Political psychology: Why extremist parties are thriving and what democratic politicians can do against it

On September 6, 2026, Saxony-Anhalt, a state in Germany's eastern region, held parliamentary elections. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, a right-wing extremist group, emerged as the clear victor, securing 43.8% of the votes, a significant increase from previous elections. The AfD's strong performance was not surprising, given the agency's classification of its Saxony-Anhalt branch as right-wing extremist.

Following the election results, Chancellor Friedrich Merz expressed his shock at the outcome, stating that the changes were not limited to Saxony-Anhalt but were reflective of the broader political landscape in Germany. Merz's conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) suffered a significant decline in support, dropping from 37.1% in 2021 to 17.2% in 2026.

The CDU's performance worsened further at the state elections in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania on September 20, 2026, where they failed to meet the 5% threshold required for parliamentary representation, garnering only 4.9% of the votes.

The trend of extremist parties gaining ground was also evident in Berlin, where the socialist Left Party emerged victorious, likely to lead the city's administration. In contrast, the CDU secured the second-highest number of votes in Berlin and claimed the third position. These state elections underscore the growing influence of extreme political parties in Germany, a development that has raised concerns among many Germans.

According to a representative monthly survey conducted by IPSOS, nearly one-fifth of Germans (18%) expressed worry about the increasing extremism in the country when questioned between March and April 2026. Moreover, 82% of respondents felt that Germany was moving in the wrong direction.

To gauge the political sentiment of the population, researchers employ various methods, including surveys, analysis of online discourse on social media, and observation of real-life demonstrations and protests. Kerstin Pahl, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, emphasizes that researchers can also interpret societal sentiment by examining how political issues symbolize more profound societal issues.

For instance, ailing infrastructure may signify neglect by leaders, while the intersection of migration and climate change can exacerbate ideological polarization.

The rise of extremist parties in German politics can be attributed to two main forms of polarization: affective and ideological. Affective polarization refers to an increasing hostility towards political opponents, often observed in the context of the US political landscape between Democrats and Republicans. Eva Walther, head of the social psychology department at the University of Trier, Germany, highlights that such polarization can undermine the collaborative efforts required for effective governance.

Ideological polarization, on the other hand, occurs when society is divided into distinct groups based on perceived urgent societal issues. For example, some Germans prioritize migration concerns, while others focus on the climate crisis. When multiple crises intersect, such as migration and climate change, poly-crises intensify ideological polarization, making it challenging for society to find a unified solution.

In times of poly-crises, politicians who promise simple solutions to complex problems tend to gain popularity, further fueling polarization. Democratic parties, in contrast, can address this issue by learning from clinical research and emphasizing the importance of respect, collaboration, and the ability to act on pressing issues.

By fostering respectful political discourse and demonstrating competence in tackling complex challenges, democratic parties can mitigate the impact of growing extremism and preserve the fabric of democratic governance in Germany.