Path to new elections: This is how the vote of confidence works in the Bundestag

It has only happened five times in the history of the Federal Republic that a Federal Chancellor raises a vote of confidence in the Bundestag in accordance with Article 68 of the Basic Law. Gerhard Schröder (SPD) resorted to this measure twice (November 2001 and July 2005). Before that, Willy Brandt (SPD) in September 1972, Helmut Schmidt (SPD) in February 1982 and Helmut Kohl (CDU) in December 1982 asked the vote of confidence.

How is the question of trust regulated in the Basic Law?

The Basic Law only briefly regulates the question. Article 68, paragraph 1 states: “If a request from the Federal Chancellor to express confidence in him does not meet with the approval of the majority of the members of the Bundestag, the Federal President may, on the proposal of the Federal Chancellor, dissolve the Bundestag within twenty-one days.” This right expires as soon as the Bundestag elects another chancellor with a majority of its members.

Paragraph 2 also stipulates that there must be 48 hours between the Chancellor’s application and the vote in the Bundestag.

What options are there for a question of trust?

The Federal Chancellor can raise the vote of confidence alone or in connection with a specific decision on the matter. The latter has only happened once so far: in 2001, the federal government applied to send German armed forces to the US-led fight against international terrorism as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. “In connection with the vote on the federal government’s proposal (…), I am submitting the proposal in accordance with Article 68 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law,” said another proposal from Chancellor Schröder.

Four years later he refrained from linking it to a specific factual question. His motion at the time was: “In accordance with Article 68 of the Basic Law, I submit a motion to express confidence in me. I intend to make a statement on this before the vote on Friday, July 1, 2005.” At that time, Schröder drew the conclusions from a series of bitter SPD defeats in state elections and from the strong resistance within his own party to the Hartz IV reforms.

In his statement in the Bundestag, Schröder openly admitted: “My proposal has a single, completely unmistakable goal: I would like to be able to propose to the Federal President the dissolution of the 15th German Bundestag and the ordering of new elections.” The painful electoral defeats made it clear “that the balance of power that has become apparent does not allow me to successfully continue my policy without new legitimation from the sovereign, the German people.”

Is a fake trust question permissible?

The piquant thing about Schröder in 2005 was that his red-green federal government had a majority in the Bundestag. The Chancellor’s approach was not aimed at getting this confirmed, but on the contrary at losing the vote of confidence in order to lead to a new election. This so-called spurious question of trust is controversial because it runs counter to the intention of the Basic Law. Werner Schulz (Greens) and Jelena Hoffmann (SPD) went to the Federal Constitutional Court because they felt their parliamentary rights had been violated.

What does the Federal Constitutional Court say?

The Federal Constitutional Court has enriched the very brief statements of Article 68 of the Basic Law in several judgments. After the Bundestag was dissolved by the Federal President in January 1983, it declared a month later that the Chancellor should only be allowed to initiate proceedings under Article 68 of the Basic Law if it was no longer politically guaranteed for him to continue to govern with the existing balance of power in the Bundestag. “The political balance of power in the Bundestag must impair or paralyze its ability to act in such a way that it cannot meaningfully pursue a policy supported by the constant trust of the majority.”

At the same time, Karlsruhe made it clear that it would not do justice to the meaning of Article 68 if a Chancellor with a sufficient majority in the Bundestag were to allow the vote of confidence to be answered negatively at the appropriate time with the aim of dissolving the Bundestag. “Similarly, the particular difficulties of the tasks arising in the current electoral period do not justify the dissolution,” it says in the guiding principles of the judgment.

In its judgment of August 2005, the Federal Constitutional Court addressed the spurious question of trust directly: “The question of trust aimed at dissolving it is only justified if the ability of a federal government anchored in parliament to act has been lost,” the judges ruled. “Ability to act means that the Federal Chancellor determines the direction of politics with the will to shape politics and has a majority of MPs behind him for this.”

What does that mean for the Scholz case?

After the expulsion of Federal Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP) and the FDP’s withdrawal from the traffic lights, Chancellor Scholz only leads a red-green minority government. So there can no longer be any question of the fact that – as Karlsruhe put it – “he has a majority of MPs behind him”. In this way, his ability to act is severely impaired; he would have to laboriously organize a majority with votes from the opposition for every legislative resolution.

Immediately after the traffic light crash, Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier pointed out his responsibility for dissolving the Bundestag. “I stand by this decision,” he said. The Basic Law makes this decision subject to conditions. “But our country needs stable majorities and a government that can act. That will be my standard of review.”

What happens after the dissolution of the Bundestag?

When he announces the dissolution of the Bundestag, Federal President Steinmeier will also announce a date for the new election. According to Article 39 of the Basic Law, this must take place within 60 days. The date has now been set for February 23rd next year. Meanwhile, the federal government remains in office until a new chancellor is elected and his ministers are appointed.