WASG / PDS candidacy models for the 2005 Bundestag election
The different candidacy models of the WASG / PDS for the 2005 Bundestag election emerged from the discussions between the WASG and PDS about the form of possible joint participation in the early 2005 Bundestag election . This happened under great time pressure after Oskar Lafontaine's announcement that he would be available as a top candidate for an alliance similar to the olive tree in Italy . The problem was that some of the proposed models were legally questionable, some did not meet the requirements of “eye level” or made one partner highly dependent on the other.
Joint or competing entry?
In both the PDS and the WASG, some members considered the two parties to be incompatible. They wanted to leave the electorate to decide whether a more West German left-wing social democratic or a more East German democratic-socialist party would sit in the German Bundestag - or both. On both sides, the representatives of this plan hoped that the other would fail and that the remaining remnants would join their own formation as unconditionally as possible. WASG critics in the Left Party included Elke Breitenbach and Katina Schubert . Well-known PDS critics in the WASG included Helge Meves, Rouzbeh Taheri and Joachim Bischoff .
Discussed models
The olive tree model
In the olive tree in Italy, various parties from ultra-left communists to Christian socialists and social liberals are bundled in a common list . The voter chooses the candidates from this list so that no votes are lost. This model proposed by Oskar Lafontaine is not possible under the German federal electoral law . The federal election law and most state election laws expressly prohibit list connections and constructions in order to bypass the five percent hurdle . Only in Saxony-Anhalt is the possibility of electoral alliances provided, which the WASG did not make use of.
The CDU / CSU model
Another suggestion was that the PDS should only compete in the east, the WASG only in the west. This corresponds to the division between the Union parties : the CSU only competes in Bavaria , the CDU only in the other federal states. Since the CSU in Bavaria always wins more than three direct mandates and between 37 and 60% of the votes (which ensures that the CSU can overcome the five percent hurdle nationwide), its entry into the Bundestag is not at risk.
This proposal had several disadvantages: Both parties should have won enough votes in their part of the country to pass the five percent hurdle nationwide. For the WASG this would have meant about 7% in the west, and for the Left Party about 24–28% in the east. It was also unclear who would run for office in Berlin .
Since the PDS passed the nationwide five percent hurdle in the 1998 Bundestag election only with votes from the West and even failed in the 2002 Bundestag election , this option was very risky. It was similar with the leap over the five percent hurdle in the European elections in 1999 and 2004 and the failure in 1994 . Success was almost impossible for the WASG. In addition, this proposal would have discriminated against the western PDS members and the eastern WASG members.
Only the PDS could hope for the basic mandate clause , according to which entry into the Bundestag is possible even if the five percent hurdle is not met. With this regulation, the PDS had already entered the Bundestag in 1994 . In addition, the WASG would have had to collect signatures in the individual federal states.
The "open lists" model
Finally it was agreed that the PDS should compete nationwide and that WASG members as well as members of other left-wing parties and non-party members could hope to move into the Bundestag on promising places on the list. The PDS used these so-called open lists as early as 1994 and 1998 .
Similar forms of candidacy have already been practiced by other parties: at the end of the 1950s , the CDU “gave” the Center Party a direct mandate, which in turn placed a CDU member as number 1 on the list. There were also several such electoral alliances between the DVU and NPD .
The PDS named itself Die Linkspartei. and stood for election in 10 of the 16 federal states with the addition PDS as Die Linkspartei.PDS as the name of the state list , in the others only as Die Linkspartei.
Decision process
The WASG party congress on July 3, 2005 in Kassel decided to initiate a ballot on the question of cooperation between WASG and PDS under the new name of the Left Party in the early federal elections in 2005 .
Questions and results:
- "Are you on the open lists of the 'Left Party' for the election of members of the WASG for the 2005 Bundestag election?" Yes: 81%
- “Are you in favor of initiating an open-ended discussion process with the aim of creating a broad democratic left-wing alliance? This process is carried out with the involvement of all levels of our party. The result will be decided at a party congress and in another ballot. " Yes: 85%
The federal party congress of the PDS on July 17th also approved the renaming to the Left Party and the candidacy of WASG candidates on the state lists. However, it retained the possibility of using the previous party abbreviation PDS as an addition to individual state associations (i.e. Die Linke.PDS ).
There were disputes over the list in Bavaria. WASG representatives criticized the PDS after two WASG members were not elected to promising places on their state list, even though the two members had been nominated in an internal WASG vote.
The taz made the headline that the WASG had been "swallowed" by the PDS. The resulting disputes were settled a week later.
Although some lawyers (including the constitutional lawyer Wolfgang Löwer ) had legal concerns about the admissibility of a "veiled list association", the regional returning officers confirmed the validity of the lists in all objection proceedings . B. was evident from the disputes in Bavaria, a list in the zip fastener procedure or according to binding agreements had just not taken place.
Web links
- The cooperation between the PDS and the WASG for the 2005 Bundestag election (Master's thesis; PDF file; 753 kB)