The framers of the Federal Republic of Germany's 1949 constitution
sought to create safeguards against the emergence of either an overly
fragmented, multiparty democracy, similar to the Weimar Republic
(1918-33), or authoritarian institutions characteristic of the Nazi
dictatorship of the Third Reich (1933-45). Thus, negative historical
experience played a major role in shaping the constitution.
Articles 1 through 19 delineate basic rights that apply to all German
citizens, including equality before the law; freedom of speech,
assembly, the news media, and worship; freedom from discrimination based
on race, gender, religion, or political beliefs; and the right to
conscientious objection to compulsory military service. In reaction to
the experience of the Third Reich, the framers of the Basic Law did,
however, place limits on extremist political activities that might
threaten to subvert the democratic political order. Article 18 states:
"Whoever abuses freedom of expression of opinion, in particular
freedom of the press, freedom of teaching, freedom of assembly, freedom
of association, privacy of posts and telecommunications, property, or
the right of asylum in order to combat the free democratic basic order,
shall forfeit these basic rights." Article 18 was employed twice in
the 1950s to ban political parties of the extreme right and left.
Article 18 is seen as an essential component of a wehrhafte
Demokratie --a democracy that can defend itself, unlike the Weimar
Republic.
Article 20 states that "the Federal Republic of Germany is a
democratic and social federal state." The word "social"
has been commonly interpreted to mean that the state has the
responsibility to provide for the basic social welfare of its citizens.
The Basic Law, however, does not enumerate specific social duties of the
state. Further, according to Article 20, "All state authority
emanates from the people. It shall be exercised by the people by means
of elections and voting and by specific legislative, executive, and
judicial organs."
Most of the Basic Law's 146 articles describe the composition and
functions of various organs of government, as well as the intricate
system of checks and balances governing their interaction. Other major
issues addressed in the Basic Law include the distribution of power
between the federal government and the state (Land ; pl., L�nder
) governments, the administration of federal laws, government finance,
and government administration under emergency conditions. The Basic Law
is virtually silent on economic matters; only Article 14 guarantees
"property and the right of inheritance" and states that
"expropriation shall be permitted only in the public weal."
Any amendment to the Basic Law must receive the support of at least
two-thirds of the members in both federal legislative chambers--the
Bundestag (Federal Diet or lower house) and the Bundesrat (Federal
Council or upper house). Certain provisions of the Basic Law cannot be
amended: those relating to the essential structures of federalism; the
division of powers; the principles of democracy, social welfare, and
fundamental rights; and the principle of state power based on law. Of
the many amendments to the Basic Law, among the most notable are the
"defense addenda" of 1954-56, which regulate the
constitutional position of the armed forces, and the "Emergency
Constitution" of 1968, which delineates wider executive powers in
the case of an internal or external emergency.
Germany - Federalism
Germany has a strong tradition of regional government dating back to
the founding of the German Empire in 1871. Since unification in 1990,
the Federal Republic has consisted of sixteen L�nder : the ten
L�nder of the former West Germany, the five new L�nder
of the former East Germany, and Berlin. (However, Berlin and the eastern
Land of Brandenburg are slated to merge in either 1999 or
2002.) The Land governments are based on a parliamentary
system. Most L�nder have unicameral legislatures, whose
members are elected directly by popular vote. The party or coalition of
parties in control of the legislature chooses a minister president to
lead the Land government. The minister president selects a
cabinet to run Land agencies and carry out the executive
functions of the Land government. Minister presidents are
highly visible national figures and often progress to federal office,
either the chancellorship or a position in the federal cabinet.
The Basic Law divides authority between the federal government and
the L�nder , with the general principle governing relations
articulated in Article 30: "The exercise of governmental powers and
the discharge of governmental functions shall be incumbent on the L�nder
insofar as this Basic Law does not otherwise prescribe or permit."
Thus, the federal government can exercise authority only in those areas
specified in the Basic Law. The federal government is assigned a greater
legislative role and the Land governments a greater
administrative role. The fact that more civil servants are employed by Land
governments than by federal and local governments combined illustrates
the central administrative function of the L�nder .
The Basic Law divides the federal government's legislative
responsibilities into exclusive powers (Articles 71 and 73), concurrent
powers (Articles 72, 74, and 74a), and framework powers (Article 75).
The exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal government extends
to defense, foreign affairs, immigration, transportation,
communications, and currency standards. The federal and Land
governments share concurrent powers in several areas, including civil
law, refugee and expellee matters, public welfare, land management,
consumer protection, public health, and the collection of vital
statistics (data on births, deaths, and marriages). In the areas of mass
media, nature conservation, regional planning, and public service
regulations, framework legislation limits the federal government's role
to offering general policy guidelines, which the L�nder then
act upon by means of detailed legislation. The areas of shared
responsibility for the L�nder and the federal government were
enlarged by an amendment to the Basic Law in 1969 (Articles 91a and
91b), which calls for joint action in areas of broad social concern such
as higher education, regional economic development, and agricultural
reform.
All policy areas not assigned to federal jurisdiction are within the
legislative purview of the L�nder . These areas include
education, law enforcement, regulation of radio and television, church
affairs, and cultural activities. The L�nder retain
significant powers of taxation. Most federal taxes are collected by Land
officials.
The Land governments also exercise power at the national
level through the Bundesrat, which is made up of representatives
appointed by the Land governments. In this way, the L�nder
affect the federal legislative process (see The Legislature, this ch.).
Half of the members of the Federal Convention, which elects a federal
president, are Land officials, and the Land
governments also take part in the selection of judges for the federal
courts.
Germany - The President
The Basic Law creates a dual executive but grants most executive
authority to the federal chancellor, as head of government, rather than
to the president, who acts as head of state (see fig. 13). The
presidency is primarily a ceremonial post, and its occupant represents
the Federal Republic in international relations. In that sphere, the
president's duties include signing treaties, representing Germany
abroad, and receiving foreign dignitaries. In the domestic sphere, the
president has largely ceremonial functions. Although this official signs
legislation into law, grants pardons, and appoints federal judges,
federal civil servants, and military officers, each of these actions
requires the countersignature of the chancellor or the relevant cabinet
minister. The president formally proposes to the Bundestag a chancellor
candidate and formally appoints the chancellor's cabinet members, but
the president follows the choice of the Bundestag in the first case and
of the chancellor in the second. If the government loses a simple
no-confidence vote, the president dissolves the Bundestag, but here,
too, the Basic Law limits the president's ability to act independently.
In the event of a national crisis, the emergency law reforms of 1968
designate the president as a mediator who can declare a state of
emergency.
There is disagreement about whether the president, in fact, has
greater powers than the above description would suggest. Some argue that
nothing in the Basic Law suggests that a president must follow
government directives. For instance, the president could refuse to sign
legislation, thus vetoing it, or refuse to approve certain cabinet
appointments. As of mid-1995, no president had ever taken such action,
and thus the constitutionality of these points had never been tested.
The president is selected by secret ballot at a Federal Convention
that includes all Bundestag members and an equal number of delegates
chosen by the Land legislatures. This assemblage, which totals
more than 1,000 people, is convened every five years. It may select a
president for a second, but not a third, five-year term. The authors of
the Basic Law preferred this indirect form of presidential election
because they believed it would produce a head of state who was widely
acceptable and insulated from popular pressure. Candidates for the
presidency must be at least forty years old.
The Basic Law did not create an office of vice president. If the
president is outside the country or if the position is vacant, the
president of the Bundesrat fills in as the temporary head of state. If
the president dies in office, a successor is elected within thirty days.
Usually one of the senior leaders of the largest party in the
Bundestag, the president nonetheless is expected to be nonpartisan after
assuming office. For example, President Richard von Weizs�cker, whose
second term expired in June 1994, was the former Christian Democratic
mayor of Berlin. Upon becoming president in 1984, he resigned from his
party positions. Weizs�cker played a prominent role in urging Germans
to come to terms with their actions during the Third Reich and in
calling for greater tolerance toward foreigners in Germany as right-wing
violence escalated in the early 1990s. Although the formal powers of the
president are limited, the president's role can be quite significant
depending on his or her own activities. Between 1949 and 1994, the
Christian Democratic Union (Christlich Demokratische Union--CDU) held
the office for twenty-five years, the Free Democratic Party (Freie
Demo-kratische Partei--FDP) for fifteen, and the Social Democratic Party
of Germany (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands--SPD) for five (see
table 2, Appendix).
Elected by the Federal Convention in May 1994, Roman Herzog succeeded
Weizs�cker as President on July 1, 1994. Previously president of the
Federal Constitutional Court in Karls-ruhe, Germany's highest court, he
was nominated for the presidency by the CDU and its sister party, the
Christian Social Union (Christlich-Soziale Union--CSU).
Germany - The Chancellor and the Cabinet
The federal government consists of the chancellor and his or her
cabinet ministers. As explained above, the Basic Law invests the
chancellor with central executive authority. For that reason, some
observers refer to the German political system as a "chancellor
democracy." The chancellor's authority emanates from the provisions
of the Basic Law and from his or her status as leader of the party or
coalition of parties holding a majority of seats in the Bundestag. Every
four years, after national elections and the seating of the newly
elected Bundestag members, the federal president nominates a chancellor
candidate to that parliamentary body; the chancellor is elected by
majority vote in the Bundestag.
The Basic Law limits parliament's control over the chancellor and the
cabinet. Unlike most parliamentary legislatures, the Bundestag cannot
remove the chancellor simply with a vote of no-confidence. In the Weimar
Republic, this procedure was abused by parties of both political
extremes in order to oppose chancellors and undermine the democratic
process. As a consequence, the Basic Law allows only for a
"constructive vote of no-confidence." That is, the Bundestag
can remove a chancellor only when it simultaneously agrees on a
successor. This legislative mechanism ensures both an orderly transfer
of power and an initial parliamentary majority in support of the new
chancellor. The constructive no-confidence vote makes it harder to
remove a chancellor because opponents of the chancellor not only must
disagree with his or her governing but also must agree on a replacement.
As of 1995, the Bundestag had tried to pass a constructive
no-confidence vote twice, but had succeeded only once. In 1972 the
opposition parties tried to replace Chancellor Willy Brandt of the SPD
with the CDU party leader because of profound disagreements over the
government's policies toward Eastern Europe. The motion fell one vote
shy of the necessary majority. In late 1982, the CDU convinced the FDP
to leave its coalition with the SPD over differences on economic policy
and to form a new government with the CDU and the CSU. The constructive
no-confidence vote resulted in the replacement of Chancellor Helmut
Schmidt with Helmut Kohl, the CDU party leader. Observers agree that the
constructive no-confidence vote has increased political stability in
Germany.
The chancellor also may make use of a second type of no-confidence
vote to garner legislative support in the Bundestag. The chancellor can
append a simple no-confidence provision to any government legislative
proposal. If the Bundestag rejects the proposal, the chancellor may
request that the president dissolve parliament and call new elections.
Although not commonly used, this procedure enables the chancellor to
gauge support in the Bundestag for the government and to increase
pressure on the Bundestag to vote in favor of legislation that the
government considers as critical. Furthermore, governments have employed
this simple no-confidence motion as a means of bringing about early
Bundestag elections. For example, after Kohl became chancellor through
the constructive no-confidence vote in August 1982, his government
purposely set out to lose a simple no-confidence provision in order to
bring about new elections and give voters a chance to validate the new
government through a democratic election.
Article 65 of the Basic Law sets forth three principles that define
how the executive branch functions. First, the "chancellor
principle" makes the chancellor responsible for all government
policies. Any formal policy guidelines issued by the chancellor are
legally binding directives that cabinet ministers must implement.
Cabinet ministers are expected to introduce specific policies at the
ministerial level that reflect the chancellor's broader guidelines.
Second, the "principle of ministerial autonomy" entrusts each
minister with the freedom to supervise departmental operations and
prepare legislative proposals without cabinet interference so long as
the minister's policies are consistent with the chancellor's larger
guidelines. Third, the "cabinet principle" calls for
disagreements between federal ministers over jurisdictional or budgetary
matters to be settled by the cabinet.
The chancellor determines the composition of the cabinet. The federal
president formally appoints and dismisses cabinet ministers, at the
recommendation of the chancellor; no Bundestag approval is needed.
According to the Basic Law, the chancellor may set the number of cabinet
ministers and dictate their specific duties. Chancellor Ludwig Erhard
had the largest cabinet, with twenty-two ministers, in the mid-1960s.
Kohl presided over seventeen ministers at the start of his fourth term
in 1994.
The power of the smaller coalition partners, the FDP and the CSU, was
evident from the distribution of cabinet posts in Kohl's government in
1995. The FDP held three ministries--the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Ministry of Justice, and Ministry for Economics. CSU members led four
ministries--the Ministry of Finance, Ministry for Health, Ministry for
Post and Telecommunications, and Ministry for Economic Cooperation.
The staff of a cabinet minister is managed by at least two state
secretaries, both of whom are career civil servants responsible for the
ministry's administration, and a parliamentary state secretary, who is
generally a member of the Bundestag and represents the ministry there
and in other political forums. Typically, state secretaries remain in
the ministry beyond the tenure of any one government, in contrast to the
parliamentary state secretary, who is a political appointee and is
viewed as a junior member of the government whose term ends with the
minister's. Under these top officials, the ministries are organized
functionally in accordance with each one's specific responsibilities.
Career civil servants constitute virtually the entire staff of the
ministries.
Germany - The Legislature
The heart of any parliamentary system of government is the
legislature. Germany has a bicameral parliament. The two chambers are
the Bundestag (Federal Diet or lower house) and the Bundesrat (Federal
Council or upper house). Both chambers can initiate legislation, and
most bills must be approved by both chambers, as well as the executive
branch, before becoming law. Legislation on issues within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the federal government, such as international treaties,
does not require Bundesrat approval.
The federal government introduces most legislation; when it does so,
the Bundesrat reviews the bill and then passes it on to the Bundestag.
If a bill originates in the Bundesrat, it is submitted to the Bundestag
through the executive branch. If the Bundestag introduces a bill, it is
sent first to the Bundesrat and, if approved there, forwarded to the
executive. The Joint Conference Committee resolves any differences over
legislation between the two legislative chambers. Once the compromise
bill that emerges from the conference committee has been approved by a
majority in both chambers and by the cabinet, it is signed into law by
the federal president and countersigned by the relevant cabinet
minister.
Bundestag
The Bundestag is the principal legislative chamber, roughly analogous
to the United States House of Representatives. The Bundestag has grown
gradually since its creation, most dramatically with unification and the
addition of 144 new representatives from eastern Germany, for a total of
656 deputies in 1990. A further expansion in 1994 increased the number
to 672. Elections are held every four years (or earlier if a government
falls from power). Bundestag members are the only federal officials
directly elected by the public. All candidates must be at least
twenty-one years old; there are no term limits.
The most important organizational structures within the Bundestag are
parliamentary groups (Fraktionen ; sing., Fraktion ),
which are formed by each political party represented in the chamber. The
size of a party's Fraktion determines the extent of its
representation on legislative committees, the number of committee chairs
it can hold, and its representation in executive bodies of the
Bundestag. The head of the largest Fraktion is named president
of the Bundestag. The Fraktionen , not the members, receive the
bulk of government funding for legislative and administrative
activities.
The leadership of each Fraktion consists of a parliamentary
party leader, several deputy leaders, and an executive committee. The
leadership's major responsibilities are to represent the Fraktion
, enforce party discipline, and orchestrate the party's parliamentary
activities. The members of each Fraktion are distributed among
working groups focused on specific policy-related topics such as social
policy, economics, and foreign policy. The Fraktion meets once
a week to consider legislation before the Bundestag and formulate the
party's position on it.
The Bundestag's executive bodies include the Council of Elders and
the Presidium. The council consists of the Bundestag leadership,
together with the most senior representatives of each Fraktion
, with the number of these representatives tied to the strength of the
party in the chamber. The council is the coordination hub, determining
the daily legislative agenda and assigning committee chairpersons based
on party representation. The council also serves as an important forum
for interparty negotiations on specific legislation and procedural
issues. The Presidium is responsible for the routine administration of
the Bundestag, including its clerical and research activities. It
consists of the chamber's president and vice presidents (one from each Fraktion
).
Most of the legislative work in the Bundestag is the product of
standing committees. Although this is common practice in the United
States Congress, it is uncommon in other parliamentary systems, such as
the British House of Commons and the French National Assembly. The
number of committees approximates the number of federal ministries, and
the titles of each are roughly similar (e.g., defense, agriculture, and
labor). Between 1987 and 1990, the term of the eleventh Bundestag, there
were twenty-one standing committees. The distribution of committee
chairs and the membership of each committee reflect the relative
strength of the various parties in the chamber. In the eleventh
Bundestag, the CDU/CSU chaired eleven committees, the SPD eight, the FDP
one, and the environmentalist party, the Greens (Die Gr�nen), one.
Unlike in the United States Congress, where all committees are chaired
by members of the majority party, the German system allows members of
the opposition party to chair a significant number of standing
committees. These committees have either a small staff or no staff at
all.
Although most legislation is initiated by the executive branch, the
Bundestag considers the legislative function its most important
responsibility. The Bundestag concentrates much of its energy on
assessing and amending the government's legislative program. The
committees play a prominent role in this process. Plenary sessions
provide a forum for members to engage in public debate on legislative
issues before them, but they tend to be well attended only when
significant legislation is being considered. The Bundestag allots each Fraktion
a certain amount of time, based on its size, to express its views.
Other responsibilities of the Bundestag include selecting the federal
chancellor and exercising oversight of the executive branch on issues of
both substantive policy and routine administration. This check on
executive power can be employed through binding legislation, public
debates on government policy, investigations, and direct questioning of
the chancellor or cabinet officials. For example, the Bundestag can
conduct a question hour (Fragestunde ), in which a government
representative responds to a previously submitted written question from
a member. Members can ask related questions during the question hour.
The questions can concern anything from a major policy issue to a
specific constituent's problem. Use of the question hour has increased
markedly over the past forty years, with more than 20,000 questions
being posed during the 1987-90 Bundestag term. Understandably, the
opposition parties are active in exercising the parliamentary right to
scrutinize government actions.
One striking difference when comparing the Bundestag with the United
States Congress is the lack of time spent on serving constituents in
Germany. In part, that difference results from the fact that only 50
percent of Bundestag deputies are directly elected to represent a
specific geographic district; the other half are elected as party
representatives. The political parties are thus of great importance in
Germany's electoral system, and many voters tend not to see the
candidates as autonomous political personalities but rather as creatures
of the party. Interestingly, constituent service seems not to be
perceived, either by the electorate or by the representatives, as a
critical function of the legislator. A practical constraint on the
expansion of constituent service is the limited personal staff of
Bundestag deputies.
Bundesrat
The second legislative chamber, the Bundesrat, is the federal body in
which the sixteen Land governments are directly represented. It
exemplifies Germany's federalist system of government. Members of the
Bundesrat are not popularly elected but are appointed by their
respective Land governments. Members tend to be Land
government ministers. The Bundesrat has sixty-nine members. The L�nder
with more than 7 million inhabitants have six seats (Baden-W�rttemberg,
Bavaria, Lower Saxony, and North Rhine-Westphalia). The L�nder
with populations of between 2 million and 7 million have four seats
(Berlin, Brandenburg, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania,
Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein, and
Thuringia). The least populous L�nder , with fewer than 2
million inhabitants, receive three seats each (Bremen, Hamburg, and the
Saarland). This system of representation, although designed to reflect Land
populations accurately, in fact affords greater representation per
inhabitant to the smaller L�nder . The presidency of the
Bundesrat rotates annually among the L�nder . By law, each Land
delegation is required to vote as a bloc in accordance with the
instructions of the Land government.
Because the Bundesrat is so much smaller than the Bundestag, it does
not require the extensive organizational structure of the lower house.
The Bundesrat typically schedules plenary sessions once a month for the
purpose of voting on legislation prepared in committee. In comparison,
the Bundestag conducts about fifty plenary sessions a year. Bundesrat
representatives rarely attend committee sessions; instead, they delegate
that responsibility to civil servants from their ministries, as allowed
for in the Basic Law. The members tend to spend most of their time in
their Land capitals, rather than in the federal capital.
The legislative authority of the Bundesrat is subordinate to that of
the Bundestag, but the upper house nonetheless plays a vital legislative
role. The federal government must present all legislative initiatives
first to the Bundesrat; only thereafter can a proposal be passed to the
Bundestag. Further, the Bundesrat must approve all legislation affecting
policy areas for which the Basic Law grants the L�nder
concurrent powers and for which the L�nder must administer
federal regulations. The Bundesrat has increased its legislative
responsibilities over time by successfully arguing for a broad, rather
than a narrow, interpretation of what constitutes the range of
legislation affecting Land interests. In 1949 only 10 percent
of all federal laws, namely, those directly affecting the L�nder
, required Bundesrat approval. In 1993 close to 60 percent of federal
legislation required the upper house's assent. The Basic Law also
provides the Bundesrat with an absolute veto of such legislation.
The political power of the absolute veto is particularly evident when
the opposition party or parties in the Bundestag have a majority in the
Bundesrat. When this is the case, the opposition can threaten the
government's legislative program. Such a division of authority can
complicate the process of governing when the major parties disagree,
and, unlike the Bundestag, the Bundesrat cannot be dissolved under any
circumstances.
This bicameral system also has advantages. Some observers emphasize
that different majorities in the two chambers ensure that all
legislation, when approved, has the support of a broad political
spectrum--a particularly valuable attribute in the aftermath of
unification, when consensus on critical policy decisions is vital. The
formal representation of the L�nder in the federal government
through the upper chamber provides an obvious forum for the coordination
of policy between the L�nder and the federal government. The
need for such coordination, particularly given the specific, crucial
needs of the eastern L�nder , has become only more important.
Germany - The Judiciary
The judiciary's independence and extensive responsibilities reflect
the importance of the rule of law in the German system of government. A
core concept is that of the Rechtsstaat , a government based on
law, in which citizens are guaranteed equality and in which government
decisions can be amended. Federal law delineates the structure of the
judiciary, but the administration of most courts is regulated by Land
law. The L�nder are responsible for the lower levels of the
court system; the highest appellate courts alone operate at the federal
level. This federal-Land division of labor allows the
federation to ensure that laws are enforced equally throughout the
country, whereas the central role of the L�nder in
administering the courts safeguards the independence of the judicial
system from the federal government.
Principles of Roman law form the basis of the German judicial system
and define a system of justice that differs fundamentally from the
Anglo-Saxon system. In the United States, courts rely on precedents from
prior cases; in Germany, courts look to a comprehensive system of legal
codes. The codes delineate somewhat abstract legal principles, and
judges must decide specific cases on the basis of those standards. Given
the importance of complex legal codes, judges must be particularly well
trained. Indeed, judges are not chosen from the field of practicing
lawyers. Rather, they follow a distinct career path. At the end of their
legal education at university, law students must pass a state
examination before they can continue on to an apprenticeship that
provides them with broad training in the legal profession over several
years. They then must pass a second state examination that qualifies
them to practice law. At that point, the individual can choose either to
be a lawyer or to enter the judiciary. Judicial candidates must train
for several more years before actually earning the title of judge.
The judicial system comprises three types of courts. Ordinary courts,
dealing with criminal and most civil cases, are the most numerous by
far. Specialized courts hear cases related to administrative, labor,
social, fiscal, and patent law. Constitutional courts focus on judicial
review and constitutional interpretation. The Federal Constitutional
Court (Bundes-verfassungsgericht) is the highest court and has played a
vital role through its interpretative rulings on the Basic Law.
The ordinary courts are organized in four tiers, each of increasing
importance. At the lowest level are several hundred local courts (Amtsgerichte
; sing., Amstgericht ), which hear cases involving minor
criminal offenses or small civil suits. These courts also carry out
routine legal functions, such as probate. Some local courts are staffed
by two or more professional judges, but most have only one judge, who is
assisted by lay judges in criminal cases. Above the local courts are
more than 100 regional courts (Landesgerichte ; sing., Landesgericht
), which are divided into two sections, one for major civil cases and
the other for criminal cases. The two sections consist of panels of
judges who specialize in particular types of cases. Regional courts
function as courts of appeals for decisions from the local courts and
hold original jurisdiction in most major civil and criminal matters. At
the next level, Land appellate courts (Oberlandesgerichte
; sing., Oberlandesgericht ) primarily review points of law
raised in appeals from the lower courts. (For cases originating in local
courts, this is the level of final appeal.) Appellate courts also hold
original jurisdiction in cases of treason and anticonstitutional
activity. Similar to the regional courts, appellate courts are divided
into panels of judges, arranged according to legal specialization.
Crowning the system of ordinary courts is the Federal Court of Justice
(Bundesgerichtshof) in Karlsruhe. It represents the final court of
appeals for all cases originating in the regional and appellate courts
and holds no original jurisdiction.
Specialized courts deal with five distinct subject areas:
administrative, labor, social, fiscal, and patent law. Like the ordinary
courts, they are organized hierarchically with the Land court
systems under a federal appeals court. Administrative courts consist of
local administrative courts, higher administrative courts, and the
Federal Administrative Court. In these courts, individuals can seek
compensation from the government for any harm caused by incorrect
administrative actions by officials. For instance, many lawsuits have
been brought in administrative courts by citizens against the government
concerning the location and safety standards of nuclear power plants.
Labor courts also function on three levels and address disputes over
collective bargaining agreements and working conditions. Social courts,
organized at three levels, adjudicate cases relating to the system of
social insurance, which includes unemployment compensation, workers'
compensation, and social security payments. Finance, or fiscal, courts
hear only tax-related cases and exist on two levels. Finally, a single
Federal Patents Court in Munich adjudicates disputes relating to
industrial property rights.
Except for Schleswig-Holstein, each Land has a state
constitutional court. These courts are administratively independent and
financially autonomous from any other government body. For instance, a Land
constitutional court can write its own budget and hire or fire
employees, powers that represent a degree of independence unique in the
government structure.
Sixteen judges make up the Federal Constitutional Court, Germany's
highest and most important judicial body. They are selected to serve
twelve-year, nonrenewable terms and can only be removed from office for
abuse of their position and then only by a motion of the court itself.
The Bundestag and the Bundesrat each choose half of the court's members.
Thus, partisan politics do play a role. However, compromise is built
into the system because any court decision requires a two-thirds
majority among the participating judges. The court is divided into two
senates, each consisting of a panel of eight judges with its own chief
justice. The first senate hears cases concerning the basic rights
guaranteed in Articles 1 through 19 of the Basic Law and concerning
judicial review of legislation. The second senate is responsible for
deciding constitutional disputes among government agencies and how the
political process should be regulated.
Unlike the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Constitutional
Court does not hear final appeals--that function belongs to the Federal
Court of Justice. The Basic Law explicitly confines the jurisdiction of
the Federal Constitutional Court to constitutional issues. By the late
1980s, the majority of the articles in the Basic Law had been subjected
to judicial review, and the constitutionality of federal and state
legislation had been considered in hundreds of court cases. When lacking
the legislative clout to challenge a government policy, the opposition
in the Bundestag traditionally has turned to the Federal Constitutional
Court to question the constitutionality of legislation.
Germany - The Civil Service
The Basic Law guarantees the right to vote by secret ballot in direct
and free elections to every German citizen eighteen years of age or
older. To be eligible to vote, an individual must have resided in a
constituency district for at least three months prior to an election.
Officials who are popularly elected include Bundestag deputies at the
federal level, Landtag representatives or senate members at the Land
level, and council members at the district and local levels. Executive
officials typically are not chosen in popular, direct elections;
however, in a minority of municipalities the mayor is elected by popular
vote. Elections usually are held every four years at all levels.
Elections at the federal, Land , and local levels are not held
simultaneously, as in the United States, but rather are staggered. As a
result, electoral campaigns are almost always under way, and each
election is viewed as a test of the federal government's popularity and
the strength of the opposition. All elections are held on Sunday.
Voter turnout, traditionally high--around 90 percent for national
elections--has been decreasing since the early 1980s. Voters are most
likely to participate in general elections, but even at that level
turnout in western Germany fell from 89.1 percent in 1983 to 84.3
percent in 1987, and to 78.5 percent in 1990. The 1990 general election
was the first following unification; turnout was the lowest since the
first West German election in 1949. The most consistent participants in
the electoral process are civil servants, and a clear correlation exists
between willingness to vote and increasing social and professional
status and income. Analysts had been predicting a further drop in
turnout, the result of increasing voter alienation, for the national
election in October 1994; in fact, turnout increased slightly to 79.1
percent.
In designing the electoral system, the framers of the Basic Law had
two objectives. First, they sought to reestablish the system of
proportional representation used during the Weimar Republic. A
proportional representation system distributes legislative seats based
on a party's percentage of the popular vote. For example, if a party
wins 15 percent of the popular vote, it receives 15 percent of the seats
in the Bundestag. The second objective was to construct a system of
single-member districts, like those in the United States. The framers
believed that this combination would create an electoral system that
would not fragment as the Weimar Republic had and would ensure greater
accountability of representatives to their electoral districts. A hybrid
electoral system of personalized proportional representation resulted.
Under the German electoral system, each voter casts two ballots in a
Bundestag election. The elector's first vote is cast for a candidate
running to represent a particular district. The candidate who receives a
plurality of votes becomes the district representative. Germany is
divided into 328 electoral districts with roughly 180,000 voters in each
district. Half of the Bundestag members are directly elected from these
districts. The second ballot is cast for a particular political party.
These second votes determine each party's share of the popular vote.
The first ballot is designed to decrease the anonymity of a strict
proportional representation system--thus the description
"personalized"--but it is the second ballot that determines
how many Bundestag seats each party will receive. To ensure that each
party's percentage of the combined district (first ballot) and party
(second ballot) seats equals its share of the second vote, each party is
allocated additional seats. These additional party seats are filled
according to lists of candidates drawn up by the state party
organization prior to the election. Research indicates that constituency
representatives in the Bundestag are more responsive to their
electorate's needs and are slightly more likely to follow their
constituents' preferences when voting than deputies chosen from the
party lists.
If a party wins more constituency seats than it is entitled to
according to its share of the vote in the second ballot, the party
retains those seats, and the size of the Bundestag is increased. This
was the case in both the 1990 and 1994 federal elections. After the 1990
election, the total number of seats in the Bundestag rose from 656 to
662. In 1994 sixteen extra seats were added, leading to a 672-member
Bundestag; twelve of those seats went to Kohl's CDU and accounted for
Kohl's ten-seat margin of victory.
One crucial exception to Germany's system of personalized
proportional representation is the so-called 5 percent clause. The
electoral law stipulates that a party must receive a minimum of 5
percent of the national vote, or three constituency seats, in order to
get any representation in the Bundestag. An exception was made for the
first all-Germany election in December 1990, with the Federal
Constitutional Court setting separate 5 percent minimums for the old and
new L�nder . Thus, a party needed only to win 5 percent of the
vote in either western or eastern Germany in order to receive seats in
the Bundestag.
The 5 percent clause was crafted to prevent the proliferation of
small extremist parties like those that destabilized the Weimar
Republic. This electoral hurdle has limited the success of minor parties
and consolidated the party system. Often voters are reluctant to vote
for a smaller party if they are unsure if it will clear the 5 percent
threshold. Smaller parties, such as the FDP, encourage voters to split
their ticket, casting their first ballot for a named candidate of one of
the larger parties and their second ballot for the FDP.
Small parties rarely win the three constituency seats that
automatically qualify a party for parliamentary representation according
to its overall share of the national vote. This rarity occurred in the
1994 national election. The Party of Democratic Socialism (Partei des
Demokratischen Sozialismus--PDS), the renamed communist party of the
former East Germany, won 4.4 percent of the national vote, an
insufficient total to clear the 5 percent hurdle. The PDS surprised
seemingly everyone, however, by winning four districts outright (all in
eastern Berlin), entitling it to thirty seats in the Bundestag.
Germany holds no by-elections; if Bundestag deputies resign or die in
office, they are automatically succeeded by the next candidate on the
party's list in the appropriate Land . There are also no
primary elections through which voters can choose party representatives.
Rather, a small group of official party members nominates constituency
candidates, and candidates appearing on the Land party lists
are chosen at Land party conventions held six to eight weeks
before the election. Party officials at the federal level play no part
in the nominating procedure. Roughly two-thirds of the candidates run as
both constituent and list candidates, thus increasing their chances of
winning a legislative seat. If a candidate wins in a constituency, his
or her name is automatically removed from the Land list. There
is considerable jockeying among party factions and various interest
groups as candidates are selected and placed on the Land lists.
Placement near the top of the list is usually given to incumbents, party
members of particular political prominence, or members who have the
support of a key faction or interest group. Thus, aspiring politicians
are quite dependent on their party, and successful candidates tend to
evince loyalty to the party's policy platform. Candidates must be at
least twenty-one years old.
Germany - Political Parties
Observers often describe political parties as critical stabilizing
institutions in democratic systems of government. Because of the central
role played by German political parties, many observers refer to Germany
as a "party state." The government of this type of state rests
on the principle that competition among parties provides for both
popular representation and political accountability for government
action.
On the role of parties, Article 21 of the Basic Law stipulates that
"the political parties shall participate in the forming of the
political will of the people. They may be freely established. Their
internal organization must conform to democratic principles. They must
publicly account for the sources of their funds." The 1967 Law on
Parties further solidified the role of parties in the political process
and addressed party organization, membership rights, and specific
procedures, such as the nomination of candidates for office.
The educational function noted in Article 21 ("forming of the
political will") suggests that parties should help define public
opinion rather than simply carry out the wishes of the electorate. Major
parties are closely affiliated with large foundations, which are
technically independent of individual party organizations. These
foundations receive over 90 percent of their funding from public sources
to carry out their educational role. They offer public education
programs for youth and adults, research social and political issues, and
facilitate international exchanges.
Party funding comes from membership dues, corporate and interest
group gifts, and, since 1959, public funds. Figures on party financing
from 1992 show that dues accounted for over 50 percent of SPD revenues
and 42 percent of CDU revenues. Federal resources accounted for 24
percent of SPD revenues and 30 percent of CDU revenues; donations
accounted for 8 percent and 17 percent, respectively. The parties must
report all income, expenditures, and assets. The government
substantially finances election campaigns. Any party that gains at least
0.5 percent of the national vote is eligible to receive a set sum. This
sum has increased over time and, beginning in January 1984, amounted to
DM5 (for value of the deutsche mark--see Glossary) from the federal
treasury for every vote cast for a particular party in a Bundestag
election. Parties at the Land level receive similar public
subsidies. The political parties receive free campaign advertising on
public television and radio stations for European, national, and Land
elections. Airtime is allotted to parties proportionally based on past
election performance. Parties may not purchase additional time.
Several events, including a party-financing scandal in the early
1980s and an electoral campaign in Schleswig-Holstein marked by dirty
tricks in the late 1980s, have contributed to increased public distrust
of the parties. A 1990 poll showed that West Germans, in ranking the
level of confidence they had in a dozen social and political
institutions, placed political parties very low on the list.
Although only 3 to 4 percent of voters were members of a political
party, all the major parties experienced a decrease in party membership
in the early 1990s, possibly a result of the increased distrust of
political parties. SPD membership fell by 3.5 percent in 1992 to
888,000. At the end of the 1970s, the party had had more than 1 million
members. CDU membership fell by 5 percent in 1992 to 714,000, while that
of the FDP fell by about one-fifth to 110,000.
Article 21 of the Basic Law places certain restrictions on the
ideological orientation of political parties: "Parties which, by
reason of their aims or the behavior of their adherents, seek to impair
or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence
of the Federal Republic of Germany, shall be unconstitutional. The
Federal Constitutional Court shall decide on the question of
unconstitutionality." This provision allowed for the banning of the
neo-Nazi Socialist Reich Party in 1952 and the Communist Party of
Germany (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands--KPD) in 1956.
The decision to regulate the organization and activities of political
parties reflects lessons learned from Germany's experience during the
post-World War I Weimar Republic, when a weak multiparty system severely
impaired the functioning of parliamentary democracy and was effectively
manipulated by antidemocratic parties. After World War II, many parties
dotted the West German political landscape, but electoral laws allowed
only parties with at least 5 percent of the vote to have representation
in national and Land parliaments. Over time, the smaller
parties faded from the scene. From 1962 to 1982, the Bundestag contained
representatives from only four parties: the CDU, the CSU, the SPD, and
the FDP (see table 4, Appendix). The Greens gained enough of the
national vote to win seats in 1983, and unification brought additional
parties into the Bundestag in late 1990. At the federal level, the CSU
coalesces with the CDU, the largest conservative party. The SPD is the
major party of the left. The liberal FDP is, typically, the critical
swing party, which can form a coalition with either the CDU/CSU or the
SPD to create the majority needed to pass legislation in the Bundestag.
Germany - Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union
Following World War II, the Christian Democratic Union (Christlich
Demokratische Union--CDU) was founded by a diverse group of Catholics
and Protestants, businesspeople and trade unionists, and conservatives
and moderates. The party espoused a Christian approach to politics and
rejected both Nazism and communism. CDU members advocated conservative
values and the benefits of a social market economy--that is, one
combining capitalist practices and an extensive welfare system. Konrad
Adenauer, the CDU's first leader and West Germany's first chancellor,
envisioned the CDU as a conservative catchall party (Volkspartei
) that would attract a majority of the electorate.
The CDU is a national party except in the Land of Bavaria,
where it is not active, in deference to its sister party, the Christian
Social Union (Christlich-Soziale Union--CSU). Bavaria has the largest
concentration of conservative, rural, Catholic voters, and the CSU has
dominated politics there since 1957. The CSU was personified by its
leader, Franz-Josef Strauss, until his death in 1988. By 1994 no clear
heir to Strauss had emerged, but the CSU nonetheless retained its
absolute majority in the Land election of September 1994 (see
table 21, Appendix). Germany's population increased through unification,
and thus it has become more difficult for the CSU to pass the 5 percent
electoral threshold at the national level. However, the CSU performed
strongly in the 1994 national election, garnering 7.3 percent of the
vote. The CDU and the CSU form a single Fraktion in parliament,
choose a common candidate for chancellor, and have always governed in
coalition. Below the federal level, the two party organizations are
entirely separate.
From 1949 until 1963, Adenauer and his CDU dominated German politics
(see West Germany and the Community of Nations, ch. 2). At the time of
the 1961 election, Adenauer was eighty-five years old, and the
opposition SPD was gaining in popularity. Ludwig Erhard, a CDU member
credited with engineering Germany's postwar economic miracle, succeeded
Adenauer as chancellor in 1963 (see table 3, Appendix). An economic
recession then hastened the end of the CDU/CSU's hold on power. November
1966 brought the creation of the Grand Coalition between the CDU/CSU and
the SPD with Kurt Georg Kiesinger (CDU) as chancellor and Willy Brandt
(SPD) as vice chancellor (see Ludwig Erhard and the Grand Coalition, ch.
2). The FDP was relegated to the opposition benches. After the 1969
election, the SPD formed a coalition with the FDP, leaving the CDU/CSU
in opposition for the first time in West German history.
For thirteen years, the CDU/CSU waited to regain power. By the early
1980s, the CDU had adopted a new party program consisting of
conservative economic policies, resembling those of Margaret Thatcher
and Ronald Reagan, and moderate social and foreign policies. Helmut
Kohl, as leader of the CDU/CSU Fraktion in the Bundestag, was
also rebuilding a political bridge to the FDP. In 1982, as West
Germany's economy weakened, the liberal SPD and the economically
conservative FDP could not settle on a package of economic remedies. The
FDP chose to leave the coalition and form a new government with the
CDU/CSU. The constructive vote of no-confidence was used successfully
for the first time to unseat Helmut Schmidt as chancellor; Kohl replaced
him. West Germans ratified this change through early elections called
for March 1983 (see The Christian Democratic/Christian Socialist-Free
Democratic Coalition, 1983- , ch. 2).
By the late 1980s, the CDU/CSU was growing increasingly unpopular.
The CDU/CSU was also facing a new challenge from the right in the form
of a new extreme right party, the Republikaner. In a series of Land
elections, the Republikaner successfully eroded some of the CDU/CSU's
support. The collapse of the German Democratic Republic, however,
provided Kohl with a historic opportunity to reverse the fortunes of his
party. While most Germans reacted to the change in the geopolitical
landscape with amazement, Kohl seized the moment and actively advocated
early unification (see Unification, ch. 8). The first, free, all-Germany
election since November 1932 took place in December 1990. In essence,
this election became a referendum on the process of unification; the
CDU/CSU emerged victorious, with Kohl promising greater prosperity for
all Germans. As the costs of unification, in economic, social, and
psychological terms, became more apparent to both western and eastern
Germans, the CDU began suffering setbacks in Land and local
elections. Nonetheless, Chancellor Kohl was able to claim a narrow
victory in the national election of October 1994. Kohl's governing
coalition benefited from an increasingly positive economic outlook in
Germany and from the fact that the opposition Social Democratic
candidate, Rudolf Scharping, was seen by many as lackluster (see
Political Developments since Unification, this ch.).
The organizational structure of the CDU is a product of the party's
evolution. In its early years, the CDU was a loose collection of local
groups. Over time, a weak national party emerged to complement the
strong Land party organizations. In the early 1970s, the CDU
built up its national organization to compete with the more tightly
structured SPD. Membership and party income increased accordingly. The
Federal Executive is the primary executive organ of the CDU. It consists
of about sixty individuals, including the party chair (elected for two
years), several deputy chairs, a general secretary, a treasurer, the
CDU's main legislative representatives, and the leaders of the Land
party organizations. Because the Federal Executive is too large and does
not meet frequently, a smaller subset called the Presidium, composed of
the highest ranking CDU officials, actually sets party policy and makes
administrative decisions. Each Land except Bavaria, where the
CSU is active, holds semiannual party congresses and has an executive
committee. These party structures are primarily responsible for the
selection of party candidates for Bundestag elections. Every two years,
the CDU holds a full party congress of several hundred party activists.
Kohl has served as national chairman of the CDU since 1973, headed the
parliamentary Fraktion from 1976 until 1982, and continues to
lead the party as chancellor. Kohl's single-handed management of the
party has given him a political dominance within the CDU that only
Adenauer surpassed.
The CDU maintains several auxiliary organizations designed to
increase the party's attractiveness to particular societal groups and to
represent their views within the party. CDU statutes list seven
organizations representing youth, women, workers, business and industry,
the middle class, municipal politics, and refugees. Other, unofficial
groupings exist as well. The most powerful of the auxiliary
organizations has traditionally been the one representing business and
industry. Although these auxiliary organizations are legally autonomous
from the CDU, a high percentage of their members are also members of the
CDU.
Germany - Social Democratic Party
Founded in 1875, the Social Democratic Party of Germany
(Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands--SPD) is Germany's oldest
political party and its largest in terms of membership. After World War
II, under the leadership of Kurt Schumacher, the SPD reestablished
itself as an ideological party, representing the interests of the
working class and the trade unions. The party's program, which espoused
Marxist principles, called for the nationalization of major industries
and state planning. A strong nationalist, Schumacher rejected Adenauer's
Western-oriented foreign policy and gave priority to unifying Germany,
even if that meant accommodating Soviet demands. Despite the SPD's
membership of almost 1 million in 1949, it was unable to dent Adenauer's
popularity. Schumacher's death in 1952 and a string of electoral defeats
led the SPD to rethink its platform in order to attract more votes. The
Bad Godesburg Program, a radical change in policy, was announced at the
SPD's 1959 party conference. The new program meant abandoning the
party's socialist economic principles and adopting the principles of the
social market economy. The party also dropped its opposition to West
German membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO--see
Glossary). Like the CDU, the SPD was becoming a catchall party (Volkspartei
)--albeit of the left.
Introduction of the Bad Godesberg Program, together with the
emergence of a dynamic leader in the person of Willy Brandt, marked the
beginning of improved fortunes for the SPD. Although the party gained
support from election to election, suspicion about its ability to govern
persisted. Joining the CDU/CSU in the Grand Coalition in November 1966
proved critical in erasing doubts among voters about SPD reliability.
After the 1969 election, the FDP decided to form a coalition with the
SPD--a governing configuration that held until 1982 (see The Social
Democratic-Free Democratic Coalition, 1969-82, ch. 2).
Brandt served as chancellor from 1969 to 1974. His most notable
achievements were in foreign policy. Brandt and his key aide, Egon Bahr,
put into place an entirely new approach to the
East--Ostpolitik--premised upon accepting the reality of postwar
geopolitical divisions and giving priority to reconciliation with
Eastern Europe. Brandt addressed long-standing disputes with the Soviet
Union and Poland, signing landmark treaties with both countries in 1970.
His efforts won him the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1971. The Brandt
government also negotiated the Basic Treaty with East Germany in 1972,
which formally granted recognition to the GDR. On the domestic side, the
SPD-FDP coalition succeeded in almost doubling social spending between
1969 and 1975.
Helmut Schmidt succeeded Brandt as chancellor in 1974. Although
Schmidt won a reputation as a highly effective leader, the SPD
experienced increasingly trying times. The oil crises of the 1970s
undermined economic growth globally, and West Germany experienced
economic stagnation and inflation. A critical problem for the SPD-FDP
coalition government was a difference in opinion over the appropriate
response to these problems. Divisions over economic policy were
exacerbated by a debate within the party over defense policy and the
stationing of United States intermediate nuclear forces in West Germany
in the early 1980s. In 1982 the Free Democrats decided to abandon the
coalition with the SPD and allied themselves with the CDU/CSU, forcing
the SPD out of power. Schmidt, although regarded as a statesman abroad
and an effective leader at home, became increasingly isolated within his
own party, and he chose not to campaign as the SPD chancellor candidate
in the March 1983 elections. Hans-Jochen Vogel was the SPD
standard-bearer in that election, and the party suffered a serious loss.
The SPD has been wrought by internal crises since the late 1970s, and
these divisions have continued into the 1990s. The party is split into
two factions, one giving priority to economic and social justice,
egalitarianism, and environmental protection, and the other most
concerned with controlling inflation, encouraging fiscal responsibility,
and playing a significant part in the European security system. The SPD
faces a challenge on the left from the Greens and on the right from the
CDU/CSU and the FDP. Rather than move to the left, the SPD chose a
centrist strategy in the 1987 national election and earned only a small
increase in voter support.
In 1990 the nomination of Oskar Lafontaine as chancellor candidate
suggested a tactical shift to the left aimed at attracting liberal,
middle-class voters. The national election in December 1990 became, in
essence, a referendum on unification, and the CDU's Kohl, who had
endorsed a speedy union, far outstripped the more ambivalent and
pessimistic Lafontaine in the polls. The SPD did not receive the support
it had expected in the heavily Protestant eastern L�nder .
Leadership of the SPD passed to Bj�rn Engholm, a moderate, who resigned
in May 1993 in the wake of a political scandal.
Rudolf Scharping, the moderate and relatively unknown minister
president of Rhineland-Palatinate, was elected by SPD members--the first
time in the history of the party that its members directly chose a new
leader--to replace Engholm in late June 1993. Scharping opposed Kohl in
the 1994 national election. The SPD candidate began 1994 with a strong
lead in public opinion polls, but, beginning in late April, the SPD's
support began a sustained decline for several reasons. For one, the
increasingly positive economic situation was credited to the governing
coalition. For another, Scharping was perceived by many Germans to be a
lackluster candidate; further, he was not wholly successful in
portraying himself as the conciliator who had brought harmony to a
traditionally fractious SPD. Following the election, Scharping became
the leader of the SPD's parliamentary group in the Bundestag.
The organizational structure of the SPD is highly centralized, with
decisions made in a top-down, bureaucratic fashion. Technically, the
SPD's highest authority is the party congress, which meets biannually.
Arguably, its only significant function is to elect the
thirty-six-member Executive Committee, which serves as the SPD's primary
executive body and its policy maker. The members of the Executive
Committee typically represent the various political factions within the
party. The core of the Executive Committee is the nine-member Presidium,
which represents the inner circle of party officials and is generally
composed of the party leadership. The Presidium meets weekly to conduct
the business of the party, deal with budgetary issues, and handle
administrative and campaign matters. The Presidium is also responsible
for endorsing policy originating either with an SPD government or with
the leadership of the parliamentary Fraktion when the party is
in opposition. In almost all cases, decisions made in the Presidium are
ratified by the Federal Executive and the party congress. All SPD
organizations below the national level elect their own party officials.
The district, subdistrict, and local levels are all subordinate to the Land
executive committees, which direct party policy below the national
level and are relatively independent of the federal party officials.
Like the CDU/CSU, the SPD maintains specialized groups representing
particular professions, youth, women, trade unions, refugees, and sports
interests. In the case of the SPD, these groups are closely tied to the
SPD bureaucracy, and only the Young Socialists and the trade union group
have policy-making roles.
Germany - Free Democratic Party
The Free Democratic Party (Freie Demokratische Partei--FDP) is much
smaller than the CDU or SPD, but its limited electoral strength masks
the party's inordinate influence. Prior to the 1994 election, the FDP
had experienced its worst results in national elections in 1969 (5.8
percent) and 1983 (7 percent). Both of those poor showings occurred
following an FDP decision to switch coalition partners. Beyond these two
exceptions, between 1949 and 1990 the FDP averaged 9.6 percent of the
vote in national elections. Given its pivotal role in governing
coalitions, the FDP has held over 20 percent of the cabinet posts during
its time in government.
The FDP served in coalition governments with the CDU from 1949 to
1956 and from 1961 to 1966. As of mid-1995, it has governed with the CDU
since 1982. The FDP governed in coalition with the SPD from 1969 to
1982. The remarkable amount of time that the FDP has spent in government
has been a source of continuity in the German political process. FDP
ministers carry a detailed knowledge of government personnel and
procedures unsurpassed among the other parties.
The central role played by the FDP in forming governments is
explained by the fact that a major party has been able to garner an
outright majority of Bundestag seats only once (the CDU, in 1957); thus,
the CDU and the SPD have been compelled to form coalition governments.
Therefore, the FDP has participated in every government except the one
from 1957 to 1961 and the Grand Coalition of 1966-69. Because the SPD
and CDU/CSU enjoyed roughly equal electoral support, the FDP could
choose with which major party it wished to align. This ability to make
or break a ruling coalition has provided the small FDP with considerable
leverage in the distribution of policy and cabinet positions. To take
one example, as of mid- 1995, the FDP, in the person of Klaus Kinkel,
led the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which it has held since 1969. The
most prominent member of the FDP, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, served as
foreign minister from 1974 until his resignation in 1992.
The FDP was created in 1948 under the chairmanship of Theodor Heuss,
who served as the first president of the Federal Republic, from 1949 to
1959. The party's founders wanted the FDP to revive the liberal party
tradition of pre-World War II Germany. Although there was some initial
debate over what was meant by "liberal," the party did
articulate a political philosophy distinct from that of the two major
parties. The FDP gave precedence to the legal protection of individual
freedoms. Unlike the SPD, it supported private enterprise and disavowed
any socialist leaning, and, unlike the CDU/CSU, it envisioned a strictly
secular path for itself. In the early 1990s, the Free Democrats remained
closer to the CDU/CSU on economic issues and closer to the SPD on social
and foreign policy. Many Germans view the FDP as the party of the
middle, moderating the policies of both major parties.
Following the 1949 national elections, the FDP emerged as a natural
ally of the CDU/CSU, most importantly because of a congruity of economic
policy. During the mid- to late 1960s, the FDP, under the leadership of
Walter Scheel, went through a transformation of sorts, shedding its
conservative image and emphasizing the reformist aspects of its liberal
tradition. Its new focus on social concerns resulted in an SPD-FDP
coalition in 1969. The party's new direction was ratified at the FDP's
1971 party congress, which endorsed a program of "social
liberalism." As economic conditions worsened in the early 1980s,
however, the FDP returned to its earlier advocacy of economic policies
more conservative than those endorsed by the SPD. The FDP was most
concerned with the growing budget deficit, whereas the SPD gave priority
to the impact of the economic downturn on workers. The FDP abandoned the
coalition with the SPD in September 1982, shifting allegiance to the
CDU/CSU. The FDP lost considerable electoral support in the 1983 federal
election but regained strength in the 1987 election.
The Free Democrats benefited initially from unification, garnering 11
percent of the vote in the first all-Germany elections in December 1990.
In part, the FDP's popularity in the east was directly attributable to
Genscher, an eastern German by birth who played a leading role in
negotiations over the international agreements that made unification
possible.
In light of the FDP's strong showing in the 1990 election, it is
perhaps surprising to note that, by the time of the 1994 national
election, the FDP was, in many ways, a party in crisis. It had lost
representation in every Land that held elections in 1994, and
thus the FDP has no seats in any eastern Land legislature.
Minister of Foreign Affairs Kinkel had been elected party chairman in
1993, and some critics felt that the two posts had overwhelmed him,
leading him to perform inadequately in both. Other observers, however,
argued that it was the party's message, rather than its messenger, that
needed revamping. Increasingly, the FDP found it difficult to
differentiate its policy from that of Kohl's CDU. Given the fact that
the FDP had performed so poorly at the Land level in 1994,
there was much speculation as to whether the party would cross the 5
percent hurdle in the national election. FDP politicians breathed a
collective sigh of relief when the party garnered 6.9 percent of the
vote when Germans went to the polls in October 1994. Reportedly, the FDP
had over 500,000 CDU voters to thank for this outcome, because they gave
their second votes tactically to the FDP to ensure a victory for Kohl.
One poll showed that 63 percent of those who voted for the FDP gave the
CDU as their preferred party.
The structure of the FDP is decentralized and is loosely organized at
all levels. The party basically is a federation of Land
organizations, each maintaining a degree of well-guarded independence.
The national party headquarters lacks the power to orchestrate
activities at the Land level, and the formal party
institutions--the Federal Executive, Presidium, and party congress--are
weak. The FDP deemed this lack of centralization necessary to
accommodate differences within the party, particularly between economic
conservatives and social liberals. The FDP has never sought to be a mass
party, and its members accordingly have little influence on decision
making.
Germany - The Greens
In the early years of the FRG, several minor parties representing a
range of political views from the neo-Nazi right to the communist left
played a role in the political system. Support for these parties
dwindled over time, and, after 1961, the FDP was the only smaller party
to cross the 5 percent threshold necessary to gain Bundestag
representation. The presence of the 5 percent clause in federal, Land
, and most local election laws was a significant reason for the decline
of minor parties. The major parties have encouraged this trend by
sponsoring certain regulations--for instance, in the areas of federal
financing for political parties and procedures for nominating party
candidates--that have also made it more difficult for minor parties to
survive.
A challenge to West Germany's established party system emerged in
1983 when a relatively new party, the Greens (Die Gr�nen), entered the
Bundestag. The Green movement had been gaining support steadily since
the late 1970s, and by the end of 1982 the Greens were represented in
six of West Germany's eleven Land parliaments. The Greens'
platform gave priority to environmental concerns and an end to the use
of nuclear energy as a power source. The party also opposed the
stationing of United States intermediate-range nuclear weapons in
Western Europe. On the basis of this platform, the Greens won 5.6
percent of the vote in the 1983 federal election. The success of the
Greens at the federal level--which continued in the 1987 national
election with the party winning 8.3 percent of the vote--led to a
"greening" of the established parties, with environmental
awareness increasing across the political spectrum. The Greens also
livened up the Bundestag, appearing in jeans and sweaters rather than
business suits and bringing plants into proceedings.
The Greens were plagued by a split between the Realos (realists) and
the Fundis (fundamentalists). The Realos are pragmatists who want to
serve as a constructive opposition and ultimately exercise power. The
more radical Fundis are committed to a fundamental restructuring of
society and politics; they do not want to share power with the Social
Democrats--their obvious allies--or in any way legitimate the existing
political system.
The Greens did not embrace the unification of Germany and opposed any
automatic extension of West German economic and political principles to
the east. The West German Greens chose not to form an electoral alliance
with their eastern counterparts, Alliance 90 (B�ndnis 90), prior to the
1990 elections because of their opposition to union. This lack of
enthusiasm for unification alienated the Greens from much of their own
constituency. The party's chances for success in the December 1990
all-Germany election were further undermined by the SPD's choice of
Lafontaine as its candidate for chancellor. Lafontaine moved the SPD to
the left, successfully co-opting "green" issues. The West
German Greens received only 4.8 percent of the vote in the 1990
election, an outcome that left them with no seats in the Bundestag.
Alliance 90, composed largely of former dissidents and focusing heavily
on civil rights, received 6 percent of the eastern vote and therefore
received eight seats in the Bundestag. Had these two parties run in
coalition, they could have secured about forty parliamentary seats.
Alliance 90 had grown out of the major human rights groups that
demonstrated against the communist system and effectively brought down
the Berlin Wall in 1989. Like the West German Greens, Alliance 90 had
not wanted quick unity with the west either, but the sentiment of the
majority of eastern Germans was clear.
Young middle-class voters living in urban areas form the core of
support for the West German Greens. Alliance 90 also receives much of
its support from this group, although one-third of its supporters are
over fifty years of age. Employees of the public sector are
disproportionately strong supporters of both parties. Election results
suggest that neither working-class voters nor independent businesspeople
are likely to vote for either party.
The devastating loss for the West German Greens in the 1990 election
brought the conflict between Realos and Fundis to a head, with the
pragmatic wing emerging as victor. The party conference in April 1991
ratified a set of Realo reforms. In the series of Land
elections that followed (Hesse, Rhineland-Palatinate, Hamburg, and
Bremen), the Greens did well. This trend continued in 1992 as the Greens
received an impressive 9.5 percent of the vote in the wealthy,
southwestern Land of Baden-W�rttemberg. In the rural,
northwestern Land of Schleswig-Holstein, the Greens garnered
4.97 percent of the vote, coming within 397 votes of surpassing the 5
percent hurdle.
In January 1993, the West German Greens merged with Alliance 90 in
preparation for the spate of federal and Land elections
scheduled for 1994. The new party is listed officially as Alliance
90/Greens (B�ndnis 90/Die Gr�nen), but members informally call it the
Greens.
Overall, the Greens performed well in the series of Land elections
in 1994. Following the 1994 national election, with 7.3 percent of the
vote, the Greens emerged as the third strongest party in the federal
parliament. The obvious coalition partner for the Greens is the SPD,
though one increasingly hears talk of possible CDU/Green coalitions.
Indeed, the Greens have moderated many of their positions, a reflection
of the dominance in the party of the Realos. The best known figure in
the party is Joschka Fischer, a prominent Realo and a former environment
minister in the Land of Hesse.
Germany - The Republikaner and the German People's Union
On the opposite end of the political spectrum from the Greens are two
parties of the far right, the Republikaner (Die Republikaner--REP), with
about 23,000 members, and the German People's Union (Deutsche
Volksunion--DVU), with 26,000 members. As of mid- 1995, these two
parties had not gained sufficient support to win seats in the Bundestag,
but the DVU was represented in Land parliaments in Bremen (with
6.2 percent of the vote in 1991) and Schleswig-Holstein (with 6.3
percent of the vote in 1992); the Republikaner held seats in Baden-W�rttemberg
(with 10.9 percent of the vote in 1992). The Republikaner received 2.1
percent of the vote in the all-Germany election of December 1990 and 1.9
percent in the October 1994 election.
In the early 1990s, the rallying cry of the far right was
"Germany for the Germans." This slogan appeals to many
Germans, particularly young, male, rural, less educated, blue-collar
workers who fear for their economic future and regard the large pool of
asylum-seekers as competitors for housing, social programs, and jobs.
These particular Germans are also uneasy about greater integration
within the European Union (EU--see Glossary), which, in their minds,
requires Germany to forfeit too much of its identity and share too much
of its prosperity. According to some observers, the far right's
electoral support represents, in part, a protest vote against the
mainstream parties. German politicians repeatedly remark on the
electorate's Politikverdrossenheit --a deep disaffection with
all things political.
Franz Sch�nhuber, a one-time Bavarian television moderator and
former officer in the Nazi Waffen-SS, formed the Republikaner in 1983
from a group of discontented members of the CSU. Sch�nhuber published a
book in 1981 boasting of his experiences in the Waffen-SS but has
staunchly denied that his party has neo-Nazi leanings. Elected to the
European Parliament in 1989, Sch�nhuber, over seventy years old in
mid-1995, tried to portray the party as a mainstream group that does not
promote bigotry but merely protects German national interests. The party
platform speaks for itself. In it, the Republikaner blame foreigners,
who make up about 8 percent of the German population, for the housing
shortage, street crime, and pollution. Among other things, the party has
proposed banning Islamic community centers from sponsoring political or
cultural activities other than prayer, and it has advocated putting
asylum-seekers in collection camps "to minimize the native
population's existing and growing antipathy toward foreign
residents." The party platform also proposes creating separate
classes for foreign schoolchildren, and it rejects "the
multicultural society that has made the United States the world's
largest showplace of crime and latent racial conflict." Reportedly,
the Republikaner attracted about 5,000 new members in eastern Germany in
1992 and 1993. Sch�nhuber contends that support in the east comes from
young Germans between twenty and thirty years of age, whereas in the
west support comes from members of his own generation. Sch�nhuber, the
party's only nationally known figure, was deposed as party leader in the
fall of 1994 because he had proposed that his party join forces with the
more extreme DVU.
Gerhard Frey, the Munich publisher of two weekly neofascist
newspapers, Deutsche National-Zeitung (print run 63,000) and Deutsche
Wochen-Zeitung (20,000), founded the DVU in 1971. The DVU espouses
many of the views held by the Republikaner, but it goes one step further
in tacitly supporting violence against asylum- seekers and foreign
workers. Frey, over sixty years old in mid-1995, has sought to distance
himself from pro-Nazi sentiments while simultaneously insisting that
most Germans want to live in a racially pure country.
Germany's domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Office for the
Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt f�r Verfassungsschutz--BfV),
announced in April 1992 that the DVU was under surveillance to determine
if the party met the legal definition of "antidemocratic," a
classification that would permit the government to ban it. A similar
investigation of the Republikaner was announced in December 1992. Such
surveillance legally can include government infiltration of the party,
monitoring of mail and telephone calls, and interrogation of party
members. The BfV has classified both parties as "right-wing
extremist" and "constitutionally hostile."
Germany - Party of Democratic Socialism
The political institutions of unified Germany are remarkably similar
to those of the former West Germany, reflecting minor adjustments to
accommodate the larger population rather than making fundamental
changes. The unfolding drama of unification is much more evident when
one takes into consideration Germany's political landscape, including
elections, political climate in the unified country, and issues that
have dominated that landscape.
The Bundestag election of December 2, 1990, was the first all-Germany
election since 1932. The election returned to power the governing
coalition of the CDU/CSU and the FDP. The central issue of the campaign
was unification. Parties that strongly supported unification scored
well; those that were ambivalent or opposed to unification, such as the
SPD and the Greens, fared poorly.
Helmut Kohl's political fortunes soon declined, however, in the wake
of problems with the unification process. Increasing unemployment in the
east, and anger in the west about a tax increase that Kohl had pledged
to avoid before the 1990 election, caused the CDU to lose a series of Land
elections after unification. As a result, in 1991 the ruling coalition
lost its majority in the Bundesrat when the CDU lost power in the L�nder
of Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate (Kohl's home Land ).
This development made it more difficult for the Kohl government to gain
approval for key legislative initiatives.
The year 1994 was nicknamed the "super election year"
because Germany conducted approximately twenty elections at the local, Land
, federal, and European levels, culminating in the national election in
October. In eight Land elections throughout 1994, the SPD fared
better than did the CDU. The SPD thus increased its majority in the
Bundesrat. The FDP performed miserably at the Land level,
failing to gain the required 5 percent for representation in all eight
elections. Given this poor showing, many observers question the staying
power of the FDP as a political force in Germany. Observers were
surprised by the strength of the former Communists (PDS) in the eastern L�nder
; all five new L�nder held elections in 1994, with the PDS
garnering from 16 to 23 percent of the vote in each (see table 21,
Appendix). The PDS increased its share of the vote over the results in
1990 and solidified the party's position as the third strongest
political force in eastern Germany. On November 9, 1994, Germans
celebrated the fifth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
However, much still divides eastern and western Germans, not least
economic success, and the PDS was able to capitalize on eastern
resentments.
Germans voted in national elections on October 16, 1994. Chancellor
Kohl was challenged by Rudolf Scharping, the minister president of the
western Land of Rhineland-Palatinate and the chairman of the
SPD. Election themes included unemployment and economic growth,
particularly in light of unification, as well as law and order. Except
for the future of the EU, foreign policy issues did not figure in the
election campaign.
Scharping began 1994 with a strong lead in public opinion polls, but,
beginning in late April, the SPD's support began a sustained decline for
several reasons. First, the CDU benefited from an increasingly positive
economic outlook in Germany. Second, Scharping was seen by many to be a
lackluster candidate; further, he was not wholly successful in
portraying himself as the conciliator who had brought harmony to a
traditionally fractious SPD. Chancellor Kohl, however, was seen to
embody stability, continuity and predictability; one of his election
slogans was "no experiments." Third, the CDU/CSU launched a
fierce campaign against the PDS, whose members had belonged to the
Communist SED, calling them "red-painted fascists," and Kohl
succeeded in incriminating the SPD, at least marginally, in this seeming
Communist revival. The SPD provided Kohl with this opportunity by
forming a minority government with the Greens in the eastern Land
of Saxony-Anhalt that depended on the votes (or abstention) of the PDS
to remain in office. This CDU/CSU tactic was aimed, effectively it would
seem, at those western German voters who, despite Scharping, questioned
the SPD's commitment to centrist policies.
Kohl's governing coalition claimed a narrow victory; its majority in
the Bundestag was reduced from 134 to ten seats (see table 4, Appendix).
The Greens and the former Communists also won representation in the
Bundestag. The far-right Republikaner, seen as a spent political force,
failed to clear the 5 percent hurdle necessary to enter the Bundestag.
Voter turnout, up slightly from the 1990 election, was 79.1 percent.
Following the election, Scharping became the leader of the SPD's
parliamentary group in the Bundestag, which will allow him to keep a
high national profile in preparation for the next national election. The
coalition government of Kohl's CDU, the CSU, and the FDP will focus on
creating jobs, trimming bureaucracy, fighting crime, and expanding the
EU eastward.
The FDP's seemingly chronic inability to win representation in Land
parliaments means that it is increasingly losing its regional bases and
its reservoirs of future political talent. If and how the FDP can
regenerate support remains to be seen. Recent CDU overtures to the
Greens--until recently an unthinkable development--also suggest a CDU
awareness of the possible need for an alternate coalition partner in the
future. The 1994 election may thus mark the beginning of some profound
changes in political alignments in Germany.
Unified Germany's second national election suggests that the
country's east-west divide has not narrowed. The strongest evidence is
the success of the PDS in winning parliamentary representation. In
eastern Germany, the PDS received 19.2 percent of the vote, compared
with only 0.9 percent in the west. The national tally of 4.4 percent was
insufficient to clear the 5 percent hurdle for parliamentary
representation, but the PDS benefited from an oft-forgotten electoral
law that automatically qualifies a party for representation according to
its overall share of the national vote when the party wins three
electoral districts outright (first votes). The PDS surprised seemingly
everyone in winning four districts outright (all in eastern Berlin),
entitling it to thirty seats in the Bundestag.
The future of the PDS is unclear and may well depend on whether the
CDU and the SPD develop programs that attract current PDS constituents.
Kohl's coalition lost twice as many votes in the east as in the west,
winning 49.9 percent of the vote in the west and 42.5 percent in the
east. The SPD faces the challenge in the east of competing against two
other parties of the left, the PDS and the Greens. When considering the
success of the PDS, however, one must recall that 80 percent of eastern
Germans did not vote for the former Communists. At present, PDS leaders
are working to rid the party of its Stalinist heritage; if successful,
the PDS would certainly have a broader appeal.
As of mid-1995, right-wing extremist parties held seats in three of
sixteen Land parliaments (Baden-W�rtemberg, Bremen, and
Schleswig-Holstein) and appeared to be fading from the German political
landscape. The most significant of these parties, the Republikaner, with
about 23,000 members, attracted support principally by criticizing a
government policy that allowed hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers
into Germany. However, the Kohl government engineered a revision of the
German constitution in 1992 that severely restricts the right to asylum
(which had been the most liberal in Europe), thus largely calming public
concerns. The far right has thereby lost its major platform and has been
tainted by violent attacks against foreigners in Germany. In-fighting
has also divided the party and resulted in the ouster of leader Franz
Sch�nhuber, a former Waffen-SS member and the party's one nationally
known figure (see The Republikaner and the German People's Union, this
ch.). In the October 1994 election, with close to 80 percent voter
turnout, the Republikaner received only 1.9 percent of the national
vote, thus once again failing to win representation in the Bundestag.
This outcome cemented a downward trend, which had been evinced in the
European Parliament election and Land elections throughout the
year. That downward trend is particularly notable in light of the fact
that extreme right parties have met with considerable electoral success
in several West European countries, such as France, Belgium, and Italy.
A plethora of controversial issues has marked political debate in
united Germany, for example, the right to political asylum, the upsurge
in right-wing violence, and the tensions surrounding the unification
process itself. The Basic Law originally contained a liberal regulation
on the right to asylum, and in 1992 a total of 438,191 asylum-seekers
streamed into Germany--up from 256,112 in 1991. Most asylum-seekers were
from Romania, the former Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Many Germans
complained that the German law permitted many people who were not
political refugees, but rather economic migrants, to take advantage of
the country's generous welfare system and compete with Germans for
scarce housing. Extreme right-wing parties capitalized on this
widespread resentment against asylum-seekers in April 1992 elections in
two western L�nder .
On December 6, 1992, Kohl's governing coalition and the opposition
Social Democrats agreed on a constitutional amendment to limit the right
to asylum. The asylum compromise between the government and the
opposition included several important changes. First, asylum-seekers
from European Community (EC--see Glossary) states or states that accept
the Geneva Convention on Refugees and the European Human Rights
Convention have no right to asylum in Germany. Second, any refugee
passing through "safe third countries," which include all of
Germany's neighbors, is ineligible for asylum. An individual may appeal
this decision but may not stay in Germany during the course of that
appeal. In exchange for these concessions, the Social Democrats won
agreements to place an annual limit of 200,000 on the immigration of
ethnic Germans eligible for automatic German citizenship and to ease the
terms of citizenship for longtime foreign residents of Germany (see
Immigration, ch. 3). Parliament approved the new asylum law in late May
1993, and it took effect on July 1. About 10,000 protesters surrounded
the Bundestag on the day of the vote, but apparently about 70 percent of
Germans approved the more restrictive asylum law. The number of
foreigners seeking asylum in Germany has fallen substantially since the
new law went into effect.
Another pressing issue has been the escalation of right-wing
violence. In 1992 right-wing extremists committed 2,584 acts of violence
in Germany, an increase of 74 percent from 1991. Seventeen people were
killed in the 1992 attacks, six in 1991. About 60 percent of the attacks
occurred in western Germany and 40 percent in eastern Germany--home to
only 20 percent of the population. About 90 percent of the right-wing
attacks in 1992 were directed against foreigners--above all, at
asylum-seekers and their lodgings. People under the age of twenty-one
committed 70 percent of these attacks.
In November 1992, three Turkish residents were killed in a
firebombing in M�lln in western Germany. Of the 80 million people
living in Germany in 1993, about 1.8 million were Turks, making that
ethnic group the country's largest minority. Two-thirds of those Turks
had lived in Germany at least a decade. The overwhelming majority of
Germans condemn xenophobia and neo-Nazism, and after the M�lln attack,
over 3 million Germans demonstrated across the country against
right-wing violence. Following the violence in M�lln, the government
began a crackdown on far-right violence. The federal prosecutor took
over for the first time the investigation of an antiforeigner attack.
The decision was made to charge the perpetrators with murder, rather
than manslaughter, as had been done following previous arson attacks
leading to fatalities. In December 1993, a judge imposed maximum
sentences on the two men convicted in the M�lln killings. Other
measures taken by the government included banning four small neo-Nazi
organizations and outlawing the sale, manufacture, and distribution of
the music of several neo-Nazi rock bands.
Despite the government's actions, the number of right-wing attacks
increased in the first six months of 1993. The most serious incident
occurred on May 29, 1993, when right-wing youths firebombed a house in
Solingen in western Germany, killing five Turks. In late December 1993,
four right-wing youths were charged with murder in the Solingen attack.
In late October 1993, United States citizens for the first time became
the target of right-wing violence. Two skinheads harassed
African-American members of the United States Olympic luge team, which
was practicing at an eastern German training center. When a white luger
intervened on his teammates' behalf, he was severely beaten by the
skinheads.
By the end of 1993, the surge in right-wing violence appeared to be
abating. The federal police reported that, in the first eleven months of
1993, rightist crime dropped by 28 percent compared with the same period
in 1992. As of December 2, 1993, eight people had died in rightist
violence compared with seventeen in 1992. A police spokesman stated that
the decline reflected decisive executive action, including faster police
responses, tougher sentences, and bans on neo-Nazi groups.
Much of the public debate on how to address the causes of right-wing
violence has focused on how better to integrate foreigners into German
society. Chancellor Kohl announced some steps to make it easier for
foreigners to become German citizens. He stopped short, however, of
advocating dual citizenship. Concern exists in law enforcement circles
that neo-Nazis are building an underground network of small, organized
cells patterned in part on those of the Red Army Faction (Rote Armee
Fraktion--RAF), the far-left organization that carried out bombings,
assassinations, and kidnappings in the 1970s and 1980s (see The Student
Movement and Terrorism, ch. 2; Dissidence and Terrorist Activity, ch.
9). The establishment of such a network would make it much more
difficult for the authorities to monitor neo-Nazi activities.
A final issue dominating Germany's political scene has been the
ongoing challenge of implementing unification. Among other things, the
two Germanys have had to enact uniform legislation, decide on what city
should serve as their capital, and bring the former leaders of East
Germany to justice.
Unification left Germany with a population possessing widely
different views on matters such as the family, religion, and the work
ethic. A particularly sensitive issue has been abortion. East Germany,
which permitted free abortion on demand up to the twelfth week of
pregnancy, had a markedly more liberal policy on abortion than did West
Germany. In June 1992, the Bundestag, in an attempt to unify abortion
policy, approved an abortion law--opposed by Chancellor Kohl--that
granted a woman the right to an abortion up to the twelfth week of
pregnancy, provided she accepted counseling first. Thirty-two of the 268
CDU legislators, primarily from eastern Germany, broke ranks with the
party leadership and approved the bill.
On August 4, 1992, the Federal Constitutional Court issued an
injunction against the parliament's decision, and abortion continued to
be available on demand in the east and largely prohibited in the west,
pending a final court judgment. On May 28, 1993, the Federal
Constitutional Court struck down the compromise law on the basis of the
Basic Law's explicit protection of the rights of the unborn child. The
ruling held that abortion was no longer a criminal offense but that
abortions would only be allowed in the first three months of pregnancy
for women who first participated in a formal consultation process.
Further, the ruling barred insurance funds from paying for abortions and
Land hospitals from performing them. The ruling went into
effect on June 16, 1993. Women's groups, opposition politicians from the
west, and easterners from across the political spectrum expressed
outrage at the court's decision. At some point in the future, the
Bundestag is still expected to pass a uniform abortion law for the
entire country.
Another question that arose with unification was where to locate the
new German capital. The Bundestag voted in June 1991 to move the capital
from <"http://worldfacts.us/Germany-Bonn.htm"> Bonn
to Berlin, fulfilling a long-standing promise of West German
politicians across the board. The vote in favor of Berlin was
surprisingly narrow, with 338 legislators supporting Berlin and 320
supporting Bonn. Many of the parliamentarians who voted for Bonn spoke
of the symbolic importance of the capital's geographical location, with
Bonn bearing witness to the critical importance of the Atlantic Alliance
and Germany's commitment to Western democracy. Many who supported Berlin
saw their choice as a necessary act of conciliation toward eastern
Germans and a necessary step toward Germany's return to the world stage
as a "normal" nation.
The quick move to Berlin that many eastern Germans had hoped for was
thwarted by a quiet, yet effective, campaign led by Bonn bureaucrats and
certain key politicians who opposed the Bundestag decision on several
grounds. First, members of this group cited the huge expense of moving
the government, estimated at just under US$19 billion by the Ministry of
Finance. Second, they argued that Berlin's historical associations as
the capital of a united Germany were negative and that Germany should
avoid doing something to suggest to its neighbors a return to
expansionist or aggressive tendencies. Third, many officials balked at
the personal inconvenience of moving to Berlin if they owned homes in
the Bonn area or otherwise faced having to uproot their families from
the rather provincial Rhineland and relocate in a booming metropolis.
After two years of indecision, the Kohl cabinet announced in October
1993 that the government would complete the move to Berlin by December
31, 2000; the move will begin in 1998. The opposition Social Democrats
had threatened to make the government's reluctance to move an issue in
the 1994 national election campaign. Foreign embassies and private
companies had delayed their moves to Berlin while waiting for an
official announcement of a timetable. The cabinet decision sent a
decisive message to investors and property developers who believed the
move would attract greater investment in the five eastern L�nder
. The Bonn lobby won certain important concessions as well: eight
government ministries will keep their headquarters in Bonn, and the
remainder will retain offices there. Kohl received sharp criticism about
the distant deadline from some commentators, who argued that the
government's hesitation to complete the move was impeding the social and
psychological unification of east and west.
Many Germans see the prosecution of former East German officials as a
necessary part of coming to terms with divided Germany's past. On
November 12, 1992, a trial opened in Berlin involving six defendants,
including former East German leader Erich Honecker, former minister of
state security Erich Mielke, and former prime minister Willi Stoph.
These men were put on trial for the killings of East Germans trying to
cross the border to the west. Two days later, however, Mielke and Stoph
were declared unfit to stand trial for health reasons. Charges were then
dropped against Honecker because of his advanced cancer, and he was
allowed to join his family in Chile in early 1993. The remaining three
defendants--all former members of East Germany's National Defense
Council--were convicted in September 1993, receiving prison sentences
ranging from four-and-one-half years to seven-and-one-half years.
From the start, the legal basis for the trials was questionable.
German law does not apply to acts committed by East German citizens in a
state that no longer exists. Thus, the defendants had to be prosecuted
for transgressions of East German law, and East Germany's border law
allowed guards to shoot anyone trying to flee. The Berlin prosecutors
argued that the law was evil and ought not to have been obeyed, a form
of reasoning with which the judges agreed. Many legal scholars believe
that the convictions could be reversed on appeal, however. In part, the
prosecution of these former East German leaders grew out of public
indignation over the trials of border guards while senior policy makers
were going free. By late 1993, ten border guards had stood trial. Nine
received short, suspended sentences or acquittals; one received a
sentence of six years for having shot and killed a fugitive who had
already been caught and was under arrest. In the fall of 1993, the
Bundestag extended the statute of limitations by three years for minor
crimes by former East German officials and by five years for more
serious crimes.
Most observers of Germany believe the country will solve the economic
and political challenges associated with the unification process.
However, polls indicated that, as time passed, eastern and western
Germans seemed to see the gap between them widening rather than
narrowing. In an April 1993 poll, when asked whether eastern and western
Germans felt solidarity or antagonism toward one another, 71 percent in
the west and 85 percent in the east answered "antagonism." In
the coming years, perhaps the greatest challenge to Germans of the east
and west will be to master the task of achieving social harmony. Only
then can they become one nation.