Now it is clear: the Bundestag’s review of the Corona policy is off the table for now, the traffic light could not agree on a format. How can that be?
Katja Mast draws a long line before saying the decisive sentence. A sentence that no one has yet dared to say – but which probably needs to be said now: “There will be no additional processing of the corona pandemic in this legislative period.”
It becomes quiet in the Marie Juchacz Hall of the Bundestag. The clear words of the SPD parliamentary group manager, who is holding her traditional press breakfast on Wednesday morning, also seem to be working within her. “I regret that very much,” Mast adds.
The sentence is tough and it could have fatal consequences for the traffic lights. Because now, a year and a half after Federal Health Minister Karl Lauterbach declared the pandemic over, it is clear: the state’s Corona policy will not be processed by the Bundestag. There is no deeper discussion of the question of whether the actions at the time were proportionate.
It is a colossal failure of the coalition that is difficult to convey to the outside world. And it is a gift for the AfD and BSW, who have long accused the traffic light of covering up and delaying this matter. How could this happen? This question now arises in many ways.
Ask Katja Mast. “The traffic light parties in parliament did not meet on key points and were unable to agree on a suitable format,” she says star. The time window has closed and there is now no longer enough time until the federal election to set up a citizens’ council, for example. The SPD has suggested this several times, Mast emphasizes, and the Greens have also spoken out in favor of it. “Unfortunately, our efforts failed because of the FDP, which did not want to go down this path.”
At least that’s how the SPD sees it. But of course it’s not that simple, just as the pandemic itself wasn’t.
Corona politics is polarizing
At that time, politicians imposed far-reaching measures with the aim of saving lives. Older people spent their last days alone in the nursing home – without visits from their relatives. Children and young people were not allowed to go to school for a long time, and some did not hear much from their teachers at home. For months, only those who had been vaccinated twice or had proof of recovery were allowed to go to the cinema, theater or outdoor swimming pool.
Even back then, the restrictions went too far for some people. In retrospect, those responsible at the time also consider individual measures to be excessive, such as school closures. One thing is certain: the pandemic years have left their mark on society.
In recent months the pressure for a reappraisal has increased. At the end of March, the debate about the sense or nonsense of the measures imposed at the time became more intense. The trigger was the publication of protocols from the Robert Koch Institute, which advised the federal government on the pandemic. The online magazine “Multipolar”, which critics see as close to conspiracy narrative publications, had sued to have it published.
As a result, calls to deal with the pandemic became louder. In mid-April, SPD parliamentary group leader Rolf Mützenich spoke out in favor of coming to terms with the pandemic in a citizens’ assembly and a newly created commission. Parliamentarians from the SPD, Greens and FDP negotiated – but they got stuck. They couldn’t agree on the format.
To put it simply, there were two forms on the table: a citizens’ assembly and a study commission. Citizens are drawn to take part in a citizens’ assembly and they work on a topic with the advice of experts. A study commission, the French word means “investigation”, is not made up of citizens, but rather members of parliament and experts from science and practice. They submit reports to the Bundestag in which they make recommendations for new laws. There is such a study, for example, on the Bundeswehr’s mission in Afghanistan.
There is a fundamental disagreement on the question of form, especially between the SPD and FDP. The SPD had campaigned for a citizens’ assembly. “A forum was needed in which citizens could address their everyday experiences from the time of the pandemic, which arose during this stressful time for all of us,” says SPD parliamentary group manager Mast star. This would have ideally supported the government’s expert advice, she says.
The FDP had insisted on a study commission, a kind of scaled-down committee of inquiry. “A citizens’ assembly can add to this, but it can never draw binding conclusions,” said the health policy spokesman for the FDP parliamentary group, Andrew Ullmann star in June. “It cannot and must not be the case that we as parliamentarians hand over responsibility for what happened to a motley assembly of citizens.”
Citizens’ Assembly or Enquete Commission?
When calling for a study commission, the FDP was apparently also interested in being able to critically question state representatives who had direct responsibility during the pandemic. After all, many important decisions were made at the Prime Minister’s Conference of the country heads at that time. This obviously caused suspicion among the Social Democrats: Unlike the Liberals, the SPD has several prime ministers and is involved in state governments. With this format, there is a great risk that your own people will be brought into disrepute.
From the perspective of the Social Democrats, a reappraisal would only have made sense if it had taken place “at eye level together with the federal states,” as group manager Mast says. The SPD was recently able to imagine a duality: citizens’ council and study commission. However, it was apparently not possible to agree on how the study would have been staffed. Which country representatives are at the table? And who would have had the last word?
The Greens claim that they were open to all options in the end. The main thing is that you get something done at all. On Tuesday, co-parliamentary group leader Katharina Dröge said that there was “no overlap” between the SPD and FDP as to how the reappraisal should take place. “We would have been completely open to any format.”
The fact that this failed is not just another low blow for the traffic lights, which get tangled up in all sorts of places. It is important that the populists could capitalize on this failure. At the federal level, they are already working together on the issue: The AfD supports a move by the BSW to convene a Corona investigative committee.
He doesn’t have much chance of success in the federal government. But the situation is different in the states in which elections were held recently: In Saxony, for example, the AfD parliamentary group has already requested a committee of inquiry; and can also use it on its own. It represents 40 of the total 120 MPs, more than the necessary fifth. The Saxon BSW also wants to have such an investigative committee and thus keep a promise from the election campaign.
The message from the populists should be clear: We’ll tackle it – because the traffic lights can’t handle it.
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.
