The chancellor did WHAT?

[ridicully]

Part of my mind is completely freaked out about the new date for the elections. It's the part of my mind that equals any changes to the established democratic process with the Weimar Republic.
The other part is horrified that it has to decide who to vote for in four months rather than a year and four months.

Comments

[shiun.livejournal.com]

Geht mir ähnlich - auf der einen Seite denke ich, was, hallo, ist das nicht gegen die Verfassung? O_O Und dann habe ich absolut keinen Plan wen ich wählen soll!

[honeycakehorse.livejournal.com]

Just the same two worries I have. Good god, I already couldn't decide before the last election... not to mention that I think we should give the reforms at least a *chance* to start working, even if everybody is moaning about them. *sigh* I know why I hate politics.

[arthenadent.livejournal.com]

WHOA. That's exactly the kind of thing some of us Americans were worried Bush would do. A couple of conspiracy theorists even thought he might arrange to have a "terrorist attack" so he could postpone the election. Isn't changing election dates crazy illegal? Like a lot? Maybe even just a little bit? Also, do you have any links to good news articles about this? I want to put a reference to it in my Bundestag internship application. Thanks!

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

Nothing illegal about it, it's very common in European political systems. It just so happens that it hadn't happened very often previously in German politics. But it happens all the time in the UK.

I've been digging through my notes from school and the newspapers. I now feel informed.

[ridicully]

Nothing illegal about it

Actually, in Germany it is. After the Weimar Republik where dissolving the government was a common occurrence if a party wasn't happy with the results of the election, the new Grundgesetz has made it very hard for anyone to mess with the legislation period.
The UK doesn't even have a set interval for elections. It's roughly every five years, but depends on the government. Germans are scared of allowing something like that. We've been conditioned to avoid giving the government any kind of power that isn't checked at least twice. Even our head of government can't simply abdicate just because he wants to.
We're paranoid.

Re: I've been digging through my notes from school and the newspapers. I now feel informed.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

My understanding was that the President can dissolve the government before the end of the term, and Schroeder plans to ask Koehler to do just that after he loses the confidence vote.

I had also read that while this wasn't very common, it had been done before by Kohl in 1982 and Brandt in 1972 and that while it was challenged in the courts, it was upheld.

Re: I've been digging through my notes from school and the newspapers. I now feel informed.

[ridicully]

As far as I remember it was only Kohl and the highest court explicitily stated that another instance of a faked loss of the confidence vote would not be tolerated. That's why they're also talking about a change of the constitution as another possible way to have new elections in September.

But I'm relying more or less on only two news sites for this particular bit of information, so I may be wrong.

[ridicully]

I can sort of understand his reasoning. After the last loss of the SPD in Nordrheinwesfalen, there is no longer any Land that is reigned (sounds wrong in this context, can't think of a better one) by the same coalition that reigns the country as a whole. The numbers in the Bundesrat don't look good for them either.
Saying that apparently the people don't want them to reign any longer and we should have elections a year early is a logical step.
I have no idea what the Grundgesetz says, but I know it's something that makes me automatically think of the 1920s and Hindenburg. If I remember correctly disolving (another of these strange word choices) the government was a regular occurence during this time.

Tagesschau Spiegel are full of articles about it at the moment.