Conflict has arisen within the Children’s Commission (Kinderkommission) in the Bundestag regarding the forthcoming six-month work plan, following the rejection of the program submitted by AfD representative Angela Rudzka. Representatives from the CDU, SPD, and Greens have criticized the AfD, accusing the party of staging itself as a victim.
Michael Hose of the CDU commented to the “Rheinische Post” that the AfD has historically shown limited involvement in the commission. He highlighted that in the past, the party was frequently absent or only superficially participated in the substantive work. Furthermore, experts requested by the AfD had explicitly informed him that they would not be available for hearings under an AfD chairmanship. Hose added that concerns had been raised about the potential instrumentalization of children and youth for political purposes. Based on this context, he stated that he could not support the AfD’s proposed work program, describing the current push of incomplete material from a closed-door meeting as a form of “victim staging” that suggests the party’s motives are not genuinely centered on advancing the interests of minors.
SPD representative Truels Reichardt expanded on the criticism, arguing that the AfD is now claiming political exclusion because their work plan was rejected. He dismissed this claim, suggesting the AfD is merely launching a “wave of indignation” and adopting the victim role. Reichardt also pointed out the AfD’s poor attendance record, noting that the party missed six out of sixteen commission meetings, and was often absent in other sessions as well.
Joining the criticism, Green MP Nyke Slawik derided the AfD’s behavior, stating that the country should not be surprised when the party cannot persuade other factions-who are committed to the welfare of children-to support its agenda, especially since the AfD daily uses parliamentary bodies for what she called “discriminatory and provocative propaganda”.
The Commission views itself as the primary advocate for children. The procedural chair alternates among members based on the size of their political faction. Throughout the dispute, Rudzka accused the other factions of deliberately blocking necessary technical work.
