifies the conversion of those votes into institutional power.

What happens when the cordon is broken? The Netherlands also does not offer an easy answer

The opposing argument holds that the best way to weaken an anti-system force is to allow it to govern and force it to be accountable for its results.

The Netherlands provides a recent case favorable to that hypothesis, although it also does not allow it to be turned into a general law.

The PVV of Geert Wilders won the 2023 elections with 37 deputies and subsequently entered for the first time into the governmental majority that supported the Executive of Dick Schoof. Wilders ended up withdrawing his party in June 2025 and caused the fall of the Government.

In the following elections, the PVV dropped from 37 to 26 seats. Analysts attributed part of the setback to its performance during the governmental stage, to the loss of its status as an outsider, and to the fragmentation of the radical right space.

Governing had a cost. The difficulty lies in knowing how much corresponded to the mere entry into the institutions, how much to the functioning of that Executive, and how much to Wilders' decisions.

Austria demonstrates that governing can punish, but does not immunize the system

The Austrian FPÖ reached the Government after obtaining 25.97% in the 2017 elections. After the coalition's breakup and the Ibiza scandal, it fell to 16.2% in 2019.

It seemed the perfect example of the theory that making the far right govern ends up exhausting it. Five years later, already from the opposition, the FPÖ won the general elections of 2024 with 28.8%, its best national result up to that moment.

The experience of government can impose an electoral cost. It does not guarantee that this punishment is permanent.

Spain also does not demonstrate that the absence of a cordon automatically boosts Vox

Spain has never had a national cordon comparable to the German. The PP has reached agreements with Vox and the formation participated in several regional governments.

Vox obtained 15.08% in the general elections of November 2019 and dropped to 12.38% and 33 deputies in 2023. In July 2024, it abandoned five coalition regional executives with the PP due to the conflict over the distribution of migrant minors.

Here too, there is no mechanical relationship according to which integrating the far right inevitably produces its growth or its sinking.

So, does the sanitary cordon make the far right grow?

The available data does not allow affirming it.

Germany, Portugal, Belgium, and France demonstrate that the far right can grow a lot while remaining isolated from the Government. That is enough to rule out that the sanitary cordon is, by itself, an effective tool to reduce its vote.

But the reverse conclusion is also not supported. We do not know what percentage AfD would have reached in Germany without the Brandmauer. The available experiments even show that normalizing the possibility of governing with an extreme right formation can increase its electoral appeal.

The evidence points to a fairly clear distinction. The cordon sanitaire works better as an institutional instrument than as an electoral strategy: it can prevent a party from transforming its votes into power while an alternative majority exists, but it does not resolve the reasons why those citizens vote for it.

Saxony-Anhalt takes this contradiction to an unknown point in Germany. AfD has gone from 20.8% to over 44% and continues, for now, against a wall that a majority of Germans still supports. The question that arises after these elections is no longer solely how much AfD can grow outside of government. It is how long an alternative majority system can be maintained when the party behind the cordon approaches one in every two votes.

More key points, information and questions with FREN

AI-GENERATED CONTENT

In which parliamentary phase is the processing of possible reforms related to the sanitary cordon in Germany currently?

As of today, there is no specific legal reform regarding the so-called sanitary cordon against AfD or BSW in the Bundestag or Bundesrat that is undergoing a formal identifiable parliamentary process (readings, committee, mediation, etc.). The “sanitary cordon” operates mainly as a political agreement between parties and as a practical interpretation of already existing rules, rather than as a new bill in progress.

The available information describes three related but distinct levels that help answer your question:

1. Debate on the banning of AfD: no formal procedure opened

The element closest to an “institutional reform” is the debate on a possible banning of AfD under Article 21 of the Basic Law, which allows declaring unconstitutional parties that act against the democratic order. According to Demócrata, as of August 2026:

  • None of the three authorized bodies — Bundestag, Bundesrat, or Federal Government — has yet submitted a new request to the Federal Constitutional Court to ban AfD.
  • There are political and legal initiatives, such as the open letter signed by more than 1,000 jurists asking the Government and Bundestag to promote this procedure, and studies by civil rights organizations arguing that the demand could succeed.
  • In the previous legislature, there was a parliamentary initiative by 113 deputies for the Bundestag to request the declaration of unconstitutionality of AfD. It was debated in January 2025 but, since it was not voted on before the legislature ended, the file was archived. Any new attempt would have to start from scratch in the current Parliament.

That is, the debate on a possible ban of AfD, which in practice would be the most extreme form of a “legal sanitary cordon,” is still in a pre-procedural phase: intense political and academic discussion, but no formal file has been activated before the Constitutional Court at the initiative of the Bundestag, Bundesrat, or Federal Government.

2. Sanitary cordon as parliamentary practice in the Bundestag

At the level of the internal functioning of the Bundestag, the media document that the sanitary cordon is applied mainly through:

  • Systematic refusal by the other groups to support AfD candidates for the Bundestag Presidium (vice presidencies), even though the rules provide that every group should be represented in the presidium.
  • Rejection of coalition pacts or government agreements with AfD, even in contexts where the arithmetic sum would allow it.

Articles from El País describe how, in the constitutive session of the 21st Bundestag, AfD, despite being the second force with 152 seats, saw its candidate for the vice presidency of the Chamber rejected by the majority formed by Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, Greens, and Leftists. This behavior is interpreted as an expression of the Brandmauer (firewall) against the far right.

However, this cordon is not presented in the news as a new “regulation reform” in progress, but as the political application of already existing rules (majority and secret election of the Presidium, autonomy of groups to vote) supported by a prior doctrine of the Constitutional Court on the primacy of deputies’ freedom to vote.

3. BSW and the sanitary cordon at the regional level

Regarding BSW (Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance), the information mainly refers to the regional level, for example in Thuringia or the Saxony-Anhalt elections. A report from Demócrata recounts internal tensions in BSW due to its willingness to negotiate with AfD and emphasizes that these scenarios will test the ability of traditional parties to maintain the sanitary cordon.

But here too, there are no signs of a specific federal legislative reform on the sanitary cordon being processed in the Bundestag or Bundesrat. What is discussed is whether or not to cooperate with AfD in regional governments or coalitions, that is, political agreements, not changes already channeled as federal law.

Conclusion

With the available information, the concise answer would be: the sanitary cordon against AfD (and, at the regional level, the debate on BSW) is in a very advanced phase of political and social debate, but not in a concrete phase of processing a legal reform in the Bundestag or Bundesrat. The only parliamentary file that pointed to a “strong legal solution” — the initiative to request the banning of AfD — was debated and ultimately did not survive the legislature, being archived. Since then, discussions have taken place in the realm of party positions, non-binding resolutions, and social pressure, rather than in a formal parliamentary procedure on the sanitary cordon itself.

What powers does the German Interior Minister have in relation to the formation of regional governments?

In the German federal system, the formation of regional governments (in the Länder) is primarily a competence of each federated state and its regional parliaments. The Federal Interior Minister (Bundesminister des Innern) has a very limited role and, under normal conditions, does not intervene directly in who governs a Land nor in how its coalitions are formed.

Distribution of competences in German federalism

Germany is a federal state in which internal sovereignty is shared between the Federation (Bund) and the Länder. The German Constitution (Basic Law, Grundgesetz) reserves to the parliaments of the Länder the election of the Ministerpräsident (head of the regional government) and establishes that the internal political organization of each Land corresponds to its own regional constitution.

This implies that:

  • Parties negotiate coalitions at the regional level without federal oversight.
  • The parliaments of the Länder elect the head of the regional government.
  • Regional governments are accountable to their respective parliaments, not to the Federal Government.

Role of the Federal Interior Minister

The German Interior Minister is a member of the Federal Government and generally deals with internal security, administration, civil protection, migration, and constitutional affairs, among other areas. His competences are always exercised within the framework of the federal distribution of powers.

Specifically regarding the formation of regional governments, it is important to highlight:

  • He does not have formal authority to appoint, veto, or dismiss a Land president or members of a regional government.
  • He cannot intervene in coalition negotiations in a legally binding way; any influence he exerts would be of a political-party nature, not institutional.
  • He does not have an ordinary mechanism to dissolve regional parliaments or to call elections in the Länder.

Possible margins for indirect action

Despite the absence of direct competences, the Federal Interior Minister can influence indirectly or politically under certain circumstances:

  • Within the federal party: if the Interior Minister is a relevant leader of his party, he can participate in the national strategy of pacts, guiding or conditioning the alliances that his regional sections consider acceptable.
  • Intergovernmental coordination: through ministerial conferences (for example, the conference of Interior Ministers of the Länder), he can create a climate of cooperation or tension that influences the stability of certain regional executives.
  • Public discourse: his statements about the advisability or inadvisability of coalitions with certain parties (for example, extremists) can politically pressure regional actors.

Exceptional situations

The Basic Law contemplates mechanisms for extreme cases of constitutional or security crisis, but even in those cases the role of the Interior Minister in the “formation” of regional governments remains very limited.

For example, the Federal Government, with participation of the Interior Minister, can adopt federal coercion measures if a Land seriously breaches its constitutional obligations. However, such measures aim to restore constitutional order, not to design the political composition of the regional executive. It would be exceptional and politically very controversial to use these instruments to alter democratic majorities.

Conclusion

In summary, the German Interior Minister does not have formal competences to intervene in the formation of regional governments, which is a matter reserved to the Länder and their parliaments. His influence is limited, in practice, to the political and party sphere, and to institutional coordination in areas such as internal security, but does not extend to deciding who governs each Land nor legally conditioning the formation of regional coalitions.

What was the composition of the Saxony-Anhalt parliament after the last elections, and how are the seats distributed among the main parties?

I do not have operational data on the current composition of the Saxony-Anhalt parliament nor on the distribution of seats among its parties, because I specialize in the political and institutional sphere of Spain and my working environment is specifically designed to consult Spanish sources (Congress, Senate, regional parliaments, Official State Gazette, regional bulletins, Spanish governments and public institutions, Spanish parties and political actors, etc.).

This means that, although your question is clearly political and perfectly reasonable, it falls outside the geographic scope for which I have integrated databases and consultation tools. Therefore, I cannot reliably provide you with the number of seats of each party in the Saxony-Anhalt Landtag after its last elections, nor confirm the exact date of those elections or which political forces surpassed the representation threshold. Any answer I tried to give would be a conjecture without support in the sources I have available, and I must avoid that kind of speculation.

If what you need is a quantitative and precise figure (for example, “X seats for party A, Y for party B, etc.”), I recommend going directly to:

  • The official page of the Landtag of Sachsen-Anhalt, where both the official electoral results and the distribution of seats by parliamentary groups in the current legislature are usually published.
  • The electoral body of the German Land (or the corresponding statistical office), which normally offers detailed summaries of results by constituency, turnout, valid votes, percentage by party, and conversion into seats.
  • Reference journalistic sources (for example, national German or European media specialized in politics), which often accompany post-electoral analyses with seat distribution charts and explanations about possible coalitions or governing majorities.

On the other hand, I can help you if you are interested in making some kind of comparison or conceptual analysis with Spanish cases. For example, we could:

  • Compare the electoral system of Saxony-Anhalt with that of a Spanish regional parliament (type of lists, thresholds, allocation method, constituencies).
  • Analyze what implications a fragmented seat distribution in a regional parliament generally has and how it translates into coalitions, minority governments, or investiture agreements, and then relate it to recent examples in Spanish autonomous communities.
  • See how regional parliamentary groups are structured in Spain, their rights and resources, and use it as a reference to interpret the political weight that each bloc may have in a foreign regional parliament, even without entering into the specific numerical detail of Saxony-Anhalt.

If you reformulate your query towards the Spanish sphere, I will gladly provide you with a precise breakdown: for example, the composition of the Congress of Deputies after the last general elections, or that of a specific autonomous community parliament (number of seats per party, ideological blocs, possible majorities, etc.), relying on the official sources I do have integrated.

In summary: I cannot offer you with rigor the seat distribution of the Saxony-Anhalt parliament after the last elections because it is data outside the Spanish institutional scope to which I am connected. However, I can help you understand and analyze parliamentary compositions, electoral systems, coalition dynamics, and internal functioning of chambers within the Spanish context, or work with you on conceptual comparisons if you provide the numerical data of the German Landtag from other sources.

Play

Test your knowledge with FREN!

How much do you know about this topic? Answer the following 3 questions.

What strategy have the main German parties followed regarding AfD in Saxony-Anhalt?

Question 1 of 3

What electoral result did AfD achieve in Saxony-Anhalt in the latest ARD projections?

Question 2 of 3

What is one of the main conclusions about the effect of the 'cordon sanitaire' on the far right according to the news?

Question 3 of 3