What actually secures a free and democratic society? Is it the constitution in which all of our rights are guaranteed? Or is it the political practice that practices democracy every day? “Both,” most people would probably answer, but he still has it The 75th birthday of the Bundestag received far less attention than that of the Basic Law. The practice does not have a good reputation in Germany, but the historian Michael F. Feldkamp objects: “A constitution does not make a state!” Therefore, it is only logical that the proven parliamentary expert presents a history of the Bundestag with “The Institution”. the place that fills the Basic Law with life. Unfortunately, this itself is a fairly lifeless affair.
The main reason why this book can’t breathe is because the author laces the corset very tightly. Chapter by chapter, he describes the individual electoral periods, states who will be elected parliamentary group leader or lists important legislative proposals. He focuses on the first periods, which makes sense: after all, they were the ones in which the foundations of the state as it exists today were laid. Between “tradition and modernity,” Feldkamp sees this first Bundestag, in which 29 members sat who were already represented in the Reichstag of the Weimar Republic. The first senior president of the parliament, Paul Löbe, personally formed the connection to German democratic history. However, in the case of the first Bundestag, according to the author, “tradition” also means that 57 MPs were former members of National Socialist organizations.
Coca-Cola in the parliament restaurant
He illuminatingly notes that the political system of the Federal Republic is producing a new dualism: While the Weimar Republic was still strongly characterized by the conflict between the executive and the legislature, the dispute in the Federal Republic of Germany found its way into parliament. Government factions and the opposition are now the decisive political forces. These are the kinds of traces that the author lays down but then doesn’t follow up on. Instead, the book sees itself as a chronicle of parliamentary practice. This means: debates, rules of procedure, voting procedures, administration. The historian even reports on the access numbers of the Bundestag’s online presence.
In between, Feldkamp takes time for arabesques of West German parliamentary history. The reader learns that the organizing committee of the first electoral term discussed the question of whether the West would end if Coca-Cola was added to the menu in the Bundestag restaurant in addition to German beer. We also learn that cost explosions in public construction projects are by no means a contemporary phenomenon: in 1969 the new parliamentary high-rise, the “Lange Eugen”, was opened. The construction costs were calculated at twelve million marks, but 48.5 million were ultimately needed.
Thierse or Lammert? The author has a preference
In addition to the electoral periods, the successive terms of office of the Bundestag Presidents guide the author through the text. According to Feldkamp, Parliament found its first president in Eugen Gerstenmaier, who filled the office with intellectual and charismatic charisma. His membership in the Kreisau Circle also gave him the necessary biographical persuasiveness. From the first woman in office, Annemarie Renger, the “black man of honor” Richard Stücklen to Norbert Lammert, Wolfgang Schäuble and Bärbel Bas, he follows the work of the Presidents of the Bundestag particularly closely and cannot hide the fact that he is much more fond of Norbert Lammert’s administration is like the stubbornness of Wolfgang Thierse. This kind of discreet, political partisanship runs through the entire text and is irritating in the otherwise reserved form of the chronicle. For Feldkamp, discretion also means not commenting himself, but instead pushing “the media” without making it clear which one he is referring to.
Even if parliamentary work has been significantly upgraded compared to Weimar, a structural problem still remains in the Federal Republic of Germany’s democracy: too often the parliament is not an initiative player, but rather reacts to what is derived from the government’s work. “The Institution” doubles down on this structural problem by primarily presenting government projects, from rearmament to the NATO double resolution to the Hartz IV laws.
Far too rarely does it become clear what comes from genuine parliamentary work. Feldkamp’s book inadvertently becomes a realistic depiction of German parliamentarism, which often falls short of its potential and is content with depicting social discussions instead of actively shaping them.
Gerrit ter Horst is a literary scholar and historian. In recent years he has worked for various publishers, with a focus on non-fiction. He lives in Berlin and is a freelance author.
