Left and CSU on electoral reform: “Somewhat crazy” – “An attack on democracy”

If the traffic light coalition decides on a new electoral law this Friday, you should hear it clinking – from all the porcelain that you are smashing at the CSU and the left. Their representatives Bartsch and Lindholz are shocked to outraged about the plans on ntv.de – even if they share the goal of downsizing the Bundestag.

ntv.de: What did you think when you heard about the traffic light bill to downsize the Bundestag?

Andrea Lindholz: It was to be feared that the traffic light would present a draft law according to which a candidate who wins a constituency does not necessarily move into the Bundestag. Even that needs to be readjusted. But the fact that there is no basic mandate clause in the last version surprised and appalled us. The traffic light obviously wants to abuse the right to vote in order to keep parts of the opposition out of the Bundestag and thus secure future majorities. I couldn’t have imagined that before.

As an exception, you have to agree with the CSU, Mr. Bartsch, don’t you?

Dietmar Bartsch: That an electoral law reform should be decided in this legislature is reasonable. But the fact is that the traffic light proposal has changed extremely over the past three weeks. For example, in the case of the basic mandate clause, which was only removed at the very end. In addition, it is somewhat crazy that someone who wins his constituency directly should not move into the Bundestag. I criticize that completely independently of the party. That just doesn’t make sense. You have to combine two things: that the Bundestag has a standard size, but that the constituency winners are always represented. Otherwise, it could be that after close election results, nobody from a constituency is in the Bundestag. I think that’s undemocratic.

basswood: To me, this is an attack on democracy. Just imagine if the CSU won 40 direct mandates, but remained below the five percent hurdle nationwide. Because of the omission of the basic mandate clause, the CSU would still not be represented in the Bundestag. Despite the strong result in Bavaria, the interests of the many citizens who voted for us were all left out. The whole thing is topped by the fact that an independent candidate who does not have a party behind him moves into the Bundestag in any case. This is unequal treatment that is not justified by anything. That can’t be right. In addition, until now it has been the case that a direct mandate that has been won is a mandate that has been won, regardless of how the party is doing. This principle must remain.

The proponents say that there will hardly be a constituency from which no politician will move into the Bundestag, even if it is not always the winner of the election.

basswood: But the traffic light capping model enables exactly that. And nobody can predict what voting behavior will be like in five or ten years. There must be no constituencies without representatives in the Bundestag. Such a thing must be ruled out from the outset by the right to vote, because that is poison for democracy.

Would the draft law be more acceptable if the winners of the direct mandates moved in, but then did not get any parliamentary group strength? For the left, there would now be exactly three MPs in the Bundestag instead of the current 40.

Bartsch: This also shows that this draft has many shortcomings. You don’t have to like the CSU and I’m always in favor of criticizing the CSU for their policies. For its part, the CSU wants the left not to sit in the Bundestag. That’s wrong, but legitimate.

basswood: It’s about the content.

Bartsch: Now the traffic light is shaping the right to vote politically, in this case against the CSU and the left. One must not exclude the opposition and political competition through the right to vote. That’s not legitimate. And as for the size of the factions: in the last election we had many small parties that didn’t stand a chance. Then people always say: Well, back then with the Nazis. What a nonsense!

You mean the fragmentation in the Reichstag with many small parties during the Weimar Republic.

Bartsch: The Nazis didn’t come to power because of the tiny parties! There were other reasons. In this respect, I also take a critical view of the five percent hurdle. In any case, there were many other proposals for electoral reform. With this draft, I am sure that the Federal Constitutional Court can hardly accept it.

basswood: This traffic light right to vote is also difficult for the population to understand. Just how many votes would go to applicants who would ultimately not be considered at all! You can change the right to vote. But it must remain fair and comprehensible overall. It is detrimental to democracy as a whole when the will of the electorate is no longer reflected to a significant extent in the people who enter parliament. This is our main criticism.

But something has to happen. We have 736 MEPs and counting.

basswood: In the last legislative period, we decided to reduce the number of constituencies from 299 to 280. Now you can say: That’s not enough. But now it is to be increased again to 299. At the same time, we know that this reform would actually require a reorganization of the constituencies. That will be postponed to the future. The whole traffic light approach to voting rights is a big botch that damages democracy.

Bartsch: The big problem is that even a constituency winner who gets more than 50 percent can drop out. That can’t be explained to anyone.

You mean if the party ends up below five percent overall and then all the direct mandates won are lost?

Bartsch: Gregor Gysi was close to 50 percent in the 2021 election and he would have been out with the new electoral law.

basswood: If voters no longer find the candidates they have chosen in the Bundestag, it is downright destructive of democracy. Mr. Bartsch is absolutely right on this point: the traffic light carves out a political right to vote. There has always been a consensus that an electoral law reform should bring about the broadest possible consensus. Instead, the traffic light is now passing changes that are deliberately directed against the CSU and its voters and are intended to weaken the CDU. And if the Left Party is no longer in the Bundestag, the SPD in particular will benefit in the medium term.

Greens boss Omid Nouripour said on Wednesday in the ntv early start that the opposition had been invited to cooperate. Didn’t you let the chance pass you by?

basswood: No, absolutely not. On Monday there was a conversation and the offer to reduce the constituencies to 280. Only a few hours later, the traffic light representatives announced that the basic mandate clause should now fall. From my point of view, this offer of talks was only a pretense. The traffic light parties did not want any real negotiations about a joint solution. Of course, compromises would have had to be made. But if you only aim for maximum advantages for the traffic light parties, then there is no basis for negotiation.

But how should it go instead?

Bartsch: We need a limit and the result of the second votes must be reflected in the composition of the Bundestag. And it is quite clear: whoever wins a constituency must also find themselves in the Bundestag. Nobody can explain anything else to me. A CSU candidate in Munich is significantly worse off than a CSU candidate in Lower Bavaria.

basswood: He really has to fight. The CSU has a much harder time in the cities.

You allude to the fact that not all direct mandate winners move into the Bundestag even if the party is above the five percent hurdle. In case of doubt, the winners with the smallest lead fall out.

Bartsch: That can not be true! The one in Munich has candidates from the SPD, the Greens, the FDP, maybe even the left against him. He has to fight a lot more and will be punished if he narrowly wins his constituency. Instead, the second-placed candidate may then move into the Bundestag because his party still has seats available.

For the CSU there would be an easy way out. If she and the CDU were one party, she would have no problem with the five percent hurdle.

basswood: The CSU is an independent party in Bavaria. It remains so for all elections, including the federal election. This federal peculiarity has shaped Bavaria, but also Germany, for decades – and for the better. With a view to the future weakening of direct mandates, far too little attention has been paid to the fact that directly elected MPs can represent the interests of their constituency much more freely and confidently. You are not only dependent on the party leadership and the question: Where exactly will I be positioned? If I can convince the majority of local citizens to vote for me, then that is a great democratic good.

Bartsch: Read what the traffic light deputies said about the basic mandate clause in the first reading in the Bundestag. Then Sebastian Hartmann from the SPD said: I’m not a friend of the left. But abolishing the basic mandate clause is really only against the left and that will not happen to us. I could also quote the Greens and the FDP.

Sounds like the tablecloth is cut.

Bartsch: One thing doesn’t work: you can’t try to silence the opposition in this way – and this attempt is nothing else – and otherwise say: please be willing to compromise. The traffic light parties come with the attitude that it is about limiting the Bundestag. That makes sense to people. In terms of communication, they have thought this through carefully. They think we can’t say anything against it, because then it would appear as if we were against a limitation. It’s not OK. That must have an impact.

basswood: It is absolutely outrageous that the traffic light is now even being praised by the AfD, because it practically adopted their bill from the last legislative period. At that time, the traffic light parties were still dismantling the AfD draft law, which they are now putting into practice themselves.

Are you going to the Federal Constitutional Court together now?

basswood: I don’t know what the left is doing, but Bavaria will sue if this draft becomes law.

Bartsch: If you don’t want this to become law, then you have no choice but to sue. The Union has better chances because it has more than 25 percent of the MPs. As a result, it has more rights of action than a small faction. A joint lawsuit by the left and the CSU would be difficult to convey.

So are you keeping your fingers crossed for the CSU for the first time?

Bartsch: I keep my fingers crossed for democracy. It may even happen that this sometimes happens in agreement with the CSU. That’s not a bad thing for me.

Volker Petersen spoke to Andrea Lindholz and Dietmar Bartsch