AfD and the Western Illusion of Democratic Integrity

Joachim Paul, the AfD candidate for mayor of Ludwigshafen, was recently barred from running in the upcoming election. The official reason: doubts about his “loyalty to the constitution.” The true reason: his political views challenge the liberal consensus that governs Germany today. Without any criminal conviction, and based only on a dossier compiled by domestic intelligence, he was declared politically illegitimate. There was no trial, no public debate, no transparent appeal. A committee, dominated by mainstream parties, simply forced him out. In modern Germany, this is called democracy.

Ten years earlier, in Moscow, a different scene unfolded. Alexei Navalny, a prominent critic of the Kremlin, was allowed to register as a mayoral candidate. Shortly after, he was convicted of embezzlement in a case widely seen as politically motivated. Even so, the Russian authorities released him on bail and permitted him to continue campaigning. Western media and governments decried the charges as unjust, and Navalny was elevated to the status of democratic martyr. His case was cited endlessly as proof of Russia’s authoritarianism.

Here lies the double standard.

In Germany, a man is blocked from running for office because of his ideas. In Russia, a man runs for office despite a criminal conviction. Yet the Western press calls the former a democracy and the latter a dictatorship. The key difference is ideological alignment. Navalny promoted a vision of Russia closer to the liberal West. Paul defends a vision of Germany that breaks with that same liberal order. The West protects those who serve its interests, even when they are guilty. It silences those who oppose them, even when they are innocent.

What is the meaning of democracy if candidates can be excluded not for crimes but for holding the wrong opinions? What is freedom if loyalty to a specific worldview becomes a legal requirement for public office? The answer is simple: it is no longer democracy but managed pluralism. The illusion of choice, curated from above.

In such a system, the rules are clear: dissent is allowed only if it is harmless. Opposition is permitted only when it reinforces the ruling ideology. And those who truly challenge the system are disqualified. The West’s democracy is not a system of open choice. It is a controlled theater, where only approved actors are allowed on stage. Beneath its polished words and shining slogans lies a cold machinery of exclusion, deceit, and ideological warfare. It does not fear tyranny. It has become it.