Political scientist on state elections: “The anti-traffic light rhetoric worked”

In Hesse and Bavaria, the SPD, Greens and FDP were significantly punished. This is due to the anti-traffic light rhetoric in the election campaign – but it is also self-inflicted, says political scientist Münch in an interview tagesschau.de.

tagesschau.de: Even though the election results in Bavaria and Hesse were largely as predicted, what surprised you the most?

Ursula Münch: What is most surprising to me is the very strong performance of the AfD in both countries. That it has become the second strongest force in Hesse – and the third strongest force in Bavaria, although there is also the Free Voters as a strong right-of-center force.

tagesschau.de: How can the AfD success in the two western German states be explained?

Munch: On the one hand, this is a big reckoning with the traffic light coalition in the federal government: it was directed against all traffic light parties. The Greens were able to mobilize their core voters to some extent in both federal states, but things went badly for the FDP in Bavaria and very narrowly in Hesse. The SPD achieved its worst election result ever in Bavaria – this is all clearly a sign of great dissatisfaction with the federal government.

On the other hand, it also shows that this anti-traffic light rhetoric on the part of the Hessian CDU as well as the CSU and Free Voters in Bavaria worked. Claims such as that many bans come from the Greens have further fueled this mood – interestingly enough, the CSU in Bavaria did not benefit from this, but the CDU in Hesse did.

tagesschau.de: In the last state election in 2018, the CSU with Markus Söder had already noticeably lost votes to the Free Voters and AfD – did he make the same mistakes this time?

Munch: On the contrary. The CSU wanted to learn from the mistakes of 2018, from the harsh jargon in migration policy at the time and the conflict between the CDU and CSU. The issue of migration has hardly been addressed in the current election campaign. But that didn’t help because it is a very important issue in the municipalities – and the AfD used it again.

In 2018, the CSU learned that it made no sense to imitate the AfD rhetorically. But suppressing the issue and hoping that it will only become virulent after the state elections – that doesn’t work either.

“Traces of an envy debate”

tagesschau.de: Is there a double reckoning with migration policy in the federal government that goes back to the grand coalition before 2021 – because, in the opinion of some voters, too few consequences were drawn?

Munch: I would see it that way. The population is once again viewing the issue as particularly worrying. It was similar after 2015/16. But back then, the federal government was at least able to put a relatively large amount of money into the system.

Now we live in times when people constantly hear that public money needs to be saved in many areas. And the impression is that no savings would be made for the refugees. This perception is of course further fueled by the AfD. In my opinion, that contributed greatly to this election result.

This has the characteristics of a debate about envy. But there is also concern that many public services will have to be restricted because we no longer have so much money available – with a view to financial support for the economy and Ukraine.

“Sometimes not possible at all”

tagesschau.de: Should Chancellor Scholz be accused – and with him his Interior Minister and Hessian SPD top candidate Nancy Faeser – of neglecting the issue of migration too much?

Munch: All parties beyond the AfD must be accused of not taking the information from the municipalities and districts seriously enough. So the states called for federal services and the federal government pointed out that it already had to pay so much.

But it’s not just a matter of municipalities and districts having an acute reception problem. Rather, the states as a whole are worried that the school system is no longer functioning, that the quality standards in the education system are falling, that there are too few staff, that all of this costs an incredible amount of money and in some cases cannot be afforded with money.

This is of course an important issue, especially for the federal government – but I would say that it is also a major issue for the parties in the democratic spectrum on the opposition bench in the Bundestag.

“Some things are already on the way”

tagesschau.de: Do you see a big order for the traffic lights? And can this still be achieved in a year and a half until the federal election campaign in order to avoid similar results?

Munch: Regardless of the results of the AfD, it is important that the issue of migration is taken more seriously. I see the first steps here: There are concessions at the European level, people are thinking about cash cards instead of cash benefits for refugees – some things are already on the way. It would probably be quite sensible if the traffic light teamed up with the democratic opposition in the Bundestag.

tagesschau.de: Is it really just the issue of migration that is to blame – or also the public image of the discord in the traffic light coalition, which led to these three parties in particular losing votes in the federal states?

Munch: Of course, this did not help the performance of the opposition parties in the Bavarian state parliament or that of the three parties in Hesse. People don’t want a divided federal government. This dispute also affects the issue of migration, but also the so-called heating law. The people want a government that is capable of acting and that deals with the issues of migration and climate change – and gets a better handle on the issue of Germany as a business location.

But they also want a federal government that gives the impression that it can better classify and absorb the mood in the country. It’s not about chasing after every opinion – but about being more aware of a basic feeling. One can accuse the federal government of not really having that: a chancellor who shows great optimism in his public statements, but cannot really explain what he is drawing from – that is not credible for people.

The interview was conducted by Corinna Emundts, tagesschau.de.