MEP Geisel on the “Mainz Circle” in the BSW: “We are not rebels!”
The "Mainz Circle" is likely to be a topic of discussion at the BSW board meeting in Berlin. What does this internal party group want? An interview with its initiator, Thomas Geisel.
When the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) holds its closed meeting this weekend, major topics will be on the agenda. For example, the party's structure and the upcoming elections will be discussed. The members of the federal executive board and the state chairmen will have a lot to discuss.
Will the discussion at the hotel at Berlin Central Station also focus on the results of the federal election , the narrow failure to clear the five percent hurdle? Will it focus on the party's own mistakes in the campaign and its communication?
Thomas Geisel, who represents the BSW in the European Parliament and will be attending the conference, is calling for a debate about what went wrong in the election campaign. Geisel is the initiator of the "Mainz Circle," a group of around 20 BSW members who met for the first time in the Rhineland-Palatinate capital just over a month ago. Geisel doesn't want to talk about a revolt or a conspiratorial alliance. But what is it then? He spoke about it with the Berliner Zeitung.
Mr. Geisel, how did the "Mainz Circle" come about? The idea actually came from me. My aim was to bring together people who represented the entire spectrum of the BSW. I think I succeeded quite well. The first meeting was attended by people who hold leadership positions or are elected officials within the BSW, but also by ordinary members and supporters, people from different party political backgrounds, BSW politicians from East and West, and from federal and state governments. The selection was naturally somewhat arbitrary, as the group only needed to be large enough to allow for a discussion worthy of the name. The meeting was not secret and certainly not conspiratorial. It was also expressly not intended to represent any political faction within the BSW or to form any kind of movement. The idea of calling this gathering the "Mainz Circle" only came up at the follow-up meeting in Erfurt last weekend.
Did your chairwoman Sahra Wagenknecht know about this before the first meeting?
Yes, of course.
Why all this?
My main concern was and remains to discuss how the party can regain momentum after the disappointing result in the federal election. This primarily concerns the question of how we need to position ourselves, both substantively and structurally, to leverage the considerable potential of a party that stands for reason and justice. We managed to do this quite well in the European elections and the state elections in the east.
Were members of the Federal Executive Board present? Ralph Suikat, the treasurer, was invited. But he had to cancel due to scheduling conflicts.
Someone else from the party leadership could have been involved. Co-chair Amira Mohamed Ali, for example, or Secretary General Christian Leye.
Of course, that could have been done. But the selection of participants was indeed somewhat arbitrary for the reasons already mentioned and did not claim to be exhaustive.
Thuringian State Minister Steffen Schütz attended both meetings. He told the Thüringer Allgemeine that he wanted to prevent the BSW from developing into a "Left Party 2.0." Does that concern you too?
The BSW's claim not to be a Left 2.0 stems from Sahra Wagenknecht's speech at the founding party conference in January last year. This claim is correct and must be implemented if the party wants to realize its potential. This concerns issues of content and structure, but of course also the personnel who represent our party.
Your general secretary points out that the "Mainz Circle" is just one of many formats for exchange within the BSW. At the same time, we hear from the party that the federal leadership isn't exactly happy about it. Can you understand that?
I agree with Christian Leye that there are informal structures within the BSW that have collaborated on things like the establishment of state associations, the selection of leadership personnel, and the compilation of state lists. This exists in all parties. And therefore, there's nothing wrong with it, as long as the processes are reasonably transparent. The meeting in Mainz and the follow-up meeting in Erfurt were transparent and, in particular, known to the party leadership. In this respect, I was a little surprised that some members of the party leadership were apparently not amused by this.
The thing is, networks can be dangerous for a party leadership. At a federal party conference, for example, like the one the BSW plans to hold in November, for example. When a presidium is newly elected, it's simply a matter of majorities.
Let me emphasize again: This is about facilitating a broad discussion within the party, not about making agreements for a party conference. I am, of course, pleased if these meetings generate ideas that are then taken up by the party leadership. But we are not rebels; we want to be a forum for discussion across our party!
Many voices, including prominent ones, within the BSW are missing a transparent analysis of the federal election. This raises questions such as whether the campaign was well-planned. Or whether it was right to vote for the CDU/CSU's influx restriction law, as the AfD did. Is the "Mainz Circle" also discussing this?
Of course, it's also about analyzing and processing the election results. Immediately after the election, the Federal Election Commission (BSW) invested a great deal of time and energy in challenging and recounting the election results. This was certainly justified, especially since we narrowly missed the five percent hurdle, and there were demonstrably numerous glitches and errors during the counting process that were to the detriment of the BSW. But aside from demanding a complete recount, our focus now must be on identifying the causes—including those of our own making—of the disappointing election result and drawing the appropriate lessons from it.
What went wrong before the federal election? On the one hand, politically, a few things didn't go particularly well: The participation in the firewall debate in Thuringia, for example, was not entirely understandable for a significant portion of our potential voters; and the voting behavior of our parliamentary group on the migration issue was met with incomprehension by a significant portion of our constituency. It should have at least been communicated earlier and explained in more detail.
In my opinion, the continued hesitancy in accepting new members after the European elections also hurt us. This not only caused increasing frustration among many supporters who had enthusiastically supported us in the European elections; the lack of staffing was also a contributing factor in our inability to field direct candidates in some constituencies in the federal election. The fact that we then, following a decision by the Executive Committee, hardly ran in constituencies at all cost us a significant presence, and we effectively hampered engagement. Our on-site activities in the constituencies alone would have easily brought us over five percent.
Then you must be pleased that the BSW now wants to accept members more quickly.
Yes, I do think that's a very good decision. Above all, I think it's very good that members are no longer selectively selected, but that everyone who subscribes to our core values and our platform is welcome. We've also made further good decisions regarding party structure; the establishment of regional branches is underway, and specialist working groups are to be established at the federal level.
And that is what the “Mainz Circle” is also committed to?
We all support the party's continued development. The people who met in Mainz and Erfurt do not see themselves as an internal party faction or pressure group. However, the discussions we had showed that the BSW will be most likely to be successful if we continue to develop into a party with transparent structures and democratic decision-making processes.
The federal leadership could be understood to believe that the Thuringian party leadership, led by Katja Wolf, was primarily responsible for the election result. They claimed that they had diluted their own profile to form a coalition with the CDU and SPD.
In my opinion, that's making things too easy. I, too, am critical of some of the decisions made in Thuringia; as already mentioned, for example, the "firewall" discussion; and perhaps a little more distance from the coalition partner would be appropriate here and there. However, I have absolutely no understanding if – as in the run-up to the last party conference there – the impression arises that the federal leadership is trying to discredit and depose the local party leadership. Experience has shown that such a thing ultimately damages the party as a whole. We face difficult tasks. Look at the political developments, the enthusiasm for rearmament, the plans for war against Russia by 2030 at the latest. Such internal disputes are unacceptable in this situation.
Berliner-zeitung
