“Centrist parties must set the right tone and agenda”

Your research deals with social and political polarisation. How pronounced is polarisation about immigration in Germany, and what are the fault lines?

There are two sides to polarisation on the topic of immigration. Ideologically, i.e. in terms of substantive differences between the political camps, it tends to be decreasing in Germany. After all, especially regarding asylum and irregular migration, a more restrictive stance has become increasingly prevalent in recent years – across virtually all constituencies. Affective polarisation, i.e. the emotional demarcation between camps,

paints a very different picture. Our data shows: hardly any other country in Europe is emotionally as deeply divided on the topic of migration as Germany. AfD supporters, in particular, view migration as a central marker of identity and thus fiercely distance themselves from others.

And this is precisely where the danger lies: in areas where ideological differences become less significant, conflict and demarcation themselves become the agenda. It is no longer about what you want, but rather who you are against.

The topic of migration has gained significantly in importance in Germany since 2015. During the campaign ahead of the last Bundestag election, migration was one of the most decisive policy fields in the polls. How has public opinion on migration changed over the last decade?

A distinction must be drawn between the fundamental attitudes on migration and political demands. General attitudes – namely whether migration is assessed positively or negatively overall – remain relatively stable. This is because such attitudes are deeply rooted in personality traits and value orientations and are not easily changed. Even drastic experiences such as the refugee crisis in 2015 can do little to alter this. By contrast, the political demands are far more dynamic. Nowadays, even those who are generally open to migration advocate more controls and more effective deportations than was the case ten years ago. In other words: a general openness to migration does not automatically translate into liberal demands for open borders or a generous right of asylum.

Can we speak of a shift in the mainstream position on immigration?

Talking about a shift in the mainstream position can create the impression of permanent change. In reality, political positions on migration tend to run in cycles. As early as the 1990s, there was a phase in which restrictive positions became much more predominant – followed by a more liberal phase. Today, calls for control, limitation and enforcement are once again very present – whether it is here to stay remains to be seen. The new phenomenon for Germany actually lies on the right fringe: since 2015, the AfD has been a party that has strongly pursued the issue of migration. For them, migration is disproportionately more important because their electorate is largely united in its critical stance on migration. This coherence gives the AfD an advantage when mobilising voters – while also representing a strategic disadvantage for parties such as the CDU and SPD, whose electorates are much more heterogeneous as regards migration.

The whole of Europe is experiencing a rise of populist actors who openly oppose immigration and whose positions on immigration find favour with many voters. How can this be explained?

We need to look at the bigger picture: since the 1970s, post-materialist transformation has characterised the political lines of conflict in Europe. Issues such as equality, environmental protection, and migration have become central points of contention, and have brought about a new cultural divide. Like no other party, the Left embodies these post-materialist values: cosmopolitanism, open-mindedness, open borders, when it comes to migration. Here, migration is regarded as an expression of social diversity and international solidarity. The AfD is on the opposite side of the spectrum, as a kind of counter-reaction to this change in values. It deliberately positions itself against cosmopolitanism and presents itself as a bastion of traditional values, cultural homogeneity and national self-assertion. Both parties gain visibility due to their clear and unequivocal positioning. Having said that, the potential for mobilisation is unevenly distributed: The proportion of citizens critical of migration is far larger and easier to mobilise than those who identify with a very liberal migration policy. That is why, compared to the Left, the AfD disproportionately benefits from the politicisation of the issue.

How do you believe the centrist parties should act to assert themselves under pressure from populist actors and find support among the population?

There is no panacea for all centrist parties – particularly because they have different political orientations. This much is clear, however: the high salience of migration primarily benefits the radical right, which consistently claims the issue for itself. Yet, simply remaining silent or ignoring the issue would also be a mistake. What is more important here is that the centrist parties set the right topics and the right tone. Most people are not wholly opposed to migration – this only applies to a small minority. The majority adopt a more pragmatic position: they advocate migration when they feel that it benefits the country. This is precisely why the issue of labour migration and its contribution to the economy is a key topic. When the centrist parties show that migration can be controlled, they enforce orderly procedures, and at the same time make the benefits for the country visible, they deprive the populists of their audience.

Looking ahead – along which lines of consensus could compromises be found in the democratic centre?

Migration is often regarded as a divisive issue. Yet, positions are not so far apart: virtually all parties emphasise the importance of labour migration and that integration requires clear rules. Compromises are even possible on the contentious issue of asylum – consensus remains difficult, though, because migration is strongly overshadowed by fears and resentments, which are mainly fuelled by the radical right. On the other hand, celebrating diversity is not enough; especially in the East, you will not reach many people this way. Centrist parties must develop a narrative that is based on public interest and views migration as a question of Germany’s own prosperity and future. This is the only way to convey that social security is not possible without immigration.