Dealing with the AfD in Parliament: Majority is not all that counts – politics

The AfD is in court again – yes, what? Failed? The Federal Constitutional Court has one Urgent application of her group rejected, to fill the chair of three parliamentary committees. Elections were held in the committees last December. The respective majority had failed the candidates of the igitt party for these posts in the interior, health and development committees.

The chairperson’s job is to organize

What looks like a democratic process is actually a parliamentary border crossing. A significant part of Parliament’s work is carried out in the committees. It’s the chairperson’s job to organize things well. Precisely because it is a job, they are not usually elected, but rather an agreement is reached in the council of elders. That’s what the rules of procedure say, that’s how it is. The principle is called proportional representation. With 25 standing committees, there would also be something for the AfD. Parliamentary groups, according to the Basic Law, should be appropriately involved in parliamentary work.

There is something to the lawsuit, once again

The Federal Constitutional Court has not yet pronounced a final verdict. It rejected the urgent application because the presidency question is less drastic than the AfD would like you to believe. At the same time, the judges make it clear that, once again, there is something to their lawsuit.

Irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings, the parties and their parliamentary groups, which they say are democratic, could use this as an opportunity to break the rules at the time – because he was, even if it wasn’t a breach of the constitution – to take a critical look at it. Was that necessary where committee heads have neither influence nor special representational tasks? Ultimately, it was symbolic action to make the political space as narrow as possible for the right, including the parliamentary space.

Impeding representatives of the people when they represent makes a bad impression

Defenders of this strategy will be able to point to the current decline of the AfD, which is likely to have more to do with its Russia policy and the relative absence of dark-skinned refugees than with adjusting screws in the engine room of democracy. It’s okay to dissect the party from Twitter to talk shows on all sorts of political battlefields. It is also appropriate to place them under the surveillance of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, insofar as the rule of law rules are strictly observed. However, parliamentary participation is a sensitive area that should not be turned into a battleground lightly. Preventing elected officials from being represented makes a bad impression. It doesn’t matter if it’s legal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.