Proponents of Michael Kretschmer’s position argue that the firewall strategy has become counterproductive, serving only to further alienate voters who feel ignored by the political establishment. By refusing to engage with the AfD, mainstream parties may be inadvertently fueling the perception that they are disconnected from the realities of the electorate. Supporters believe that a more pragmatic approach, which involves addressing the specific policy grievances of AfD voters, is necessary to restore trust in democratic institutions.
From this perspective, the goal is not necessarily to form formal coalitions with the AfD, but to break the taboo on communication. By engaging in parliamentary debate and addressing the issues that drive voters toward the AfD, mainstream parties could potentially win back support and neutralize the party's appeal. This strategy emphasizes that democratic debate should be inclusive and that isolating a significant portion of the electorate is a dangerous path that weakens the legitimacy of the political system.
Furthermore, supporters point to the practical difficulties of governing in regions where the AfD holds substantial power. In states like Saxony, where the party has strong support, the refusal to cooperate can lead to legislative gridlock and instability. By shifting the focus toward policy-based discussions rather than ideological exclusion, political leaders might find more effective ways to govern and provide stability for their citizens. This view holds that the health of the democracy depends on the ability of parties to adapt to changing electoral realities rather than clinging to outdated barriers.