Verbal derailments or disruptive actions in the state parliament will be expensive for members of parliament in the future. A planned reform of the Members of Parliament Act, the details of which were presented by State Parliament President Ilse Aigner (CSU) on Wednesday, provides for a fine of up to 2,000 euros in such cases and of up to 4,000 euros in repeat cases. The classic “reprimand” in parliament will be abolished, and instead there will be a three-stage procedure: first a call to order if the state parliament’s dignity is violated, then a financial sanction if the incident occurs again or if the violations are particularly serious. And as a third step and “last resort” an exclusion from the meeting. After that, on the recommendation of the Presidium, the plenary session could even ban MPs for a maximum of ten further sessions.
“Our parliamentary democracy is defensive, it cannot be ridiculed and it will not let anyone dance around on its face,” said Aigner. You present a rule “that certainly hurts and perhaps also scares you away”. Aigner initiated this and brought up ideas on it several times, for example in her review of the last electoral term and at the opening of the new state parliament in autumn. When the AfD entered the state parliament for the first time in 2018, there were more scandals and verbal outbursts, and a record number of reprimands. This “brutalization of political culture” and “degradation of the constitutional body, the state parliament,” Aigner repeatedly said, should not be tolerated.
The concrete implementation was a long time coming. If reprimands are only anchored in the rules of procedure, it is now about the law on representatives. “A quick fix would have been inappropriate here,” said Aigner, and the regulations had to be “legally watertight” and able to withstand a lawsuit. The draft for the amendment was discussed by the CSU, FW, Greens and SPD. The AfD was not involved. It is the faction’s decision as to who they will work with, said Aigner regarding the AfD’s accusation of exclusion. The new law is scheduled to have its first reading in plenary next week and could then come into force at the end of April. The AfD parliamentary group has been complaining for a long time that, in their view, such measures are intended to suppress “anti-government” statements.
In the last electoral term, the Presidium issued 26 reprimands; Before that, there hadn’t been a single one for more than two decades. MPs from the Greens and SPD received three reprimands, the majority of the rest went to current or non-attached former AfD politicians. The first reprimand in a long time was received at the beginning of 2019 by the then AfD man Ralph Müller, who disparagingly called Angela Merkel a “Stasi and snooping chancellor”. Disruptive actions that attempted to turn the place of democracy into a riot were also criticized. The last measure of the past period was received by Ralf Stadler, one of the AfD’s most diligent collectors of reprimands, who walked towards the desk during a speech by Katharina Schulze (Greens) and held up a sign with the inscription “Election fraudster”. The scandalous appearance of an AfD man wearing a gas mask at the lectern during the corona pandemic will also be remembered. According to Aigner’s statements, the gas mask and Stadler’s violent spectacle would have been considered for a fine in retrospect. However, many reprimands for inappropriate choice of words would have been more in the range of a call to order. Aigner complained that some MPs were bragging to their supporters about reprimands “like trophies” and that now it was “about the nitty-gritty, namely the wallet.”
AfD MP Stefan Löw stood at the lectern in the state parliament wearing a gas mask in the summer of 2020.
(Photo: dpa)
There is a fine in the German Bundestag, as are some other federal states. In Bavaria, the proposed maximum amounts are “clearly noticeable,” said Aigner, and the sum will be deducted directly from the monthly MP compensation. You would then be “certainly one of the strictest state parliaments”. Administrative fines or exclusions should be discussed specifically by the Presidium and, as a rule, should not be imposed immediately during the current meeting. Except in cases of urgency: in the event of serious disruptions, the meeting could be interrupted to determine disciplinary measures.
What is new is a passage according to which the catalog of rules can also apply in the event of violations of house rules – in that MPs also bear responsibility for the behavior of their guests. An example: Last year, AfD politicians invited dozens of fraternity members to the Maximilianeum for a festival pub ritual, including guests who were being watched by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. There were gestures that could be interpreted as racist, and a journalist present also felt harassed.
Aigner is also planning an annual survey on satisfaction with democracy in the Free State. The “Democracy Mirror Bavaria” should be commissioned from an institute and investigate how stable democracy is in the Free State and whether there actually is a “silent, dissatisfied majority”. So the Sunday question is not asked or the popularity of political actors is measured. The first democracy mirror is to be presented after the summer break.
The President also commented on research by BR24, according to which the AfD is said to employ more than 100 people in the Bundestag from organizations that are classified as right-wing extremist by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. The Presidium is aware of some similar cases from the state parliament. The President of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Burkhard Körner, recently told the Interior Committee that the Bavarian AfD had increased contacts in both quality and quantity, for example with the so-called Identitarian Movement. According to information from the SZ, this can also be seen at least in isolated cases among the staff of the AfD parliamentary group. According to Aigner, the employment contracts of relevant employees run directly with the MPs and the state parliament office has no recourse to intervene. However, it is unacceptable that “enemies of the constitution are paid with tax money”. Only the MPs Act could close this gap. There should first be an expert opinion on the problem, “it is important to be careful before haste”.