Who knows who exactly decides on the billions in social contributions and how they are used? It’s not the state alone. This special feature could soon have constitutional status in Germany.
Should health insurance be included in the constitution? This is what a long-time expert on the German social system, the Federal Commissioner for Social Elections, Peter Weiß, is calling for. Weiß also wants to anchor unemployment, pension and accident insurance in the constitution – more precisely: the entire social insurance system with its self-administration. At the same time, Weiß calls for more democracy – through more say for the insured in benefits and contribution money.
“Just carrying on as before – that’s not possible,” said Weiß to the German Press Agency. Otherwise, social insurance in its current form would hardly have a future, according to a final report that has now been published on the social elections in 2023. The idea: to stipulate in the constitution that social insurance “must be organized with the significant participation of employees.” as White says.
22 million were able to vote online
For many, this may seem far from the reality of their own lives. No wonder: Many people in Germany are not familiar with social elections – this means that they “do not take note of or do not value social self-administration,” as Weiß and his deputy Doris Barnett write in recommendations to Labor Minister Hubertus Heil (SPD).
In the most recent social elections, around 52 million people were eligible to vote in 2023. Only around one in five people checked the box. Compared to the previous social elections in 2017, participation fell by almost eight percentage points. In the social elections, the members of the administrative boards of statutory health insurance companies and the representative meetings of accident and pension insurance companies are elected. For the first time, online voting was possible for large health insurance companies – a total of 22 million eligible voters. For comparison: In the 2021 federal election, voter turnout was almost 77 percent.
What are the differences between social and federal elections?
Where is the main difference? “Voter turnout is always high,” the final social election report states soberly, “when it’s ‘about something’, when the course is set (…), when the election campaign is suitable for triggering emotions.”
That’s not really the case with Social Security. Health insurance companies have existential significance for virtually everyone – and for society as a whole as a “guarantor of social peace,” according to the final report. And it’s about unimaginable sums of money. In 2023, around 1,250 billion euros were spent on social benefits in Germany, of which more than 840 billion came from social contributions from employees and employers.
It’s about money – and what you get for it
However, there are no real election campaigns in social elections. The committees elected there have very little to say. The report states that “the federal legislature has regulated the affairs of the members of the social security institutions down to almost every detail through federal law.” There is hardly any scope for participation.
Would social security issues have what it takes to make “interesting election campaigns”? White and those responsible for social elections think: yes. Your report states what it could be about: money and what you get for it. “Do I have the choice between lower benefits, deductibles, limited choice of service providers, etc. while reducing my premium burden?” But the legislature has generally already decided on all of this.
“We don’t want more government, we want less”
The candidates in social elections are generally familiar with the subject matter. They mostly come from trade unions and employers’ organizations. The idea behind social voting is that those who pay in should also have a say. The elected committees decide, among other things, the budgets of their insurance companies.
Allowing self-government to fall asleep in existing institutions or corporations under public law “would be foolish,” says Weiß, who, as a labor market expert for his parliamentary group, himself helped negotiate far-reaching social laws. “We don’t want more government, we want less – and more citizen participation.”
Should it be done like in Weimar?
By the way, there is an example of anchoring it in the constitution: the Weimar Constitution. Article 161 read: “In order to maintain health and ability to work, to protect motherhood and to protect against the economic consequences of old age, weakness and the vicissitudes of life, the Reich creates an insurance system with the significant participation of the insured.”
Final report social elections social budget 2023
Source: Stern
I have been working in the news industry for over 6 years, first as a reporter and now as an editor. I have covered politics extensively, and my work has appeared in major newspapers and online news outlets around the world. In addition to my writing, I also contribute regularly to 24 Hours World.
