I find that the easiest way to descripe the German president is: "You know how some countries have kings and queens who don't get to do much, except cut ribbons and give out medals? Yes? That's the president."
Yeah, most useless office ever (and expensive, too...especially for the ones who've left office and get a driver and an office with staff payed for for the entire rest of their life, not to mention a generous pension!)...especially since too many of them lack critical bones in their bodies IMHO! The only Germany Bundespräsident of the last 20 years who was somewhat critical of government was Christian Wulf and that's why they had him resign, he was a thorn in their side!
@@dreamingflurry2729 Wulff? That joker? And no, he resigned because of a pretty bad scandal about corruption. As for decent presidents, I suspect my list will always start with Richard von Weizsäcker.
@@dreamingflurry2729 You don't really know the real cost if you consider the opportunity costs. And I have no idea how to even measure that. But there's a case to be made for having that kind of role seprate from he government head since they can often be quite divisive.
@@KaiHenningsen Well, if what Wulff did is corruption, then half of the current administration (Including our "esteemed" Chancellor, Mr. Scholz - who helped out bankers while holding office in Hamburg and even as Chancellor of the Exchequer!) and a lot of MPs would have to step down ASAP as well! Powerful people didn't like that Wulff was calling them out (most German Presidents are of the "Take office and shut up" kind, so they sadly do not rock the boat!) and thus they were looking for an excuse to force his resignation (I myself wouldn't have resigned, they would have had to drag me out of Bellevue in chains!)
"and no, they are not allowed to vote digitally... That would be far too easy" That would not be easy at all, not even the Bundestag has that many fax machines...
Jokes aside, that would be the only fast remote way to actually do it ☺️ However I have to say that this did make me laugh way more than it should have 😂
Man, just the other day I was thinking it would be a good topic for your channel to explain the difference between the German chancellor and president and there you go, doing just that. Neato!
I got to know mr. Trabert in the nineties when he was a doctor for the emergency service southwest of Mainz. Later he worked on providing health care for homeless people in Mainz, without getting any payment. I have to say, eventhough I’m not a supporter of „die Linke“, that he is one of the best examples of our human race I have ever had the pleasure to meet.
thats where i have to say i hate parties. my grandpa has the same issue with the austrian greens but doesnt vote for them because they are "hippies" and "unelectable" (mhhhm, 2nd biggest party atm.) but loves one of their leaders... yet doesnt vote for him.. i dont get it.
@@alexanderlipowsky6055 I mean the Austrian Greens are literally in a coalition with the conservatives who beforehand formed the government in coalition with the Nazis. How can anyone see this group of liberal technocrats as hippies? But that also baffles me when it comes to the German Greens: How the right has managed to paint them as leftist extremist group taking away your freedom in the public eye while half of the Green elites would have loved to have the CDU as their smaller coalition partner.
@@alexanderlipowsky6055 I do get it very much. A party is MUCH more than any of its members, even if the specifically liked member is the head of that party. I, for example, am quite fond of Gregor Gysi as a person, but would never consider voting for Die Linke just because of that one single person. Any party needs to be looked at as a conglomerate of their people and policies, as that is what will eventually affect legislation. As opposed to that one dude or gal you happen to sympathize with on a personal level. Your gramps is at least correct in making that particular distinction.
@@fonkbadonk5370 fair enough, maybe you have a different voting system, we can vote party and person, not neccessarily the same party. so if he votes spö he can still vote green/sub-person without issue, he doesnt though...
This is one of the most critical differences between the German and Austrian political systems btw, in the latter the president is elected by the public with a mandatory absolute majority. Their emergency powers are also more extensive. Basically the human equivalent of a backup generator when the parliament has a small meltdown.
@@NikolausUndRupprecht Yes, it does go back to the first Republic. Purely theoretically they have presidential system like power, in practice they don't use it.
The last German president to bestow emergency powers on the chancellor because of a perceived parliamentary deadlock, caused the immediate plunge into dictatorship, genocide, and a world war, so Germans concluded that emergency powers to this extent are not a good idea. A deadlock or "meltdown" is part of democracy and must and will be solved, no need for dictators, even if Kurz really, really wants to be one.
@@Alias_Anybody how often does your president approximately use his 'emergency powers'? once per year? once per term? once per decade? once since the existance of your republic?
An important detail: The CDU is not throwing Otte out because the AfD chose to nominate him, they throw him out because he proudly accepted the nomination. This is not suprising, since he was the head of the Werteunion, an (unofficial) CDU-subsection that is particulalry right-wing (almost on par with the Neonazi party AfD)
@@ultimathule3834 was soll sie denn, zumindest in großen Teilen, sonst sein? Man betrachte nur den Werdegang etlicher (Führungs-)Mitglieder und deren Aktivitäten.
@@florianbusse8383 Jeder Neonazi ist ein Rechtsextremist. Nicht jeder Rechtsextremist ist ein Neonazi. Warum? Selbst unter der Mehrheit der Rechtsextremisten ist der Holocaust unumstößlicher Fakt. Neonazis dagegen zeichnen sich dadurch aus, den Holocaust zu leugnen oder drastisch zu verharmlosen sowie den NS-Staat zu verharmlosen. Die AfD ist eine in großen Teilen rechtsextreme Partei. Aber sie ist keine neonazistische Partei, auch wenn es den ein oder anderen Neonazi und Neonazi-Sympathisanten innerhalb der AfD gibt auf allen Ebenen. Den III. Weg würde ich als eindeutig neonazistische Partei deklarieren, weil dort viele Wesenszüge des NS-Regimes gespiegelt und angepreist werden.
People often do not know that Switzerland also has a chancellor. But in contrast to the German one, our's duty is to provide the Bundesrat with the information and documents they need to fullfill their daily tasks. That's also a very important job in my opinion...
That was originally the German chancellor's job, too, hence the name. Eventually, everybody admitted that his job was the most important one and let him lead the government. ;)
Actually like some indicated, the Office of German Chancellor is quite older than Bismarck or even the modern German states. It was created in medieval times as some kind of secretary. The Chancellor was in power of Paperwork and Documents, seals, etc. It was also written in the constitutional laws of the Holy Roman Empire, that this Office always shall be held by the arch-bishop of Mainz, who also was one of the electors. Because this Office was generally kind of ceremonial and not exactly powerful, as the territorial states had their own governments and prime ministers, who were much more important in their states, it is however not comparable to the modern Office of Federal Chancellor. Although Otto von Bismarck was quite an important and powerful statesman, his Office of Imperial Chancellor, he himself created alltogether with the German constitution, wasn't. Bismarck only was so powerful, because he combined multiple positions: Imperial Chancellor, Minister of Foreign Affairs and most importantly Prime minister of the Kingdom of Prussia. Only because Prussia's territory got to be two thirds of the entire Federation and it's laws partially applied to all the states, Prussian Prime Minister was so powerful. Bismarck wanted to re-establish the dissolved German Empire, but the Prussian way, while saving most power for him. Therefore he interpreted the Office of Chancellor being comparable to his position as head of government in Prussia and therefore made the Imperial Chancellor head of government. During 1918's Revolution, the socialists and social democrats took power and declared all the governmental power, which was previously according to the constitution held by the German Emperor and the Imperial Chancellor together, to be transferred to the Provisional Council, composed of three members of the Majority-Social-Democratic-Party (not so radical Socialists -> Social Democrats) and the Independent-Social-Democratic-Party (radical Socialists -> Commies) each. The Chairman of this revolutionary government was MSPD-Party-Chairman Friedrich Ebert, who also was declared Chancellor by the previous Chancellor Max von Baden, which obviously was unlawfully and unconstitutional but… revolution, you know? When the National Constituent Assembly, which was elected by all the citizens, including women (fun fact: despite all adult [21 years of age I think] German citizens got to vote, the Turnout was much lower than in the last Reichstag-elections, which may or may not have been caused by most men being busy in France and Russia idk), met in early 1919, a new constitution was written: The Imperial President was elected by the people for a seven years term (another fun fact: there actually were just two Presidents, Friedrich Ebert from the Social-Democratic-Party and non-party Paul von Hindenburg, of which only the latter was directly elected by the people, as Ebert was elected by the Constituent National Assembly) and therefore got to be head of state with far-reaching emergency decrees, Supreme Commander of the armed forces etc. While the President could dissolve the Parliament and declare an state emergency anytime he liked, the previous head of state, the hereditary German Emperor, needed the Chancellor's Consent to do anything (even a press interview, no joke here), which arguable made the Office of President way more powerful than the Office of German Emperor (which, fun fact, actually was a mere Office and not a real noble title). Another difference between the two constitutions was that previously the Chancellor was appointed and dismissed by the German Emperor, while the new head of government, the Office of Imperial Prime Minister (soon to be renamed to Imperial Chancellor) was additionally confirmed by the Parliament. Therefore the Legislative power could theoretically somewhat control the government, which practically however wasn't the case as the Parliament was dissolved and opposition persecuted all the time as a certain Imperial Chancellor took advantage of the old and tired President's emergency powers. As the first German Democracy therefore had been a fucking mess, having paved the way for a certain dictatorship, the “Fathers and Mothers of the Basic Law” decided to disempower the Office of Federal President. Today, this Position is somewhat comparable to other ceremonial heads of states like the Queen of the UK, only that she theocratically could dissolve Parliament, is Supreme Commander of the British armed forces and holds a speech at Christmas. All these very important powers are distributed amongst the German institutions now: Dissolving Parliament is actually not allowed in Germany, but instead the Federal Chancellor could ask the Parliament “a question of trust”, which effectively does the same as Dissolution but sounds nice. There is no Supreme Commander of the Federal-Self-Defense-Forces in Germany, but instead the Parliament decides on Military operations and whether there is a “Case of defence”, which effectively would mean war, but officially Germany can't declare war. Holding a Christmas Speech, a ceremonial and morally important task, is for some reason not the duty of the Head of State, but instead the Federal Chancellor holds these speeches, as probably most Germans wouldn't recognize the President but think “Who the hell is this?!” or “We have a President?” (no joke, when someone says President in Germany, most people think of the President of the United States). While the Office of President is much less powerful than previously, the real power is now held by the Federal Chancellor or the Parliament. The reason I say “or” is comparable to the issue whether it was the chicken or the egg that came first: As a representative Democracy, all power does emanate from the people, but as it's too difficult for more than eighty million people to rule, those elect several hundreds of them to rule instead. This way, the direct power of the democracy is a little bit weakened, but it get's further weakened with these representatives electing a Chancellor, him appointing his ministers (the Government) recommending a President, who in return is elected by the Parliament and an equal amount of politicians and Celebraties nominated by the sixteen states for some reason, the Parliament nominating the judges of the Federal Constitutional Court (Suprene Court), etc. pp., making democracy more and more indirect and weaker to that point, that average German Citizens, the employers of all these Bureaucrats, have no idea that they actually are the chiefs. As the Voters vote Political parties, who decide who gets to be Representative, one could argue that in reality the Parties rule the country. When looking into the present, it's unsure how powerful the new Government and Parlament is, being a Coalition of Social Democrats, Libertarians and Liberals, but if you look at the last sixteen years under Angela Merkel's Cabinet, the political phenomenon I try to explain get's pretty obvious: Angela Merkel, then Party-Chairman of the largest party, the conservative one, got elected Federal Chancellor in 2005. As head of Government and Recipient of the Christmas speech, she already was quite powerful, but if you remember her being in charge of the largest party, she also had a considerable influence in lawmaking, as the Chairman of a Party has the power of Factional compulsion, which means that she could force her party-members to vote in her favour. As the Government usually consists of a Coalition, i.e. an Alliance between two or more parties, she could also insist the other ruling party to vote in her favour, as otherwise the Coalition would break apart and new elections would have to be announced. As the Parliament gets to decide on so many things like laws and Constitutional amendments, the judges of the Supreme Court, military operations etc. pp., Angela Merkel could be considered to have been very influential and over-powered, practically controlling all the Powers in the State, which according to philosophers like Montesquieu is not so democracy-ish but actually is accepted in Germany. This lack of checks and balances is called “Entanglement of powers” (Gewaltenverschränkung) which leads to the theoretical problem I mentioned earlier, whether it is the Chancellor or the Parliament in Power. In a representative Democracy like Germany, the Parliament is, like already elaborated, very powerful, in fact it combines so many competencies, that some call it “Parliamentary Absolutism”, where the power emanetes from the people but gets stucked somewhere inbetween Representatives, Parties and the Chancellor, which finally leads to my question, whether it is the Parliament, controlling everything, the Parties controlling Parliament or the Chancellor sometimes controlling both being over-powered. Post Scriptum and Notes: Everytime I wrote something like “Imperial Chancellor” or “Federal President”, “Chancellor of the Empire” or “President of the Federation” would have been a far better translation but I was lazy and I think it's easier to read this way. You think the German political system is complicated? In reality it's way more complicated than I depicted it, considering Germany being a Federation consisting of sixteen states, each with their own constitutions, Parliaments, governments etc., each sending an unequal amount of representatives, based on population, to the Federal Council, which in return votes on laws, voted on by the Parliament, before the Federal President gets the final say, except he doesn't, then the bill goes to the Supreme Court, etc. pp. I apologize for any errors in grammar, spelling and sentence structure, since I am German, it is also difficult for me to write nouns in small letters, which is why my comment might be too inconsistent and generally difficult to read for native English speakers.
@@deutschermichel5807 Ich sehe deine 16 Bundesländer und erhöhe um 11 auf 27 (Halb-)Kantone, jeder aus mindestens 3 Gemeinden bestehend, einem 200-sitzigen Nationalrat geschlüsselt nach Bevölkerung, einem 46-köpfigen Ständerat (1 Sitz je Kantonshälfte) als "Konterparlament", einem 7-köpfigen Bundesrat mit wechselndem Bundespräsidenten, dreimal bis viermal jährlich Abstimmungen und Initiativen und Referenden. Kompliziert sein darf nicht in einen Wettbewerb ausarten...
Office of President in Italy is quite similar to German one and they had recently even more drama with electing him. They elected for the second term Sergio Matarella (who is 80yo) even thought he expressed wishes to step down from office and go on retirement.
Yes, indeed. But the President of Italy has much more power in a Government Crises. He nominates who should form a Government and can also veto a candidate he don´t want to appoint - and insofar Government Crises are happening much more often then in Germany it is a political critical office in turbulent times.
An election drama with 8 rounds of voting would be impossible in Germany, though. If neither candidate gains an absolute majority in the first or second round, then a simple majority will suffice un round three. Not gonna happen this time of course, Mr Steinmeier's majority is rock solid. The only interesting question is how many votes exactly the other candidates are going to win. But it will definitely not be enough for them to win. Or eben force a second round of voting.
Funfact the "Bundespräsident" has to be "überparteilich" that means that he/she can't be in a party while having the job because he/she has to decide about laws etc. without beeing influenced by others/the reigning government/opposition(at least in theory). So even though Steinmeier came from the SPD and probably shares its values, he isn't an active member of the party for as long as he is the president.
Our president in Ireland serves a similar role, but is elected by the public (using STV, of course, as we do for all our elections). However, the process of getting on the ballot is complex. You need a certain number of TDs (members of parliament) to nominate you (this is the route usually taken by establishment politicians), or you can be nominated by a certain number of local authorities (town, city, and county councils), or, if you're already the president, you can nominate yourself for a second term. Presidents going for a second term often nominate themselves, and often run unopposed. We actually skip the vote if there's only one name on the ballot.
In case anyone is curious, Frank-Walter Steinmeier squeaked by with only 78.04% of the vote, to Max Otte's 10.45%, Gerhard Trabert's 7.17%, and Stefanie Gebauer's 4.33%
One important thing that many people don't know is that the Bundespräsident can issue a formal pardon (like in the US). However, unlike in the US the list of people who received a pardon is secret and also if a request for pardon was decided on negative or positive. The activists behind the platform Frag den Staat are now filing a lawsuit against the Bundespräsident to make the list public
When we to Norway i November there was a state visit from Germany. So there we were when the German president went by. I remember wondering if Rewboss had made a video about the German president. Thanks for the interesting video! Mit freundliche Grüße aus Schweden
There is a huge difference. Everyone knows the Queen, even outside Britain. In contrast, many Germans don't even know that there is a president, let alone WHO the current president is.
The German president sounds like they have a similar job to the Governor-General in places like Australia, Canada, NZ. Someone with a mainly ceremonial role as effective head of state (the Queen is the official head of state), but who also checks and signs legislation and has the (almost never used) power to step in and call an election if the government becomes utterly disfunctional.
Yes, like taken from the Hollywood-Movie "Escape from Alcatraz" - you´re waiting that Clint Eastwood is just coming around the corner, draws his gun and points it at you... :-(
Wikipedia has a list of members of the Bundesversammlung where you can look at the profession of the members, it's a really funny assortment: manager, comedian, nursing apprentice, astronaut, virologist, journalist, football national coach, ...
As you probably know, you can sort the 300 questions for the citizenship test by proportion of correct answers (a good proxy for difficulty), and the most difficult, by some margin is "Who elects the President? die Bundesversammlung der Bundesrat das Bundesparlament das Bundesverfassungsgericht"
At the moment, 5.622 people viewed this video. There IS the chance that now, more people know the english term "federal assembly", than the German "Bundesversammlung"...
In Austria the president is elected directly by the people and while acting mostly as a formal head of state, also has to check that all laws are constitutional and signs them. The formal introduction of new members of government ("Angelobung") is also the president's job, taking place in his office in the Vienna Hofburg, the former imperial castle. And the president has the important job of managing and overseeing the formation of a new government, which has happened quite frequently in recent years. In case a government is dissolved prematurely, it's the president's job to put together an interim government that then has to be approved by the parliament. But other than that, like in Germany the president stays out of day to day politics.
That they're not allowed to vote digitally is actually a really good thing. Tom Scott made a great video about it. Digital voting has just to many possible flaws.
I quite recently learned that the founding fathers of the US for their constitution heavily drew from the constitution of the Holy Roman Empire and, thus modelled the role of the president after the German king, aka the Roman Emperor.
This is actually very interesting, given the fact that the (early) United States heavily relied it's symbolic, architecture etc. on ancient roman/greek style, as did the Holy Roman Empire. When you think about it, the President of the United States has almost the same powers as the Emperors/Reges Germanorum. Even the Staging as the leader of the West is identical, both tried to portray themselves as leader of the free world/Christianity/etc. When considering the German Kings having been elected, unable to rule absolutist but instead having had to present their bills and laws to the “Parliament”, which also decided if the imperial army gets raised, etc., one could see many similarities to the Electors in the US, the Senate, etc.
fun fact about the chancellor. In the (unofficial) hierarchy of German officials he's practically only the number three behind the Bundespräsident and behind the Bundestagspräsident.
It's interesting that all four majority German-speaking countries go different ways about electing the head of state. Germany has the Federal Assembly, Austria elects their president directly, Liechtenstein doesn't elect theirs, and in Switzerland the entire government is the head of state.
I'd argue that for the German president at least, the way he's elected isn't actually very important, and is usually used more for a bit of political theater than, you know, looking for votes as in pretty much every other election - at most, there are a few private talks between the various party leaders. The job seems to be (a) a nice end for a politician's career, and (b) someone who might do some important speeches ... or fill the news tracking around the country and singing. That's not all he does, but that seems to be how people see his job. Oh, and an anecdote about the current one. Shortly after he was elected, Merkel had some trouble building a coalition, mainly because the SPD (his own party) was fed up and wanted to go opposition. He called them up and convinced them that, because Germany needed a government, it was their responsibility to do a junior partner _again._ They were not happy about that, as last time every success was credited to the CDU and every failure to the SPD, no matter who did the work.
@@KaiHenningsen Yes, but this case shows that under some special circumstances the President IS an important political figure: Th ie Bundestag cannot dissolve itself like the State Parliaments and the Government cannot dissolve the Parliament, too. This constitutional right belongs to the President! And Steinmeier used this right very effective in 2018.
Well Germany during the Weimar Republic had a pretty powerful president. It was nominally still a parliamentary government, but the president held almost all power of the government. He appointed the chancellor (did not even need to pick the one parliament voted on, but was expected to) Appointed judges, could permanently stop laws, disable basic human rights, dissolve parliament and create a substitute in cases where he felt that the government could not get a majority in parliament and much more. He was basically an elected Kaiser.
One thing to note is, that Stenmeier is NOT an SPD member anymore. The president has to renounce all political affiliations at taking office. So it would be more correct to say, Steinmeier is a former SPD member. While this is more symbolic than anything, the President's job is to sign ANY bill that is in line with the constitution no matter who which party or position it comes from.
The only point of interest will be if Otte somehow gets more votes than the number of AfD delegates. That would suggest that other parties voted for the AfD candidate, which would most likely be blamed on the CDU/CSU Conservatives.
Beitrag des Sonntages, 6. Februar 2022 Am 6. Februar 1952 verstarb der britische König Georg VI. Seine ältestes Kind, Kronprinzessin Elisabeth, befand sich zu jener Zeit auf einer Afrikareise. Sie wurde in Afrika zur britischen Königin Elisabeth II. Elisabeth hat anlässich ihres 70 jährigen Thronjubiläums verkündet, dass Herzogin Camilla "Queen Consort" werden könne.
It is similar in Ireland except that if the president thinks a law is unconstitutional it is sent to be reviewed by Judges to say if it is or not and they can reject it up to three times. Up to now if the judges say any part is unconstitutional it gets changed. They are also elected by popular vote as well.
Rewboss simplified that. Also in Germany, "if the president thinks a law is unconstitutional it is (ultimately *1) sent to be reviewed by Judges (Federal Constitutional Court) to say if it is or not. "1 Law can also be withdrawn by Parliament. Parliament can also pass a new law. There is no three times rule: Parliament can do this as often as it wants, and the Federal Constitutional Court can stop it every time. Of course, legislation is a bit more complicated: There is Federal Diet (Bundestag) and Federal Council (Bundesrat) and a Mediation Committee (Vermittlungsausschuss). The mediation committee is explicitly mentioned in the constitution (Constitution is called Basic Law for historical reasons). Others can also file constitutional complaints (but only after publication of the law). Federal Diet (Bundestag) and Federal Council (Bundesrat) together (2/3 + 2/3 majority) can change the constitution, except the entrenched clause (Ewigkeitsklausel). Of course, this is still simplified :-)
@@schnelma605 Thanks for the reply. It sounds like the German way is more robust. Most Irish presidents were voted in from the ruling party at the time so the actual checks in place were minimal. That was until Mary Robinson who trained as an Irish constitutional lawyer beat the governments candidate after a scandal during the election involving calling up a previous president when he was a govt minister to let something slide. Robinson shocked the nation, by that I mean newspaper commentators, by over her two 7 year terms referring a total of 5 laws for review. After that Mary McAleese who had a strong connection to N.I acted as someone to bridge the divide in a post Good Friday world and act as an ambassador for the country to the world. Which is how we got a left wing poet as the current president.
@@TadeuszCantwell Because of experience from the Weimar Republic, they made the constitution more robust. See e.g. wiki -> Weimar Republic -> Institutional problems. Unfortunately, links are automatically deleted here
@@schnelma605 This part really surprised me, "The use of such a motion of no confidence meant that since 1932, a government could not be held in office when the parliament came together".
Lol yeah and Hindenburg was very much more powerful, when west Germany wrote its basic law in the late 1940s they significantly reduced the German Presidents role, understandably.
1:09 Not quite right. He has to go to the federal constitution court in Karlsruhe and if the judges agree that it violates the constitution, then he can pass it back to the parliament. Otherwise he has to sign it.
I don't know, if someone said this before, but there is a big discussion going on, if the Bundespräsident is allowed to check the laws. And if in which way.
Candidating for another party against the candidate who is supported by the own party is red line crossed, no matter what the political orientation is.
The Bundespräsidenten has to be "überparteilich" non-party anyway so it normaly shouldn't be that big of a problem. Also at thr timr he anounced it I think the Union didn't clearly support Steinmeier.
@@thinkingbout That are two completely different things you are confusing now. The way the president has to conduct his office is completely irrelevant when it comes to pissing off your own party by sabotaging the election of their candidate. And yes, the Union announced their support of Steinmeier long before the AfD came up with their candidate.
Why not just have a King why the whole business with the crazy federal assembly and elections and delegates just to choose a guy who has to chat with foreign dignitaries and sign over bills?
Because this way theortically EVERYONE in the country above a certain age could be elected for president and it doesn't depend on their so called "birth right", the president can be chosen because of his/her talents and the country just has to pay one person a wage and not also for example his/her childen that take over some of the work when he/she is too old to do everything on his/her own. Also there is no conflict with childlabour because he/she won't take his/her underaged kids to work with him/her.
@@thinkingbout you can just do all of those things but with a king ... except for everyone getting a possible chance to do a job that frankly sounds like it sucks. Whacky system 🤷♂️
Well, I would not call the CDU a "Moderate right wing party" - it comes from the "Centrumspartei" which at one point was the center. Sure, it is Right of the spectrum when you compare Germany's spectrum by itself, but if you compare it internationally, it is still a centrist party. It is that Germany - aside from the AfD and Republikaner and some other odd-shots - does not really have a rightwing or ultraconservative party due to its history. This may be slightly different where you live in Bavaria since the CSU is further right than the CDU, but still. The CDU is a conservative centrist party. If you compare policy issues, especially under Merkel, this should have been clear. It actually is the reason that the AfD was able to come into existence. Now, Mertz may try to pull the party overall just right of the center with enough overlap to still cover it, but compare it to Poland or Hungary, you quickly will spot the difference.
Wait so they can nominate anybody and thus nominate one of their rivals which in turns means that the nominee gets expelled from their party because they were nominated by a detested other party? So they can freely eliminate one of their opposition? This is idiotic, I sure hope there is more to this than as understood.
a sidenote on the subject of Mr Otte: the outrage was not caused by his nomination alone but his acceptence of it. he could have just refused and not affiliate with the afd.
It's not quite true that Otte is a politician. Rather, he is writer and buisenessman. He is member of the CDU (or: used to be). But he never had any job in the party. He has never been in parliament or government. He wants the people to believe he is a politician. But he is not.
I would say that electronic voting is a terrible idea for general elections. But for something on a much smaller scale like this, with a very short and definite list of participants, it's actually quite possible. Even the British parliament was able to allow MPs to vote remotely during lockdown.
It would make things much easier. I agree on that. Then on the other hand this election is due every fifth year. I think doing this in a traditional way adds to the importance of the day.
That’s quite a dangerous precedent to set though isn’t it? Who’s to say seeing how this plays out, they won’t just nominate people who they want to get expelled from other parties in the future? Shouldn’t the nominee have to accept the nomination or something? Otherwise AfD can just say, nominate one of their least favorite party’s strongest candidates and watch as they get expelled.
The German president has the right to say "veto!" ("I forbid", in Latin) when he thinks a law is against the constitution. As far as I remember, it only happened twice in Germany's post-war history. Correction: There were NINE cases, according to Wikipedia. Still not many.
He can't just veto legislation like that. He can refer it back to the Bundestag and explain how it needs to be amended; the Bundestag can make the necessary changes, amend the constitution (with a 2/3 majority), take it to the constitutional court for a ruling, or start impeachment proceedings against the president.
He can not veto it, but refuse to sign it, which is a different thing . Technically he has to sign, and should he refuse it in the end his proxy, the chairman of the federal council could sign it, which actually happend in cases for instance the religious belief of the president is against said law. In this case the president usually asks his proxy to sign it . Only in a few cases the president asked to change the law, and in those cases usually they do. In theory , the president could refuse it and the parties insist of it being signed, but then the supreme court would have to rule, and unless the law in question was not formally correct unser the constitution they would force the president to sign it. But this actually never happend.
@@schusterlehrling Nicely learned, my friend, but can you explain to me which difference is between "not affirming a law", "not signing it", and a veto? Only three laws have been revoked or refused to sign by German federal presidents since the founding of the republic in 1949. It's a means of last resort when democracy gets out of control-
@@eisikater1584 a veto stops the law. A refused signature only delays it and may even result in the president being forced to sign it by the supreme court or he will be replaced as the last consequence.
I don't think that's true actually. The President isn't allowed to engage in party politics or be part of a government, have a job or have a business concurrently. It's customary that the President suspends their party membership during the time of the presidency, but I don't think there's any formal requirement to do that.
You could have explained this in much shorter form: The President of Germany has about the same role as the Queen, but through election instead of inheritance, and not for life. He's an "Ersatzkönig".
After all, it is the President's job to ensure that the Chancellor and ministers are appointed, that laws are signed into law and that prisoners are granted amnesty. If a law does not suit him, he can only call the court to review it and refuse to sign it until then. But unlike in the Weimar Republic, the President has no longer has any dictatorial power. Wasn't it Otto von Bismarck as president who was proposed to Hitler as a weak transitional chancellor? Had he known what was coming, he could have prevented him. So it is the task of today's President to keep false people out of office when it is in his power.
You confused Bismarck and Hindenburg. Bismarck was the Imperial Chancellor under the first two Emperors (or rather they were Emperors under him) and died in the 1890s
Bismarck died in 1898. It was Paul von Hindenburg who was President of Germany at the time who apointed Hitler as Chancellor after pressure of other conservative, right wing politicians, through he deeply despised Hitler.
There is a major reason why the CDU/CSU is still considered "centre right", even if other countries may disagree: This party regularly distances itself from right wing extremism, especially the one from Neo-Nazis, but remains socially and economically conservative.
Beitrag des Sonntages, 6. Februar 2022 Lannd Baden-Württemberg = State of Baden-Württemberg Delegation in die Bundesversammlung (196): CDU 58; GRÜ 53; SPD 35; DVP 26; AfD 21; LIN 4 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (49): CDU 14; GRÜ 13; SPD 9; DVP 7; AfD 5; LIN 1 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil) (16): CDU 5; GRÜ 4; SPD 3; DVP 2; AfD 2 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 44 Landkreisequivalente (2): CDU 1; GRÜ 1; SPD 1; DVP 1 ^ Summe = 4 ^ Rundungsunterschied von +1 Delegation in den Deutschen Bundestag (102): CDU 33; SPD 22; GRÜ 19; DVP 14; AfD 12; LIN 4 ° DVP = Landesverband der FDP in Baden-Wüttemberg ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (26): CDU 8; SPD 6; GRÜ 5; DVP 4; AfD 3; LIN 1 ^ Summe = 27 ^ Rundungsunterschied von +1 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil) (9): CDU 4; SPD 2; GRÜ 2; DVP 2; AfD 1 ^ Summe = 11 ^ Rundungsunterschied von +2 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 44 Landkreisequivalente (2): CDU 1; SPD 1 Landesdelegierte in den die Bundesversammlung (94): GRÜ 35; CDU 25; SPD 13; DVP 12; AfD 9 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (24): GRÜ 9; CDU 6; SPD 3; DVP 3; AfD 2 ^ Summe = 23 ^ Rundungsunterschied von -1 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil) (8): GRÜ 3; CDU 2; SPD 1; DVP 1; AfD 1 ^ Summe = 11 ^ Rundungsunterschied von +2 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 44 Landkreisequivalente (2): GRÜ 1; CDU 1 Mitglieder der Landesregierung von Baden-Württemberg (29): GRÜ 18; CDU 10; PTL 1 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (7): GRÜ 5; CDU 3 ^ Summe = 8 ^ Rundungsunterschied von +1 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil) (2): GRÜ 2; CDU 1^ Summe = 3 ^ Rundungsunterschied von +1 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 44 Landkreisequivalente (1): jeweils 0 ^ Rundungsunterschied von -1 Männer in der Landesregierung von Baden-Württemberg (15): GRÜ 9; CDU 6 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (4): GRÜ 2; CDU 2 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil) (1): GRÜ 1; CDU 1 ^ Summe = 2 ^ Rundungsunterschied von -1 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 44 Landkreisequivalente: 0 Frauen in der Landesregierung von Baden-Württemberg (14): GRÜ 9; CDU 4; PTL 1 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (4): GRÜ 2; CDU 1 ^ Summe = 3 ^ Rundungsunterschied von -1 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil) (1): GRÜ 1° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 44 Landkreisequivalente: 0 Mitglieder der Landtages Baden-Württemberg (154): GRÜ 58; CDU 42; SPD 19; DVP 18; AfD 17 ° Mindestanzahl: 120 ^ Überschuss von +34 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (39): GRÜ 14; CDU 11; SPD 5; DVP 5; AfD 4 ° Mindestanzahl: 30 ^ Überschuss von +9 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil) (13): GRÜ 5; CDU 4; SPD 2; DVP 2; AfD 1 ^ Summe = 14 ^ Rundungsunterschied von +1 ° Mindestanzahl: 10 ^ Überschuss von +3 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 44 Landkreisequivalente (4): GRÜ 1; CDU 1 ^ Summe = 2 ^ Rundungsunterschied von -2 ° Mindestanzahl: 4^ Überschuss von +1Landräte und Oberbürgmeister (44): CDU 25; WGMen/PTLe 17; SPD 2° Wählergemeinschaften sind manchmal parteinah!° Einzelbewerber sind manchmal Mitglieder einer Politischen Vereinigung!° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (11): CDU 6; WGMen/PTLe 4; SPD 1° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil) (4): CDU 2; WGMen/PTLe 1^ Summe = 3 ^ Rundungsunterschied von -1° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 44 Landkreisequivalente (1): CDU 1° Männer als Ländräte (40): CDU 22; WGMen/PTLe 16; SPD 2° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (10): CDU 5; WGMen/PTLe 4; SPD 1° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil) (3): CDU 2; WGMen/PTL 1 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 44 Landkreisequivalente (1): CDU 1° Frauen als Landrätinnen (4): CDU 3; PTL 1° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (1): CDU 1° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil): 0
Excellent assessment. Just a minor remark that might be more me than you, though. I personally wouldn’t call the CDU right wing but classic conservative. While their new head is without any doubt more conservative than Mrs Merkel, right-wing sounds not adequate. Again, I might be wrong about the term and the bell it rings in my head.
I feel like every party says they are in the middle. But if *Die Linke* is left and the *SPD* is left or at least was left earlier, there must be some party on the other side. I would consider FDP and CDU to be right wing. Remember that the Germans also call the *CDU* Club Deutscher Unternehmer ("Club of German Entrepreneurs"), just for fun.
@@QueenOfBrokenStone we have to keep in mind that this kind of sorting differs in every country quite much. The US Democrats are left in the US, but by German standard they more CDU-like then SPD.
Did you mispoke? The CDU isn't exactly a right wing party, but a center-right one. At least if I follow what the BBC tells me from time to time. And it is worth mentioning with over 1472 members this years Federal Assembly is the biggest in Germany's history.
Yes and no. The CDU is a conservative party (with lots of old men with white hair), and conservative is traditionally called right. For some reason however these days many people automatically associate being right with being racist and other nasty things, which is why the CDU keeps telling again and again that they are in the center for everyone. And yet they delayed the same-sex marriage for over a decade, delayed the right for medically assisted suicide for years, oh, and Friedrich Merz didn't want to punish rape between husband and wife (in the 90s, but still..).
It's a large party that tends cover both of these "spots" in the spectrum in terms of voters, politicians and policy. And while Merkel was more in the center-right and the party tries to brand themselves as center (to appeal to a broad voter spectrum), there was always a "right-wing wing" in the party and, with the new party leader (Friedrich Merz) belonging to them, has become more notable in recent years.
Forget about that outdated right-wing/left-wing. It denotes nothing. Everyone with a standpoint outside the compromise between all people in a society has an extreme position.
A centre-right party is a right-wing party, though? That's what "right-wing" means, on the right half of the notional political spectrum. Conservative organisations often prefer to say they're the "centre" because they enjoy the idea that they represent the beliefs of some sort of sensible, "normal", common-sense citizen. But that preference in self-presentation doesn't change their actual spot on the political spectrum.
till, rewboss would, call to arms like a true german does [ruclips.net/video/cZ9Xg6tj5dU/видео.html] when his economic power linked to a presidential tought that our military has to secure trade ... Joachim Gauck
despide its letters the populous either calls that afd that what they are. right wing right wing tettorists or nsafd or nsdap. anyone who does not is kinda sus. like...that one guy who shot a guy and tries to make it not racist. and making it worse.
![Tee Grizzley - Robbery 8 [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/34_vkNV6wrU/mqdefault.jpg)
I find that the easiest way to descripe the German president is: "You know how some countries have kings and queens who don't get to do much, except cut ribbons and give out medals? Yes? That's the president."
Yeah, most useless office ever (and expensive, too...especially for the ones who've left office and get a driver and an office with staff payed for for the entire rest of their life, not to mention a generous pension!)...especially since too many of them lack critical bones in their bodies IMHO! The only Germany Bundespräsident of the last 20 years who was somewhat critical of government was Christian Wulf and that's why they had him resign, he was a thorn in their side!
@@dreamingflurry2729 Wulff? That joker? And no, he resigned because of a pretty bad scandal about corruption.
As for decent presidents, I suspect my list will always start with Richard von Weizsäcker.
@@dreamingflurry2729 You don't really know the real cost if you consider the opportunity costs.
And I have no idea how to even measure that. But there's a case to be made for having that kind of role seprate from he government head since they can often be quite divisive.
@@KaiHenningsen Well, if what Wulff did is corruption, then half of the current administration (Including our "esteemed" Chancellor, Mr. Scholz - who helped out bankers while holding office in Hamburg and even as Chancellor of the Exchequer!) and a lot of MPs would have to step down ASAP as well! Powerful people didn't like that Wulff was calling them out (most German Presidents are of the "Take office and shut up" kind, so they sadly do not rock the boat!) and thus they were looking for an excuse to force his resignation (I myself wouldn't have resigned, they would have had to drag me out of Bellevue in chains!)
@@dreamingflurry2729 The Bundespräsident is the head of the executive government branch, so not useless.
"and no, they are not allowed to vote digitally... That would be far too easy"
That would not be easy at all, not even the Bundestag has that many fax machines...
In Germany the fax machine is latest digital technology :)
Jokes aside, that would be the only fast remote way to actually do it ☺️
However I have to say that this did make me laugh way more than it should have 😂
@@siph0r154 No it wouldn't... Fax doesn't exist anymore in countries that are not German
@@marioluigi9599 Given that we talk about Germany. This is no issue ☺️
Also. Yeah. That's the joke.
@@marioluigi9599 That's just a thing, because faxes are accepted as legal documents and emails not.
Man, just the other day I was thinking it would be a good topic for your channel to explain the difference between the German chancellor and president and there you go, doing just that. Neato!
Like a (rew)boss!
The German chancellor is similar to the British Prime Minister, while the German president is similar to the Queen.
I got to know mr. Trabert in the nineties when he was a doctor for the emergency service southwest of Mainz. Later he worked on providing health care for homeless people in Mainz, without getting any payment. I have to say, eventhough I’m not a supporter of „die Linke“, that he is one of the best examples of our human race I have ever had the pleasure to meet.
thats where i have to say i hate parties. my grandpa has the same issue with the austrian greens but doesnt vote for them because they are "hippies" and "unelectable" (mhhhm, 2nd biggest party atm.) but loves one of their leaders... yet doesnt vote for him.. i dont get it.
@@alexanderlipowsky6055 I mean the Austrian Greens are literally in a coalition with the conservatives who beforehand formed the government in coalition with the Nazis. How can anyone see this group of liberal technocrats as hippies?
But that also baffles me when it comes to the German Greens: How the right has managed to paint them as leftist extremist group taking away your freedom in the public eye while half of the Green elites would have loved to have the CDU as their smaller coalition partner.
@@alexanderlipowsky6055 I do get it very much. A party is MUCH more than any of its members, even if the specifically liked member is the head of that party. I, for example, am quite fond of Gregor Gysi as a person, but would never consider voting for Die Linke just because of that one single person. Any party needs to be looked at as a conglomerate of their people and policies, as that is what will eventually affect legislation. As opposed to that one dude or gal you happen to sympathize with on a personal level. Your gramps is at least correct in making that particular distinction.
@@fonkbadonk5370 fair enough, maybe you have a different voting system, we can vote party and person, not neccessarily the same party. so if he votes spö he can still vote green/sub-person without issue, he doesnt though...
This is one of the most critical differences between the German and Austrian political systems btw, in the latter the president is elected by the public with a mandatory absolute majority. Their emergency powers are also more extensive. Basically the human equivalent of a backup generator when the parliament has a small meltdown.
Seriously?! That sounds like the Weimar Republic.
A president with a lot of emergency powers didn't work that well for Germany during the Weimar Republic. That's why we scrapped them.
@@NikolausUndRupprecht
Yes, it does go back to the first Republic. Purely theoretically they have presidential system like power, in practice they don't use it.
The last German president to bestow emergency powers on the chancellor because of a perceived parliamentary deadlock, caused the immediate plunge into dictatorship, genocide, and a world war, so Germans concluded that emergency powers to this extent are not a good idea. A deadlock or "meltdown" is part of democracy and must and will be solved, no need for dictators, even if Kurz really, really wants to be one.
@@Alias_Anybody how often does your president approximately use his 'emergency powers'? once per year? once per term? once per decade? once since the existance of your republic?
An important detail: The CDU is not throwing Otte out because the AfD chose to nominate him, they throw him out because he proudly accepted the nomination. This is not suprising, since he was the head of the Werteunion, an (unofficial) CDU-subsection that is particulalry right-wing (almost on par with the Neonazi party AfD)
Zu der AFD Neonazi zu sagen ist als würde man Israel einen National Sozialistischen Staat nennen
Thank you for the clarification! I was like "why did they kick him out, did he even do anything?"
@@ultimathule3834 was soll sie denn, zumindest in großen Teilen, sonst sein? Man betrachte nur den Werdegang etlicher (Führungs-)Mitglieder und deren Aktivitäten.
@@florianbusse8383 Jeder Neonazi ist ein Rechtsextremist. Nicht jeder Rechtsextremist ist ein Neonazi. Warum? Selbst unter der Mehrheit der Rechtsextremisten ist der Holocaust unumstößlicher Fakt. Neonazis dagegen zeichnen sich dadurch aus, den Holocaust zu leugnen oder drastisch zu verharmlosen sowie den NS-Staat zu verharmlosen. Die AfD ist eine in großen Teilen rechtsextreme Partei. Aber sie ist keine neonazistische Partei, auch wenn es den ein oder anderen Neonazi und Neonazi-Sympathisanten innerhalb der AfD gibt auf allen Ebenen.
Den III. Weg würde ich als eindeutig neonazistische Partei deklarieren, weil dort viele Wesenszüge des NS-Regimes gespiegelt und angepreist werden.
Thanks. I was wondering what his reaction was when nominated!
Very interesting video, not least because of the horse in the background at 4:40 😂
Haha but why going in circles or back 'n forth?
People often do not know that Switzerland also has a chancellor. But in contrast to the German one, our's duty is to provide the Bundesrat with the information and documents they need to fullfill their daily tasks.
That's also a very important job in my opinion...
That was originally the German chancellor's job, too, hence the name. Eventually, everybody admitted that his job was the most important one and let him lead the government. ;)
@@Ned-Ryerson The German Chancellor became so important because Otto von Bismarck made himself the first one.
Actually like some indicated, the Office of German Chancellor is quite older than Bismarck or even the modern German states. It was created in medieval times as some kind of secretary. The Chancellor was in power of Paperwork and Documents, seals, etc. It was also written in the constitutional laws of the Holy Roman Empire, that this Office always shall be held by the arch-bishop of Mainz, who also was one of the electors. Because this Office was generally kind of ceremonial and not exactly powerful, as the territorial states had their own governments and prime ministers, who were much more important in their states, it is however not comparable to the modern Office of Federal Chancellor.
Although Otto von Bismarck was quite an important and powerful statesman, his Office of Imperial Chancellor, he himself created alltogether with the German constitution, wasn't. Bismarck only was so powerful, because he combined multiple positions: Imperial Chancellor, Minister of Foreign Affairs and most importantly Prime minister of the Kingdom of Prussia. Only because Prussia's territory got to be two thirds of the entire Federation and it's laws partially applied to all the states, Prussian Prime Minister was so powerful. Bismarck wanted to re-establish the dissolved German Empire, but the Prussian way, while saving most power for him. Therefore he interpreted the Office of Chancellor being comparable to his position as head of government in Prussia and therefore made the Imperial Chancellor head of government.
During 1918's Revolution, the socialists and social democrats took power and declared all the governmental power, which was previously according to the constitution held by the German Emperor and the Imperial Chancellor together, to be transferred to the Provisional Council, composed of three members of the Majority-Social-Democratic-Party (not so radical Socialists -> Social Democrats) and the Independent-Social-Democratic-Party (radical Socialists -> Commies) each. The Chairman of this revolutionary government was MSPD-Party-Chairman Friedrich Ebert, who also was declared Chancellor by the previous Chancellor Max von Baden, which obviously was unlawfully and unconstitutional but… revolution, you know? When the National Constituent Assembly, which was elected by all the citizens, including women (fun fact: despite all adult [21 years of age I think] German citizens got to vote, the Turnout was much lower than in the last Reichstag-elections, which may or may not have been caused by most men being busy in France and Russia idk), met in early 1919, a new constitution was written: The Imperial President was elected by the people for a seven years term (another fun fact: there actually were just two Presidents, Friedrich Ebert from the Social-Democratic-Party and non-party Paul von Hindenburg, of which only the latter was directly elected by the people, as Ebert was elected by the Constituent National Assembly) and therefore got to be head of state with far-reaching emergency decrees, Supreme Commander of the armed forces etc. While the President could dissolve the Parliament and declare an state emergency anytime he liked, the previous head of state, the hereditary German Emperor, needed the Chancellor's Consent to do anything (even a press interview, no joke here), which arguable made the Office of President way more powerful than the Office of German Emperor (which, fun fact, actually was a mere Office and not a real noble title). Another difference between the two constitutions was that previously the Chancellor was appointed and dismissed by the German Emperor, while the new head of government, the Office of Imperial Prime Minister (soon to be renamed to Imperial Chancellor) was additionally confirmed by the Parliament. Therefore the Legislative power could theoretically somewhat control the government, which practically however wasn't the case as the Parliament was dissolved and opposition persecuted all the time as a certain Imperial Chancellor took advantage of the old and tired President's emergency powers.
As the first German Democracy therefore had been a fucking mess, having paved the way for a certain dictatorship, the “Fathers and Mothers of the Basic Law” decided to disempower the Office of Federal President. Today, this Position is somewhat comparable to other ceremonial heads of states like the Queen of the UK, only that she theocratically could dissolve Parliament, is Supreme Commander of the British armed forces and holds a speech at Christmas. All these very important powers are distributed amongst the German institutions now:
Dissolving Parliament is actually not allowed in Germany, but instead the Federal Chancellor could ask the Parliament “a question of trust”, which effectively does the same as Dissolution but sounds nice.
There is no Supreme Commander of the Federal-Self-Defense-Forces in Germany, but instead the Parliament decides on Military operations and whether there is a “Case of defence”, which effectively would mean war, but officially Germany can't declare war.
Holding a Christmas Speech, a ceremonial and morally important task, is for some reason not the duty of the Head of State, but instead the Federal Chancellor holds these speeches, as probably most Germans wouldn't recognize the President but think “Who the hell is this?!” or “We have a President?” (no joke, when someone says President in Germany, most people think of the President of the United States).
While the Office of President is much less powerful than previously, the real power is now held by the Federal Chancellor or the Parliament. The reason I say “or” is comparable to the issue whether it was the chicken or the egg that came first: As a representative Democracy, all power does emanate from the people, but as it's too difficult for more than eighty million people to rule, those elect several hundreds of them to rule instead. This way, the direct power of the democracy is a little bit weakened, but it get's further weakened with these representatives electing a Chancellor, him appointing his ministers (the Government) recommending a President, who in return is elected by the Parliament and an equal amount of politicians and Celebraties nominated by the sixteen states for some reason, the Parliament nominating the judges of the Federal Constitutional Court (Suprene Court), etc. pp., making democracy more and more indirect and weaker to that point, that average German Citizens, the employers of all these Bureaucrats, have no idea that they actually are the chiefs. As the Voters vote Political parties, who decide who gets to be Representative, one could argue that in reality the Parties rule the country. When looking into the present, it's unsure how powerful the new Government and Parlament is, being a Coalition of Social Democrats, Libertarians and Liberals, but if you look at the last sixteen years under Angela Merkel's Cabinet, the political phenomenon I try to explain get's pretty obvious:
Angela Merkel, then Party-Chairman of the largest party, the conservative one, got elected Federal Chancellor in 2005. As head of Government and Recipient of the Christmas speech, she already was quite powerful, but if you remember her being in charge of the largest party, she also had a considerable influence in lawmaking, as the Chairman of a Party has the power of Factional compulsion, which means that she could force her party-members to vote in her favour. As the Government usually consists of a Coalition, i.e. an Alliance between two or more parties, she could also insist the other ruling party to vote in her favour, as otherwise the Coalition would break apart and new elections would have to be announced. As the Parliament gets to decide on so many things like laws and Constitutional amendments, the judges of the Supreme Court, military operations etc. pp., Angela Merkel could be considered to have been very influential and over-powered, practically controlling all the Powers in the State, which according to philosophers like Montesquieu is not so democracy-ish but actually is accepted in Germany. This lack of checks and balances is called “Entanglement of powers” (Gewaltenverschränkung) which leads to the theoretical problem I mentioned earlier, whether it is the Chancellor or the Parliament in Power. In a representative Democracy like Germany, the Parliament is, like already elaborated, very powerful, in fact it combines so many competencies, that some call it “Parliamentary Absolutism”, where the power emanetes from the people but gets stucked somewhere inbetween Representatives, Parties and the Chancellor, which finally leads to my question, whether it is the Parliament, controlling everything, the Parties controlling Parliament or the Chancellor sometimes controlling both being over-powered.
Post Scriptum and Notes:
Everytime I wrote something like “Imperial Chancellor” or “Federal President”, “Chancellor of the Empire” or “President of the Federation” would have been a far better translation but I was lazy and I think it's easier to read this way.
You think the German political system is complicated? In reality it's way more complicated than I depicted it, considering Germany being a Federation consisting of sixteen states, each with their own constitutions, Parliaments, governments etc., each sending an unequal amount of representatives, based on population, to the Federal Council, which in return votes on laws, voted on by the Parliament, before the Federal President gets the final say, except he doesn't, then the bill goes to the Supreme Court, etc. pp.
I apologize for any errors in grammar, spelling and sentence structure, since I am German, it is also difficult for me to write nouns in small letters, which is why my comment might be too inconsistent and generally difficult to read for native English speakers.
@@deutschermichel5807
Ich sehe deine 16 Bundesländer und erhöhe um 11 auf 27 (Halb-)Kantone, jeder aus mindestens 3 Gemeinden bestehend, einem 200-sitzigen Nationalrat geschlüsselt nach Bevölkerung, einem 46-köpfigen Ständerat (1 Sitz je Kantonshälfte) als "Konterparlament", einem 7-köpfigen Bundesrat mit wechselndem Bundespräsidenten, dreimal bis viermal jährlich Abstimmungen und Initiativen und Referenden.
Kompliziert sein darf nicht in einen Wettbewerb ausarten...
Office of President in Italy is quite similar to German one and they had recently even more drama with electing him. They elected for the second term Sergio Matarella (who is 80yo) even thought he expressed wishes to step down from office and go on retirement.
Right, I followed that, there were several rounds of mostly "white paper" elections of nobody at all.
Yes, indeed. But the President of Italy has much more power in a Government Crises. He nominates who should form a Government and can also veto a candidate he don´t want to appoint - and insofar Government Crises are happening much more often then in Germany it is a political critical office in turbulent times.
Italy has a tradition to elect really old guys for the role... seems more like a career prize.
@@soundscape26 Yes.
An election drama with 8 rounds of voting would be impossible in Germany, though. If neither candidate gains an absolute majority in the first or second round, then a simple majority will suffice un round three.
Not gonna happen this time of course, Mr Steinmeier's majority is rock solid. The only interesting question is how many votes exactly the other candidates are going to win. But it will definitely not be enough for them to win. Or eben force a second round of voting.
Funfact the "Bundespräsident" has to be "überparteilich" that means that he/she can't be in a party while having the job because he/she has to decide about laws etc. without beeing influenced by others/the reigning government/opposition(at least in theory). So even though Steinmeier came from the SPD and probably shares its values, he isn't an active member of the party for as long as he is the president.
And in case of the former president Richard von Weizsäcker also never rejoined his previous party after vhis 10 years were over.
Our president in Ireland serves a similar role, but is elected by the public (using STV, of course, as we do for all our elections). However, the process of getting on the ballot is complex. You need a certain number of TDs (members of parliament) to nominate you (this is the route usually taken by establishment politicians), or you can be nominated by a certain number of local authorities (town, city, and county councils), or, if you're already the president, you can nominate yourself for a second term.
Presidents going for a second term often nominate themselves, and often run unopposed. We actually skip the vote if there's only one name on the ballot.
In case anyone is curious, Frank-Walter Steinmeier squeaked by with only 78.04% of the vote, to Max Otte's 10.45%, Gerhard Trabert's 7.17%, and Stefanie Gebauer's 4.33%
One important thing that many people don't know is that the Bundespräsident can issue a formal pardon (like in the US). However, unlike in the US the list of people who received a pardon is secret and also if a request for pardon was decided on negative or positive. The activists behind the platform Frag den Staat are now filing a
lawsuit against the Bundespräsident to make the list public
against the person or against the position?
@@HappyBeezerStudios against the Position obviously. Steinmeier as a private citizen can't do anything about pardons.
When we to Norway i November there was a state visit from Germany. So there we were when the German president went by. I remember wondering if Rewboss had made a video about the German president.
Thanks for the interesting video!
Mit freundliche Grüße aus Schweden
The german president is kind of like the queen in the UK. Everyone knows there is one, but nobody knows what for.
The president is a bit cheaper.
Never heard there was one - A German
There is a huge difference. Everyone knows the Queen, even outside Britain. In contrast, many Germans don't even know that there is a president, let alone WHO the current president is.
Cough... Value for money.
The German president sounds like they have a similar job to the Governor-General in places like Australia, Canada, NZ. Someone with a mainly ceremonial role as effective head of state (the Queen is the official head of state), but who also checks and signs legislation and has the (almost never used) power to step in and call an election if the government becomes utterly disfunctional.
That Paul-Löbe building is crazy, looks like something from a movie.
Yes, like taken from the Hollywood-Movie "Escape from Alcatraz" - you´re waiting that Clint Eastwood is just coming around the corner, draws his gun and points it at you... :-(
The only thing I know about the German Presidency is that it has an excellent flag
Wikipedia has a list of members of the Bundesversammlung where you can look at the profession of the members, it's a really funny assortment: manager, comedian, nursing apprentice, astronaut, virologist, journalist, football national coach, ...
Don't forget we also have a drag queen - though not the same one as last time.
And they vote like they are told by the political party who allowed them to be part of this charade.
As you probably know, you can sort the 300 questions for the citizenship test by proportion of correct answers (a good proxy for difficulty), and the most difficult, by some margin is "Who elects the President?
die Bundesversammlung
der Bundesrat
das Bundesparlament
das Bundesverfassungsgericht"
At the moment, 5.622 people viewed this video. There IS the chance that now, more people know the english term "federal assembly", than the German "Bundesversammlung"...
Die richtige Antwort ist natürlich das Verfassungsgericht.
Versammlung
Parlament would not count, as it is only half of the Versammlung
@@geheimnisvollerundbelanglo9396 :-D
I bet some 2/3 of native Germans would get this wrong.
In Austria the president is elected directly by the people and while acting mostly as a formal head of state, also has to check that all laws are constitutional and signs them. The formal introduction of new members of government ("Angelobung") is also the president's job, taking place in his office in the Vienna Hofburg, the former imperial castle. And the president has the important job of managing and overseeing the formation of a new government, which has happened quite frequently in recent years. In case a government is dissolved prematurely, it's the president's job to put together an interim government that then has to be approved by the parliament. But other than that, like in Germany the president stays out of day to day politics.
Yes, the systems in Austria and Germany are very, very similar - it would be easier to describe the differences than the similarities.
An unimportant detail: On the right, through the window you can see a horse.
:-D
Trabert is awesome, he'd be so good as president
Musical followup to this video: "Rainald Grebe - Der Präsident" 😅
That they're not allowed to vote digitally is actually a really good thing. Tom Scott made a great video about it. Digital voting has just to many possible flaws.
Good topic, I've check Wikipedia about this topic but it's so mundane I end up forgetting most details
Nice touch of having a horse in the shot in a video that contains someone named Trabert. ;-D
I'll make it simple for you: last year we had the Wahl, this year we have the Kur.
Pony!
so glad that german politics are boring
Well... you are right. We don't have a Boris Johnson, so comparing to that our politic is boring.
Besides, even without the comparison it's boring :-)
@@nmcarpy oh I don’t know, I find that the antics of clowns like Baerbock and Lauterbach more than make up for it 😆
Can everyone please look at the cute pony in the background at 4:40?
I quite recently learned that the founding fathers of the US for their constitution heavily drew from the constitution of the Holy Roman Empire and, thus modelled the role of the president after the German king, aka the Roman Emperor.
This is actually very interesting, given the fact that the (early) United States heavily relied it's symbolic, architecture etc. on ancient roman/greek style, as did the Holy Roman Empire. When you think about it, the President of the United States has almost the same powers as the Emperors/Reges Germanorum. Even the Staging as the leader of the West is identical, both tried to portray themselves as leader of the free world/Christianity/etc. When considering the German Kings having been elected, unable to rule absolutist but instead having had to present their bills and laws to the “Parliament”, which also decided if the imperial army gets raised, etc., one could see many similarities to the Electors in the US, the Senate, etc.
Excellent (and mysterious) topic.
“Not ‘House of Cards’ drama” - ‘Coronation Street’ drama, it is!
fun fact about the chancellor. In the (unofficial) hierarchy of German officials he's practically only the number three behind the Bundespräsident and behind the Bundestagspräsident.
The president is also called "Grüß-August"😄
Thanks, I learned a lot about my own country 😅
Very nice video
It's interesting that all four majority German-speaking countries go different ways about electing the head of state. Germany has the Federal Assembly, Austria elects their president directly, Liechtenstein doesn't elect theirs, and in Switzerland the entire government is the head of state.
I'd argue that for the German president at least, the way he's elected isn't actually very important, and is usually used more for a bit of political theater than, you know, looking for votes as in pretty much every other election - at most, there are a few private talks between the various party leaders. The job seems to be (a) a nice end for a politician's career, and (b) someone who might do some important speeches ... or fill the news tracking around the country and singing. That's not all he does, but that seems to be how people see his job.
Oh, and an anecdote about the current one. Shortly after he was elected, Merkel had some trouble building a coalition, mainly because the SPD (his own party) was fed up and wanted to go opposition. He called them up and convinced them that, because Germany needed a government, it was their responsibility to do a junior partner _again._ They were not happy about that, as last time every success was credited to the CDU and every failure to the SPD, no matter who did the work.
@@KaiHenningsen Yes, but this case shows that under some special circumstances the President IS an important political figure: Th ie Bundestag cannot dissolve itself like the State Parliaments and the Government cannot dissolve the Parliament, too. This constitutional right belongs to the President! And Steinmeier used this right very effective in 2018.
Well Germany during the Weimar Republic had a pretty powerful president. It was nominally still a parliamentary government, but the president held almost all power of the government.
He appointed the chancellor (did not even need to pick the one parliament voted on, but was expected to)
Appointed judges, could permanently stop laws, disable basic human rights, dissolve parliament and create a substitute in cases where he felt that the government could not get a majority in parliament and much more.
He was basically an elected Kaiser.
"Rewboss, know-all" XD
Isn't the Bundespräsident the highest authority of Vergangenheitsbewältigung?
One thing to note is, that Stenmeier is NOT an SPD member anymore. The president has to renounce all political affiliations at taking office. So it would be more correct to say, Steinmeier is a former SPD member. While this is more symbolic than anything, the President's job is to sign ANY bill that is in line with the constitution no matter who which party or position it comes from.
The only point of interest will be if Otte somehow gets more votes than the number of AfD delegates. That would suggest that other parties voted for the AfD candidate, which would most likely be blamed on the CDU/CSU Conservatives.
Well as you know, he even got less votes than he alone with the AfD could have got.
Beitrag des Sonntages, 6. Februar 2022
Am 6. Februar 1952 verstarb der britische König Georg VI.
Seine ältestes Kind, Kronprinzessin Elisabeth, befand sich zu jener Zeit auf einer Afrikareise.
Sie wurde in Afrika zur britischen Königin Elisabeth II.
Elisabeth hat anlässich ihres 70 jährigen Thronjubiläums verkündet, dass Herzogin Camilla "Queen Consort" werden könne.
It is similar in Ireland except that if the president thinks a law is unconstitutional it is sent to be reviewed by Judges to say if it is or not and they can reject it up to three times. Up to now if the judges say any part is unconstitutional it gets changed. They are also elected by popular vote as well.
Rewboss simplified that. Also in Germany, "if the president thinks a law is unconstitutional it is (ultimately *1) sent to be reviewed by Judges (Federal Constitutional Court) to say if it is or not. "1 Law can also be withdrawn by Parliament. Parliament can also pass a new law. There is no three times rule: Parliament can do this as often as it wants, and the Federal Constitutional Court can stop it every time. Of course, legislation is a bit more complicated: There is Federal Diet (Bundestag) and Federal Council (Bundesrat) and a Mediation Committee (Vermittlungsausschuss). The mediation committee is explicitly mentioned in the constitution (Constitution is called Basic Law for historical reasons). Others can also file constitutional complaints (but only after publication of the law). Federal Diet (Bundestag) and Federal Council (Bundesrat) together (2/3 + 2/3 majority) can change the constitution, except the entrenched clause (Ewigkeitsklausel). Of course, this is still simplified :-)
@@schnelma605 Thanks for the reply. It sounds like the German way is more robust. Most Irish presidents were voted in from the ruling party at the time so the actual checks in place were minimal. That was until Mary Robinson who trained as an Irish constitutional lawyer beat the governments candidate after a scandal during the election involving calling up a previous president when he was a govt minister to let something slide. Robinson shocked the nation, by that I mean newspaper commentators, by over her two 7 year terms referring a total of 5 laws for review. After that Mary McAleese who had a strong connection to N.I acted as someone to bridge the divide in a post Good Friday world and act as an ambassador for the country to the world. Which is how we got a left wing poet as the current president.
@@TadeuszCantwell Because of experience from the Weimar Republic, they made the constitution more robust. See e.g. wiki -> Weimar Republic -> Institutional problems. Unfortunately, links are automatically deleted here
@@schnelma605 This part really surprised me, "The use of such a motion of no confidence meant that since 1932, a government could not be held in office when the parliament came together".
I'm a German and I'm confused about this so I'm glad you're here to explain it
The German president is also called "Grüßaugust" by some people, which basically means clownish figurehead.
Simple question, apart from smoke and mirrors: WHO RULES? AND BY WHAT MEANS? IN THIS WORLD!
Hopefully this is the last president election in Germany where the German president is not vote by the people.
It is in the constitution that the president is not voted by the people. The people only vote for the government parties.
This is very good piece of information in general.
Paul Von Hindenburg was German President. Damn I'm out of date.
Lol yeah and Hindenburg was very much more powerful, when west Germany wrote its basic law in the late 1940s they significantly reduced the German Presidents role, understandably.
1:09 Not quite right. He has to go to the federal constitution court in Karlsruhe and if the judges agree that it violates the constitution, then he can pass it back to the parliament. Otherwise he has to sign it.
The part at the end about the CDU having to convince the public thath they have nothing in common with the AfD...
That did not age well at all.
Not House-of-Cards-Drama, more like The-Crown-Drama. Or maybe The Crown light... depending on how serious you take the Royal Family...
What about ‘The Windsors’?
@@Leofwine I only know "The Tudors". Is there a show about every English Royal Dynasty?
@@phosphoros60 Would be funny.
@@phosphoros60 “The Windsors” is a parody show of the current royal family.
president here being a shoddy replacement for a monarch
Die Frau Gebauer von den freien Wählern hättest du noch erwähnen können, dann wäre das Quartett vollständig gewesen 🙂
4:50 look look in the back :3
I don't know, if someone said this before, but there is a big discussion going on, if the Bundespräsident is allowed to check the laws. And if in which way.
Candidating for another party against the candidate who is supported by the own party is red line crossed, no matter what the political orientation is.
The Bundespräsidenten has to be "überparteilich" non-party anyway so it normaly shouldn't be that big of a problem. Also at thr timr he anounced it I think the Union didn't clearly support Steinmeier.
@@thinkingbout That are two completely different things you are confusing now. The way the president has to conduct his office is completely irrelevant when it comes to pissing off your own party by sabotaging the election of their candidate. And yes, the Union announced their support of Steinmeier long before the AfD came up with their candidate.
@@Nikioko Indeed, exactly.
Why not just have a King why the whole business with the crazy federal assembly and elections and delegates just to choose a guy who has to chat with foreign dignitaries and sign over bills?
Because this way theortically EVERYONE in the country above a certain age could be elected for president and it doesn't depend on their so called "birth right", the president can be chosen because of his/her talents and the country just has to pay one person a wage and not also for example his/her childen that take over some of the work when he/she is too old to do everything on his/her own. Also there is no conflict with childlabour because he/she won't take his/her underaged kids to work with him/her.
@@thinkingbout you can just do all of those things but with a king ... except for everyone getting a possible chance to do a job that frankly sounds like it sucks. Whacky system 🤷♂️
Because during WW1 people lost trust to the noble society in Germany
@@12tanuha21 true you have to assess the cultural factors 😔😭 PDSD
anyone else distraced by the pony?
Well, I would not call the CDU a "Moderate right wing party" - it comes from the "Centrumspartei" which at one point was the center. Sure, it is Right of the spectrum when you compare Germany's spectrum by itself, but if you compare it internationally, it is still a centrist party. It is that Germany - aside from the AfD and Republikaner and some other odd-shots - does not really have a rightwing or ultraconservative party due to its history. This may be slightly different where you live in Bavaria since the CSU is further right than the CDU, but still. The CDU is a conservative centrist party.
If you compare policy issues, especially under Merkel, this should have been clear. It actually is the reason that the AfD was able to come into existence. Now, Mertz may try to pull the party overall just right of the center with enough overlap to still cover it, but compare it to Poland or Hungary, you quickly will spot the difference.
Wait so they can nominate anybody and thus nominate one of their rivals which in turns means that the nominee gets expelled from their party because they were nominated by a detested other party? So they can freely eliminate one of their opposition? This is idiotic, I sure hope there is more to this than as understood.
The nominee could have rejected his nomination. He did not and is a controversial right wing figure in his own party anyway.
If you want to know what the German President really does all day, Rainald Grebe has you covered: ruclips.net/video/Q5jui3Y5P6o/видео.html
Thanks for the link!
'Bundesrat' they thought that one through.'
"rat" is the German word for council
a sidenote on the subject of Mr Otte: the outrage was not caused by his nomination alone but his acceptence of it. he could have just refused and not affiliate with the afd.
It's not quite true that Otte is a politician. Rather, he is writer and buisenessman. He is member of the CDU (or: used to be). But he never had any job in the party. He has never been in parliament or government. He wants the people to believe he is a politician. But he is not.
Virologists 🤔. Politics... 😬
BTW- I like the ponies.
Yes, I, too! :-)
As a German I'm surprised too! 😄
Actually presidential election are more interesting in Austria. A boring candidate like Hofer and even in the USA they heard about him.
You can make as many as jokes as possible about Germany and Digitalisierung.
Aber digitale Wahlen sind eine ganz schlechte Idee.
I would say that electronic voting is a terrible idea for general elections. But for something on a much smaller scale like this, with a very short and definite list of participants, it's actually quite possible. Even the British parliament was able to allow MPs to vote remotely during lockdown.
It would make things much easier. I agree on that. Then on the other hand this election is due every fifth year. I think doing this in a traditional way adds to the importance of the day.
@@rewboss sorry, but at the moment please no comparison with the House of Common.
nice background horse ...
No cat-content, but there's a horse :)
The candidate from the left Trabbert should have gotten more consideration.
Who is this, what does he stand for?
@@jensschroder8214 He's an anti-poverty activist, for decades.
Yes, and Max Otte fewer.
I live in Germany and didn't even know, that there was an election
it feels cathartic hearing someone call the CDU "right wing"
why they didn't combi... oh right...
That’s quite a dangerous precedent to set though isn’t it? Who’s to say seeing how this plays out, they won’t just nominate people who they want to get expelled from other parties in the future? Shouldn’t the nominee have to accept the nomination or something? Otherwise AfD can just say, nominate one of their least favorite party’s strongest candidates and watch as they get expelled.
He did except the nomination.
@@comsubpac Ah okay. See I didn’t know that. Well then I don’t feel sorry for him. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
@@simsandsurgery1 Yeah, he was in the news a couple of times already before, because of his very AFD-friendly statements and very right wing stances.
@@simsandsurgery1 There was also some history in this regard. Like, it wasn't the only thing, it was just the last straw.
Something like that happened with the election of President of Thuringia
The German president has the right to say "veto!" ("I forbid", in Latin) when he thinks a law is against the constitution. As far as I remember, it only happened twice in Germany's post-war history. Correction: There were NINE cases, according to Wikipedia. Still not many.
He can't just veto legislation like that. He can refer it back to the Bundestag and explain how it needs to be amended; the Bundestag can make the necessary changes, amend the constitution (with a 2/3 majority), take it to the constitutional court for a ruling, or start impeachment proceedings against the president.
He can not veto it, but refuse to sign it, which is a different thing .
Technically he has to sign, and should he refuse it in the end his proxy, the chairman of the federal council could sign it, which actually happend in cases for instance the religious belief of the president is against said law. In this case the president usually asks his proxy to sign it . Only in a few cases the president asked to change the law, and in those cases usually they do. In theory , the president could refuse it and the parties insist of it being signed, but then the supreme court would have to rule, and unless the law in question was not formally correct unser the constitution they would force the president to sign it. But this actually never happend.
@@schusterlehrling Nicely learned, my friend, but can you explain to me which difference is between "not affirming a law", "not signing it", and a veto? Only three laws have been revoked or refused to sign by German federal presidents since the founding of the republic in 1949. It's a means of last resort when democracy gets out of control-
@@eisikater1584 a veto stops the law. A refused signature only delays it and may even result in the president being forced to sign it by the supreme court or he will be replaced as the last consequence.
Yo is that a pony in the background?
nicht zu vergessen das der bundespräsident beim 7ten kind einer familie ehrenpate ist ;-)
I'm German and I did know there is a president. That's it, idk what we need him for at all
If nobody metioned it there is also the fact that in the whole affair around Max Otte 30.000 Euros were involved.
I mean he is/was CDU so some corruption is expected.
@@hannesromhild8532
CDU: Now thats just offensive!
Also CDU: Proceeds to have Scheuer in the party
👍👍👍
Well, Germoney is not a democratic state.
You only got 2 braincells, my good sir.
Sad Freie Wähler Noises, after beeing totally ignored...
3:20 the German President ist Not allowed top bei Part of a political party
I don't think that's true actually.
The President isn't allowed to engage in party politics or be part of a government, have a job or have a business concurrently.
It's customary that the President suspends their party membership during the time of the presidency, but I don't think there's any formal requirement to do that.
You could have explained this in much shorter form: The President of Germany has about the same role as the Queen, but through election instead of inheritance, and not for life. He's an "Ersatzkönig".
Really like the GOP and mr Tr__p...
After all, it is the President's job to ensure that the Chancellor and ministers are appointed, that laws are signed into law and that prisoners are granted amnesty.
If a law does not suit him, he can only call the court to review it and refuse to sign it until then.
But unlike in the Weimar Republic, the President has no longer has any dictatorial power.
Wasn't it Otto von Bismarck as president who was proposed to Hitler as a weak transitional chancellor?
Had he known what was coming, he could have prevented him.
So it is the task of today's President to keep false people out of office when it is in his power.
You confused Bismarck and Hindenburg.
Bismarck was the Imperial Chancellor under the first two Emperors (or rather they were Emperors under him) and died in the 1890s
Bismarck died in 1898. It was Paul von Hindenburg who was President of Germany at the time who apointed Hitler as Chancellor after pressure of other conservative, right wing politicians, through he deeply despised Hitler.
OK - but the President of Germany who appointed Hitler was Paul von Hindenburg. Otto von Bismarck died back in 1898.
What kind of drugs does one have to do (or how far to the left does one have to be) to still consider the CDU to be “right wing” xD
There is a major reason why the CDU/CSU is still considered "centre right", even if other countries may disagree:
This party regularly distances itself from right wing extremism, especially the one from Neo-Nazis, but remains socially and economically conservative.
@@dansattah Sorry, the CDU isn’t socially conservative (anymore) IN THE SLIGHTEST.
Beitrag des Sonntages, 6. Februar 2022
Lannd Baden-Württemberg = State of Baden-Württemberg
Delegation in die Bundesversammlung (196): CDU 58; GRÜ 53; SPD 35; DVP 26; AfD 21; LIN 4
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (49): CDU 14; GRÜ 13; SPD 9; DVP 7; AfD 5; LIN 1
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil) (16): CDU 5; GRÜ 4; SPD 3; DVP 2; AfD 2
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 44 Landkreisequivalente (2): CDU 1; GRÜ 1; SPD 1; DVP 1
^ Summe = 4
^ Rundungsunterschied von +1
Delegation in den Deutschen Bundestag (102): CDU 33; SPD 22; GRÜ 19; DVP 14; AfD 12; LIN 4
° DVP = Landesverband der FDP in Baden-Wüttemberg
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (26): CDU 8; SPD 6; GRÜ 5; DVP 4; AfD 3; LIN 1
^ Summe = 27
^ Rundungsunterschied von +1
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil) (9): CDU 4; SPD 2; GRÜ 2; DVP 2; AfD 1
^ Summe = 11
^ Rundungsunterschied von +2
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 44 Landkreisequivalente (2): CDU 1; SPD 1
Landesdelegierte in den die Bundesversammlung (94): GRÜ 35; CDU 25; SPD 13; DVP 12; AfD 9
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (24): GRÜ 9; CDU 6; SPD 3; DVP 3; AfD 2
^ Summe = 23
^ Rundungsunterschied von -1
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil) (8): GRÜ 3; CDU 2; SPD 1; DVP 1; AfD 1
^ Summe = 11
^ Rundungsunterschied von +2
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 44 Landkreisequivalente (2): GRÜ 1; CDU 1
Mitglieder der Landesregierung von Baden-Württemberg (29): GRÜ 18; CDU 10; PTL 1
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (7): GRÜ 5; CDU 3
^ Summe = 8
^ Rundungsunterschied von +1
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil) (2): GRÜ 2; CDU 1^ Summe = 3
^ Rundungsunterschied von +1
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 44 Landkreisequivalente (1): jeweils 0
^ Rundungsunterschied von -1
Männer in der Landesregierung von Baden-Württemberg (15): GRÜ 9; CDU 6
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (4): GRÜ 2; CDU 2
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil) (1): GRÜ 1; CDU 1
^ Summe = 2
^ Rundungsunterschied von -1
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 44 Landkreisequivalente: 0
Frauen in der Landesregierung von Baden-Württemberg (14): GRÜ 9; CDU 4; PTL 1
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (4): GRÜ 2; CDU 1
^ Summe = 3
^ Rundungsunterschied von -1
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil) (1): GRÜ 1° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 44 Landkreisequivalente: 0
Mitglieder der Landtages Baden-Württemberg (154): GRÜ 58; CDU 42; SPD 19; DVP 18; AfD 17
° Mindestanzahl: 120
^ Überschuss von +34
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (39): GRÜ 14; CDU 11; SPD 5; DVP 5; AfD 4
° Mindestanzahl: 30
^ Überschuss von +9
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil) (13): GRÜ 5; CDU 4; SPD 2; DVP 2; AfD 1
^ Summe = 14
^ Rundungsunterschied von +1
° Mindestanzahl: 10
^ Überschuss von +3
° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 44 Landkreisequivalente (4): GRÜ 1; CDU 1
^ Summe = 2
^ Rundungsunterschied von -2
° Mindestanzahl: 4^ Überschuss von +1Landräte und Oberbürgmeister (44): CDU 25; WGMen/PTLe 17; SPD 2° Wählergemeinschaften sind manchmal parteinah!° Einzelbewerber sind manchmal Mitglieder einer Politischen Vereinigung!° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (11): CDU 6; WGMen/PTLe 4; SPD 1° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil) (4): CDU 2; WGMen/PTLe 1^ Summe = 3
^ Rundungsunterschied von -1° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 44 Landkreisequivalente (1): CDU 1° Männer als Ländräte (40): CDU 22; WGMen/PTLe 16; SPD 2° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (10): CDU 5; WGMen/PTLe 4; SPD 1° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil) (3): CDU 2; WGMen/PTL 1 ° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 44 Landkreisequivalente (1): CDU 1° Frauen als Landrätinnen (4): CDU 3; PTL 1° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 4 Regierungsbezirke (1): CDU 1° Arithmetischer Mittelwert der 12 Planungsregionen (jeweils BW Anteil): 0
Sie wissen mehr über Deutschland als ich als deutscher:)
Das ist sehr, sehr traurig.
Excellent assessment. Just a minor remark that might be more me than you, though. I personally wouldn’t call the CDU right wing but classic conservative. While their new head is without any doubt more conservative than Mrs Merkel, right-wing sounds not adequate. Again, I might be wrong about the term and the bell it rings in my head.
I think Germans would rather refer to them as "center right". I agree with you that right wing doesn't sound quite right ^^
I feel like every party says they are in the middle.
But if *Die Linke* is left and the *SPD* is left or at least was left earlier, there must be some party on the other side.
I would consider FDP and CDU to be right wing.
Remember that the Germans also call the *CDU* Club Deutscher Unternehmer ("Club of German Entrepreneurs"), just for fun.
@@QueenOfBrokenStone we have to keep in mind that this kind of sorting differs in every country quite much. The US Democrats are left in the US, but by German standard they more CDU-like then SPD.
@@kruesae22 Indeed.
@@galdavonalgerri2101 I get your point, but wouldn't make the "Club Deutscher Unternehmer" make them a liberal party?
Did you mispoke? The CDU isn't exactly a right wing party, but a center-right one. At least if I follow what the BBC tells me from time to time.
And it is worth mentioning with over 1472 members this years Federal Assembly is the biggest in Germany's history.
in my opinion, CDU is a center-right pary, but there are also CDU politicans which are more right-wing, they call themself "Werteunion"
Yes and no. The CDU is a conservative party (with lots of old men with white hair), and conservative is traditionally called right. For some reason however these days many people automatically associate being right with being racist and other nasty things, which is why the CDU keeps telling again and again that they are in the center for everyone. And yet they delayed the same-sex marriage for over a decade, delayed the right for medically assisted suicide for years, oh, and Friedrich Merz didn't want to punish rape between husband and wife (in the 90s, but still..).
It's a large party that tends cover both of these "spots" in the spectrum in terms of voters, politicians and policy. And while Merkel was more in the center-right and the party tries to brand themselves as center (to appeal to a broad voter spectrum), there was always a "right-wing wing" in the party and, with the new party leader (Friedrich Merz) belonging to them, has become more notable in recent years.
Forget about that outdated right-wing/left-wing. It denotes nothing. Everyone with a standpoint outside the compromise between all people in a society has an extreme position.
A centre-right party is a right-wing party, though? That's what "right-wing" means, on the right half of the notional political spectrum. Conservative organisations often prefer to say they're the "centre" because they enjoy the idea that they represent the beliefs of some sort of sensible, "normal", common-sense citizen. But that preference in self-presentation doesn't change their actual spot on the political spectrum.
The German President's role is is similar to the Irish president's role
well if your a nativ speaker then this song sums it up: ruclips.net/video/55SmADAueSs/видео.html
till, rewboss would, call to arms like a true german does [ruclips.net/video/cZ9Xg6tj5dU/видео.html] when his economic power linked to a presidential tought that our military has to secure trade ... Joachim Gauck
Ireland is the same our president looks like a smurf except without a blue face
You’re just the best Besserwisser on YT ;-)
despide its letters the populous either calls that afd that what they are. right wing right wing tettorists or nsafd or nsdap. anyone who does not is kinda sus. like...that one guy who shot a guy and tries to make it not racist. and making it worse.
Are you even german since you doing this video