F.A.Z. Einspruch · Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

#334: Der Unmut der Auslandsdeutschen nach der Wahl

·1 hr 21 min·6 clips

The Bündnis Sarah Wagenknecht, after narrowly missing the 5% threshold, announces a legal review of the election over missing overseas German votes.

1. FAZ Einspruch episode 334 airs on February 26, 2025, hosted by Stefan Klenner with Patrick Barnas, focusing on the Bundestagswahl result and its legal and political consequences. 2. The guests are constitutional law professor Kyrill Alexander-Schwarz (University of Würzburg, commentator on Article 38 of the Basic Law) and constitutional law professor Florian Meinel (University of Göttingen), plus a brief closing literature segment about a book connected to a Trump tweet. 3. The episode's central argument is that two distinct legal questions — the BSW election challenge and the Arabic-language protest ban — both implicate fundamental constitutional rights and reveal how German institutions are under pressure on democratic norms. 4. BSW received 4.97% of the Bundestagswahl vote, missing the 5% threshold by 0.03 percentage points; Wagenknecht announced Monday she would pursue a Wahlprüfungsverfahren (election review) on the grounds that overseas German voters were denied their right to vote due to the shortened election timetable. 5. Prof. Alexander-Schwarz explains that the review would have two stages: first the Bundestag itself reviews the complaint, then — if unresolved — the Bundesverfassungsgericht; however, the court will only order a recount or new election if the alleged error is 'mandatsrelevant,' meaning it could change seat distribution. 6. He identifies a key counter-argument: voters have a right to vote but no right to postal voting; the Wahlbehörden owe only a 'Schickschuld' (duty to dispatch ballots), not a 'Bringschuld' (duty to ensure delivery), so the delivery risk falls on the individual. 7. The early dissolution of the Bundestag created a special situation — under Article 39(1)(4) of the Basic Law, new elections must occur within 60 days, leaving overseas voters less time to request and return ballots than in a regular election cycle. 8. Prof. Alexander-Schwarz dismisses the idea of a dedicated Auslandswahlkreis (overseas constituency) due to the complexity of Zweitstimmendeckung (second-vote coverage) under German proportional representation. 9. He supports moving to a formal, repeated registration requirement as the eligibility criterion for overseas voting rights — the EU's proposed model — rather than the current 'familiarity with German political conditions' standard, which he calls a 'Lippenbekenntnis' (lip service). 10. He notes that overseas German voting rights were historically narrow — originally limited to civil servants and border workers — and were only broadly expanded in the 1980s as globalization increased, making them a 'Fremdkörper' (foreign body) in constitutional doctrine. 11. The second major topic is the February 8 Berlin police dissolution of a pro-Palestinian demonstration on Wittenbergplatz because participants spoke Arabic in violation of a police condition requiring only German or English. 12. Prof. Meinel explains that the Versammlungsfreiheit (freedom of assembly) under the Basic Law is technically a right only for German citizens, but the Berlin Versammlungsgesetz extends it to all persons, making the language restriction legally vulnerable. 13. He traces a historical precedent to 19th-century Kaiserreich administrative disputes about whether Polish could be spoken at gatherings during the Kulturkampf and anti-Polish repression campaigns. 14. A November 2023 Hessian Verwaltungsgerichtshof decision had already indicated that a German/English-only condition might be a 'milderes Mittel' (less restrictive means) compared to banning a demonstration outright — a framing Meinel considers constitutionally questionable. 15. The Berlin Verwaltungsgericht's reasoning — that Arabic-speaking protesters should use Google Translate rather than their chosen language — is described by Meinel as inverting the 'Zweifelsgrundsatz' (doubt principle): that ambiguous speech must be presumed lawful, not unlawful. 16. Meinel reveals he holds the actual Bescheid (police order) issued to the demonstration organizers, which consists primarily of a list of banned organizations and prohibited statements — effectively a 'Lexikon tabuisierter Wörter' that organizers receive when registering any pro-Palestinian protest in Berlin. 17. He connects this to what he calls 'Wortmagie' (word magic): the belief that banning specific terms — such as the word 'genocide' in the context of Israeli military operations — removes the underlying reality from public discourse. 18. The episode has a structured panel interview format: two separate expert conversations, each lasting roughly 20-30 minutes, conducted by Stefan Klenner in a formal but conversational register characteristic of quality German public affairs podcasting. 19. German-speaking listeners with an interest in constitutional law, German electoral law, civil liberties, and the legal dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will find both segments substantive and analytically precise. 20. Non-German speakers and listeners seeking a less legalistic treatment of these political events are not the target audience for this episode.

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from F.A.Z. Einspruch