Article

Alice Weidel, the mask of AfD’s ‘rational voice’

Alice Weidel is known as the 'rational voice' of Germany’s far right AfD party. But how rational is her message underneath the moderate veneer?

Aniek van den Brandt

Published date

28/11/2017 - 09:25

Courses

Digital media and Politics

Copyright

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Read time

9 minutes

Framing Alice Weidel as anti-elite

Alice Weidel, from Germany’s far right Alternative for Germany (AfD), is one of the most paradoxical politicians from Germany. The co-leader of the party is gay, even though one of the main statements of many AfD politicians opposes the same sex marriage. The media report about Weidel paying a refugee for cleaning her house, even though the AfD wants a strict anti-immigration rhetoric. And she has earned the image of the rational voice in a party that has the image of a populistic party. But how true is that last statement?

With its conservative, extremely right-winged ideas, the AfD certainly fits in the common sense meaning of the populist. Somebody who in name of the people articulates an anti-Islam, anti-migration and extreme-right nationalist ideology. In this article, I will not use populism in this common sense meaning. I will make a distinction between the ideology of the party and the way the party constructs the voice of the people. Populism is seen as an active thing; as a communicative frame. Populism is thus a way of communicating, not an absolute category or an ideology.

“Vox populism is a frame that distinguishes ‘the people’ from the elite. Such frame shapes ‘the people’ without defining it too explicitly (…) This open construct of ‘the people’ enables many individuals to imagine themselves as being a part of the whole, and they support the candidate who seemingly voices their concerns. On the other hand, it constructs ‘the political elite’. This elite is framed as all powerful and not listening to the ‘will of the people’.” (Maly, 2016)

Maly defines populism as of a communicative frame, a way of speaking in which the politician claims to be speaking the voice of the people. In this definition populism is not an ideology, it can be use by extreme right, extreme left and center politicians. This populism is connected to media formats. And these formats come with a certain speech regime that co-constructs and thus characterizes the populistic frame. In this speech regime, interaction and entertainment are important, and politicians try to speak in a popular voice. Vox populism is thus not just a political, but also a media phenomenon. The populist voice is constructed in relation to the dominant media formats of their time. (Maly, personal communication, 2017, October 24).

The AfD and Alice Weidel make use of the populist frame quite often in their communication. The distinction between the people and the elite is made very clearly by Weidel and her party. In their message, the AfD stands strongly against the established parties and wants to fight for ‘our Germany’. Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germ any, is accused from almost everything that goes wrong in German. You find that back in, among other things, Weidel’s behaviour on social media. But if she is so clearly using a populist frame, then why is Weidel still seen as the rational voice of her party?

Back to top

Constructing a rational image

At first sight, Weidel has a very calm personality. Because of this, some media call Weidel “The AfD’s voice of reason” (Schuster, 2017). “In interview after interview, she smiles, relaxed and confident. No insult or accusation describing her party as populist, racist or xenophobic unnerves her.” (Schuster, 2017) This is an attitude which you she in almost every public presentation of Weidel, a very conscious one. Weidel's attitude is part of her message. The theory of Lempert and Silverstein about message, image and issue is applicable here. 'Message' can be decribed as "what the politician seems to communicate about his or her identity andpersonal values through selectively taking up some issues and avoiding others" (Lempert & Silverstein, 2012: 2). The ‘issues’ are the topics that politicians address, such as refugees, terrorism, same-sex marriage etc. Through the issues politicans address and avoid, they create an image about themselves. And with Weidel's moderate, and calm attitude, she has gotten the image of "the AfD's voice of reason". Note, that it are the media that co-construct that message.

When you do not look at the content of what she is saying, Alice Weidel indeed looks rational, relaxed and calm in interviews, speeches and debates. Even her walking out of a debate (ZDF, 2017) because she did not get the possibility to say what she wanted, looked casual and not even slightly aggressive. On social media, she also seems ‘rational’. The ‘Dr.’ before her name on Twitter is an example of that: it makes her look like an authorithy (even though this 'Dr.' can also be seen as a paradoxal element, because how can a 'Dr.', aka a part of the elite, speak in name of the people?). Besides, many statements she makes on Twitter and Facebook, she explains with infographics that are easily understandable. In the Tweet below, for instance, the fears of the Germans in the last ten years are being showed. Next, the link between Merkel’s policy and those fears is made; the shift in fears should be Merkel’s fault.

And because of this ‘rational’ way of communicating, many people do not immediately link Alice Weidel to populism. Of course, there are people who do see the ink. They see for instance that the Tweet above is not a realistic accusation. They comment with: “And now you use the ‘lying press’ as a source (...)” (thatxxgryffin Tweet, 2017, September 9) and “What does she (Merkel) has to do with that? (…)” (warjaklaroder Tweet, 2017, September 10). But there are also people who see accusations like these as credible. The tweet above got more than 1.000 retweets, almost 2.000 likes. And there are also people that comment things like: "12 years of Merkel as a chancellor is enough! Let her resigning and don't let her look anymore! Be smart, choose AfD! (...)" (brankoo6 Tweet, 2017, September 9).

"Political correctness belongs in the trash heap of history"

Thus, however there are many people that do not believe Alice Weidel when she comes with 'facts' like these, there are also people that see Weidel as a credible, rational voice. These people do not link Weidel with the populist frame, while she certainly is communicating through it. So these tweets can be seen as misleading. And the fact that people like, retweet and react positively is co-constructing the populist frame, because Weidel sees these likes and retweets as coming from 'the people'. Many likes and retweets, therefore are a confirmation of her speaking for the people.

Back to top

Under the veneer, we see Weidel's radicalism

Also in her live performances, there are speeches or happenings in which the image of the rational Alice Weidel gets cracks, when you look at the content of what she is saying. “Politische Korrektheit gehört in den Müllhaufen der Geschichte” (Dbate, 2017), Weidel claims in a speech in Köln, followed by applause and cheering of the audience. Translation: “Political correctness belongs in the trash heap of history.” Here, she makes the distinction between the political correctness of the elite and the “voice of the democrats and the patriots, who should not let themselves get suppressed” (Dbate, 2017).

This is nationalism, and this message is brought in a populist frame. Weidel claims that she is speaking for the whole German nation (by using the words ‘the voice of the democrats and the patriots’), she even victimizes these ‘democrats and patriots’, accusing the ‘elite’ of not hear their voice. She claims to be the only one that is democratic, the only one that listens to all the Germans. It is also an attack on political correctness, and a claim for sounding more like ‘the people’. Thus, what she says here, definitely fits in the populist frame.

Every politician claims to be democratic, simply because democracy is an hegemonic element in today’s politics. The real question is how these politicians understand the concept. However, the claims of vox populists on democracy may not all believable, if you look at it from an Englightenment perspective. It is a very common thing, to find that populist in their democratic claims, redefine the word ‘democracy’. Democracy in populist discourse does not refer to representative democracy, to the rule of law and universal human right. They use “A definition in which democracy has become characterized as politicians uttering ‘the voice of the people’” (Maly, 2016). In this way, democracy gets more of an anti-Enlightenment and demagogic definition.

"Democracy should be supplemented by people's decisions"

In an interview with The Local, Weidel said: "The AfD is also the only party which calls for referendums, meaning direct democracy (…)” (Luyken, 2017). In the party program of the AfD, you also find that the party calls for referendums and directly choosing the ‘Bundespräsidenten’. These are all varieties of a more direct way of democracy, and a more direct way of democracy means, according to this new definition of democracy, a more qualified democracy, that fits ‘the voice of the people’ better.

In an interview with Klaas Heuf, Weidel says: “The democracy should be supplemented by people’s decisions. I think that is an extremely important thing if we want to revive the democracy.” (Circus HalliGalli, 2017, from 5:00). Again, more attention for the people’s voice is claimed to be a condition for a better, revived democracy. But a more direct form of democracy will probably cause the contrary thing. It brings back an anti-enlightenment tradition, in which the people will not be heard more or better than they are in today's democracy. Israel said about direct democracy: "Sovereign in appearance, the common people in a direct democracy are in reality the slaves of ‘perverse demagogues’ who manipulate and flatter them" (Israel, 2011: 815). What he means, is that the 'elite' drawn by politicians like Weidel, will not suddenly disappear with a more direct form of democracy, although that is what Weidel wants to make people believe.

Back to top

The mask has fallen

Alice Weidel’s rational voice may be very credible at first sight. Her rational voice and smiling gives maybe a more moderate connotation to the right wing anti-Enlightenment discourse. Her so to say message can be seen as 'the AfD's voice of reason'. But the content of what she is saying, stays the same and while analysing this content, you find that Weidel is just a good actress. The moderate voice is a mask she’s wearing. The issues she addresses, and especially her opinion about these issues, are the evidence for her use of a populist frame. Alice Weidel is certainly is not a stereotype populist, but when you look behind her rational mask, you find that however she is a good actress, she cannot completely hide her populist frame.

Back to top