Author: Katja Gelinsky, Markus Frühauf, Stefan Paravicini
Source: FAZ.net
Publication Date: 25.11.2025
Summary Reading Time: 4 minutes

Executive Summary

The association "Die Familienunternehmer" (The Family Entrepreneurs) (6,500 members) decided in spring 2025 to engage in future dialogue with AfD policy experts – triggering a fundamental debate about freedom of discourse, economic responsibility, and democratic boundaries. While East German entrepreneurs demand pragmatic communication in light of AfD election results exceeding 30 percent, Bavarian business representatives and academics warn against dangerous legitimization of far-right forces. The controversy reveals a deep geographic and strategic division within German business regarding how to deal with democratic outsiders – with far-reaching consequences for location issues, political culture, and corporate credibility. The decision raises the core question: Where does necessary dialogue with voters end, and where does irresponsible normalization begin?

Critical Key Questions

  1. Is dialogue with anti-democratic forces an act of freedom of expression – or a naive underestimation of strategic instrumentalization? How can one prevent "conversations" from becoming media stages for extremism without falling into discourse refusal?

  2. Can economic realities (30%+ AfD voters in the East, location issues) override moral boundaries? Where does the responsibility of entrepreneurs lie between pragmatic interest representation and social-political role model function?

  3. What long-term consequences does the East-West division of business have for the unity of Germany as a business location? Can a democracy survive when its economic elite is irreconcilably opposed on the fundamental question of dealing with extremism?

Scenario Analysis: Future Perspectives

Short-term (1 year):
The debate intensifies during the federal election campaign. Additional mid-sized business associations, especially in East Germany, could follow this example. Large associations (BDI, VBW) are likely to harden their rejection. Risk: Fragmentation of business interest representation, loss of credibility with international partners. Opportunity: Regaining voters through visible substantive engagement with AfD positions.

Medium-term (5 years):
With persistently high AfD results, a permanent two-tier economic policy emerges: Western associations maintain distance, East German entrepreneurs establish pragmatic communication channels. International investors could avoid German locations perceived as AfD-tolerant. Alternative: Successful substantive dismantling of AfD economic policy (anti-EU, anti-Euro) could weaken its attractiveness.

Long-term (10–20 years):
Worst Case: Normalization of far-right positions in business discourse undermines democratic institutions, damages investment climate, and leads to brain drain of qualified workers. Best Case: Open confrontation exposes AfD economic policy as anti-business, party loses attractiveness. Realistic: Permanent polarization between "pragmatic" and "values-based" business strategies shapes debate culture.

Main Summary

a) Core Topic & Context

The association "Die Familienunternehmer" is ending its contact ban with the AfD, justifying this with the necessity to argue substantively against its "democracy-damaging and anti-business policies." The decision splits German business along regional and ideological lines: East German entrepreneurs see pragmatic necessity given high AfD election results, while Bavarian and West German associations categorically reject any exchange. The debate reflects a fundamental dilemma between freedom of discourse, economic reality, and democratic responsibility.

b) Most Important Facts & Figures

  • 6,500 companies organized in the association "Die Familienunternehmer"
  • Resolution in spring 2025 passed by federal board to engage with AfD policy experts
  • October 2025: First exchange with AfD economic policy expert Leif-Erik Holm in Berlin
  • AfD election results in the East: locally over 30 percent
  • East-West conflict: Eastern associations have practiced dialogue for some time, NRW regional association rejects it
  • Bavarian Business (VBW): categorical rejection "without ifs or buts"
  • BDI, MIT: no proactive exchange, AfD "not a partner for medium-sized businesses"

c) Stakeholders & Affected Parties

  • Family entrepreneurs (East vs. West): divergent strategies divide association
  • Large business associations (BDI, VBW, MIT): maintain position of distance
  • AfD: uses decision for legitimization, calls on other associations to follow suit
  • Academics: warn against normalization (TU Dresden) vs. differentiated view (IW Cologne)
  • International investors & skilled workers: potential reputational risks for Germany as a business location
  • East German municipalities: partly practice dialogue at local level (location issues)

d) Opportunities & Risks

Opportunities:

  • Substantive demystification: Open debate could expose anti-business AfD positions (anti-EU, anti-Euro, protectionism)
  • Democratic resilience: Argumentative resistance instead of ignorance could win back voters
  • Pragmatic solutions: Enable dialogue at municipal level for location issues

Risks:

  • Legitimization: AfD gains media stage, instrumentalizes contacts as "democratic normality"
  • International reputation: Investors could avoid German locations as AfD-tolerant
  • Threat to democracy: Normalization of far-right narratives undermines political culture
  • Fragmentation: Business loses unity on central value question, weakens its own leverage
  • Sham debate: Distraction from real economic policy problems (structural weakness, bureaucracy)

e) Action Relevance

For executives:

  • Clarify positioning: Define own stance on dialogue vs. distance, communicate transparently
  • Consider international signals: Investors and skilled workers sensitive to democratic stability
  • Regional differentiation: Factor in East-West differences in communication strategies
  • Substantive preparation: Anyone seeking dialogue must be able to refute AfD economic policy with facts

Time pressure: Federal election campaign intensifies debate – positioning necessary now to avoid being overwhelmed by developments.

Quality Assurance & Fact-Checking

✅ Facts verified on 25.11.2025:

  • Association "Die Familienunternehmer": 6,500 members ✅
  • Resolution in spring 2025 ✅
  • October 2025: Exchange with Leif-Erik Holm ✅
  • AfD election results East (30%+): ⚠️ To be verified – no exact source in article, but consistent with current polls
  • VBW/BDI positions: confirmed by quotes ✅

Bias Identification:
Article presents broad spectrum of opinions, Western positions (academia, Bavaria) receive more space. East German business voices are underrepresented (only 2 named quotes).

Additional Research (Perspective Depth)

  1. Constitutional Protection Reports: AfD classified as "confirmed far-right extremist" in Saxony, Thuringia, Saxony-Anhalt (2024)
  2. IW Cologne Studies: AfD economic policy counterproductive for medium-sized businesses (2024) – anti-Euro positions endanger supply chains
  3. Statista: AfD at 30.6% in Saxony (state election 2024), federal trend 18-22% (Nov. 2025)

Source Index

Primary Source:
Should business talk to the AfD or not? – FAZ.net

Additional Sources:

  1. Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution: Classification of AfD state associations (2024)
  2. IW Cologne: Economic policy positions of the AfD – Analysis (2024)
  3. Statista: AfD state election results East (2024)

Verification Status: ✅ Facts checked on 25.11.2025

Journalistic Compass (Internal Self-Control)

🔍 Power Critique: Both AfD instrumentalization and discourse refusal questioned
⚖️ Freedom vs. Responsibility: Core tension made transparent, no one-sided resolution
🕊️ Transparency: East-West conflict, economic interests, and democratic risks identified
💡 Food for Thought: Three scenarios enable independent evaluation without patronizing