Federal President: The debate about the abolition of the highest state office

The highest state office in the Federal Republic of Germany is repeatedly the focus of fundamental discussions. Various voices from politics and society regularly question the meaning and necessity of this institution. The theoretical arguments against receiving this position are manifold and touch on the core of the state organization.of these criticisms reveals considerable doubts about the contemporary design of the highest representative. Many observers are therefore calling for a fundamental reform or even the complete removal of this position from the Basic Law. The debate about whether the highest state office is still up-to-date today is steadily gaining momentum.

Lack of executive power and dual structures

The holder of this office has hardly any real power of government in the parliamentary system. His duties are predominantly representative and notarial in nature. Critics therefore regard this role as an unnecessary double structure to the already existing tasks of other state bodies. Many protocol duties such as state receptions or speeches on national holidays could just as welladopted by the President of Parliament. In any case, he is at the head of the popular representation and has direct democratic legitimacy through the elected deputies. The consolidation of these tasks would significantly streamline state representation and avoid unnecessary overlaps. The mere signing of documents does not require a separate apparatus withfar-reaching powers.

Huge financial burden and outdated ceremonial

The maintenance of the official offices and the extensive staff entails considerable costs for taxpayers. In addition, there is the lifelong remuneration and further equipment for former office holders after their departure. According to the critics, these financial expenses are disproportionate to the actual political benefits.Ceremonial around the highest state office is also considered outdated and monarchist. Such pomp promotes the unnecessary distance between the citizens and the political leadership, which is no longer appropriate for transparent democracy. In times of scarce public funds, the financing of this elaborate apparatus seems completely disproportionate to many people.could be invested much more sensibly elsewhere in the social or infrastructural area.

Lack of direct legitimacy and party political colouring

The election of the highest representative is not made directly by the people, but by the special Federal Assembly. This body is composed of deputies and representatives of the state parliaments and is therefore far from the direct decision-making of the population. Although the office is supposed to be non-partisan, the candidates are usually elected by the governing partiesnominated. As a result, the position is often historically filled by former party politicians. Despite all efforts for neutrality, their political past and networks can never be completely hidden. The citizens thus have no direct influence on the occupation of this important constitutional body. This indirect selection strengthens confidence in thedemocratic institutions from the point of view of the opponents.

Low crisis relevance and bureaucratic hurdles

Although important reserve powers are assigned to the highest representative in the constitution, these only apply in extremely rare exceptional situations. Instead, the practical management of state crises is almost entirely the responsibility of the government and parliament. The constitutional examination and enactment of laws is also understood by critics as a bureaucratic hurdle.This step unnecessarily slows down the democratically legitimized legislative process without providing the real constitutional added value. The highest court in the country already assumes this important control function to a sufficient extent. The fear of the blockade of the legislative process by individual persons is already present in the functioning parliamentarismunfounded. In modern political practice, the existing reserve rights look more like relics from times gone by.

Lack of creative power and international role models

Since the holder of the highest office cannot launch his own political initiatives or introduce laws, he is politically condemned to inaction. According to critics, the modern state system does not need an institution whose role is essentially limited to giving speeches and signing documents. A look at other European democracies also showsthat the strong separation of powers also works without the separate head of state. Some of these states manage with much leaner structures and prove functionality without this position. The abolition would thus lead to the purification and modernisation of the entire state organisation. Parliamentary democracy would not be weakened by such innovations,but, on the contrary, significantly strengthened. The focus of political work would again be entirely on the directly elected representatives of the people.