The German Parliament, Bundestag, allots a dedicated hour for individuals to escape.
The traffic light parties and the Union are aiming to modify the Basic Law to shield the Federal Constitutional Court from further growth of the Alternative for Germany (AfD). This is commendable, but the initial reading of the law in the Bundestag raises concerns. The SPD, Greens, and FDP, along with the CDU and CSU, have jointly proposed a bill to strengthen the Federal Constitutional Court by enshrining its composition and appointment process in the Basic Law. This is intended to safeguard the court in Karlsruhe from potential consequences of AfD expansion. However, the first reading of the law in the Bundestag suggests that such debates can be just as harmful to parliamentary democracy as the threats from extremist parties like the AfD, even unintentionally.
The 16 constitutional judges are elected by the Bundestag and Bundesrat with equal contributions, requiring a two-thirds majority. If a radical party like the AfD gained more than a third of the votes in one parliamentary chamber, they could potentially hinder future judge elections. This can be mitigated by allowing the other institution to take over the election process if the Bundestag or Bundesrat is blocked. This regulation should be incorporated into the Basic Law, along with the current structure of the two senates, requiring at least three judges with experience in a high-level federal court to serve in each senate. The legally mandated term of office should also be included in the Basic Law.
Over a Hour of Self-Congratulation
In essence, everything is proceeding as planned. Speakers from both the government and the Union argued harmoniously that right-wing populists first eroded the judicial independence, citing examples from Hungary and Poland. The AfD, they argued, intended to undermine parliamentary democracy as demonstrated in the election of a new parliamentary president in the Thuringian state parliament. Federal Minister of Justice Marco Buschmann therefore hailed this as "parliamentary democracy at its finest": The traffic light and union parties have submitted a draft law to secure the necessary two-thirds majority for a Basic Law change. However, the AfD speakers and members of its parliamentary group criticized this as the "AfD Act" that the "cartel parties" sought to pass.
Regrettably, the harsh comments from the AfD lent some excitement to the rather monotonous 80 minutes of parliamentary proceedings. One wonders how the faction leaders genuinely expect anyone to revel in this almost 90-minute self-congratulatory speeches. The speakers applauded each other for collaborating on something for a change. They paid tribute to the Federal Constitutional Court, basking in its glory. The predictable oratorical clichés about the "mothers and fathers of the Basic Law" were heard again. (Interestingly, the gender ratio was 4:61. The assertion of balance is borderline revisionist history.)
The proceedings become even more comical with the knowledge that the apparent unity between the participating factions was far from the truth. This is due to the vastly different assessments of the AfD threat among the involved parties. It took eight rounds of consultations, informal talks, and a temporary halt in negotiations in February to reach this point. However, these details were omitted during the plenary session. Instead, there was an abundance of praise for the Federal Constitutional Court. Who wouldn't want to act as a shield for the most popular institution in the nation?
But the audience couldn't help but think of the "united front" of established parties often criticized by the AfD. There was little debate in the true sense, with 60 out of 80 minutes dedicated to repeating the same points, without engaging with the opposing side's alleged arguments. It would have been beneficial to address the central AfD accusation: that the Federal Constitutional Court is politically biased and that other parties aim to maintain their control over judge appointments.
The affection is not overwhelming
Following repeated defeats for the traffic light coalition in Karlsruhe, there was grumbling among its members concerning the judges proposed by the CDU and CSU. Of course, this wasn't publicly acknowledged. Union politicians have similarly attribute certain decisions to a supposedly too liberal composition of the bench. The affection for the Federal Constitutional Court in the Bundestag is not as strong as claimed during the debate. If there is any affection, it stems from the certainty that Karlsruhe verdicts will ultimately impact every party. This realization provides ample motivation to protect the court from any form of malicious attack. Yet, those who excessively praise themselves for this action risk underestimating and alienating the large majority of democratically-minded individuals in the nation.
Despite the Union and traffic light parties' joint proposal to strengthen the Federal Constitutional Court, the initial reading of the law in the Bundestag has raised concerns about its potential impact on parliamentary democracy. The AfD's rise has led to discussions about the need to protect the court from potential consequences, but the process of securing a two-thirds majority could inadvertently hinder future judge elections if a radical party gains significant power.
Following repeated defeats in Karlsruhe, there has been grumbling among traffic light coalition members about the judges proposed by the CDU and CSU. Union politicians, too, have attributed certain decisions to the court's supposedly liberal composition. The affection for the Federal Constitutional Court in the Bundestag is not as strong as claimed during the debate, and excessive self-praise risks underestimating and alienating the majority of democratically-minded individuals in the nation.
