Road to Early Polls Fraught With Obstacles

These parliamentarians would only be able to start legal action after the president dissolved the Bundestag. In its judgment, the court would certainly refer to its 1983 decision. (Editor's note: Shortly after his election as chancellor by parliament, Helmut Kohl "used" the vote of confidence in January 1983 to have a new Bundestag elected.) It was a similar situation. Then the court drafted guidelines to article 68 and made clear that -- even if everyone wants them -- article 68 is not a suitable route to new elections. The disruption between the parliamentary majority and the chancellor is necessary. If it can't be verified -- and the result of the vote isn't proof since it can be faked -- the Constitutional Court will determine that (the vote of no confidence) was unconstitutional.

How can the rift be verified?

In 1983, the court stuck to things that had been said and written in public. Besides that the president held talks with the party and parliamentary group leaders. Based on the publicized material and these talks, the court gained the impression that, yes, it can't continue.

How does the situation today differ from the situation in 1983?

Then, the situation had already been manipulated and, I think, should not have been allowed to reach dissolution of parliament. The Constitutional Court had set strict guidelines but didn't adhere to them. Then we at least had documented statements from the FDP (the governing coalition partner) that said: "We only want to cooperate with the chancellor, who attained office through a vote of no confidence, for a limited amount of time." The court took that seriously and classified it as a crisis situation. But today the situation is not at all comparable.

What is your view of some ministers' intentions to possibly abstain in the July 1 vote of confidence?

The German cabinet during a retreat in 2003

If the vote of no confidence comes through only because the ministers abstain, the supposition of manipulation stands to reason. Of all people the most loyal of the loyal fail, abstain from voting and thus a majority against the chancellor is achieved. That's not a disruption. I can only warn against such a step because it would document that the whole thing was a fake.

Shouldn't Schröder just resign?

I understand why Schröder hasn't chosen the resignation route. Schröder is saying that he'd like to continue but he's unsure as to whether the voters support him. But he cannot ask the voters whether they still want him by resigning. For, resignation doesn't lead directly to new elections. Only if the Bundestag repeatedly fails to elect a new chancellor does the dissolution of parliament become an option. But it's very vague and a complicated and protracted route. If he were to resign, it would mean he gave up.

What do you think would be the best way to bring about fresh elections?

One could initiate the Bundestag's right to self-dissolution. That's an entirely unsuspicious instrument. It envisages that the Bundestag decides on its dissolution with a qualified majority. But strangely there are reservations about employing it. I don't know who's afraid of what.

The former president of the Constitutional Court, Ernst Benda, has criticized the attempt to bring on new elections using the vote of confidence. He says it gives the impression that politicians see the constitution only as a "cumbersome obstacle." What do you think?

I have nothing to add. It doesn't only give that impression; the impression has been made. All parties are now preparing their election campaigns. The opposition's reaction to the chancellor's announcement to bring about new elections was hectic. Instantly, they designated a candidate for chancellor. I think it's ridiculous. This knee-jerk start of the election campaign shows how little the constitution is taken seriously. If the Bundestag isn't dissolved in the end, it will be an incredible disgrace.

Steffen Leidel interviewed Christian Pestalozza (ncy)