German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/92, pp.
11018-11019.
Honored Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. Honored fellow citizens.
We deal with a central theme of our democracy: The election
law, the legitimation of the Bundestag as a law-giving power by means of a
mandate of the citizenry, from which, according to Article 20, Section 2 of the
Basic Law, all power of the state proceeds.
The Ampel wrote in its coalition agreement – I cite with permission of the President:
We will within the first year re-work the election law so as to durably prevent the growth of the Bundestag
It needs to be reduced in line with a statutory control
parameter [gesetzliche Regelgrösse].
And further:
A committee will concern itself with a parity representation of women and men in the parliament…We want to alter the Basic Law so as to lower the active voting age…to 16 years.
All of this was more or less intense because the Ampel has also blocked themes debated in
a reform committee which up to today still has not concluded its work. The
infantilization of the active right to vote, ladies and gentlemen, happily
requires a change of the constitution. It can thus be prevented by a qualified
minority of the reasonable in this house.
Of interest is which other states lay their fate in the
hands of the young. I name for example Cuba, Nicaragua, Sudan and North Korea –
thus good models for Ampel
regulation.
Götz Frömming (AfD): Good friends of the Greens!
The presumption may be posited that such countries want to
exploit for political propaganda the young’s lack of ability to judge.
Ralf Stegner (SPD): The people are smarter than you!
Easily manipulated citizens are good citizens.
The manufacture of a parity representation – allow me also
to let slip a few words in this regards – of women and men in the Bundestag by
means of simple legislation, right honorable ladies and gentlemen, is a
usurpation of the pouvoir constitué
over the pouvoir constituant, that
is, the mastery of parliament over the sovereign.
The citizenry [Staatsvolk]
is as it is: It comprises women, men, old, young, believers, non-believers,
intelligent, less intelligent, responsible, irresponsible, crooked and
straight, people with and without a migration background. No one has the right
to make quotas of this heterogeneity of the citizenry and from that derive
proportions by which group rights to organs of the state will be allocated. The
citizenry is inseparable and consists of individuals, not of clusters of groups
of persons. This proposal of the Ampel
is unconstitutional, as has already been declared by the Constitutional Courts
in Potsdam and Weimar for their States.
With that, I come to the Bundestag. For the goal of limiting
the Bundestag’s excess, the Ampel
formulates very defensively; the growth should be prevented. In this question,
we were in the last legislative period further along.
One hundred public law scholars in the autumn of 2019 had
expressly reported and stated in an open letter to the German Bundestag that a
deferral of the reform would “violently shake the people’s trust in our
democracy”. They regarded the parties’ particular interests as a hindrance to
reaching results after years of discussion. I cite:
In no case may the impression arise that many members would defer the urgently necessary changes because their own shirt was more important to them than the common coat.
The AfD delegation was new in the Bundestag and had a clear
charge from its basic program: A Bundestag with 450 members should be strived
for. We have worked for that and in September 2020 put forward a formulated
draft law which included the fixed mandate number of 598 – 598! – so as to
prevent the new arrangement of election constituencies and thereby to attain a
quick implementation of the reform in the last legislative period – besides billions
in savings for the state in this legislative period. This proposal was rejected
under the usual, inclusive din against the AfD from all other delegations.
Stephan Brandner (AfD): Shabby. Yet they learn.
In May of last year, a day before the reform committee
occupied itself with the Bundestag’s excess, right honorable ladies and
gentlemen, a miracle occurred: The Ampel
put before the public a concept for shrinking the Bundestag to 598 mandates,
which is nearly identical with the AfD’s concept of 2020,
Stephan Brandner (AfD): The AfD works! Even the Ampel notices!
which in any case is to be voted on today. The Ampel thereby knowingly gave rise to the impression
its election law proposal may be a product of its own cognitive performance.
Stephan Brandner (AfD): That, it certainly cannot be!
The media believes it to this day and they write it so.
Borrowed wisdom is still wisdom.
Not overtaken were our requests for an open list election
which should guarantee a direct influence of the voter on the candidates order
on the State lists. That would be an authentic democratic progress; but the Ampel does not want it.
With a motion to amend of three days ago, the Ampel wants the number of future
mandates, hitherto disputed by no one,
Konstantin
Kuhle (FDP): Other than by the reality! We have namely 736!
Christian Dürr (FDP): But with reality the AfD has nothing to do!
of 598 – never disputed, by no one! – to increase to 630, and
abolish the basic mandate clause, as already ever in the proposal of the AfD.
Herr Dobrindt, I now tell you a secret.
Stephan Brandner (AfD): Ui!
This presumption which you have of the effect of this clause
on your political fate in Bavaria is false. It is false; the application is not
as you believe it to be. This I unfortunately cannot pursue since the President
gives me only a few minutes of time.
Stephan Brandner (AfD): The President shakes her head!
There are no arguments for this latest government sleight of
hand, ladies and gentlemen. The Ampel
has justified what it otherwise never does. They have thereby determined that,
by means of the original reform à la AfD, the SPD alone would lose 38 mandates,
according to the election results of 2021. This price was too high for the
comrades. First the party, then the public good. By means of the increase of
the number of mandates and the elimination of the basic mandate clause, they
can halve their loss of mandates. That is the crux of the matter in regards the
sleight of hand we experienced three days ago. What – Frau President, if you
will permit me this concluding paragraph – would the one hundred public law
scholars have said to this sleight of hand?
On account of the self-serving increase of the mandates
number in the last seconds, and the lack of direct democracy progress, the AfD
does not agree to the Ampel draft. We
so far abstain. We will support our own draft on account of its consistent quality
of reform.
Hearty thanks.
Stephan Brandner (AfD): Bravo!
[trans: tem]
