Marburg 15-vote quorum
The Marburg 15-vote quorum was the trigger for a political controversy in Hesse in 1982 . The quorum had made since 1977 to make the decisions of the grand coalition in the city council of Marburg remained without parliamentary discussion. Protest actions and lawsuits brought about an amendment in 1983 .
course
prehistory
In May 1977, the forming in the City Council, a government coalition parties had CDU and SPD for the purpose of excluding the DKP - Group requests debate of parliamentary opinion-forming process a hurdle for in the rules of procedure laid down. In order to be able to hold a plenary debate , at least 15 support votes were required, more than all opposition seats put together. This intention, admitted only later, was veiled in official statements , for example by the chairman of the main and finance committee, Hans-Joachim Wölk (SPD), who only wanted to prevent “the parliament from being covered with endless debates and thus from the performance of its tasks is held ". The DKP, traditionally the third largest group in the university town , surrendered to its fate because experience had taught it not to go against the establishment . The FDP , which belongs to the establishment , could at least build on its solidarity, that is, on the goodwill of the local government headed by Hanno Drechsler (SPD) since September 1970.
Traffic light coalition
As a result of the municipal election on March 22, 1981, four Greens entered the city council. The CDU won 25 seats , the SPD 22, the DKP five and the FDP three seats. The SPD, FDP and Greens came together in September after tough negotiations to form a traffic light coalition . It broke again in December after the Greens massively disrupted an exhibition opening in Marburg Castle by the SPD Prime Minister and Startbahn-West proponent Holger Börner .
background
If the abolition of the 15-vote quorum in the envisaged constellation was planned, but not urgent (the quorum would not have affected the CDU in the opposition), their carelessness now turned out to be fatal for the Greens, because for the rest During the legislative period they slipped “under the silence limit of 15 silent votes”. Several attempts within the next eight months to eradicate the relentlessness of the quorum paragraph 7 paragraph 4 of the parliamentary rules of procedure and instead to use a "parliamentary group regulation", which gives every parliamentary group the right to debate, failed because of the rejection alone any discussion by the resumed grand coalition. With regard to the increasing public interest, the latter offered a relaxation in February 1982, which consisted of a five-minute statement of reasons, while the enforcement of a debate was to remain subject to the quorum. When the opposition parties, deeply disappointed by the SPD, expanded their protests, the coalition failed its own proposal "in a mixture of feelings of uncertainty and revenge," as the Frankfurter Rundschau summed up.
Counter-actions
In September 1982, the Greens presented an interim injunction and an application for a regulatory review to the Hessian Administrative Court in Kassel , which encouraged the FDP to file a complaint. The liberals had previously wanted to persuade the Giessen government president as the supervisory authority to give in, but he only referred to the autonomy of the municipalities . Group spokeswoman Gisela Babel commented on taking legal action : "We are fed up with it now". The Frankfurter Rundschau suspected: "The Marburg 15-vote quorum, a parliamentary one-off anyway, will apparently make legal history now." In the hall , dog muzzles were put over the microphones and banners unrolled with inscriptions like "The opposition has nothing here." more to say ”. Green parliamentary group spokesman Roland Stürmer explained the move of his group into the cafeteria with the fact that one does not want to give business processes “a semblance of legitimacy ” by being present .
Amendment
In December 1982 the court called for a quick new regulation , according to which in February 1983 the questionable quorum was replaced by the “11 p.m. limit”. Discussions of controversial issues in the plenary could now be initiated in the technical committee by each mandate holder ; however, they should in future end at 11 p. m., unless the majority found it necessary to suspend the freeze of debate. In the spring of 1983, the Greens insisted that District President Knut Müller (SPD) check whether the resolutions that had been “undemocratic” up to that point were legally binding and whether the “11 p.m. limit” did not represent a continuation of the discrimination. Only after his firm statement, which did not contain any specific objections to the resolution, but instead fundamental criticism of the magistrate , and in which he also shared the Greens' fears regarding the deviation clause , which he intended to submit to the Marburg magistrate and the head of the city council , calm returned.
Individual evidence
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i Manfred Ronzheimer: A muzzle for the Marburg opposition. Dispute over 15-vote quorum comes to court. Coalition is stubborn . In: Frankfurter Rundschau . 17th September 1982.
- ↑ Claus Peter Müller: The Marburg model is more likely to be used by the CDU. Balance before the election: Lord Mayor Möller can look back on successes. New jobs . In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung . February 18, 1997.
- ↑ Manfred Ronzheimer: On the right of the delegate to participate in the formation of opinion and will. The 15-vote quorum in Marburg, which has meanwhile been deleted, still employs politicians and lawyers. District President expresses himself . In: Frankfurter Rundschau . [?]. May 1983.