Alexander
Wiesner
Direct
Democracy
Saxon
Landtag, July 16, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 7/13, pp. 785-786
[Alexander Wiesner is an Alternative für
Deutschland member of the legislature of the eastern German state of Saxony. He
is a business consultant.]
Right
honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.
Approximately
30 years have passed since the re-founding of Saxony. The peaceful revolution
began scarcely a year before that time. How much has 1989/1990 changed, and
with what notable speed?
The
adoption of the Saxony constitution lasted some two years more. It took effect
on June 6, 1992. Since then, the constitution has been amended just once and,
in fact, to adopt the debt limitation [Schuldenbremse].
Second Vice-president André Wendt: Wait a moment,
please – I want to request quiet, it is very noisy here.
Sarah Buddeberg (Linke): Oh, really?
In
the meantime, there have been many parliamentary initiatives for altering the constitution. The first constant was the rejection of all of these initiatives
by the government parties. The second constant is that since 1990 the CDU continuously
participated in the various governments.
Yet
now there appears at this point to be some movement coming into play. I want to
cite the Minister-president’s government declaration of January 29, 2020: “ In
regards the people’s participation, we must go new ways…We invite members of
the other delegations to speak with us concerning a constitutional amendment so
as to enhance the possibilities of citizen participation in the Free State of
Saxony, and, in fact, by the people’s request, by the citizens’ request and by also the
so-called Volkseinwand [popular
petition requiring a legislature to vote again on enacted legislation]. I am
very interested in good ideas and a lively discussion. I think that this
country needs more direct democracy so as to ultimately become stronger and to secure
decisions and alterations better than up to now has been the case in
parliament.”
Right
honorable Herr Minister-president, the AfD delegation also wants to enhance the
possibilities of citizen participation. We also are of the view that this
country needs more democracy. We want to go this way.
With
the submitted draft law, the AfD will give the people more possibilities to
insert themselves into the legislative processes. We thereby attach an AfD
draft law which was brought in during the 6th legislative period.
The submitted printed materials take up the authentication and improve upon it,
and yet also contain instruments which in the past indeed have been discussed,
but which have not become law.
I
want to briefly sketch the key points of this draft law.
First,
a more important point is the introduction of an obligatory referendum if the
constitution is to be amended. The constitution regulates the most elementary principles
by which we all have agreed to live together. The AfD delegation is of the
opinion that the people must have the last word when it comes to an alteration
of these principles. That cannot depend, as previously, on a people’s decision
being implemented only with the blessing of half the Landtag or according to
Article 72.
So
as to justify the constitutional standing, the draft law foresees that in a
referendum at least 25% of those eligible to vote must participate. Other than
previously, it is however sufficient if the majority of the votes cast agree to
the constitutional amendment.
Second.
The AfD again takes up the idea of a qualified mass petition. The previously
existing right of petition will be hereby sensibly expanded. The petitioners will
be allowed the possibility of a verbal hearing with inter-action. The qualified
mass petition is to be understood as a quasi call upon the Landtag to occupy
itself with specified themes, without the necessity of getting a people’s
initiative underway.
Third.
We moreover want to make it easier for our citizens to introduce their ideas by
means of people’s initiatives. In the 28 years that our constitution has
existed, only nine people’s motions were submitted. Only a single one … was
agreed to by the Landtag. The quorum of 40,000 supporters proves to be too high
a hurdle for many initiatives.
That
also goes for three people’s requests. Only one people’s request came through
and resulted in a people’s decision, namely for the savings bank law. Without
the logistical support of the savings banks, even this success apparently would
not have been possible.
Conversely,
since 1990, the Landtag has agreed to over 800 laws. Article 3, sect. 2 of the
Saxon constitution states that the Landtag and the people have equal standing
to legislate. The honored principle is nevertheless contradicted by the
constitutional reality.
Yet
what is a nominal equal authority of Landtag and people worth if it is not a
lived reality? The AfD delegation therefore wishes to distinctly reduce the
support quorum for people’s motions and people’s requests.
Fourth.
The heart of the draft is the facultative referendum. A law agreed to by the
Landtag is accordingly to be put before the people for a vote when this is
demanded by 0.5% of the eligible voters. Exempted therefrom are tax,
compensation and budget laws.
We
have been thoroughly aware that the facultative referendum is, of all the
others, the controversial one. The lively discussion on an equivalent draft law
in the 6th legislative period may be recalled. It is nevertheless
time for a paradigm change. The times of a party’s absolute majority are past
and thereby also the times of a clear voter mandate. If, for example, the
voters in Saxony give a majority of votes to bürgerlichen parties, yet they receive a black-green-red government,
then one must indeed ask how seriously the votes of the voters are taken.
What
is it when in Thüringen the red-red-green election losers form the government
and are thereby tolerated by a CDU which before the election had signaled to
its voters not to form coalitions with the Linke or in a similar way to
cooperate? Yet does not exactly this procedure present a violation of the
election promises and thereby a breach of trust with the voters? It is, ja, passing strange what will be
interpreted into the election results after the election.
Valentin Lippmann (Greens): Yes, by
you!
Right
honorable members. Yes, we have a representative democracy and, yes, the voters
can go to the polls to announce their preferences every five years in the state
election and, according to the wording of the constitution, arrange for people’s
initiatives. Yet is that really adequate to sufficiently reflect the will of
the voters? The hitherto people’s legislative procedure is in fact only on
paper, and much too often the decision of the voters on election day is
understood by the government coalition to a be blank check for rotten
compromises and allegedly alternative-less decisions in the current election
period. Yet how far can the will of the voters be ignored without doing damage
to democracy? We of the AfD delegation are of the opinion that the system of
representative democracy requires a fundamental improvement. This draft law
shall be the impetus for that.
Many
thanks.
[trans tem]
