Apparently there are still constitutional doubts about the validity of Scr?der’s election call:
“I have my doubts whether the chancellor convincingly demonstrated that his coalition is no longer stable or has lost its ability to rule,” Karin Grasshof, a retired Constitutional Court judge, told Bild am Sonntag newspaper
Any of our German readers able to clarify what the real extent of these doubts are?
Well, despite not being a “German” reader, I’m relatively sure it’s becuase after the loss of the Nordrhein-Westfalen election, the SPD/Green coalition in the Bundesrat/upper house now has a pitiful minority. The CDU/FDP can effectively block anything they want.
Or to answer the question more fully, while the Budestag coalition is “stable”, it’s become potentially imoptent (although I’m sure some would have described it as such for about eight years).
Well…
First a little historical background. 🙂
After the experiences of the Weimar Republic, the founding “fathers” and “mothers” of the German 1949 constitution deliberately made it “hard” for anyone to dissolve the German parliament.
Early elections are only possible if a German chancellor loses a no-confidence vote AND no new candidate can get a majority.
State elections and the majorities/minorities in the “Bundesrat”, the upper house simply don?t count as reasons for dissolving the federal parliament.
And a no-confidence vote to trigger early elections happened only three times in the past decades. Brandt in 1972 probably justified.
Kohl in 1982 heavily frowned upon and now Schroeder.
The legal problem today is that Schroeder still got a majority in parliament, a lot of them – including government members – just abstained on Friday.
I mean even the Social Democratic party leader Muentefering declared in the “no-confidence” debate that Schroeder still had the support of the party. Though that doesn?t mean that they are happy with him! 🙂
You see?
The legal requirements aren?t really met.
He didn?t even lose any parliament “battles” because dissenters voted against him.
The problem is that even after Kohl in 1982 the German political parties didn?t change the constitution to allow for early elections in case of a – ohh, I don?t know – 2/3 parliamentary majority for it.
Alternatively, Schroeder could probably have forced early elections by simply resigning. Assuming that the government coalition parties then couldn?t have agreed on a new chancellor or wouldn?t have given him/her a majority.
The problem is that Schroeder didn?t want to resign. So his government members and a large part of his party didn?t vote for him NOW but we – the public – are told that of course they have confidence in him! And if he somehow wins the early election, they?ll gladly support him again!
Personally, as a German, I support early elections. But Schroeder is twisting the actual words of the constitution into a pretzel. And I don?t like it.
Right now the German President has 21 days to decide if the no-confidence vote really is valid.
And Muentefering really didn?t help with his remark that “coalition deputies stood firmly behind Schroeder”. Since that would constitute a majority….
Even if the President says “yes” taking into account the mood in Germany…
It?s probably a case for the German Supreme Court (“Bundesverfassungsgericht”).
At least some government coalition MPs have already declared that they?ll go to the Supreme Court. Some of them probably in defense of the constitution. Others maybe afraid of the polls.
If the polls are right a lot of SPD MPs will probably lose their seats…
Personally I?d think that the German President probably will say that he won?t stop early elections given the political situation. But – given the constitutional uncertainties – will leave the ultimate decision to the Supreme Court if someone appeals to them.
And I?m really not sure how they?ll decide.
If they follow the letter of the constitution they?ll probably decide against early elections.
If they take into account the political situation right now, they?ll probably try to find a way to agree to early elections while still frowning upon the violation of the constitution.
Since they approved of new elections in 1982 I?d say 60:40 or 70:30 for new German federal elections in September 2005.
With the 30-40% against it due to the government coalition insistence that they have confidence in Schroeder anytime except last Friday. 🙂
I simply don?t know how the judges will react to that…
Thanks Detlef for a really clear and detailed explanation of the situation.
“And I?m really not sure how they?ll decide”
This is what I feared. We await developments.
The instability in the Coalition may not yet have shown, but it is certainly unable to govern effectively, like inactualfact said, due to the situation in the Bundesrat.
In Germany, approximately 60% of federal legislation requires the approval of the Bundesrat. On the remaining 40%, the Bundestag has the ability to overrule, but if the Bundesrat votes 2/3rds against, the Bundestag has to overrule by the same margin.
Currently, the opposition parties are very close to a 2/3rd majority, and the government parties don’t have a very effective blocking minority, as the SPD is only represented in coalitions with opposition parties, in one case as the junior member, and the Greens not at all.
Schr?der can only govern on because he convenes with Merkel and Stoiber on the major policy issues. But this is not a very workable situation to be in for another year.
The legal issue is a bit murky because an earlier judgement of the German Constitutional Court (here) said the Chancellor could only initiate the procedure to dissolve parliament ‘when it is no longer politically warranted that he can govern on with the existing balance of power in the Bundestag’.
Basically, this is indirectly the case because the balance of power in the Bundestag no longer ensures that Schr?der can govern on, due to the developments in the Bundesrat.
Nanne,
I don?t disagree with your description of German federal legislation. Going from 20% to 60% in just 40 years or so. Although we should keep in mind that each successive German federal government tried to bribe state governments with “if you?ll agree to law “x”, we?ll give you more rights on topic “y” “.
However, IIRC the Kohl government in the late 1990s faced exactly the same situation. An opposition Social Democrat majority in the “Bundesrat”. In fact IIRC most of the time German Federal governments had to deal with an opposition majority in the “Bundesrat”, the upper house.
So that?s nothing new.
Dissolving the Federal parliament after a lost state election however is something new.
I mean, even IF Schroeder somehow could win the proposed federal elections in September 2005…
Care to tell me how that would change the majorities in the “Bundesrat”, the upper house?
Clearly it wouldn?t change anything “there”.
It`s a scam.
Either “coalition deputies stood firmly behind Schroeder” or they didn?t. They won?t change state governments at all.
Although in practice, if German governments only need this slightly dubious procedure every twenty years or so, I don’t really mind. The trick of course will be finding a way not to make a habit of it.
Well…
Thanks Detlef for a really clear and detailed explanation of the situation.
“And I?m really not sure how they?ll decide”
This is what I feared. We await developments.
You should keep in mind that both the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Social Democrats (SPD) are essentially moderate and centrist parties.
Given the German voting system you simply can?t expect a return of “Maggie Thatcher”.
“You should keep in mind that both the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Social Democrats (SPD) are essentially moderate and centrist parties.”
Yes, i agree and understand this. In fact I’m not sure what exactly will change, a lot of details inside Germany, but on substantive questions of big welfare reforms I doubt it. I will be interested to see whether in practice she will be more or less pro-immigration than the SPD was. She clearly isn’t Stoiber in this sense.
We may also get some changes at EU level, which is I suppose what interests me most. I think Schr?der is a *big* disappointment on this front. He should really have got hold of Blair and the third way idea, and done something with it. But he seemed to warm, and then backed off. So Merkel may well be Germanies version of the third way. I have a mildly positive impression of her.
“you simply can?t expect a return of “Maggie Thatcher””. Thank god for that, I wouldn’t wish her on my worst enemy.
Detlef: “I mean, even IF Schroeder somehow could win the proposed federal elections in September 2005…
Care to tell me how that would change the majorities in the “Bundesrat”, the upper house?……. It`s a scam.
I agree with you completely, it is, of course political rather than about constitutional niceties. I have to say the whole situation has thrown me. I know the President is meant to be ?berparteiisch, but he surely wouldn’t mind an early election if he thinks the CDU/CSU/FDP can win, just as similarly I can’t see this not being appealed and sent to Karlsruhe.
I also, and ignoring the constitutional problems for a moment, don’t actually know what Schroeder wants to achieve? The best I can come up with is that following the loss of the NRW Bundesrat seats (which are an awful lot to lose for a party that was already in the minority there) he’s hoping that IF he can win a federal election it might give him more moral clout for the negotiations that he’ll have to have with Merkel et al when trying to push legislation through the Bundesrat?
Can anyone come up with any better ideas for why he’s actually doing it? Or is he merely trying to mask the concet that he “wants to spend more time with his family”?
And Edward, no, she really isn’t a Teutonic Maggie.
?you simply can?t expect a return of ?Maggie Thatcher??. Thank god for that, I wouldn?t wish her on my worst enemy.
It’s a good thing then that it was Britain which got her; the stellar performance of today’s British economy owes mostly to her own dogged advocacy of the principle of limited government, with the sole addition made by Labour being the granting of independence to the Bank of England.
Detlef, there were previous instances of a divided house, yes. These strongly limited Kohl’s ability to govern as well, by the way. That Kohl didn’t ask for early elections then isn’t a precedent. Other than that, his predicament wasn’t as bad as the one Schr?der is now in.
The chances of Schr?der winning are infinitesimal to nonexistent, but the question what he could gain if he’d win is legitimate. Basically, Schr?der now needs a 2/3rds majority in the Bundestag to be able to govern effectively. That would be a legitimate goal, Constitution-wise.
As for the coalition deputies, you have to get behind someone to be able to stab him in the back. This is electoral season, if there are any disputes they’re not going to show it, of course. But I do suspect that Schr?der has been pushed into this.
That won’t play a role in court, though. The decision depends upon whether they accept the argument that the situation in the Bundesrat can render the majority in the Bundestag insufficient, or alternatively move to a purely procedural test of Article 68 of the ‘Grundgesetz’.
In the future, the Germans might want to amend their Constitution to allow the Bundestag to simply dissolve itself by a qualified majority in addition to the current procedure. There has been talk of this in the past, I gather.
President K?hler will want to leave this hot potato on the plate of Karlsruhe, of course. He won’t want to be the one responsible for a wasted year in German politics. And he owes Merkel one.
What Schr?der said, IIRC, is that he wanted a clear mandate for his ‘Agenda 2010’. What his actual motives are is hard to tell. Presumably, the SPD is looking to the elections after this one and wants to prevent the rise of a major party to the left of it.
“the stellar performance of today’s British economy owes mostly to her own dogged advocacy of the principle of limited government,”
Abiola, you’re missing my point: what I couldn’t stand about Mrs T was the *way* she did things, not some of the things she did.
I have already said that I think the de-industrialisation of Britain was a good thing (and I think this switch to a more productive services based economy – together with the undoubtedly important labour market reforms – are the main factors behind the current ‘stellar’ performance), and not de-regulation per se (which, how many times do I need to say it, I am not against). And on the ‘stellar’ performance, watch what you ask for, since the shooting star might easily fall if the housing boom goes wrong (and again, this would *not* be the fault of Mrs T., or even Blair for that matter, maybe all those people who took out mortgages, and bought more expensive homes carry some of the responsibility, or do we only blame government for everything?)
Mrs T was no libertarian remember, she wanted to use the leverage she got from government to impose a heavy moral agenda on society at large. (As did Jos? Maria Aznar in Spain). These people would be better described as ‘fair weather’ de-regulators.
I don’t think you really approve of her racism towards black Africa either (even the Queen fell out with her over that), and probably not of her cruelty in sending nearly a 1,000 young Argentinian boys on the Belgrano to an early death in an icy grave. No I am sure the British economy can achieve a ‘stellar’ performance without the likes of Mrs Thatcher, thank you very much.
“with the sole addition made by Labour being the granting of independence to the Bank of England.”
Well I would say that getting a peace process on the road in the North of Ireland would also count as an important achievement, especially in relationto the self-respect of the British, which is something I would consider to be also a factor in the economic revival, after nearly a century of going down hill the British are once more able to look themselves in the face.
This point, self-respect and confidence, may in fact bring us back to the main intent of this thread, which is in part whether Mrs M. will be able to return some of that badly lacking self-esteem to a bruised and troubled Germany.
If the elections get mangled-up in a complex constitutional dispute my feeling is that this will not help Germany at all. I think Britain’s darkest night (which as Dylan says strangely often comes just before the dawn, unlike the finest hour) was in the late 80’s when we had the feeling of being so inept at everything that the only thing left to do was laugh. I sincerely hope that M?ntefering’s declaration during the “no-confidence” debate that Schroeder still had the support of his party isn’t another example of this syndrome, in particular since I have the impression that the Basil Faulty type character is not so dearly loved there as he is in the UK.
That the constitutionality of this particular strategy is doubtful doesn’t mean that the aim is not achievable. If he really wants to Schr?der can still get what he wants. He can:
1. fire the Green’s ministers
2. resign
3. amend the constitution
It may last till november but there’s no doubt that there’ll be early election. The partners in the ruling coalition said too much that cannot be unsaid.
Edward,
“I sincerely hope that M?ntefering’s declaration during the “no-confidence” debate that Schroeder still had the support of his party isn’t another example of this syndrome, in particular since I have the impression that the Basil Faulty type character is not so dearly loved there as he is in the UK.”
Well… 🙂
As I see it Schroeder and Muentefering were trying to do two (opposite) things at the same time.
On the one hand trying to prove to the President and the Court that the political situation/instability is really severe enough that dissolving the parliament is justified.
And on the other hand trying to show the public, the prospective voters, that the coalition parties still are united, fighting to win etc. If the public got the impression that there is fighting inside the party, they would lose voters. With the added danger of the possible new left-wing party around, the SPD really can?t afford any additional problems.
Edward wrote:
“This point, self-respect and confidence, may in fact bring us back to the main intent of this thread, which is in part whether Mrs M. will be able to return some of that badly lacking self-esteem to a bruised and troubled Germany.”
So far the German public doesn?t seem convinced of that. Better said they don?t really trust that Mrs. Merkel will do any better. They just know that they?re not happy with Schroeder?s performance so far.
If she wins, she?ll have at least two years with a majority both in parliament and the upper (state) house. So if she can?t deliver in those first two years….
And you?re right that confidence is a main problem. Exports are doing alright, it?s the domestic market that?s killing us right now. Not enough domestic spending, too much personal saving.
“I have already said that I think the de-industrialisation of Britain was a good thing (and I think this switch to a more productive services based economy – together with the undoubtedly important labour market reforms – are the main factors behind the current ‘stellar’ performance), and not de-regulation per se (which, how many times do I need to say it, I am not against).”
Maybe just a stupid question.
Isn?t a (services based) economy in trouble in the long run with current account deficits year after year? Around $30 billion in 2004 according to the CIA fact book.
Not to mention the fact that sooner or later the North Sea oil income will vanish.
Edward wrote:
“Yes, i agree and understand this. In fact I’m not sure what exactly will change, a lot of details inside Germany, but on substantive questions of big welfare reforms I doubt it. I will be interested to see whether in practice she will be more or less pro-immigration than the SPD was. She clearly isn’t Stoiber in this sense.”
You?re probably right about no big reforms coming even with her. I imagine just a few more steps in the reform direction. Which is possibly more that Schroeder could do now. If TV reports are right the new election program of the SPD has some decidedly “left” things in it. Probably in reaction to the new left party in Germany.
Concerning immigration. Depends….
I don?t think she has problems with the new naturalization (?) laws (how to become a German citizen). If you mean Turkey she is sceptical about Turkey in the EU. Her government certainly won?t support it enthusiastically to say it mildly.
“Maybe just a stupid question.
Isn?t a (services based) economy in trouble in the long run with current account deficits year after year?”
No, this isn’t a stupid question, and you are right, there is a problem. The CA deficit has been a British problem for as long as I’ve been alive though (and in fact a lot longer: the US is only following once more in Britain’s footsteps here).
In addressing this you need actually to separate out various things, the trade in goods balance (normally negative), the services balance (normally in surplus, but much less than the goods deficit), the investment income account (ditto) and the capital account (which needs to be in surplus to the extent of the deficit in the rest.
The important one to watch in the UK case is always the capital account, since London’s role as a financial centre means it is vulnerable to a sudden shock from capital flight. This would be one of the good reasons why the UK might need to maintain control of its own currency, and be able to set its own interest rates. The euro debate.
But these are specifically UK (and US nowadays) problems. They don’t necessarily come from having a services-based economy, at least not if your rhetoric and your reality coincide you don’t. What the services economy is about is a move up the value chain. This is what the move to R&D, and more education (and, in the end, the reform of the CAP) are all about. But you are right to have some scepticism, since what we are seeing now are economies which far from developing all this as the textbooks suggest become more and more dependent on construction and house values. For the service economy model to work, the balance on services plus investment income should offset the trade deficit. Then there would be no problem.
So the jury would have to be out till this becomes clearer. I still think the UK has developed an important and competitive services sector, as the US has (and indeed as Japan, France and Germany also have). My feeling is the housing ‘bubbles’ are to do with other factors, but since these are extremely complex issues, and to boot ones that gain nothing from being politicised, I can fully understand if someone holds a contrary opinion.