German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/184,
p. 23135.
Four weeks ago, the coalition delegations laid before us in
a first reading a fully unfortunate draft law. This provided that, by statutory
ordinance, regulations can be made which weaken one of the most important
principles of our election law; namely, the principle that candidates for
election to the Bundestag must be determined [bestimmt] in assemblies ... It evidently violates state-of-law
and democratic principles. That itself appears to have caused you to think;
since you have put forward in committee a motion to amend your own draft law
which deviates considerably from the original wording. So far, so good, it
could be thought.
Far from it! The motion to amend also is not justified
according to constitutional guidelines. Despite all criticism, you insist on
leaving to the Interior Ministry, by authorization of decree, the control of a
new ruling on the law of presentation of candidates. A cooperation of the
Bundestag is now indeed provided in the form of an assent [Zustimmung] – Herr Frieser had addressed it directly; this however
on the other hand shall lapse in determined situations. Then the election
examination committee shall decide on the assent.
Ladies and gentlemen of the coalition delegations, in the
wake of the Corona crisis, you appear to be accustomed to the making of law by
ministerial emergency decree. Therefore, in this situation it may yet again be
written of you in the Book of the House: Election law is not a field which may be
left to the making of law by the executive. New regulations must be taken in
hand by the parliamentary lawgiver itself.
Michael
Grosse-Böhmer
(CDU/CSU): Ach, what! Then just what
are we doing here?
– An authorization of decrees; that, hopefully, is clear to
you.
Therefore already, an assent to your draft law is
self-evidently eliminated.
Decisive here is nevertheless a yet further, more
fundamental aspect which we go into in our opposing motion. The principle of
presence belongs to the core stock of the democratic rules of play. The exchange
of arguments and opinions among those present is fundamental for democracy. In
no case might this important element of the democratic formation of purpose be
lightly sacrificed with regards to Corona. Concerning one thing, we are all
still hopefully clear: The occurrence of infection in connection with Covid-19,
as we observe it up to now, does not in any case justify a retreat from the
presence principle.
Instead, the legislature should give primary consideration
to how it can make possible, even under difficult conditions, the carrying
through of assemblies. This is also coherent with the proportionality principle
of which, besides, you yourselves speak in your motion to amend. An important
step in this regard is that the parties, and indeed all parties, place halls of
sufficient size at the disposal of their assemblies – sufficiently large so as
to maintain minimal distance.
In our motion, we demand that a legal claim in effect be
created. In this regard, initially to be considered is naturally the
requisition of areas in the pubic domain. Beyond that, there must also be considered
as ultimo ratio an obligation to
contract for operators of private halls. This is also justified in regards our
democracy’s ability to function. Worthy of remark: The Greens have fully taken
up this thinking of ours, and indeed in their motion to amend in which it is
directly addressed. I combine this with a call upon the coalition delegations
to likewise bestir themselves in our direction. That would be a real service to
democracy.
Thanks.
Michael
Grosse-Böhmer (CDU/CSU): We like the freedom to contract!
[trans: tem]
