press review
Ex-Chancellor Angela Merkel violated the Basic Law with her call to reverse the election of the prime minister in Thuringia. That is how the Constitutional Court ruled. Is the decision unrealistic? The press reviews.
The violation of the Basic Law is official. As Chancellor, Angela Merkel should not have done what she was allowed to do as a CDU official: to demand the revocation of the election of the FDP man Thomas Kemmerich as Prime Minister of Thuringia with the help of AfD votes (2020). But isn’t this separation, which the Federal Constitutional Court is once again clearly imposing on high officials, unrealistic? And do the voters not know how to classify such statements? This is what the commentators in the daily press say:
“Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung”
The Second Senate’s decision comes at an unusual time. In the meantime, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is being observed. The party, it must not be forgotten, failed several times in Karlsruhe. However, especially in the fragile time of a fraying extremism that can no longer be precisely assigned, in which anti-constitutional ‘lateral thinkers’ and friends of the Russian war of aggression mingle, the constitutional court insists on the neutrality of the officials and equal opportunities for the political parties. So that court that is often ridiculed as a political organ of government. This case law in particular can prove to be an anchor of stability. In times of large and cross-camp coalitions, the fact that each party can depend on being treated equally before the law threatens to disappear. Chancellor Merkel said at the time that it was a “bad day for democracy”. She has her part in that. This must not be repeated either.
“Süddeutsche Zeitung” (Munich):
The Federal Constitutional Court seriously attests that the then Chancellor violated the equal opportunities of the parties because, in view of the disastrous election of the Thuringian Prime Minister in February 2020, she said what every democrat thought: ‘It was a bad day for democracy.’ (…) The Federal Constitutional Court should quickly abandon the idea of turning ministers and chancellors into neutralized civil servants. Because the artificial splitting of the political personality into office holder and party politician may not seem comprehensible to those who are supposed to be protected from one-sided influence – the voters. They have long understood that government operations are also shaped by party politics. And that a CDU chancellor is fighting the AfD politically.”
“A little unrealistic”
“Free Press” (Chemnitz):
The verdict seems a bit unrealistic: Angela Merkel and other ministers are allowed to hand out what the stuff holds and the constitution can stand. But as soon as they speak as Federal Chancellor or Minister, they should maintain official neutrality. This is exactly what the minority vote by judge Astrid Wallrabenstein was aiming for. The voters have long understood that the government is also driven by party politics.”
“Central German Newspaper” (Hall):
It is not undemocratic when the chancellor or a minister calls on the population not to vote for the AfD or even to demonstrate against the party. That is political leadership and that is what the government is elected for. Ultimately, members of the government can warn against the AfD as much as they want – if they emphasize that they are speaking as a party politician or as a private individual. It cannot be that the Constitutional Court has to change its jurisprudence just because members of the government cannot comply with this simple rule. This would be neither conducive to the acceptance of the court nor to democracy.
“Weser Courier” (Bremen):
Even if Merkel immediately expressed her respect for the Karlsruhe decision, it would have been surprising if she hadn’t said anything about the fact that her CDU is working together with an AfD that wanted to “hunt” the chancellor. She may have lacked political style, but by no means attitude.
“Märkische Oderzeitung” (Frankfurt/Oder):
A chancellor is not allowed to say anything negative about the political competition because she has to behave neutrally, ruled the top judges. In South Africa, when then-Chancellor Angelia Merkel described the election of Thuringia’s FDP prime minister with the votes of the CDU and AfD as “unforgivable,” she appeared as chancellor and should have kept silent. The verdict is correct. Because state authorities have to hold back when evaluating the opponent. They just have to package their criticism differently – or express it explicitly as MPs if they enjoy immunity protection.
Angela Merkel: created a devastating symbol
“Free word” (Suhl):
Even more devastating is the symbol created by the chancellor. When Kemmerich actually resigned on February 8th after massive pressure and on March 4th Bodo Ramelow (left) was allowed to be prime minister again in a government tolerated by the CDU, many understood: In Germany, the chancellor can reverse elections and freely decide who becomes prime minister country may be. And she can even demand that from Africa – quite incidentally in passing. This picture has serious consequences – especially in East Germany, where the resentment of the elderly against the powerful in Berlin, who actually determined the elections, still runs deep.
“The Bell” (Oelde):
Merkel’s statements were undoubtedly a mistake. The then head of government may have wanted to make a clear statement against the right at international level. (…) Domestically, Merkel’s statement was unnecessary. The election of Kemmerich was met with a hurricane of indignation by an alert public. The FDP politician did not rest, he resigned from his post.
“Neue Zürcher Zeitung” (Switzerland):
“The Karlsruhe verdict (is) a sign of a mature approach to dealing with the right-wing party. The republic is not on the verge of collapse if the AfD works together with other parties on a local level. (…) No citizen and no party politician has to adhere to the principle of neutrality, which Angela Merkel violated. A sovereign republic of responsible citizens, however, does well to justify criticism and rejection and not just let antipathy run wild Trip to South Africa failed: strengthening democracy.”
Source: Stern
David William is a talented author who has made a name for himself in the world of writing. He is a professional author who writes on a wide range of topics, from general interest to opinion news. David is currently working as a writer at 24 hours worlds where he brings his unique perspective and in-depth research to his articles, making them both informative and engaging.
