Was Merkel’s AfD statement permissible ?: Dispute over a preliminary remark

On the sidelines of a press conference abroad, she commented on the election in Thuringia: With this, Chancellor Merkel violated her principle of neutrality, says the AfD. The Federal Constitutional Court examines – and rejects an application for bias.

This time it’s the Chancellor’s turn. In recent years, the Federal Constitutional Court has repeatedly had to decide whether politicians were allowed to express themselves critically about certain parties in their official offices.

The NPD has already sued because the former Federal President Joachim Gauck spoke negatively about it. The statements made by federal or state ministers were also a topic before the constitutional court, with the last proceedings all being applied for by the AfD. The AfD has already won a few times, mostly because the constitutional court believes that a political conflict of opinion appeared inadmissible on the official website of the respective ministry.

Merkel: “Do not win majorities with votes from the AfD”

Today we are talking about a statement by Chancellor Angela Merkel in South Africa on February 6, 2020. At a press conference, she made a preliminary remark that was clearly directed at German domestic politics. She commented on the controversial prime ministerial election in Thuringia, where the FDP candidate Thomas Kemmerich was elected in the third ballot with the votes of the AfD.

Today at the Karlsruhe hearing, the Vice-President of the court, Doris König, quoted what Merkel said at the time: “The election of this Prime Minister was a unique process that broke with a basic conviction for the CDU and for me, namely that no majorities with the help of AfD should be won. ”

AfD sees violation of duty of neutrality

The AfD sees this as a violation of their equal opportunities and a violation of the Federal Chancellor’s duty of neutrality, especially since the statement was also published on the official website of the Chancellor and the Federal Government.

The Chancellor’s lawyers oppose this: Angela Merkel would only have turned critically to her own party. Tino Chrupalla from the AfD, on the other hand, says that internal party criticism should have been expressed elsewhere: “She could have done that apart from her state visit. But she didn’t,” said Chrupalla. “She did that at a press conference at a speech where the President of South Africa was present. So this argument doesn’t work. That’s why we’re complaining.”

Decision expected in a few weeks

The Vice-President of the court, König, said at the beginning of the hearing that the judges had to clarify “whether the Federal Chancellor made the statement in question in an official capacity or as a party politician.”

In addition, the court rejected the AfD’s petition for bias right from the start: The AfD did not give sufficient reasons why a dinner with the Chancellor shortly before this hearing was a problem. Because the court has been meeting with all constitutional bodies for years, and has to do so in order to maintain a dialogue.

Also speak against bias: “That the court is permanently involved in proceedings that affect the actions of the federal government or other supreme constitutional organs.” A final decision on the controversial statement by the Federal Chancellor has not yet been made; that is not expected for a few weeks.