The last attempt was only a few weeks ago. In mid-June, the AfD parliamentary group wanted to have one of its members elected as Bundestag Vice-President, Harald Weyel. It was the same as it had happened to five AfD candidates since 2017: three ballots, three times rejected, failure has long been routine. Last year, the AfD had already submitted two urgent applications to the Federal Constitutional Court because of the recurring rejections, but here too it was now unsuccessful: the Second Senate rejected both applications. The court saw no need for urgent decisions because the party itself has seen its rights violated since the beginning of the electoral term, but only made its applications much later.
The increasingly polarized atmosphere in the Bundestag and the shrill tone of some debates in recent years show that the dispute is about an important person for parliamentary democracy. The President of the Bundestag, currently Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU), not only holds a high office in terms of protocol, but must also ensure that the debates do not slide into chaos. This has become much more difficult with the arrival of the AfD in parliament, the number of calls to order has reached unprecedented dimensions.
The five vice-presidents Hans-Peter Friedrich (CSU), Dagmar Ziegler (SPD), Wolfgang Kubicki (FDP), Petra Pau (left) and Claudia Roth (green), who take turns leading the meetings, have the same task. All parliamentary groups are represented in the presidium, except for the AfD. But the majority in the Bundestag has consistently refused to elect an AfD representative as the sixth vice.
Legally, the matter seems clear at first glance. Article 40 of the Basic Law states: “The Bundestag elects its President, his deputy and the secretary.” Because “vote” can also mean saying no, nobody has a right to such an office, that’s how it reads.
Bundestag President Schäuble sees the parliamentary groups only having the right to propose
However, the rules of procedure of the Bundestag cause a little confusion because they are not entirely clear at the crucial point. On the one hand it says there: “Each parliamentary group in the German Bundestag is represented by at least one vice-president in the presidium.” So also the AfD, one might think. But one paragraph further says: “Whoever receives the votes of the majority of the members of the Bundestag is elected.” Means: no majority, no election.
The President of the Bundestag interprets this in such a way that the parliamentary groups only have the right to propose, which the Bundestag decides on in free elections. According to this, the Presidium of the Bundestag, regardless of the rules of procedure, is not to be treated in the same way as, for example, the specialist committees, which have to provide a reasonably proportional representation of Parliament.
The extent to which the Constitutional Court will rule on all these questions in the main proceedings is not yet entirely clear. On November 10th, only one of the applications will be discussed orally in Karlsruhe. The AfD man Fabian Jacobi wants to fight for the right to propose candidates for the deputy post as an individual member of parliament – which would probably make the squabble for the office even more complicated.
For the second application, made by the AfD parliamentary group, the court has not set a date. Which could indicate that the application is inadmissible as a whole. The AfD would like to oblige the Bundestag to create a new electoral procedure that should ensure their equal opportunities. However, the court cannot make such a decision, according to the court’s decision. But only whether the knocking down of the previous candidates had violated the rights of the parliamentary group.