A renowned constitutional law expert raises serious allegations against the current governing parties. Planned changes to state constitutions and parliamentary rules of procedure, specifically aimed at restricting the rights of a future opposition—namely the AfD—are described as an assault on democratic legitimacy. It suggests that democratic outcomes are only accepted as long as they suit those currently in power.
In the ongoing debate regarding the treatment of the AfD in state parliaments, Hinnerk Wißmann, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Münster, has voiced significant concerns. In a contribution for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Wißmann specifically criticizes the phenomenon of so-called “post-election constitutional amendments.”
Democratic Legitimacy Under Fire
Wißmann refers specifically to efforts in Rhineland-Palatinate and Saxony-Anhalt. The core problem: Parliaments that have already been voted out or are at the end of their term are using their remaining majorities to change the rules of the game for the upcoming legislative period.
- Rhineland-Palatinate: Here, SPD, CDU, Greens, and FDP are attempting to raise the hurdles for establishing investigative committees. The goal is clear: to prevent the AfD, as a future opposition, from wielding this “sharpest sword” of parliamentary oversight alone.
- Saxony-Anhalt: Reforms have already been passed that could strip the AfD of rights, such as the position of State Parliament President or participation in the election of judges, should they become the strongest force without an absolute majority.
Wißmann describes this approach as a “short-sighted maneuver without political benefit.” He warns that such interventions “destroy democratic legitimacy.”
The Shift in Democratic Understanding
Wißmann’s judgment on the spirit of these reforms is particularly sharp. He notes that such treatment of minority rights would have been regarded as a “description of totalitarian tendencies” only a few years ago. The danger, he argues, is that governments no longer even envision a change of power—a core element of any stable democracy—in their worldview.
The “Merz Method” as a Precedent
Interestingly, the legal expert draws a connection to federal politics. He sees the origin of this strategy in Friedrich Merz (CDU). Merz had already shown, in the context of the federal debt brake, how to use exceptional rules and old majorities to create facts that contradict the actual will of the voters or new power dynamics. Wißmann now laments the spread of this method to the “democratic self-organization” of parliaments.