1/16 After the elections in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, we...
Petra Guasti@PetraGuasti
66 views
Sep 21, 2026
~3 min read
Advertisement
1
1/16 After the elections in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, we will hear a lot about “the extremes”: Die Linke winning in Berlin and the AfD in MV.
But the radical left and the extreme right are not mirror images. And treating them as such obscures more than it explains.
But the radical left and the extreme right are not mirror images. And treating them as such obscures more than it explains.
2
2/16 A little conceptual housekeeping first.
Populism, radicalism and extremism are not synonyms. Nor does “far from the centre” tell us whether a party is democratic or anti-democratic.
These distinctions matter particularly when comparing Die Linke and the AfD.
Populism, radicalism and extremism are not synonyms. Nor does “far from the centre” tell us whether a party is democratic or anti-democratic.
These distinctions matter particularly when comparing Die Linke and the AfD.
3
3/16 Populism constructs politics around a moral opposition between “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite”.
It is a thin ideology: what matters enormously is what it is combined with.
So “populist” alone tells us surprisingly little about a party’s wider ideological project.
It is a thin ideology: what matters enormously is what it is combined with.
So “populist” alone tells us surprisingly little about a party’s wider ideological project.
4
4/16 Die Linke belongs to the radical left.
Its ideological core is egalitarian: it challenges capitalism, socioeconomic inequality and existing distributions of economic and political power, and seeks their fundamental transformation. That is radicalism, not extremism.
Its ideological core is egalitarian: it challenges capitalism, socioeconomic inequality and existing distributions of economic and political power, and seeks their fundamental transformation. That is radicalism, not extremism.
5
5/16 Nor should radical-left politics simply be equated with populism. Karavasilis shows why: in Die Linke, egalitarian and populist elements are distinct, even when interconnected. That is analytically important.
doi.org/10.1080/135693…
doi.org/10.1080/135693…
6
6/16 Goodger reaches a related conclusion from the voter side. Support for Die Linke is explained much better by policy proximity than by populist attitudes. Highly populist voters are not significantly more supportive of the party. doi.org/10.1177/147892…
7
7/16 The AfD is different. The AfD is gradually becoming extreme right. AfD to Die Linke is not equally “radical”, the party on the other side. The crucial question is the ideological project and its relationship to democracy. doi.org/10.1080/096440…
8
8/16 This is where Federico Taddei’s new article is particularly useful.
He argues that radical and extreme right should be distinguished by their fundamentally different relationships to democracy, pluralism and legitimate political opposition.
doi.org/10.1080/135693…
He argues that radical and extreme right should be distinguished by their fundamentally different relationships to democracy, pluralism and legitimate political opposition.
doi.org/10.1080/135693…
9
9/16 For the radical right, elections remain the legitimate arena of political competition, even when liberalism and minority rights are challenged.
For the extreme right, pluralism itself becomes the problem. Opponents are not legitimate adversaries, but existential enemies.
For the extreme right, pluralism itself becomes the problem. Opponents are not legitimate adversaries, but existential enemies.
10
10/16 Extreme-right politics replaces pluralism with monistic unity: a supposedly authentic, homogeneous community whose enemies obstruct national rebirth. A qualitatively different relationship to liberal democracy rooted in pluralism.
11
11/16 And this is exactly why the horseshoe is such a poor analytical shortcut. Two parties can be equally distant from an imagined political centre and differ fundamentally in ideology, conception of equality, and relationship to pluralist democracy. Distance ≠ equivalence.
12
12/16 Compare the political projects:
The radical left seeks greater socioeconomic & political equality & challenges existing concentrations of power.
The extreme right restricts equality & constructs political belonging in ethnonationalist terms.
=> Not mirror-image projects.
The radical left seeks greater socioeconomic & political equality & challenges existing concentrations of power.
The extreme right restricts equality & constructs political belonging in ethnonationalist terms.
=> Not mirror-image projects.
13
13/16 Their constructions of “the people” differ too.
On the radical left, the principal cleavage is socioeconomic: people versus concentrations of economic & political power.
On the extreme right, belonging itself becomes exclusionary: who is part of the nation, and who is not.
On the radical left, the principal cleavage is socioeconomic: people versus concentrations of economic & political power.
On the extreme right, belonging itself becomes exclusionary: who is part of the nation, and who is not.
14
14/16 None of this gives the radical left a free pass. Anti-pluralism, authoritarianism, exclusion or violations of democratic norms should be identified wherever they occur. But these are empirical properties to be demonstrated, not inferred from distance from the centre.
15
15/16 This is the problem with saying that “the extremes won” in Berlin and MV.
It turns a spatial metaphor into an ideological classification, and then quietly into a claim about democratic equivalence.
Political science can be more precise than that.
It turns a spatial metaphor into an ideological classification, and then quietly into a claim about democratic equivalence.
Political science can be more precise than that.
16
16/16 We ask instead: Who constitutes “the people”? Who is excluded? What kind of equality is sought or rejected? Are opponents legitimate adversaries or enemies? And what is the relationship to pluralism and democratic competition?
Those differences matter for democracy.
Those differences matter for democracy.