Berlin, Germany – Over the past few weeks, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets to protest against the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) after they voted through proposals for stricter migration policies together with the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.

By so doing, the demonstrators said, the CDU had torn down the ‘firewall’ between traditional parties and the far right that has long prevailed in Germany.

The protests were organised by a range of NGOs such as ‘Omas gegen Rechts’ (Grannies against the Right), the environmental group NABU or ‘München ist bunt’ (Munich is Diverse).

Many of the associations and initiatives involved in the protests are financed not only by donations and member fees but also by state subsidies. Charitable organisations are also eligible for tax breaks.

But legally, their situation is a tightrope walk because they are permitted to be involved in social issues but not to take sides in party politics.

Conservatives question state support

Now, if the CDU and CSU are to be believed, some NGOs have violated this principle with their protests. For this reason, the CDU/CSU finance expert, Mathias Middelberg, announced in a newspaper interview in mid-February that he would be ‘very critically’ scrutinising federal support programmes about who was benefiting from them, and looking at potentially cutting them altogether.

The conservative bloc is following through on his words. It has put in a parliamentary request for information to the federal government.

It said the request was made because of the protests against the CDU, ‘which were partly organised or supported by charitable associations or state-financed organisations’. The 32-page inquiry contains 551 questions about altogether 17 NGOs.

Political neutrality

In its inquiry, the CDU/CSU parliamentary group refers to an article in the conservative-leaning German daily Welt in which several experts on constitutional law expressed very critical views about the demonstrations.

“Associations that helped organise ‘firewall’ demonstrations did not act on a charitable basis,” argued Volker Boehme-Nessler from Oldenburg University. “The demonstrations were one-sidedly political. They were directed concretely against one party, the CDU.”

Dietrich Murswieck, a legal expert who taught at Freiburg University until 2016, is of a similar view.

“If a nature conservation group protests that a parliamentary resolution ignored the ‘firewall’, it has nothing to do with its charitable purpose of protecting the environment,” he said.

But Maximilian Schiffers, a political scientist from the Duisburg-Essen University, has a very different take on the precept of political neutrality, which is also a subject of debate in expert circles.

“It doesn’t mean that organisations have to be neutral on political issues. They are just not allowed to campaign for a particular party,” he told DW.

According to Schiffers, even the German constitution is not neutral, ‘particularly when human rights, civil liberties, environmental and climate protection and the participation in democratic decision-making processes are concerned’. In view of this, civil society organisations did not have to be neutral either, Schiffers said.

The Society for Civil Rights (GFF), which is financed by donations and member fees, is also on the side of those criticising the way the conservatives and the AfD closed ranks for the vote in parliament.

“It is always possible to support democratic principles and objectively examine positions taken by a party that are problematic from the point of view of constitutional law,” it said in a press release.

The GFF stressed that such actions were even desirable to enable the open democratic discourse reflected in the German constitution, or Basic Law.

Attempt at intimidation?

The organisation Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which fights for press freedom across the world, has been even more explicit in its criticism of the action taken by the CDU/CSU bloc. The director of its German branch, Anja Osterhaus, accused the conservatives of trying to intimidate critical voices from civil society.

Although she conceded that parliamentary inquiries by parties were an important monitoring mechanism, she said it was ‘worrying that the CDU/CSU parliamentary group used this means to demand information on media organisations that are known for their investigative journalism’.

The CDU/CSU inquiries include questions about German media organisations Correctiv and Netzwerk Recherche.

In early 2024 Correctiv, which also receives money from the state, reported on a meeting in Potsdam attended by right-wing extremist and conservative figures. The gathering was allegedly held to discuss plans to carry out mass deportations of people with an immigration background from Germany. The revelations triggered mass demonstrations nationwide against right-wing extremism and the AfD.

DW