This challenge is not particularly new: in 2017, the AfD attempted to ride the wave of insurgent right-wing nationalism spreading across the globe during the second half of the previous decade. Although this challenge is not new, however, it is consistent; the AfD, along with the anti-immigrant rhetoric it relies on, creates an enormous obstacle for Germany’s left-wing parties – such as the SPD – to contend with.
According to a 2023 article by Hans Von Der Burchard, the left-wing German Green Party called earlier this year for “a crackdown on illegal asylum seekers”. The challenge here is apparent – German left-wing parties have historically billed themselves as liberal on immigration matters, eschewing securitization in favor of reducing barriers to residency or citizenship. What does this mean for the SPD?
According to the website InfoMigrants, “the Social Democrats consider immigration an enrichment that advances Germany. They call for a humanitarian EU asylum system and solidarity with refugees and migrants.” As a result, the SPD is left to contend with its integrity as a pro-immigration party, while simultaneously pushing back against public pressure built by increased nationalist sentiment. This leaves the SPD with two potential paths. One path entails following the lead of public demands for a more restrictive immigration policy, potentially leaving little room for pro-immigration discourse in Germany’s political system. The other path entails risking future elections while maintaining the party’s sense of integrity as the guardians and protectors of an open immigration policy that eagerly welcomes migrants.
The construction of the SPD’s identity and the history behind this construction is essential to understanding such a dilemma. The SPD, for example, were one of several left-wing parties vocally opposed to the rise of the NSDAP (better known, colloquially, simply as the “Nazi Party”) and the rise of Hitler in the 1930s. As such, the SPD maintains a strong sense of its history as an anti-nationalist party that advocates for cultural pluralism within German borders.
Additionally, the SPD also faces the embarrassment of having been the party with the greatest amount of power in Germany immediately prior to the rise of the NSDAP. This, in effect, means that numerous historical analyses of the era place the brunt of the blame for the rise of 20th-century German Fascism on the SPD. An example of such an historical analysis – one among many – is Donna Harsch’s study German Social Democracy and the Rise of Nazism. This scar on the history of the SPD remains an embarrassment to the party today.
The SPD, in facing the choice of whether to maintain its liberal stance on immigration policy or follow popular demands and move to the right, must therefore contend with this difficult and complicated history. While an argument might exist that a more restrictive immigration policy embraced by left wing parties would prevent the rise of hard-right nationalists like the AfD, this argument leaves little room for the political pluralism that the SPD seeks to consistently represent.
In choosing its future path on immigration issues, the SPD must also contend with the realistic security challenges posted by the open borders of Europe’s Schengen area. This arrangement, allowing visa-free travel for European Union citizens, proves advantageous for commerce, tourism, and trade. It is without a doubt an economic boon for the entirety of the European Union, Germany included. However, this arrangement of open borders also opens European states including Germany to challenges posed by irregular migration – including the legitimate risk of irregular migration as a vector for terrorism, smuggling, or organized crime. While this is a major challenge for Schengen area states in general, it is one that should particularly trouble Germany; a country that suffered under the oppression of a nationalist dictatorship in the 20th century – but that also has suffered from a number of attempted terrorist attacks by individuals and organizations swearing allegiance to Islamist causes. While some of these were German citizens, others were foreign nationals. As such, German culture has rightly been influenced by skepticism of securitization and its nationalistic underpinnings. This skepticism is in large part kept alive by left-wing parties such as the SPD, which remains cognizant of its history as a bulwark against the rise of right-wing nationalism.
Germany’s state-level elections in October of this year proved to be a potential bellwether for the country’s direction in these topics. The principal victories in the party were among conservatives – according to Reuters, dealing a “sharp rebuke” to the SPD under Chancellor Olaf Scholtz. Sudha David-Wilp, writing for the German Marshall Fund of the United States, assesses that “the far right won the day.” David-Wilp notes a significant increase in support for the far-right AfD. Additionally, she notes that the center-right CDU has turned significantly to the right in recent years, potentially leaving the SPD isolated as a voice in favor of more open immigration policies. These are factors that should no doubt raise alarms for the SPD in its future election campaigns.
The SPD is thus faced with a harsh choice as to whether to maintain its integrity and advocate for a more open immigration policy in Germany, or whether to take a high-risk turn to the right by restricting the flow of refugees, asylum seekers, and other migrants into Germany’s borders.