Parlamentsorganisation im Angesicht des Populismus

The dispute over the exclusion of populist minorities from parliamentary bodies is only partly amenable to a purely legal solution. Drawing on a comparative analysis of German and French law, Michael Lurz-Hempelmann demonstrates the extent to which parliamentary rules and practices are shaped by political and cultural traditions.

In light of the growing influence of populist parties in Germany and France, Michael Lurz-Hempelmann takes up the political debate surrounding the strategy of the “firewall” (cordon sanitaire) and, through a comparative analysis of the two countries’ legal systems, examines the central question of to what extent parliamentary groups may be excluded from individual parliamentary bodies under parliamentary law.
His study argues that, despite differing degrees of the constitutionalisation and juridification of politics, it is primarily the majority principle in both countries that enables parliamentary groups to limit the influence of populist minorities within parliamentary bodies. In Germany, constitutional law serves as a crucial instrument for resolving disputes and establishing minimum standards that minorities and opposition groups may invoke before constitutional courts in individual cases. France, by contrast, offers no equivalent judicial avenue. There, decisions taken by the parliamentary majority must prove their legitimacy in the political arena and are judged according to whether they preserve the institutional balance of the parliamentary system.
These divergent approaches do not necessarily result in different legal standards governing the composition of parliamentary bodies. On the contrary, the comparative analysis reveals strikingly similar legal assessments regarding the extent to which minorities must be represented in different types of parliamentary bodies. How majorities make use of the discretion afforded to them ultimately depends on historical and cultural traditions that are difficult to capture in legal categories, yet should always be taken into account when seeking a functional parliamentary organisation.

I. Institutionelle Logiken und rechtliche Vorannahmen - Unterschiedliche Wege zur Bestimmung der Grenzen mehrheitsgetragener Ausgrenzung populistischer Minderheiten aus Parlamentsgremien in Frankreich und Deutschland
1. Die politisch-institutionellen Rahmenbedingungen für parlamentarische Gremienarbeit
2. Die Rolle des Verfassungsrechts im Streit um die Besetzung parlamentarischer Gremien
II. Rechtliche Maßstäbe und politische Wirklichkeit - Ähnliche Grenzen pluralistischer Gremienbesetzung im Umgang mit populistischen Minderheiten in Deutschland und Frankreich
1. Die ständigen Fachausschüsse und ihr Vorsitz
2. Die Leitungsgremien
3. Die Untersuchungsausschüsse
4. Die besonderen Gremien zur Kontrolle der Regierungstätigkeit im Bereich der Nachrichtendienste
III. Nationale und europäische Lehren aus dem Rechtsvergleich

• By (author) Michael Lurz-Hempelmann