Not much was missing, and March 9 would have plunged the House of Representatives and the Senate into a serious crisis at the worst possible time. On that Monday, numerous top representatives of the government and parliament, including Governing Mayor Michael Müller (SPD), gathered for a ceremony in the ballroom of the parliament.
Also a guest: Jeremy Issacharow, Israeli ambassador to Germany and – to the dismay of many – tested positive for the corona virus a little later. After hectically scheduled tests, the short-term cancellation of a parliamentary session including a government declaration and the quarantine of several top politicians, the all-clear followed: Issacharow was not contagious at the time of the event, and an infection of the event participants was “excluded” according to the health department in Mitte.
And yet this warning was not without consequences: A discussion broke out in and between the groups about how the Chamber of Deputies can be made crisis-proof, i.e. if more than half of all 160 parliamentarians fail, it remains quorate and therefore able to act.
The quorum for quorum is currently 50 percent of all MPs and, unlike the German Bundestag, for example, is regulated in the state constitution.
A change in the quorum therefore requires a two-thirds majority in parliament and thus at least an agreement between the coalition parties, supplemented by the approval of one or more opposition groups.
No two-thirds majority in sight
Accelerated by the first two and only corona infections in Parliament that became known at the end of March and internally circulating projections of drastically increasing infection rates in Berlin, the first suggestions were quickly on the table.
[Jeden Morgen ab 6 Uhr berichten Chefredakteur Lorenz Maroldt und sein Team im Tagesspiegel-Newsletter Checkpoint über Berlins Irrungen und Wirrungen. Jetzt kostenlos anmelden: checkpoint.tagesspiegel.de]
The SPD wanted to introduce an emergency parliament with a reduced number of participants, but failed due to the rejection of its partners as well as the FDP and AfD. Also not capable of a majority: a proposal from the President of Parliament Ralf Wieland (SPD) advocated a “minimal” change to the constitution by deleting Article 43 paragraph 1. This formulated the lower limit of quorum. But there was also no prospect of a two-thirds majority.
And because another SPD initiative ultimately also deflagrated a draft for a “pandemic law” that would have made it possible to fall below the quorum in “exceptional emergency situations”, there is still no solution to this day.
“There will be nothing more in this legislature, no chance,” can be heard from representatives of the members of the crisis team involved in the negotiations in the House of Representatives. There are different versions of the reasons.
CDU and FDP criticize the government factions
For the parliamentary director of the CDU parliamentary group, Heiko Melzer, the matter is clear: constitutional changes for a crisis-proof and digital parliament have failed due to the lack of a common line in the coalition.
“A missed opportunity,” says Melzer. “The words and body language of the coalition representatives are more reminiscent of the end of a messed up marriage and the last appointment with the divorce lawyer than of constructive cooperation.”
Basically, “because of the disagreement of the coalition, you are not an inch further,” explains Melzer, accusing the coalition factions of failing to agree “on the lack of the ability to compromise with each other. Especially when it comes to constitutional adjustments that need a two-thirds majority for good reason, you have to find a broad compromise. If you only have your own green goals in mind, that’s impossible, ”Melzer aims in the direction of one of the three government parties.
His FDP counterpart Paul Fresdorf added: “I consider the blockade to be irresponsible and cannot understand it. As a result, a situation is accepted that we could have averted. ”Just like the CDU, the Liberals and the AfD could have agreed to a reduction in quorum in clearly defined and justified exceptional cases.
Digital committee meetings are already necessary
This failed on the left and above all the Greens, because firstly both opposed an amendment to the constitution and secondly insisted on the option of digital parliamentary meetings and votes, Fresdorf and Melzer explain.
Stefan Ziller, deputy chairman of the Green Group and an expert in digitization and administration, repeatedly attacks in such a way that, in his view, a constitutional change is not necessary to maintain a quorum.
Digital committee meetings are already possible, says Ziller, referring to the practice that has meanwhile been practiced that telephone committee members who are not present can be called by telephone and the meetings can be streamed online.
In turn, plenary sessions held virtually also called Ziller a “hurdle”. He conceded that it was difficult “to guarantee technical security” and that a real face-to-face exchange in Parliament was needed for political debates. Nevertheless, he suggests that the rules of procedure should make it possible to enable voting via video switching and that a “post-voting” must be organized to prevent manipulation.
No solution for digital secret elections
He bites granite at the SPD, among others, and the scientific parliamentary services of the Bundestag and the House of Representatives also come to a different conclusion. Even digital experts and activists are constantly warning that digital voting is non-transparent and susceptible to manipulation. This is also because most citizens cannot understand the software behind election and voting programs.
Marina Weisband, former top woman of the Pirate Party and now a member and advisor to the Greens on network policy issues, explains: “We currently have no solution for secret digital elections worldwide. It’s a huge problem, but it’s just that. ”She advocates digital events in combination with postal voting.
[Behalten Sie den Überblick: Corona in Ihrem Kiez. In unseren Tagesspiegel-Bezirksnewslettern berichten wir über die Krise und die Auswirkungen auf Ihren Bezirk. Kostenlos und kompakt: leute.tagesspiegel.de]
Remain the left. They have a similar position to their coalition partners from the Greens. “In emergency situations, it must be possible for the parliament to come together digitally,” emphasizes Steffen Zillich, the managing director of the parliament. Like Ziller, however, he is of the opinion that the basic principle must apply to discuss real and non-virtual political contents and opinions in Parliament.
“We need a sensible instrument box”
For a digital session, “emergencies and the range must be precisely defined,” says Zillich and argues for a limited range of decisions. For example, requests to dissolve Parliament should not be permitted in the digital field. And if laws should be passed via stream, they would have to be ratified during a real meeting. Committee meetings should be possible digitally.
They already are, but Zillich wants to clarify the question of how MEPs can participate in a debate and how experts can be heard.
Zillich emphasizes that the public must also have the opportunity to attend digital committee meetings. “We need a sensible set of instruments to maintain parliamentary operations in emergency situations,” says Zillich.
Filling it with the tools accepted by everyone is unlikely to succeed in this legislature. The Berlin House of Representatives is simply not prepared for a possible second wave of infection.
