Dispute about compulsory vaccination: Söder saws the rule of law

Simply not implementing a democratically passed law on compulsory vaccination in the nursing and health care system is sawing at the roots of the rule of law and democracy.

“Oops, at least he dares to do something”. Or: “Pretty hands-on”: These may have been spontaneous reactions to the fact that Markus Söder does not want to implement compulsory vaccination in nursing and healthcare for the time being.

However, another spontaneous and very legitimate question is: Yes, where are we here? Does a prime minister no longer have to abide by a democratically passed law? Of course he has to. The federal government makes a law, the states implement it. And then have discretion in individual cases.

“If I don’t like it, I’ll do what I want”

Of course, one can argue about whether compulsory vaccination is right or not. But that is not the focus here. It’s also about a fundamental question, about the level behind it. Because the impression conveyed here – “if I don’t like it, I’ll do what I want” – is carelessly sawing at the roots of democracy and the rule of law, our silverware in these turbulent times. Why should the citizens actually still abide by the law? A prime minister has to be a role model.

Yes, laws change, but in the usual ways

A good year ago, Markus Söder was one of the first to introduce compulsory vaccination for care. Two months ago, the Bundestag passed the law, and the Bundesrat approved it with the votes of Bavaria. Of course, political projects can and must be questioned again and again. But if you no longer think something is right, then you just have to try to abolish the law again in the way provided for this purpose, or to make it more precise. Because of course there are open questions for practice.

Incidentally, according to the Basic Law, the federal government can, with the consent of the Bundesrat, also issue general administrative regulations that specify individual points.

Think through the implementation of the general obligation to vaccinate

You can also justifiably argue about a general obligation to vaccinate, reject it politically or legally, consider it permissible and necessary. But what follows from the processes that are currently being observed for the possible project of general vaccination? A well-founded and precise law is needed that considers many follow-up questions and the practical implementation in the federal states at an early stage. And that you check again and again depending on the current situation. If the legislature decides to do so, going it alone would be taboo when it comes to implementation.