The favorite reading of every AfD politician? Probably nothing literary, at least in this field the national chairman Tino Chrupalla made a splendid fool of himself. In an interview with a children’s reporter, he called for more German poetry to be learned again: German poets and thinkers should be honored in schools. When the boy asked what his favorite poem was, he stuttered – “I can’t think of any right now”. Now Chrupalla is, with all due respect, not considered the intellectual spearhead of the AfD. And in any case, a completely different joke is circulating in the party, which members and officials prefer to read. Sure, the statute!
Anyone who experiences time and again at AfD party conferences how the statutes are prayed over and over and how the hour of the paragraph riders comes, knows that. And some members flirt with it themselves. Some claim that they are a “rule of law party” – and anyone who demands the strictest interpretation of rules, for example in the case of immigration and deportation, must be as meticulous as possible when it comes to their own affairs. Others in the AfD freely admit that “currant shit is part of their DNA”; perhaps as a legacy of the professors in the founding period, before the AfD slid further and further to the right.
It could crack again on Wednesday
In any case, the statutes are once again the star in the Bavarian parliamentary group in these weeks. Everyone is bending over it, interpreting, looking for a loophole. The statutes in the currently valid version have 14 printed pages, they regulate the rights and obligations of the members – and the formation of the board of directors. That’s why a fight has broken out again. It is the continuation of the permanent clinch between the camp around the former parliamentary group leaders Katrin Ebner-Steiner and Ingo Hahn, the majority of which is close to the formally dissolved völkisch “wing”, and the acting leader, who considers it more moderate: parliamentary group leader Ulrich Singer with his two deputies Gerd Mannes and Franz Bergmuller. In addition, there is a lot of personal animosity. This Wednesday for the parliamentary group meeting in the state parliament, it could bang again. And right in the middle is the statute.
In the fall of 2021, the current leadership came to the helm, Ebner-Steiner and Hahn had to vacate their executive chairs. The majority has now shifted due to a successor after a death and resignations, including Singer’s co-group leader Christian Klingen. The current leader can only count on eight of the 17 deputies, the opponent on nine. The Executive Board cannot be voted out of office that easily; according to the Articles of Association, a two-thirds majority would be required outside of regular elections. With its narrow majority, the camp around Ebner-Steiner would obviously like to fill the vacant co-chair (formerly Klingen). And elect one of their representatives, according to faction circles, Ingo Hahn is regularly traded for it. Theoretically possible, with nine votes to eight. But now it’s getting complicated, see the statutes – and currant-shitting is the trump card.
The post of deputy parliamentary secretary is also currently vacant, also after leaving the parliamentary group and party. Unlike an optional second chairman, this job is mandatory in the articles of incorporation. If you were to fill both posts, more than a third of all parliamentary group members would be on the board. And that would in turn conflict with Article 10, Paragraph 1 of the Articles of Incorporation, which specifically prohibits that. Accordingly, no boss can be chosen at all. A two-thirds majority would be required to amend paragraph 10 (paragraph 19, paragraph 2). None of the camps have them anyway. A solution to the conflict is not in sight.
“Governance” without a majority
The AfD statutes give the board of directors a fairly strong position. Curiously, the set of rules created the old leadership around Ebner-Steiner – at the time probably not suspecting that at some point you could no longer be in charge. Nobody wants to talk big about the muddled situation. In the board camp, it can at least be heard – not without a note of relish – that the statutes are statutes, one should not “bend them”. Where would you get there!
An AfD man who is close, but not directly involved, says: “The board of directors crouches very broadly on the statutes and keeps the others small until the next state election.” A “ruling through” in other words, even without a majority. No matter how small-minded the exegesis of the statutes may be, “that’s the way of the business”. After all, according to the insider, it should be credited to the camp around Ebner-Steiner “not to make a big public noise” – no one needs stunk in the media before the state election. According to reports, the group of nine uses its narrow majority in everyday life from time to time, for example to get controversial state parliamentary motions through or to tease the leadership in other ways. Or even with the agenda of parliamentary group meetings, which must be decided by majority. Which supposedly often fails.