Giovedì 26 settembre si insedia il Parlamento della Turingia eletto di recente, all’interno del quale l’Alternative für Deutschland rappresenta il gruppo parlamentare di maggioranza – a cui compete di proporre il nuovo presidente del Parlamento. La Costituzione del Land prevede che la seduta di insediamento sia presieduta ad interim da un membro del medesimo partito come facente funzione. Non potendo contare sulla possibilità di nominare ed eleggere il primo ministro del Land, l’AfD può usare questa clausola del regolamento parlamentare per bloccare i lavori della seduta costituente, traendone un indubbio vantaggio di immagine per quanto concerne il mancato funzionamento delle regole democratiche. L’articolo, pubblicato sul sito tdesco di diritto costituzionale Verfassungsblog, prende in esame tale questione delicata.
I am looking forward to the coming week with a sense of excitement. There are several reasons for this: Firstly, on Friday, my new play Ein Volksbürger will premiere, starring Fabian Hinrichs in the lead role and directed by Nicola Hümpel of Nico and the Navigators.
As with Ein Volkskanzler, it explores a scenario: Suppose someone came along and, with a newly founded movement, amidst the ruins of the existing political party system, win a state election. Suppose this new Minister-President, determined to be true to himself and to hold up a mirror to the people, disregards norms and conventions.
Suppose he pushes the conflict with the Federal Government – assuming it even chooses conflict over appeasement and “dialogue” – to its absolute limit. What then? The drama will be shown from Friday in four performances, plus a live stream at the Babylon Cinema at Rosa-Luxemburg-Platz in Berlin and the Badisches Staatstheater in Karlsruhe, and a broadcast on ARTE.
***
A play of a very different, but perhaps not so dissimilar, kind will be staged the day before in Erfurt: The newly elected state parliament will convene on Thursday, with the AfD, as the largest group, entitled under parliamentary rules to nominate the new Speaker of Parliament, and one of their own, a fellow named Jürgen Treutler, in the role of the senior Member and temporary chairman of the inaugural session (Alterspräsident).
It’s a well-known fact by now that this inaugural session is likely to take, quite literally, a dramatic turn. This was one of the outcomes of our Thuringia project. That’s why we recommended amending the rules of procedure early on, to limit the potential for abuse by the Alterspräsident during the election of the new Speaker.
If the AfD’s nominee does not secure a majority, the Alterspräsident decides how to proceed. He could take the stance that the AfD is entitled to nominate candidates until either they or, more likely, their opponents run out of steam. While legally incorrect, he could still do it. Again and again, round after round, the opponents would have to close ranks, across all political differences, to vote down the AfD’s candidates. For authoritarian-populist strategists, it’s a dream scenario.
***
As mentioned, everyone involved has long been aware that this could happen and that it would be highly dangerous if it does. The Greens, in the previous legislative period, had proposed that, in the future, the first session should be chaired not by the oldest Member in terms of age, but by the Member with the longest parliamentary service, as in the Bundestag.
This would prevent the AfD from securing that post by nominating particularly elderly candidates for constituency or list seats. Furthermore, it was suggested that, in future, the right to propose a candidate for Speaker should no longer be limited to the largest faction after the first or second ballot, or even from the outset.
The fact that these procedural changes were not implemented is largely due to Mario Voigt, the likely designated Thuringian Minister-President, and his CDU. They probably still hoped at the time to become the largest parliamentary group themselves, not to mention their general reluctance to do anything, let alone preventive measures against the AfD, jointly with the Red-Red-Green coalition. The only thing they were willing to support was a committee resolution clarifying the interpretation of the nomination right – but this resolution is neither binding on the new parliament nor on the Alterspräsident.
It seems that the CDU has only now, days before the inaugural session, realised the need to act. Together with the BSW, they have tabled an amendment to the rules of procedure to be voted on before the election of the new Speaker. According to their proposal, the right to propose a candidate should no longer rest with the largest group, but the Speaker should be elected “from the middle of the parliament” (as per Article 57, paragraph 1 of the Thuringian state constitution).
To facilitate this, they persuaded Birgit Pommer, the acting Speaker from the Left Party, to change the agenda at the last minute. This raises a host of tricky legal questions, which, in my view, can be reasonably answered. Nevertheless, by doing this, the CDU and BSW are handing the AfD a whole new lot of opportunities to engage in obstruction and publicly display their contempt for parliament and democracy on the parliamentary stage.
***
The AfD plans to nominate MP Wiebke Muhsal for the position of parliamentary president. Muhsal is a close ally of Björn Höcke and has been convicted of fraud for backdating the employment contract of an assistant to claim more money from the parliamentary administration. The AfD could hardly present a less electable candidate. This leaves little doubt about their intentions, which are clearly not aimed at an orderly session. As mentioned, the session will be chaired by one of their own – the meticulously instructed Senior Member, Jürgen Treutler.
He will declare the parliament open, appoint temporary clerks, call the roll of MPs, and confirm the quorum. Then, before item 5, the election of the new Speaker, item 4 comes up: the amendment of the rules of procedure as proposed by the CDU and BSW. He would need to put this to a vote. What if he refuses?
He could argue that, until a Speaker is elected, the new parliament is not properly constituted. And he would be right. Without a Speaker to confirm its decisions and sign them into law, the parliament cannot begin its legislative work. So, he might say, no votes can be held until a Speaker is elected. This, however, would be incorrect: the rules of procedure are purely internal matter and not a statute. Once the new parliament has convened and is quorate, it can vote on its rules of procedure, with or without a Speaker. This is its inherent right to self-organise.
A brief digression for enthusiasts: In Thuringia, the situation is further complicated by the fact that each new parliament does not adopt the old rules of procedure as its own, but the continuation of the old rules is mandated by statutory law until new ones are adopted. One could argue that the parliament is legally bound to decide on its rules of procedure only after its formal constitution. However, this could be seen as a violation of the new parliament’s autonomy. How can the old parliament impose such a bond on the new one by law? But if that were indeed unconstitutional – what would follow? Is the law binding until struck down by the constitutional court? Can it bind anyone at all? If not, what is the purpose of this law in the first place? Discuss.
So, assuming the Alterspräsident wrongly insists that the parliament cannot vote on the rules of procedure without electing a Speaker first, what happens then? The applicants could try to challenge this decision in court. If they can is not a trivial question. But assuming they can, what then?
The state constitutional court could issue an injunction, possibly within hours. But someone would need to suspend the session in the meantime. Who? The Alterspräsident. If he refuses and stubbornly continues with the agenda, what then? The MPs could leave the chamber, rendering the parliament inquorate. But who would declare it so? Again, the Alterspräsident.
Thus, the AfD can – and I predict: will – turn this inaugural session of the new Thuringian parliament into a spectacle of the ugliest kind, conveying once again the message they’ve always wanted to deliver: democracy is nonsense, corrupt, and broken, unless and until the “true people” constantly sees its own reflection in it. This is the ghastly theatre the AfD plans to stage over the next five years. Opening this Thursday.
