Federal Constitutional Court: Merkel’s statement violated the rights of the AfD
In her role as Federal Chancellor, Merkel should not have made negative comments about the election of Thuringia's Prime Minister in 2020, the Federal Constitutional Court has ruled and agrees with the AfD. Not all judges agree with this.
It’s February 5, 2020: In Thuringia, the state parliament is electing a new prime minister. The incumbent Prime Minister Bodo Ramelow from the Left Party missed the necessary absolute majority of votes in the first two ballots. In the third ballot, the FDP politician Thomas Kemmerich also stands, wins completely surprisingly and is elected Prime Minister – with the votes of the FDP, AfD, and CDU. The election caused a stir, also in Berlin’s political scene, and there was great outrage.
At that time, the then Chancellor Angela Merkel was traveling in South Africa. One day after the election, she held a press conference there and described it as unforgivable that the CDU voted for Kemmerich together with the AfD. The result must be reversed.
The AfD felt discriminated against, complained to the Federal Constitutional Court, and was right. Chancellor Merkel’s statement violated the AfD’s right to equal opportunities, according to Vice President Doris König, chairwoman of the second Senate: “Since the statement contains negative qualifications for the AfD in a one-sided, partisan way, it presents itself as an encroachment on the right to equal opportunities Applicant in the political competition. This intervention is not justified.”
Ministers must be neutral
The Federal Constitutional Court had already ruled in earlier judgments that ministers are obliged to remain neutral if they make public statements in their capacity as members of the government. They must therefore behave in a fundamentally neutral manner towards all parties. The Federal Constitutional Court has now ruled that this also applies to a Federal Chancellor. Something else only applies if a member of the government does not act as an official but clearly as a party politician, for example in an election campaign. Here Merkel took a position as chancellor.
“The statement was made in the exclusively official context of a government press conference on talks that she had had in her office as Chancellor during a state visit to South Africa,” says König. “Neither the reference to making a preliminary remark ‘for domestic reasons’ nor the content of the statement make it sufficiently clear that Dr. Merkel did not want to express herself in her function as Chancellor, but only as a party politician. In a clarification to that effect it was missing.”
Not all judges agree with decision
Interestingly, the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court was not unanimous. Of the eight judges, three disagreed with the decision. Judge Astrid Wallrabenstein gave a written dissenting opinion. She believes that Chancellor Merkel has not violated the constitution: “If she comments on political issues, the content of the statement is not subject to any neutrality checks by the Federal Constitutional Court.”
Members of the government are regularly perceived in their dual roles, as officials and members of a particular party. Therefore, the citizens would only expect neutral behavior from them to a limited extent.
