Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook

As the opposition, we need more opportunities to question the chancellor

"We will strengthen parliament as a place for debate and legislation.

- 3 reads.

As the opposition, we need more opportunities to question the chancellor

"We will strengthen parliament as a place for debate and legislation." It was with these words in the coalition agreement that the SPD, Greens and FDP started the electoral term with great ambition.

Less than a year later, the coalition presented its proposal to reform the Bundestag's rules of procedure. Judging by the full-bodied announcements, the rating could be easy: thin soup served with a large ladle. But it's not that simple, because important parts of the proposals are a step backwards.

There is currently a fixed order according to which every member of the government has to face the questioning in the Bundestag. This procedure is not ideal, but it means that the ministers cannot duck away, even in difficult phases.

This is the only reason why Defense Minister Lambrecht and Economics Minister Habeck were in the government survey at times when they were under massive public pressure. The coalition now wants to leave it up to the government to decide who to send.

In addition, at least two members of the government should be present in the survey in the future. This would be extended to 90 minutes. What sounds like more is actually less. Up to 75 minutes are currently available for one department, in the future 90 minutes for two.

The aim is to avoid focusing and thus a certain "cross-examination" situation. There is already a tendency among government factions to ask exculpatory questions along the lines of "Mrs. Minister, why are you so successful?".

This game should get even easier. If one member of the government needs a breather, the other is quickly asked - discharge questions to the discharge minister.

The questioning of the chancellor leaves the coalition virtually untouched. No suggestions for an extension, more frequent questioning or more slugfests. "The federal government's survey [should] be made more dynamic and interactive," says the coalition agreement. But the coalition does not deliver.

It is unable to overcome the usual reflexes of all government factions: they feel they have to protect the government. Incidentally, that was no different for us as a Union faction. It was our fault that we refused to question the chancellor for too long during our reign.

Old patterns must now be broken if there is to be genuine parliamentary reform. From our point of view, three points are essential:

As early as 2014, Thomas Oppermann, who died much too early and was then SPD parliamentary group leader, called for the German government survey to be reformed based on the British model. You should have followed him.

There are differences between British and German parliamentarism. But the liveliness and excitement of the Prime Minister's Questions should be the guiding principle for the Bundestag. The chancellor must be questioned more frequently. Parliament must have more influence over which member of the government has to answer the questions.

The government report must be scrapped - we want answers, not pronouncements. The government consultation must be strengthened as an opposition tool, e.g. B. by creating faction blocks for questions so that topics are more focused. Parliament must finally be able to sound out the government.

We must not be indifferent when the citizens have the impression that the important issues are being dealt with on talk shows and not in Parliament. Bundestag President Lammert summed it up aptly: "In the House there is still too much talk and too little debate".

The agendas are too long and too detailed. We must create space for the essential debates that move the country. We need dynamic debate formats in order to be able to deal with current topics in parliament's prime time - even beyond templates.

The Bundestag is a working parliament and this is primarily reflected in its committees. These must be strengthened and made more visible. This cannot be achieved through blanket public meetings, as the coalition wants them to be. Consultations need protected spaces in order to be able to openly discuss proposed solutions and sound out non-partisan compromises.

Permanent live transmissions lead to window speeches. In order to relieve the plenary sessions, public final deliberations and votes in committees for purely technical proposals could become the norm. The plenary would simply vote on these committee decisions without debate. This would significantly increase the importance of the committee level.

We need a lively parliament that is visible to the citizens, that debates their issues openly, passionately strives for the best solutions and credibly monitors the government. This is the only way we can get people in the country enthusiastic about democracy again. This requires a parliamentary reform worthy of the name. We're ready.

Thorsten Frei is the first parliamentary secretary of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group.

Avatar
Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.