Regarding the possibility of the AfD gaining control of the government in Saxony-Anhalt following the state election this autumn, Günter Krings, the deputy chairman of the CDU parliamentary group, does not foresee a constitutionally illegal restructuring of the state. Krings told the “Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung” (noz) that while the AfD may make grand claims in Saxony-Anhalt, it neither has nor can it enforce a policy challenging the legal order of the Federal Republic. He referred to the Basic Law as a last resort: “Federal compulsion has, in the history of the Federal Republic, thus far only been a theoretical instrument, and in my assessment, it will remain so. But it is good that it exists as a conceivable last option”.
Article 37 of the Basic Law permits the federal government, with the consent of the Federal Council, to take measures to enforce federal law on a state in the event of non-compliance. These mandatory measures are primarily limited to administrative and police actions. Carmen Wegge, the legal policy spokesperson for the SPD parliamentary group, told the noz that federal compulsion is the “ultima ratio” politically. However, she argued that it should “not be taboo from the outset” emphasizing that it “is an instrument of a resilient constitutional order”.
Looking specifically at Saxony-Anhalt, Krings pointed out that the state is “dependent on the equalization of state finances and thus directly reliant on our federal state”. In a separate comment to noz, Krings added that the EU demonstrates that participation in such financial systems could be linked to clear rule-of-law criteria. Furthermore, the CDU legal politician noted that perhaps more relevant is the fact that a state burdened with billions of Euros in debt is always dependent on a fundamentally favorable assessment from the capital markets. He concluded that these markets will certainly scrutinize a state’s adherence to the rule of law.
