The proposed electoral law reform commission, spearheaded by the current German coalition government of Christian Democrats (CDU) and Social Democrats (SPD), is facing sharp criticism from within the CDU itself, raising concerns about the potential for protracted political battles and undermining the legitimacy of any resulting changes. Former Bundestag President Norbert Lammert, a highly respected figure within the CDU and current chairman of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, has publicly denounced the plan as a repetition of past errors.
Lammert’s critique centers on the commission’s composition, which excludes opposition parties, a move he argues is inherently problematic. “It repeats the mistake of previous legislative periods when a commission comprised solely of members from the ruling coalition attempted to amend electoral law” he stated in an interview with “Focus” magazine. He warned that such an approach inevitably galvanizes opposition, leading to legal challenges and political resistance.
The former speaker underscored the need for a reform anchored in a broader consensus among all democratic parties. He emphasized that over three decades of adjustments to the electoral system – exceeding 30 changes since the 1950s – demonstrate the cyclical and often contentious nature of these revisions when pursued without a unifying vision. Without wider buy-in, Lammert cautioned, these issues are likely to resurface immediately following the next election, potentially under a different government configuration.
The intervention represents a significant challenge to the coalition’s agenda, highlighting a fundamental disagreement within the CDU regarding the approach to electoral reform. It sparks a broader debate about the role of consensus and inclusivity in shaping fundamental democratic processes and raises questions about the government’s willingness to engage in genuine cross-party dialogue. The Konrad Adenauer Foundation’s prominent voice adds considerable weight to the criticism, framing the issue as one of institutional integrity rather than mere political disagreement.
