DOCSLIB.ORG

Readingsample

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Readingsample German Social Policy 3 Social Policy in the Federal Republic of Germany The Constitution of the Social Bearbeitet von Prof. Dr. Dr. Hans F. Zacher 1st edition 2012 2012. Buch. xviii, 442 S. Hardcover ISBN 978 3 642 22524 6 Format (B x L): 15,5 x 23,5 cm Gewicht: 847 g Weitere Fachgebiete > Medien, Kommunikation, Politik > Politikwissenschaft Allgemein > Politische Studien zu einzelnen Ländern und Gebieten Zu Inhaltsverzeichnis schnell und portofrei erhältlich bei Die Online-Fachbuchhandlung beck-shop.de ist spezialisiert auf Fachbücher, insbesondere Recht, Steuern und Wirtschaft. Im Sortiment finden Sie alle Medien (Bücher, Zeitschriften, CDs, eBooks, etc.) aller Verlage. Ergänzt wird das Programm durch Services wie Neuerscheinungsdienst oder Zusammenstellungen von Büchern zu Sonderpreisen. Der Shop führt mehr als 8 Millionen Produkte. Social Policy in the Federal Republic of Germany: The Constitution of the Social Hans F. Zacher The “Social” as the Guiding Concept of Politics and Law 1 The Normative Openness and the Concrete Historical Perceptibility of the “Social” 1.1 The Normative Power and Undeterminedness of the Social The social policy of the Federal Republic of Germany is based on a social norm of great authority: this society seeks to be a “social” order. It wants its polity to be social, and through its policies and laws to bring about and guarantee a state of affairs that deserves to be called “social.” This norm is so general that it cannot be adequately attested with a single piece of evidence. Rather, it is demonstrated by the totality of the political and legal development. It is grounded in a long and impressive history (Hockerts 1996, pp. 27–48; Stolleis 2013, German Social Policy, vol. 2), which after 1945 was initially picked up and vigorously carried forward by the Lander€ , and then in 1949 by the Federal Republic. By virtue of that continuity, this history constitutes an essential – and today presumably the most important – component of German identity (Ritter 1998b). At the same time, it is reinforced by the international embeddedness in a community of states whose economically developed and liberal-democratic members feel committed to the ideal of the welfare state (Ritter 1991; Schmid 1996, 1998), and who have also carried this ideal into the international community of states itself through shared institutions and norms (Kohler€ 1988; Schuler 1988). The law picks up this norm of the social above all in the social goal of the state and in the elevated ranking that it accords this goal (Zacher 1987a, pp. 1045–1111). While this social commitment of the society and polity into which this human community has constituted itself is quite firm, it is unclear what it means concretely. The term “social” is extremely indeterminate. The individual who uses it, or the H.F. Zacher, Social Policy in the Federal Republic of Germany, 23 German Social Policy 3, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-22525-3_2, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013 24 Social Policy in the Federal Republic of Germany: The Constitution of the Social group or organization that expresses itself “socially” by means of it, often has something very specific in mind. But the multitude of these specific meanings does not produce an intersubjective definitude, or a definitive clarity that holds for society as a whole. We can say only the following: “social” means social conditions.“Social” also means the individual state of being, though not in a solipsistically isolated sense, but with reference to the individual state of being of others and of society. “Social” is aimed at “correct” societal conditions (that is, those deemed correct), and thus also at “correct” individual states of being (that is, those deemed correct). “Social” refers to the criteria by means of which appropriate societal conditions and individual states of being are distinguished from inappro- priate ones. “Social” gives rise to – indeed, compels – judgments about the existing societal conditions and individual states of being and their development. But what, precisely, is meant by all of this? First this: “social” has something to do with equality and inequality.“Social” negates a certain measure of inequality –or more precisely: certain constellations of inequality (Mau 1997). The “social question” arose first in the guise of the “question of the poor”: vis-a`-vis the inequality between those who had a minimum livelihood or more, and those who lacked the bare necessities. It then manifested itself as the “workers’ question”: vis-a`-vis the inequal- ity of those who had to sell their labor like a commodity, and those who sold commodities as goods. Thus, the “social question” was ignited time and again by the constant perception of new inequalities. In that sense, “social”isamandateto distinguish unreasonable inequalities from reasonable or at least tolerable ones (or less important ones), and to eliminate, compensate for, or at least diminish the unreason- able ones. In this regard, “social” aims at more equality. Not equality as such. This is the difference between “social” and “socialist.” And at no time has there been a general consensus about the “socialist” approach. The basic norm that is generally endorsed aims at something more open. This version of the “social” means a selective, responsible approximation to equality. Thus, the expansion of the social across the nineteenth and twentieth century took place as a process of negating an ever growing number of inequalities and discovering more and more new equalities: and the latter were used to define the inequalities and to guide the efforts that would prevent, eliminate, compensate, or at least moderate them.1 Thus, “more equality” can also be understood as “more equalities”: not “equality” as such, but “many equalities.” Here we must insert a constriction, though. At its core, “social” is aimed at something economic (Zacher 1987a, p. 1087). “Social” refers to economically conditioned or economically relevant inequalities and equalities. But that, too, is a result of the history of the “social question.” And it results from a basic liberal attitude. The goal is not to change the human being: a person should have autonomy over his or her own self. The goal is to change the conditions that surround people. What is given from the outside is to be altered. And those things are first and foremost the economic givens and the economic effects of non-economic givens. 1 For a diagnosis of the reality of social inequality in Germany at the end of the twentieth century see Braun and Mohler (1998); Hradil and Schiener (1999), which also has a further discussion, including older material. 1 The Normative Openness and the Concrete Historical Perceptibility of the “Social” 25 But what degree of proximity to the economic core is demanded? What must the relationship between economic and non-economic conditions be for social conditions and individual states of being to be measured by the yardstick of the “social”? There are no definitive answers to any of these questions. The latitude is wide and variable over the course of social and political developments. Exceptions, too, are conceiv- able.2 The concept of the “social” is an open one. This openness is by no means merely a default position. On the contrary: it alone can reconcile the lofty claim of the norm to validity and the multiplicity of conditions and the diversity of societal and political constellations that form the basis from which humans respond to the challenges of the social. Most of all, however, it manifests another basic norm of this society: the willingness to accept inequality. Inequality between people is not only perceived as the result of fate. It is also understood and accepted as something truly human, as a conditio humana. But it is also seen as an opportunity, as a sphere of freedom. And that applies especially in relationship to the economically conditioned or economically relevant circumstances – in other words: in relationship to the “social.” Neither individuals nor the groups with which individuals associate themselves want to be equal above all else. Rather, the entire development is shaped by an ideal of social happiness, which fundamentally rejects disadvantages vis-a`-vis respective others, accepts the disadvantages of the respective others, but also limits them, and, finally, regards advantages vis-a`-vis respective others as legitimate, in fact, regards the possibility of advantages vis-a`-vis respective others as essential. The relativity of the maxims of equality, which characterizes the meaning of the “social,” has two roots, there- fore: on the one hand, the multiplicity of what equality can mean, and on the other hand, the proviso of inequality, which has always been essential for the relationship of this society to the social. 1.2 The Concrete Historical Perception of the Social 1.2.1 Approaches The historical experiences connected to the concept of the social can be perceived and depicted through two approaches. Both approaches can be derived from the self-evident societal and political nature of historically evolved socio-political institutions. They convey the concrete substance of what is meant by the word “social.” They furnish images that form the basis for all further thinking and talking about the social. One approach leads to the basic formula that every adult who is not old and bound by family work should have the opportunity, but also the responsibility, to earn a 2 For example, a common phenomenon is the application of the principle of the social state to the protection of the individual in criminal law and in the penal system: BVerfGE 35, 202 (235f.); 41, 329 (331); 45, 187 (223, 228f., 238f.); Stern (1984, p. 901f.). 26 Social Policy in the Federal Republic of Germany: The Constitution of the Social living through work and thus provide for his needs and the needs of those who live with him in a community of maintenance and depend on his support.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 the Constitutional Protection Of
    The Constitutional Protection of Property Rights: Lessons from the United States and Germany John N. Drobak* and Julie D. Strube** (April 2005 Draft: Do not quote without the permission of the authors.) Constitutional limitations on a government=s power to confiscate property, whether by an outright taking of title or by excessive regulation, are important to economic growth. Over the past 200 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has used different clauses in the constitution as the basis for this protection. When the usefulness of one clause waned, the Supreme Court turned to another clause to continue its protection of property rights. Our paper will trace the path from the use of the contract clause in the nineteenth century to the rise of substantive due process after the Civil War and its demise during the New Deal to the modern use of the takings clause. After analyzing the extent of the protection accorded property rights in the United States today, we will turn to the German constitution for a comparison of constitutional property rights protection. In many ways, the German courts have used Article 14 of the German constitution to provide similar protection to that given in the United States. However, the German courts have used a principle of Aproportionality@ as a basis for greater scrutiny of legislative action. We will show that the German Aproportionality@ principle is similar to the principles that had been used in the United States under substantive due process but no longer apply under the takings clause. We will also show that the decision of the United States Supreme Court and the German Constitutional Court are so similar that they could be viewed as part of one legal doctrine, both in terms of analysis and outcome.
    [Show full text]
  • Germany 2020 Human Rights Report
    GERMANY 2020 HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Germany is a constitutional democracy. Citizens choose their representatives periodically in free and fair multiparty elections. The lower chamber of the federal parliament (Bundestag) elects the chancellor as head of the federal government. The second legislative chamber, the Federal Council (Bundesrat), represents the 16 states at the federal level and is composed of members of the state governments. The country’s 16 states exercise considerable autonomy, including over law enforcement and education. Observers considered the national elections for the Bundestag in 2017 to have been free and fair, as were state elections in 2018, 2019, and 2020. Responsibility for internal and border security is shared by the police forces of the 16 states, the Federal Criminal Police Office, and the federal police. The states’ police forces report to their respective interior ministries; the federal police forces report to the Federal Ministry of the Interior. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and the state offices for the protection of the constitution are responsible for gathering intelligence on threats to domestic order and other security functions. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution reports to the Federal Ministry of the Interior, and the state offices for the same function report to their respective ministries of the interior. Civilian authorities maintained effective control over security forces. Members of the security forces committed few abuses. Significant human rights issues included: crimes involving violence motivated by anti-Semitism and crimes involving violence targeting members of ethnic or religious minority groups motivated by Islamophobia or other forms of right-wing extremism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Education System in the Federal Republic of Germany 2017/2018
    The Education System in the Federal Republic of Germany 2017/2018 A description of the responsibilities, structures and developments in education policy for the exchange of information in Europe – EXCERPT – 1. POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BACKGROUND AND TRENDS 1.1. Introduction The Federal Republic of Germany lies at the heart of Europe and is surrounded by nine neighbouring states. The territory covers around 357,000 km2 and stretches from the North and Baltic Seas in the north to the Alps in the south. Germany has over 82 million inhabitants, making it the most populous state in the European Un- ion (EU). Just less than 19 million inhabitants have a migrant background, a little less than 9 million of these are foreign nationals and 9.6 million have German citi- zenship. The national and official language is German. Special rulings exist in Bran- denburg and Sachsen for the use of the Sorbian (Wendish) language. The Federal Republic of Germany has been a democratic and social federation since 1949. The Länder formed in 1946 in the west built on the federalism of the German Empire (1871-1918) and the Weimar Republic (1919-33) in constitutional terms. The Grundgesetz of 1949 (Basic Law – R1) stipulates that the traditional federal order be continued in the areas of education, science and culture. Thus, the primary respon- sibility for legislation and administration in the above-mentioned areas, so-called cultural sovereignty (Kulturhoheit), rests with the Länder. The federalist principle is an acknowledgement of the regional structure which has evolved through Germa- ny's history and is an element in the division of power and also, in a democratic state, a guarantee of diversity, competition and community-based politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF 'Direct Democracy in the German Länder: History
    C2D ± Centre for Research on Direct Democracy ZDA - Zentrum für Demokratie Aarau University of Zurich C2D Working Paper Series Direct Democracy in the German Länder: History, Institutions, and (Mal)Functions Andreas ROHNER Rohner, Andreas Direct Democracy in the German Länder: History, Institutions, and (Mal)Functions C2D Working Paper Series 38/2011 C2D – Centre for Research on Direct Democracy Rohner, Andreas Direct Democracy in the German Länder: History, Institutions, and (Mal)Functions C2D Working Paper Series 38/2011 C2D – Centre for Research on Direct Democracy ISSN 1662-8152 http://www.c2d.ch ANDREAS ROHNER Andreas Rohner is studying political science and public law at the University of Zurich (UZH). Currently he is working as an undergraduate research assistant at the Centre for Democracy Studies (Zentrum für Demokratie) in Aarau, Switzerland. Abstract This paper examines the direct democratic institutions within the German political system. In a first step, direct democratic elements are analyzed in a historical context covering a period from the Weimar Republic to and beyond German Reunification. In a second step, the direct democratic instruments provided in the Basic Law and the various state constitutions are analyzed in their respective legal context whereby the focus lies on the Länder level. Finally, the main points of criticism of the current state of direct democracy in Germany – and their remedies – are to be outlined. The historical analysis shows that the “Weimar experience” – contrary to commonly held beliefs – cannot provide the reason for not implementing direct democratic elements in the Basic Law after World War II. The compar- ative legal examination of the Länder constitutions identifies three institu- tional types of direct democracy – a two-tier-model, a three-tier-model and a hybrid model – which are presented in detail.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constructive Vote of No Confidence in Comparative Perspective – Lessons to Be Learned? by Dr
    The Constructive Vote Of No Confidence In Comparative Perspective – Lessons To Be Learned? by Dr. Martin Paus, M.A., DAAD-Lecturer for German Law, Charles University Law School, Prague I. Introduction Parliamentary democracies which nowadays consider the introduction of constructive vote of no confidence (CVNC) procedures into their own constitutional systems can draw on rich experiences from those which already operate it in theirs. This article will argue that not only from looking to the obvious examples of Germany, Spain or Belgium and more recent adapters of CVNC-rules like Georgia and Israel lessons can be learned, but that also the debates in countries which so far only discussed the introduction of CVNC-rules, but in the end did not adapt them, can provide useful insights. The latter group includes for instance India, the Czech Republic and Canada. A third trove of experience, into which countries considering the adoption of a CVNC (and political scientists who want to access the impact of such a procedure) might tap, is the sub-national level. Federal States, especially Germany, and to a lesser extent Belgium, have a lot of long-term experiences to add from the CVNC-rules operated in some of their State systems. Point in case, the first ever successful CVNC happened in North-Rhine-Westphalia a quarter century before one was successfully used on the national level in Germany. This article wants to highlight some of the lessons which can be drawn from those three sources and in addition will also present some findings from current academic research from different fields1 and historical debates on CVNC rules.2 The hope is that a condensed presentation of those facts and scholarly insights might help actors in Mongolia and in other countries which debate the introduction of CVNC rules in the present or future to make more informed decisions, when pondering the question if this instrument would be a useful addition to their own parliamentary systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 6 Issue 2 2014
    VOLUME 6 ISSUE 2 2014 ISSN: 2036-5438 VOL. 6, ISSUE 2, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS SPECIAL ISSUE Re-exploring subnational constitutionalism Edited by Giacomo Delledonne, Giuseppe Martinico and Patricia Popelier The politics of sub-national constitutionalism and local government in FOREWORD Ethiopia Continuing Sophistication in Subnational ZEMELAK AYITENEW AYELE E- 89-115 Constitutionalism ROBERT F. WILLIAMS E- I-IV Crisis, Emergency and Subnational Constitutionalism in the Italian context EDITORIAL GIUSEPPE MARTINICO AND LEONARDO PIERDOMINICI E- 116-140 Re-exploring subnational constitutionalism GIACOMO DELLEDONNE, GIUSEPPE Movement towards a Flemish Constitution: MARTINICO, PATRICIA POPELIER, E- V-X the Charter for Flanders, another failed attempt? ESSAYS SARAH LAMBRECHT E- 141-163 Subnational multilevel constitutionalism Answers to Spanish centrifugal federalism: PATRICIA POPELIER E- 1-23 Asymmetrical federalism versus coercive federalism Constitutional courts, constitutional ESTHER SEIJAS VILLADANGOS E- 164-190 interpretation, and subnational constitutionalism Constitutional bases in the federal conflict ANNA GAMPER E- 24-44 over the health care access restriction of undocumented migrants in Spain The legal enforcement of the principle of IRENE SOBRINO GUIJARRO E- 191-215 subsidiarity WERNER VANDENBRUWAENE E- 45-73 Multilevel Systems and Sub-National Constitutional Politics in Germany: a Strengthening state constitutionalism from Qualitative Comparative Analysis the federal Constitution: the case of Mexico WERNER REUTTER E- 216-243 JOSÉ
    [Show full text]
  • The Länder and German Federalism Prelims 27/5/03 11:39 Am Page Ii
    GPOLGunlicks cover 21/5/2003 5:22 pm Page 1 Issues in German Politics The Länder This book provides a detailed introduction to how the Länder (the sixteen states of Germany) function not only within the country itself but also within the wider context of European political affairs. Some knowledge of the role of the Länder is and German federalism essential to an understanding of the political system as well as of German federalism. The Länder This book traces the origin of the Länder. It looks at their place in the constitutional order of the country and the political and administrative system. Their organization and administration are fully covered, as is their financing. Parties and elections in the Länder and the controversial roles of parliaments and deputies are also examined. and German Because of their role in the Bundesrat, the second legislative chamber, the Lander are clearly an important part of the national legislative process. They participate in policy-making with regard to the European Union, and have limited influence on Germany's foreign affairs outside of Europe. This is the first English language book that considers the Länder in this depth. federalism Arthur Gunlicks is a professor of political science and chair of the department at the University of Richmond, Virginia Gunlicks Arthur Gunlicks ISBN 0-7190-6533-X 9 780719 065330 prelims 27/5/03 11:39 am Page i The Länder and German federalism prelims 27/5/03 11:39 am Page ii ISSUES IN GERMAN POLITICS Edited by Professor Charlie Jeffery, Institute for German Studies Dr Charles Lees, University of Sussex Issues in German Politics is a major new series on contemporary Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • Politics of Germany
    Politics of Germany Germany is a democratic, federal parliamentary republic, where federal Political System of the legislative power is vested in the Bundestag (the parliament of Germany) and Federal Republic of Germany the Bundesrat (the representative body of the Länder, Germany's regional 10 states). Politisches System der Bundesrepublik Deutschland The multilateral system has, since 1949, been dominated by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). The judiciary of Germany is independent of the executive and the legislature, while it is common for leading members of the executive to be members of the legislature as well. The political system is laid out in the 1949 constitution, the Grundgesetz (Basic Law), which remained in effect with minor amendments after German reunification in 1990. The constitution emphasizes the protection of individual liberty in an extensive catalogue of human and civil rights and divides powers both between the Coat of arms of Germany federal and state levels and between the legislative, executive and judicial State type Federal democratic branches. parliamentary republic West Germany was a founding member of the European Community in 1958, which became the EU in 1993. It is part of the Schengen Area, and has been a Constitution Basic Law for member of the eurozone since 1999. It is a member of the United Nations, Germany NATO, the G7, the G20 and the OECD. Legislative branch Name Bundestag and The Economist Intelligence Unit has rated Germany as a "full democracy"
    [Show full text]
  • Facts About Germany Facts About Germany
    FACTS ABOUT GERMANY FACTS FACTS ABOUT GERMANY Updated 2018 edition Foreign policy · Society · Research · Economy · Culture Facts about Germany 2 | 3 FACTS ABOUT GERMANY CONTENTS AT A GLANCE EDUCATION & KNOWLEDGE Federal Republic 6 Vibrant Hub of Knowledge 94 Crests & Symbols 8 Dynamic Academic Landscape 98 Demographics 10 Ambitious Cutting-edge Research 102 Geography & Climate 12 Networking Academia 106 Parliament & Parties 14 Research and Academic Relations Policy 108 Political System 16 Excellent Research 110 Federal Government 18 Attractive School System 112 Famous Germans 20 SOCIETY THE STATE & POLITICS Enriching Diversity 114 New Tasks 22 Structuring Immigration 118 Federal State 26 Diverse Living Arrangements 122 Active Politics 30 Committed Civil Society 126 Broad Participation 32 Strong Welfare State 128 Political Berlin 34 Leisure Time and Travel 130 Vibrant Culture of Remembrance 36 Freedom of Religious Worship 132 FOREIGN POLICY CULTURE & THE MEDIA Civil Policy-Shaping Power 38 Vibrant Nation of Culture 134 Committed to Peace and Security 42 Innovative Creative Industry 138 Advocate of European Integration 46 Intercultural Dialogue 140 Protection of Human Rights 50 Cosmopolitan Positions 142 Open Network Partner 54 Rapid Change in the Media 146 Sustainable Development 56 Exciting World Heritage Sites 150 Attractive Language 152 BUSINESS & INNOVATION A Strong Hub 58 WAY OF LIFE Global Player 62 Land of Diversity 154 Lead Markets and Innovative Products 66 Urban Quality of Life 158 Sustainable Economy 70 Sustainable Tourism 160
    [Show full text]
  • Subnational Constitutionalism: a Matter of Review by Giacomo Delledonne ∗
    ISSN: 2036-5438 Subnational Constitutionalism: A Matter of Review by Giacomo Delledonne ∗ Perspectives on Federalism, Vol. 4, issue 2, 2012 Except where otherwise noted content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.5 Italy License E -294 Abstract Which is the meaning of constitutional review for a proper assessment of subnational constitutionalism? The essay tries to answer this question by means of comparative analysis. To do so, it considers both federal systems (the United States and Germany) and regional or autonomic systems (Italy and Spain). The analysis of organs and procedures allows to draw some conclusions: the presence of a system of constitutional review at the subnational level is a crucial element for the development of an autonomous, well-grown subnational constitutional law. However, subnational constitutional courts tend to have a more complicated relation with legislative and executive bodies, as less guarantees of independence or court-overturning amendments show. Finally, subnational constitutional courts tend to develop a quite interesting case law, whose experimental features sometimes anticipate major judicial trends Key-words Subnational constitutionalism, constitutional review, judicial dialogue, federalizing processes Except where otherwise noted content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.5 Italy License E -295 1. Introductory Remarks This contribution tries to analyse the role of constitutional review and constitutional enforcement within subnational legal orders and their significance to the meaning of subnational constitutionalism. In doing so, it will try to look into organs and procedures – and, more broadly, systems of constitutional review – in a comparative perspective I. Why should a comparative analysis of subnational constitutionalism (or subconstitutionalism , as it has also been defined II ) focus on the role of constitutional courts and constitutional review in subnational systems? There are, in my opinion, at least two good reasons for choosing such a topic.
    [Show full text]
  • I Observatorio
    THE REGIONALIZATION OF THE FORMATION OF PREFERENCES IN DECENTRALIZED FEDERAL STATES – THE GERMAN CASE: FROM UNITARY TO COMPETITIVE FEDERALISM By Wolfgang Renzsch Universitat de Magdeburg 1. THE FRAMEWORK Since a long time, German federalism, in particular intergovernmental relations between the federation and the Länder have been on the academic as well as on the political agenda. The debates started already before German unification in 1990, they continued afterwards, with more intensity. Two issues have been addressed primarily: the efficiency or inefficiency of federal-Länder cooperation, and the fairness or unfairness of the intergovernmental fiscal relations, in particular the fiscal equalisation scheme. Hopes that German unification would open an opportunity to modernise the federal system, failed. Although some talked of a “lost chance”, dealing with the challenge of German unification and modernising the federal system at the same time would probably have overburdened the problem-solving capacity of the political system. However, the Unification Treaty of 31 August 1990 stipulated in article 5 (BGBl. 1990 II, p. 889) that the legislature of the Federal Republic should revise the relations between the federal and Länder governments within the next two years. This provision reflected the fear of the West German Länder governments to lose political influence in a united Germany. The reform of the federal system was originally divided into two steps. The Bundestag and the Bundesrat agreed to call a joint commission which was supposed to develop proposals for a reform mainly of the legislative powers of both levels of government (Batt, 1995; Klöpfer and Lang 1996; Renzsch, 1996). The not less difficult task of amending the system of intergovernmental fiscal relations determined to integrate the new Länder was delegated to the ministers of finance of the Länder who called the commission “Finanzreform 1995” (Razeen and Webber 1994; Renzsch 1994).
    [Show full text]
  • Germany | Freedom House
    Germany | Freedom House https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2019/germany A. ELECTORAL PROCESS: 12 / 12 A1. Was the current head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections? 4 / 4 Germany’s head of state is a largely ceremonial president, chosen by the Federal Convention, a body formed jointly by the Bundestag (Federal Parliament) and state representatives. The president can serve up to two five-year terms. Former foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier of the SPD was elected president in early 2017. The federal chancellor—the head of government—is elected by the Bundestag and usually serves for the duration of a legislative session. The chancellor’s term can be cut short only if the Bundestag chooses a replacement in a so-called constructive vote of no confidence. Angela Merkel won a fourth term as chancellor following 2017 Bundestag elections, which were held in accordance with democratic standards. After 18 years as the head of the CDU, Merkel announced in October that she would step down as chairperson at year’s end, and that she would not seek another term as chancellor in the 2021 elections. A2. Were the current national legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections? 4 / 4 The German constitution provides for a lower house of parliament, the Bundestag, as well as an upper house, the Bundesrat (Federal Council), which represents the country’s 16 federal states. The Bundestag is elected at least every four years through a mixture of proportional representation and single-member districts, which can lead the number of seats to vary from the minimum of 598.
    [Show full text]