All of the photos from the archive mostly show two men, more rarely a woman, who seem to be looking at the camera in unison. It is about the management of investigative committees in the Bavarian state parliament, the chairman and his deputy. Since 1946, Parliament has set up investigative bodies almost 70 times. They are led by a dual leadership, as is currently the case in the committee on the mask affair by former Minister of Justice Winfried Bausback (CSU) and the Green Florian Siekmann.
Some duos have even been used regularly in the history of the state parliament: Richard Hundhammer (CSU) and Karl-Heinz Hiersemann (SPD) headed underground committees together three times in the 1970s and 1980s: on the “Glöggler memoirs “, which dealt with questionable economic aid, as well as twice on the “Langemann affair”, the case of an illustrious former BND secret service agent in the Bavarian state security service. What the committee leaders had in common over the many decades: they were always a combination of government and opposition.
That will be different soon. The Greens, SPD and FDP recently presented their plans for two more U-committees in the state parliament, on the explosion in costs for the second main S-Bahn line in Munich and on the lease of the Nuremberg “Museum of the Future”. Numbers three and four in this electoral term, before Christmas it should come to an appointment. According to the usual allocation of the chief posts, the presidency in the third committee goes to the CSU (with a deputy from the AfD), in the fourth committee to the free voters (with the CSU as deputy). Which number will deal with which topic depends on the order in which it was used and has not yet been clarified. In any case, the leadership duo in the fourth committee will be made up exclusively of the government factions. And that wasn’t the case for a long time. Very long.
Like research of Süddeutsche Zeitung and information from the state parliament office show that this was the case for the last time over 70 years ago: in the second electoral term from 1950 to 1954. At that time, Prime Minister Hans Ehard (CSU) ruled in a coalition with the SPD. And a committee of inquiry in 1954, at the center of which was the credit committee of the state parliament and the controversial granting of loans, for example to a member of parliament’s company, was headed by the CSU and SPD.
Incidentally, during the same election period there was also a sub-committee headed exclusively by representatives of the opposition – on the rampant construction costs at the Munich Residenztheater, the topics are similar. As a result, things were different for many decades, until the U-Committee on the Gustl Mollath case in 2013, in addition to the governing CSU, the always oppositional SPD was involved in the management. The current government occupation of the main line or museum is therefore a novelty.
That happened by chance, not by the greedy grab of a faction. The basis is the Bavarian constitution and the rules of procedure of the state parliament. As far as the order of the committee chairs is concerned, this is proposed by the state parliament administration at the beginning of the electoral period on the basis of the calculated strength ratio and determined in agreement with the parliamentary groups. This distribution does not change in the course of the election period.
There are three conspicuous features in the next two U-committees, all of which have officially come about that way. First, the three traffic light factions, although they initiate the bodies, will not chair any of them themselves. Secondly, the AfD, which has shrunk due to resignations, will be the deputy in the third committee – although the SPD parliamentary group has more MPs. The decisive factor is the strength at the beginning of the election period. And thirdly, there is the rare case of a management exclusively by the coalition.
Florian von Brunn, SPD parliamentary group leader in the state parliament, calls on the government factions to show their strength – and to let the opposition take the lead.
(Photo: Matthias Balk/dpa)
The SPD had recently made an attempt to adjust the order of the current group strength. The rule not only affects committee access, but also the course of the speeches in the plenary session. SPD faction leader Florian von Brunn was not listened to by the CSU, which insisted on “continuity”; otherwise you would have to constantly make changes, it was said – so rejected. The consequences of this, says Brunn, can now be seen in the vice-presidency for the AfD. “A far-right party must not take on such functions.”
Brunn also considers the leadership of the fourth committee by both government factions to be unfortunate. In the mask committee you can currently see “how important it is for the opposition to participate in the presidency” – he means the often probing questions of the green deputy Siekmann. Brunn’s proposal for the FW-CSU-led fourth committee: the government factions “could show their size” and “voluntarily leave one of the chairs to the democratic opposition”.
The construct with the black and orange dual presidency also caught the eye in the AfD. “Committees of inquiry are parliament’s sharpest sword, but it’s blunt when it’s largely run by the government itself,” warns AfD MP Uli Henkel. He sees a need for reform, “the most sensible thing would be a legal regulation that the government factions are only allowed to appoint the vice-chairman”.
It has now been clarified who the AfD will send. As is well known, the incumbent AfD parliamentary group board no longer has a majority behind it after leaving. Originally it was said that despite the ongoing dispute between the camps, a harmonious decision would be made: a member of the transport committee (that would probably have been Henkel) if the main line was awarded the contract, a budget politician (probably Ferdinand Mang) in the case of the museum. But according to information from the SZ, the former parliamentary group leadership around Katrin Ebner-Steiner and Ingo Hahn pushed through their wishes at a meeting. Instead of Henkel, Ingo Hahn would now be in charge of the investigation into the main route. His area of expertise is actually environmental policy.