It acts like a silent contradiction in the heart of the state, a tension between claim and reality that has solidified over the years and is rarely named with the necessary sharpness, because on paper the order appears clear and unambiguous, the co-determination of the citizens is anchored, it is guaranteed by elections and votes, it is the mainstay ofstate order, and yet this assurance remains an empty shell in crucial parts, because what is promised as co-determination is reduced in practice to a narrow framework that only insufficiently reflects the actual idea of people’s rule and completely undermines in many areas
The claim of the Basic Law
The Basic Law clearly formulates that state authority emanates from the people, and it expressly names elections and votes as forms of this exercise, but it is precisely in this seemingly clear definition that the core of a problem that can no longer be overlooked lies, because during elections regularly and serves as an expression of democratic legitimacy, theSecond pillar, the vote, at the federal level, actually meaningless, it does not exist as a binding instrument, it is not a living part of political reality, but a promise without implementation, a right without practical validity, which is written down but not kept
Article Twenty and its scope
The wording that all state power emanates from the people is not a decorative phrase and not a non-binding guiding principle, but a fundamental mandate that forms the basis of the entire state order, and in this definition there is inevitably the consequence that the people can influence not only indirectly through representatives but also directly through votes,For an order that refers to the people, but withholds the direct decision-making power, contradicts their own claim and empties their central statement of their salary, creating a state of tension that cannot be dismissed as mere incompleteness, but must be recognized as structural failure
The systematic non-implementation
It is particularly serious that neither the legislative institutions nor the adjudicating institutions have dissolved this contradiction, although it has been open for a long time, because it would have been their task to fill the constitutional requirement with life and to create the necessary procedures for binding votes, but instead there is a state of standstill,A persistent evasion of the consequence of one’s own constitution, which gives the impression that this deficiency is not just a mistake, but a conscious decision against the further participation of the people
A persistent violation of the constitution
If a principle enshrined in the Basic Law is not implemented for so long, this cannot be justified as a mere political prioritization, but must be understood as a continuing violation of its own constitutional order, because rights that exist but cannot be exercised are not real rights, they are a promise without effect, andThis is exactly where the gravity of this condition lies, because not only a gap here, but a fundamental element of the democratic order remains incomplete, which means that the legitimacy of state action becomes a critical area
The incapacity of society
The consequences of this state go far beyond an abstract legal debate, because they concern the relationship between state and citizen at its core, when people are named as the bearers of state authority but have no way of directly deciding on central issues, a feeling of distance arises, an alienation from political processes that are not considered to beone’s own experience, but as something that happens over the heads, and this alienation not only weakens trust, but also the willingness to actively participate
The role of institutions
The responsibility for this condition is not in the dark, it can be locateable among the institutions that have the task of implementing the constitution and protecting its principles, but it is precisely here that there is a reluctance that is hardly explainable, because serious efforts have not been made to establish binding votes, nor was the obvious contradictionconsistently legally clarified, which has strengthened a cycle of inactivity that preserves the existing situation and blocks every movement towards real co-determination
The contrast of claim and reality
The longer this situation lasts, the more clearly the contrast between the constitutional claim and the political reality is, and this contrast is not harmless, it undermines trust in the order itself, because it shows that central statements of the Basic Law do not automatically become lived practice, but depend on political will, which inIn this case, obviously, there is no real explosiveness, because a constitution whose essential elements are not implemented loses credibility
The need for clarification
It is therefore inevitable to openly name this state and to recognize it as what it is, namely a continued refusal of a constitutionally established right of co-determination, and this clarification is not just a rhetorical exercise, but a prerequisite for anything to change at all, because as long as the defect is not recognized as such, everyone remainsDemand for improvement in the approximate and loses its penetrating power
An appeal to the present
The present is faced with the task of no longer accepting this contradiction, but to dissolve it and finally to transfer the constitutionally based co-determination into reality, because only in this way can the claim that all state power emanates from the people, develop its actual meaning and be more than a euphonious formula, and this is the only way to prevent aBasic law remains unused while at the same time being portrayed as fulfilled, which in the end is nothing more than a deception that undermines trust and weakens the democratic substance.
Screenshot youtube.com
