Albrecht
Glaser
Election
Law Reform
German
Bundestag, July 3, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/171, pp. 21439-21440
[Albrecht Glaser is an Alternative für
Deutschland Bundestag member from the western German state of Hessen.]
Herr
President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.
Time is urgent because the window of time for change…is
closing for the coming election in the fall
The
dpa wrote that hours ago.
In delegation circles it is given out that a
reduction of constituencies may still be
possible…if it is decided in the first week’s sitting after the summer pause
Ladies
and gentlemen, according to §21, paragraph 3 of the Federal election law, from March
25 the inner-party elections for representative assemblies will be undertaken,
and from June 25 the nominations of candidates for the Federal election of
2021. The SPD indicates that in some constituencies this may have already
happened. How in the Lord God’s Name shall the current Federal election law be
changed, and especially, how shall new constituencies be adjusted? In the draft
law of the three small parties, and in the mind games of the Groko [grand coalition] which presently
fly through the air in hourly variations, is exactly that nevertheless foreseen.
An insoluble problem! Chaos in all ranks! What are we actually doing here and
what should this organization be? It is a masquerade and a deception of the
public.
The
AfD in its draft law of November 13, 2019, foresaw the delay of three months of
the period for the presentation of candidates, which would have been
constitutionally permissible. That would have provided air until September so
that an actual election law reform might still be added. Our proposed law was
as usual rejected by all the others. From January 2018 until today there were
fruitless negotiations between the parties. That is an injury to the reputation
of this state and to democracy in Germany. A country’s election system is a
corner pillar of democracy. There is not much which is more important.
The
election law reform of 2012, by which the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 2011
was implemented, was the license for an unlimited growth of Bundestag mandates.
This 22nd amendment of the Federal election law was one in a series
of years of patchwork which did not solve the conflict of the agreed proportional
election law with elements of a majority election. He who allows overhang
mandates for direct candidates must also concede compensatory [Ausgleichs-] mandates so that the “fundamental
character of the proportional election law”, as the Federal Constitutional Court
has formulated it, will be followed. Thereby is the way, of quite dubious
democracy, open to the inflation of the Bundestag. The 2017 election brought in
111 more mandates than regularly foreseen in the law. That is almost 20 percent.
The vote basis of all members was thereby diluted.
A
solution might be managed if only the lead principle of the proportional
election is placed above the principle of the partial majority election, ladies
and gentlemen. If overhang mandates are not initially allowed to originate,
then there is also no problem of compensatory mandates. There is thus only one
way, namely, the limitation of the number of direct mandates to the number of
mandates owed to each party according to the proportional election results.
In
November 2018 the AfD laid out a concept for such a solution. It met with a
reflex rejection. In September 2019, after 100 constitutional scholars had
warned of the overdue reform, the AfD on October 16, 2019, brought in to this
place its concept as a substantive motion [Sachantrag].
It returned the size of the Bundestag from the present 709 to a fixed 598
mandates and thereby reduced the parliament by 111 seats. On November 14,
2019, this motion, as was expected, was rejected. The polemics against it were
of two types.
First.
The mandate of a directly elected contestant can not be taken away. You still
hear that in the hall. This does not happen. It much more sets up an additional
condition upon the achievement of a direct mandate, as for example it has been
for decades in the Baden-Württemberg state legislative election law. It is not
possible for a contestant in a state constituency with the relatively worst
result to be the contestant of his own party. This naturally was only when in
this state overhang mandates generally originated for this party without the
additional condition. Consider: A contestant with a relative majority of, for
example, 25 percent – numbers which, as we know, are in play at this level –
would, without this reduction, win this constituency, the electorate of which
is 75 percent against him.
Second.
The limitation undertaken in this way of the number of direct mandates was
unconstitutional. This opinion was occasionally advanced and supported in an
ostensible decision of the Federal Constitutional Court. Reputable experts in
the field do not see such a problem. Also, many expert opinions at the hearing
on the small parties’ proposal were expressly opposed to this view, as was an
experts’ opinion of the Bundestag’s scientific service of December 17, 2019.
This
Bundestag would be well advised if it would find for itself such a solution as in
Zusatzpunkt 38, which has been placed here in the orders of business by the
AfD. Then we could spare ourselves all the others.
This
draft law of the small parties, which has been held up for weeks in committee by
the Groko, is not a principal
solution of the problem. It was evaluated at the experts hearing as moderate.
It may in fact be constitutional, but otherwise it is not actually meaningful.
Just two numbers would be changed in the current election law - an intellectually honorable, moderate
performance. Instead of 598, the Bundestag shall in the future have 630
mandates. Thus the number of overhang mandates shall decline. That is exactly
as sly as if the per milliliter limit for road traffic was increased so as to
have fewer alcohol-conditioned traffic infractions.
Along
with that shall the number of constituencies be reduced from 299 to 250. Of which the constituencies
formed of Mammon stand in obvious contradiction to those of the directly elected
members near to the citizens. Thus, on the whole, not a solution but an alibi.
The
Groko’s model pertaining to a
solution concept is preposterous. The CDU speaks of capping, of capping direct
as well as listed mandates which, according to the AfD model, is considered to
be a tool of the devil.
And
the SPD wants to destroy the principle of “to each citizen a vote” and instead
introduces gender quotas. All of this is the political small game hunting which
we know in many other areas of this house.
In
sum: A solution to the problem, which otherwise on the basis of time is no
longer possible, was in fact not desired. The maintenance of the present
situation secures mandates and shall be maintained.
Vice-president Hans-Peter Frederich:
Please come to a conclusion.
The
last sentence, Herr President. The coat of the commonwealth, as so nicely
produced by the constitutional scholars, does not attract the Groko. They are nearer to their own
shirt!
Hearty
thanks.
[Translated by Todd Martin]
