Chat with GPT: May a moderate party in a democracy pass laws with the votes of a partly far-right party?

If a party from the political center pushes through laws exclusively with the votes of a far-right or partially far-right party such as the German party “Alternative for Germany” (AfD), this is politically and ethically highly problematic, even if this party was democratically elected. Even if such an approach appears formally legitimate, it has far-reaching consequences for political culture, the perception of extremism and the stability of the democratic system.

Disclaimer

In this blog series, I ask ChatGPT on a variety of topics, from world politics to everyday issues, to get concise summaries and answers. The answers provided by ChatGPT are generated from large datasets, which may include biases, for example from Western perspectives. While the model strives for accuracy, it can sometimes produce incorrect or misleading information. I do not take responsibility for the validity of the content. Though I aim to ensure that the answers reflect common sense, I encourage you to cross-check facts and verify information through trusted sources. You are also welcome to reach out to me with suggestions for improvement.

ChatGPT’s answer

1. Democratic legitimacy vs. political responsibility

From a purely formal point of view, the achievement of a parliamentary majority is democratically legitimate. In a democratic system, the majority decides, and if a legislative initiative is passed with an arithmetical majority, this corresponds to the intended procedure. However, democratic responsibility does not end with formal legitimacy. Parties in the political center also have a responsibility towards the principles of democracy and political culture.

When a party systematically relies on the votes of an extreme right-wing party, de facto cooperation arises, even if there are no formal agreements or shared content. This repeated dependence makes the far-right party an indispensable player in the political decision-making process, which has far-reaching consequences.

2. Normalization and strengthening of the far right

Such a constellation inevitably leads to the normalization and political upgrading of the far-right party. If a democratic party regularly passes laws with the votes of an extremist party, it sends a signal to society and the electorate: the extreme right-wing party is accepted as a legitimate majority procurer.

This normalization can lead to far-right positions being integrated into the democratic discourse in the long term. The far-right party gains influence and credibility as a result, even if its content remains anti-democratic. At the same time, the electorate could become accustomed to the regular participation of this party, lowering the inhibition threshold for future direct cooperation.

Public perception also plays a decisive role: if a moderate party repeatedly forms majorities only with the votes of the far right, this could be interpreted by voters as tacit recognition or even strategic cooperation. This can not only undermine the credibility of the moderate party, but also weaken its democratic alliance options in the long term.

3. Lack of alternatives - self-inflicted or strategy?

A central question is why a centrist party is in the position of having to rely on the votes of a far-right party at all. Are there no other majorities because other democratic parties refuse to cooperate? Or is it a deliberate strategy to achieve certain political goals?

If a moderate party deliberately isolates itself from other democratic forces or deliberately relies on such a majority, this could indicate a tactical decision. However, this would entail considerable risks. On the one hand, the party could increasingly move away from its original values and damage its own democratic character by repeatedly collaborating with extremists. On the other hand, it could end up in a political dead end in which it becomes dependent on the far-right party in the long term because other democratic parties distance themselves from it.

Even if there is no rapprochement in terms of content, the strategic risk remains: The moderate party’s approach could contribute to further polarization of the political landscape and make it more difficult to form democratic majorities.

4. Case studies and historical experiences

History shows that democratic parties that have made tactical pacts with extremists have often harmed themselves or strengthened the extremists in the long term. Probably the best-known example of this is the NSDAP’s seizure of power in Germany. In many European democracies, there are therefore deliberately set “firewalls” to prevent right-wing extremist parties from gaining a majority, even if this could bring short-term political advantages.

In recent years, countries such as Germany (Thuringia 2020), France and Sweden have seen democratic parties that have cooperated even indirectly with far-right parties suffer massive political damage in some cases. In some cases, this has led to internal divisions, a loss of voter confidence or even a loss of significance for the party in question.

The basic idea behind such a firewall strategy is not only moral, but also strategic: A far-right party may seem useful in the short term, but in the long term it changes the political discourse, strengthens radical forces and can significantly destabilize the political culture.

5. What if an extreme right-wing party wins more and more votes despite the firewall?

If a party like the AfD is growing steadily despite a “firewall”, the question arises as to whether it is not pragmatically necessary to pass laws that are also supported by this party. After all, it represents a growing part of the electorate whose concerns should be taken into account in the political debate.

Completely excluding all of their voices can lead to their voters no longer feeling represented and further radicalization. At the same time, there is a risk that cooperation will gradually normalize far-right positions.

Dealing with a growing far-right party is therefore a dilemma: a strict firewall can lead to a political blockade and increase frustration among the population. Selective cooperation can be perceived as legitimizing or even gradually integrating extremist forces.

The key may lie in drawing a clear dividing line in terms of content: Substantive issues should not be reflexively rejected simply because they are advocated by a far-right party. At the same time, every decision should be critically examined in order to avoid a creeping normalization of anti-democratic actors.

Conclusion: Politically, ethically and strategically highly problematic

If a centrist party passes laws exclusively with the votes of a far-right party, this may be formally correct, but it is a threat to democracy. Such repeated dependence creates long-term structural and social risks, including

• The normalization of far-right parties as legitimate actors
• The revaluation of extremist positions in political discourse
• The potential loss of trust of the moderate party among moderate voters
• The increasing political isolation of the moderate party within the democratic spectrum

If far-right parties gain influence despite the firewall, democratic parties are faced with the challenge of not completely ignoring the concerns of this electorate on the one hand, but avoiding the normalization of extremist positions on the other. Democratic parties should therefore strive to seek majorities with other democratic forces and protect the political culture. Any law that is passed with the help of extremist voices sends problematic signals to society in the long term and can undermine democratic stability.