Rejecting migrant policy, Berlin voters deal blow to Merkel's party

Angela Merkel said she accepted some responsibility for her party's poor performance in a Berlin state election, in which voters rejected the German Chancellor's open-door refugee policy.

Leonhard Foeger/ Reuters
German Chancellor Angela Merkel attends news conference after the European Union summit - the first one since Britain voted to quit - in Bratislava, Slovakia September 16, 2016. Merkel has acknowledged responsibility for "very bitter" losses for her party in recent state elections, following a Berlin state election.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has acknowledged responsibility for "very bitter" losses for her party in recent state elections, following a Berlin state election. 

The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) finished second, with just 17.6 percent of the vote. The results are seemingly backlash from Merkel's open-door immigration policies, which have led to an influx of refugees.

"I take responsibility as party leader and chancellor," Merkel said. She vowed to address voters' concerns about immigration, but maintained that if people don't want Muslim asylum-seekers because of their religion, that was against the party and country's basic principles. "The CDU and I can't go along with that."

The Social Democrats (SPD), which is in a coalition with the CDU, also saw lower support in the Berlin election, winning just 21.6 percent, down 6.7 points. Support for the CDU dropped 5.7 points.

CDU and SPD remained the two leading parties, but the coalition may be threatened by the loss of votes.

In contrast, the three-year-old nationalist, anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) party gained traction among new voters and drew some from other parties, winning 14.2 percent of the vote. Voter participation was up to 66.9 percent, compared to 60.2 percent in the last election.

Just two weeks earlier, the AfD beat the CDU into third place in the eastern state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, in a campaign focused on Merkel's decision to open the country's borders to migrants last year.

Markus Söder, the Bavarian finance minister of the CSU, the Bavarian sister-party to the CDU, called the Berlin election the "second massive wake-up call" in two weeks. 

"A long-term and massive loss in trust among traditional voters threatens the conservative bloc," he told the Bild daily, adding that for Merkel's right-left national coalition to win back support, they would need to shift gears on immigration policy.

The CSU has called upon Merkel to take a tougher stance on migrants, suggesting a cap of 200,000 refugees a year. Merkel rejects that idea, Reuters reports.

The AfD celebrated the Berlin election, with AfD candidate Georg Pazderski telling supporters, "From zero to double digits, that's unique for Berlin. The grand coalition has been voted out – not yet at the national level, but that will happen next year."

The election in 2017 may see AfD entering the lower parliament, say commentators. 

"With the Berlin result, the AfD has consolidated its position and shown it can appeal to voters across the board – it is now represented in a big city, eastern German states and in more affluent western states like Baden-Württemberg," said Thomas Jäger, a political scientist at Cologne University.

This report contains material from the Associated Press and Reuters.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.