The coalition partners agree that the corona pandemic should be dealt with quickly. But how is controversial. The Chancellor favors a citizens’ council, but an inquiry commission is also being discussed.
Individual voices calling for an investigation into the Corona crisis have been around for a long time. Now the traffic light factions have officially agreed that the Bundestag should evaluate the pandemic policy as soon as possible. And all coalition partners are striving for something else: the whole thing should be underway before the summer.
“This must happen soon,” demands Green Party leader Katharina Dröge, also referring to the eastern state elections in the fall. Otherwise, the impression will arise that politicians are ultimately avoiding dealing with the issue after the long discussions. This, in turn, could put further pressure on the traffic light parties in the elections.
Scholz favors a citizens’ council
But the agreement apparently ends when it comes to the timetable. How exactly the review should look is still controversial: The fact that Chancellor Olaf Scholz met in ARD summer interview decided on a favorite format, surprised many internally. Scholz called the idea of a Corona Citizens’ Council “the most appealing” because then not only science and politics would be involved, but also the experiences of dozens of citizens from all over the country.
At its core, it is about who is consulted on controversial issues from the Corona period. A citizens’ council would gather voices from the average population. Around 160 randomly selected members would meet several times and ultimately produce a citizens’ report. Parliament receives these proposals, but can deal with them freely. The role of experts – for example virologists, educational researchers or economists – would be smaller: they would bring the participants up to a common level of knowledge at the beginning and would then be available to answer questions.
An inquiry commission would also be possible
Experts and decision-makers would have significantly more weight in an inquiry commission. They would be questioned as part of an investigation. The hearings are usually public, whereas a citizens’ council does not meet in public. “We are still discussing the exact format,” says Dröge. “We have been advocating for this for so long, so our attitude is now: the main thing is that we reach an agreement,” she adds, referring to the long discussion.
Both have advantages and disadvantages. The argument in favor of a citizens’ council is “that we can hear the voices of people and their experiences directly,” says Dröge. But the Greens are also advocating a strong role for experts. In any case, it is important to “investigate in both directions”: Were certain measures excessive? But also: Should health politicians have protected people even better?
FDP against Citizens’ Council as the only body
Others have long been taking a sharper tone when it comes to the way in which the past is dealt with. For the FDP parliamentary group, a citizens’ council alone is out of the question; instead, a format is needed in which those responsible at the time can be questioned critically. “Because we want to know why individual state governments and also the Conference of Minister Presidents came up with some absurd corona measures,” explains FDP parliamentary group leader Christian Dürr. “Some, and I specifically mention Markus Söder, are ashamed of it today.” Nevertheless, the state leaders are “accountable to the public.”
Perhaps the SPD is less interested in this than the FDP and the Greens, who were in the opposition at the federal level for much of the Corona period. The SPD also has several state premiers. Perhaps this is part of the explanation why Chancellor Scholz would prefer a citizens’ council. The SPD parliamentary group has so far refused to comment on whether it will follow the Chancellor.
Several MPs have also put forward the idea that both could be combined: a citizens’ council and an inquiry commission. On the one hand, this would prevent the accusation that only the usual voices that have shaped the debate for years would be heard. On the other hand, facts are needed, not just citizens’ opinions or emotional experiences, in order to assess the full extent of the situation, say supporters of this model.
Spahn: “Combine both instruments intelligently”
One person who played a key role in shaping the Corona period can certainly warm to the idea: Jens Spahn, CDU Federal Minister of Health until the end of 2021, advocates “smartly combining” both instruments. This is the best way to ensure that “a whole range of issues becomes clear” in the review, he said on Tuesday in the WDR-Interview.
Spahn, who is currently under heavy criticism again for his mask purchases, advocates not being “ruthless” in dealing with each other. “Everyone has been wrong at some point in this pandemic.” He would pass on this idea to the process of dealing with the situation – in the Citizens’ Council or in an Enquete Commission.