Germany just passed a big extra spending package in an unlikely coalition of compromise. I personally think it’s a good thing that they did, but I struggle with the “how” they did it.
Status Quo
Germany just had elections. The two far-out parties, left (Linke) and right (AfD), won enough seats to be blocking any changes to the constitution. In the constitution we have a rule that forbids to take on new debt over a certain level. The new “big coalition” between the middle-right and middle-left parties needs to take on more debt in order to tackle the defense spending they see necessary to stand up against Russia, and to restore the rapidly decaying infrastructure in Germany.
So, in order to get the “allowance” that they need to get Germany back on track, they kind of mingled with time. The new coalition used the old parliament to change the constitution. CDU and SPD made a deal with the Green Party to get that through. In the newly elected parliament, which will be instituted next week, they would’ve been able to do so.
It is legal – but is it legitimate?
On first glance
No, not at all. The voters have spoken, they did not want the old parliament majorities anymore, they gave their trust more to the far-out parties than before. I can think about that whatever I want, but in a democracy, I have to respect that. Using old majorities to bypass the will of the voter is disrespecting them. And that is not democratic at all.
On second glance
The ends justify the means. This package is absolutely needed, as everyone in Germany can see. The faster it gets into action, the better. Also, since all parties that (after this move I must say “ironically”) call themselves “democratic” excluded the possibility of passing any legislation that needs votes from the AfD (far right), there was no other way that would not upset 80% of 80% of German voters. CDU has tried it recently, just before the elections, in order to change migration rules, and that lead to many huge demonstrations all over Germany. Also, the AfD is not known for productive work, but more for obstructionism.
On third glance
The law is the representation of values. If something is legal, it is in a way also legitimate as the legal system is based on the values of a society. The case is the same as the one in the private sector. If after finding loop-holes the society deems those illegitimate, they can vote for those parties that say that they will close that loop-hole or change it in a way that makes it legitimate again.
On fourth glance
Legitimacy is also based on intent. This is a fusion of the second and third glance. Having good intent (based on the values of the society, again), generating benefit for others is not only considered in the ethical concept of “legitimacy” but also in the legal context – it is taken into account when an illegal action is judged. Actions for the well-being of society, may they be illegitimate or even illegal, are generally seen as more “okay” than those that are taken for egoistical reasons.
On fifth glance
It was democratic parties negotiating and achieving a compromise. The political system in Germany is based on negotiations and compromise, always trying to find the best decision for the majority of people – a kind of utilitarianism one could say. I personally have my doubts on how democratic the AfD is, so has the Bundsverfassungsschutz, the Agency to protect the Constitution. They have the AfD on their watchlist, just like active groups of royalists (Reichsbürger), anarchist, communist, and of course nazis. I don’t trust the system blindly, but being observed that way doesn’t come out of thin air. Meaning, there is some legitimacy in being very cautious before giving legitimacy to the AfD by working with them.
Me personally
I’m happy. I sympathize with the Green Party, and seeing the CDU having to give considerable amounts of the package to green projects was satisfying after the CDU was really nasty against the Green Party during the pre-election period. Also, as an environmental sciences-bachelor and father of a 6 year old I’m happy to see a lot of money being spend into projects that will hopefully ease climate heating and make Germany less dependent from fossil fuels, especially in the current global political situation. So, based on my values, this decision was absolutely correct, and yes, I’m trying to argue for it as much as I can. Still, when I try to be neutral, I see the problems in the way this was done.
@beelzael, you're rewarding 2 replies from this discussion thread.
Here is what I recommend when you start talking about legalities of side walk incursions :) :)
You need a little jazz in your life!
Always! No matter what I'm talking about. Except for when I'm talking about Gin-based drinks, then it's swing or electro-swing.
That piece is iconic to begin with, but also made famous by Japanese author Haruki Murakami, in his book, After Dark.
One of the main character in this book is budding Jazz musician, who got inspired by this particular piece by Curtis Fuller.