Thank you all for your comments. But just to clear one thing up: there is a big difference between a vote of no confidence (in German "Misstrauensvotum") and a motion of confidence (in German "Vertrauensfrage"). The former is an attempt by the Bundestag to remove a chancellor; the latter is very different, a challenge from the chancellor to the Bundestag to either get in line or force him out. I am of course tallking about a vote of no confidence. And there really have been only two of those.
Quick Correction: “Impeachment” is not removal from office, it's the equivalent of charging someone with a crime. The President, once charged with High Crimes and Misdemeanors [as described in the Articles of Impeachment], is then tried in the Senate. Putting this, again, in terms paralleling a “regular” trial: the judge is the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court the judge of the trial, the jury is the entire Senate, the prosecuting attorney is a group of members of the House of Representatives, and the defense attorney is whoever the President chooses. To remove the President - which is the same as a conviction - 2/3 of the Senate must vote to convict. Almost all Americans get this _wrong,_ because our tee-vee media keeps using, “impeached,” as if it means removed from office, and keeps repeating the mistake.
So literally a “mistrust vote” for the former and a “trust question” for the latter. No beating around the bush for Germans. One of the things I love about your videos is that it is helping me remove nearly a half-century of rust from my German fluency.
The Vertrauensfrage / motion of confidence mainly has two purposes. a) whip parliament into compliance, or b) force new elections. German parliament cannot dissolve itself and force new elections, and losing a motion of confidence on purpose is a way around that.
@@John_Weiss - nope, Impeachement is NOT a trial. It is about the question if the President is still fit for office. He doesn't have to commit a crime or anything like this, if both the house and the senate think that he has no business to be the leader anymore, they can get rid of him.
4:30 But what if I'd like to get my info about Germany as a German from a British guy on an American website in English? :D (Thanks for all your informative content :)
@@Lorian667 I watch more NHK(World) (English language outlet of Japanese public broadcasting) than ARD ever since I got bored between BBC/CNN/FOX as recommend language comprehension practice.
Oh boy, that's a lot of info, would have loved a visual on this ... but thanks so much for explaining anyway! Guess I'll just have to watch it again haha
Imagine the news headline: Angela Merkel impeached for bribery. 😂 Looking at what Schröder became after leaving politics, well... But Angela Merkel. Nah, never. 😂
The chancellor can apparently "ask" the Bundestag for their confidence - at least that's how I understood what Gerhard Schröder did in 2001 (had the confidence) and 2005 (lost the confidence).
2005 war das allerdings eine sogenannte "unechte Vertrauensfrage". Die dient dazu, durch Ausnutzung der Regeln vorzeitig Neuwahlen abhalten zu können - was im Grundgesetz eigentlich nicht vorgesehen ist. Der Bundeskanzler bittet den Bundestag ganz normal, ihm das Vertrauen auszusprechen. Hinter den Kulissen ist aber abgesprochen, dass sich die Abgeordneten der Regierungskoalition enthalten, wodurch nicht genügend Ja-Stimmen zusammenkommen und die Vertrauensfrage somit negativ ausfällt. Dann tritt der Kanzler zurück und der Bundespräsident kann den Bundestag auflösen und Neuwahlen anordnen. Das wurde bisher zwei Mal gemacht: 1982 und 2005. 1982 wurde Helmut Kohl (wie im Video erwähnt wurde) durch ein Misstrauensvotum Bundeskanzler und wollte sich durch eine vorgezogene Neuwahl Legitimiät verschaffen - er war ja nicht im Zuge einer normalen Wahl Kanzler geworden. 2005 kam es erneut zu einer unechten Vertrauensfrage, weil Schröder sich bessere Ergebnisse erhoffte (der eigentliche Wahltermin wäre 2006 gewesen).
@@xaverlustig3581 Me too. Rewboss demonstrated for years that he tries his best to be accurate, honest, open to criticism and stand his ground when he knows something's accurate but unpopular (see the many negative comments from conspiracy theorists on the Frankfurt server raid videos). I'd be confident he's on the side of the people instead of a lying, opportunistic power hungry politician. Even if he'd turn out to be bad at the job, at least I'd be sure I'm not being conned.
@@woolver42 no its more like either the Bundestag or the Bundesrat can sue the President infort of the Constitutional Court and they then decide if the president get's removed from office
there have actually been 5 votes of no confidence: willy brandt 1972 (no confidence), helmut schmidt 1982 (confidence), helmut kohl 1982 (no confidence), gerhard schröder 2001 (confidence) and 2005 (no confidence).
No, those were motions of confidence (Vertrauensfrage), not the same as motions of no confidence (Misstrauensvotum). That's a completely different thing, as the motion of confidence is initiated by the chancellor.
@@rewboss A vote of no confidence is essentially saying "we want to replace current chancellor X with new candidate Y". A vote of confidence is (usually) "let's see if we can still work together" (except rarely it is "we want an election right now, so let's break our own government" - it is pretty much the only way the Bundestag can force a new election once they have elected a chancellor). If that vote goes against the chancellor, it starts a clock where either the Bundestag can elect a new chancellor (via a vote of no confidence), or the chancellor can ask the president to dissolve the Bundestag and get an election going after which the new elected Bundestag will vote on a new chancellor as usual). (As any new chancellor needs a signature from the president, that pretty much means whoever reaches the president first.)
There is a difference between "Konstruktives Misstrauensvotum" (which is what the Bundestag initiates and which is described in this video) and the "Vertrauensfrage" which the Bundeskanzler asks, sometimes in combination with approving another law. If the "Misstrauensvotum" succeeds, the new Bundeskanzler is elected and the Bundestag continues (if it fails, everything stays). If the "Vertrauensfrage" succeeds, nothing changes, if it fails the Bundeskanzler can ask the Bundespräsident to dissolve the Bundestag (which will usually happen, unless the Bundestag elects a new Bundeskanzler). (N.B.: I hate that UA-cam does not show new comments, while writing a comment ...)
That's difficult if you're not a MdB. As a citizen you could only vote for the candidate for the Bundestag who promises to vote for Andrew. ;) Or are you a MdB?
@@MichaEl-rh1kv Nein. It is like the 'electoral college' in the United States, kind of, but if I could I would vote for Andrew. :). I guess we need a MdB to vote for him! :)
It's one of those weird things. While a US president must be born in the US as a US citizen, there is no such stipulation for the office of chancellor. I am a naturalized German, and so according to the letter of the law, I qualify.
@@rewboss Goes nicely with the other weird thing which is half of Americans apparently considering themselves Irish or Scottish or German or whatever despite having never been to those places and despite three generations of their ancestors all being born in America.
@@rewboss The head of state of Canada is a British lady. Not the weirdest thing. The most successful Roman emperor was a guy born in modern Serbia or Croatia to a pig farmer. They invited a Frenchman to be the king of Sweden in 1810, and the first prime minister of Canada was born in Scotland. Boris Johnson held American citizenship and a Canadian PM as late as 1984 was born outside of Canada.
@@timolino567 Then again, if it wasn't for the Germanic Anglo-Saxons, the foundation for the modern-day English language wouldn't exist. Let's also not forget that since George I. in 1714, the United Kingdom is ruled by Germans, first by the House of Hannover, then by the House of Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha. They may call themselves the House of Windsor since WWI, but they're still descendants of Queen Victoria (the last Queen from the House of Hannover) and her consort Prince Albert von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha. So, if it wasn't for Germany, the United Kingdom as we know it wouldn't exist basically. ;)
And when you want german news in english or many other langzages, look for DW, Deutschewelle, ir in english, German Wave or Frequency! They had news once even in klingon!
Yeah shame all of those resources really trash in terms of actual content, this is like suggesting the Local.de, in terms of trash content with a massive bias.
Until now, no chancellor died in office, but chancellors have resigned. Then the president makes one minister acting chancellor, until a new chancellor is elected. In 1974 Willy Brandt resigned and Walter Scheel became chancellor for 9 days until Helmut Schmidt was elected.
In my understanding, “to impeach” means removing an officer holder for doing something criminal, something illegal or at least something really objectionable. That is per se not the case with the (constructive) vote of no confidence according to article 67 of the German Basic Law (i. e. the constitution). It was never argued, even by their political adversaries, that Willy Brandt in 1972 or Helmut Schmidt in 1982 were guilty of criminal or immoral behaviour. These votes of no confidence merely reflected mid-term changes in the political landscape and they subsequently pathed the way to general elections. Article 61 of the Basic Law actually regulates an impeachment procedure, namely that of the Federal President, including a trial in front of the Federal Constitutional Court.
In the American system, impeachment is the _accusation_ of "high crimes and misdemeanours". Once the president is impeached by the House, the Senate then holds a trial and decides whether to convict or acquit. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached and then acquitted; Trump has been impeached twice and acquitted once, and is awaiting a Senate trial for the second impeachment. Art 61 GG does outline a procedure that is basically an impeachment, yes. The slight difference is that the trial is conducted in an actual court of law. But otherwise, you're right: it is, in effect, an impeachment.
The official English translation (as published on the website of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection) of Art. 61 GG actually uses the term “impeachment”: Article 61 [Impeachment before the Federal Constitutional Court] (1) The Bundestag or the Bundesrat may impeach the Federal President before the Federal Constitutional Court for wilful violation of this Basic Law or of any other federal law. The motion of impeachment must be supported by at least one quarter of the Members of the Bundestag or one quarter of the votes of the Bundesrat. The decision to impeach shall require a majority of two thirds of the Members of the Bundestag or of two thirds of the votes of the Bundesrat. The case for impeachment shall be presented before the Federal Constitutional Court by a person commissioned by the impeaching body. (2) If the Federal Constitutional Court finds the Federal President guilty of a wilful violation of this Basic Law or of any other federal law, it may declare that he has forfeited his office. After the Federal President has been impeached, the Court may issue an interim order preventing him from exercising his functions. I find it remarkable that the threshold for initiating this process (one quarter of the Members of the Bundestag or one quarter of the votes of the Bundesrat) is remarkably low. On the other hand, if a really bad or rogue Chancellor is able to still rally a majority of Members of the Bundestag around him, he cannot be removed from office. Really an unlikely scenario, but still.
By the way (and this might be material for future videos): The German Basic Law is remarkably vague regarding issues like: what happens if the Chancellor is incapacitated or becomes insane, the chain of command, continuity of government etc. Renowned German constitutional law scholars like the late Federal President Roman Herzog have commented on this issue in the past. In 1974, during the events that led to his resignation from office, Willy Brandt was according to some observers almost unable to fulfil his duties.
@@wolfgangthiele9147 Actually, the bar is a 2/3 majority, if you read the text. The 1/4 threshold is required to table the motion, which is then debated and voted on: a 2/3 majority is required to actually impeach. Also, you said "chancellor", but this process is for the removal of the president. I assume that's a typo. It is, by the way, common practice for a supermajority to be required for extremely contentious or radical procedure, like impeaching a president or amending a constitution. The idea is to lessen the risk of the ruling party enforcing its will on a whim: for example, in order to convict Donald Trump, at least 17 Republican senators must vote for conviction as well as every Democrat senator. The theory is that such a vote would demonstrate bipartisan agreement.
@@rewboss You are absolutely right, my apologies. Actually, yesterday, after I wrote this, I thought to myself: this can't be right, a minority group of politicians dragging the President in front of the Constitutional Court. Article 61 is really a very unlikely option, although Christian Wulff came somewhat closer because somebody paid for Wulff's visit to the Oktoberfest. www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundespraesident-wulff-liess-sich-auf-oktoberfest-einladen-a-809132.html Regarding the differences in removing the Chancellor from office vs. removing the Federal President: The Bundestag can replace the Chancellor for any reason. In the past, this occurred because individual Members of the Bundestag had switched their party affiliation (1972) or because the smaller coalition partner, the traditional king maker of German politics, the FDP, decided it's time for a change (1982). But the same process could of course be used to get rid of a Chancellor who sets his private house on fire to collect insurance money. The procedure for removing the Federal President on the other hand is much more demanding. He can't be removed simply for being politically inconvenient. While the role of the Federal President is mostly ceremonial, he can become very important, given the circumstances, and he could theoretically derail the whole political system.
Wow Andrew, you really seem to have a thorough knowledge of the governmental and legal systems--something that you've demonstrated many times before on this channel. Did you acquire this knowledge as a byproduct of the process of becoming a citizen? Here in the US, there's a trope about how the average American would fail the citizenship test that foreign-born persons have to pass in order to become naturalized citizens.
To be specific, Art. 67 GG is called "Konstruktives Misstrauensvotum" because it ensures immediate succession (hence, it's constructive). Helmut Kohl was the only one successful with that in October 1982, while Rainer Barzel in April 1972 was screwed over because of a tie (caused by the STASI paying off three MPs to flip their votes). In Weimar, this was technically a "Destruktives Misstrauensvotum" because it forced the Reichstag to dissolve.
The "Vertrauensfrage", aka Art. 68 GG, is very much subject to abuse. Helmut Kohl used it in December 1982 to lose on purpose and force early elections (in March 1983), and Gerhard Schröder did the same thing in July 2005 (forcing elections for September 2005), after the SPD lost the NRW elections. Even Willy Brandt used it in September 1972 to lose on purpose and forcing elections for November of the same year. Impeachment per-se does not exist. However, German politics has one fundamental flaw: The "Fraktionszwang", where faction members are told by their party to ALWAYS vote along party lines. This is unconstitutional per Art. 38 Abs. 1 GG, which explicitly says that a member of parliament is only bound by his conscience. Those who violate the Fraktionszwang are stimatised publicly as "Abweichler", as party rebels. One example was in 2008, as the Hessian State Premier-designate Andrea Ypsilanti lost her election to State Premier in the Hessian parliament as four MPs chose to vote against her, because Ypsilanti openly broke her election promise to not work in any way with Die Linke. Everyone else followed the party line.
To be fair, the motivations of Kohl and Schröder were very different. In Kohl's case it allowed the voters to have a say in the government after a turbulent change at the top. Schröder just wanted to get more power - and got the answer at the ballot box, to my deep satisfaction.
So, for anyone who wonders, the chancellor can go to the Bundestag and ask for a vote of confidence if they are questioning their level of support or are trying to get an election. This requires 0 other members of the Bundestag to agree to hold the vote, and also is an order from the chancellor whether they are a Bundestag member or not. The chancellor's motion needs an absolute majority to pass, so 355 right now. If it fails to reach this number expressly saying yes, the president then decides whether to keep the chancellor in a minority government or hold a new election and is absolutely free in their power to decide which. The president can also declare a state of legislative emergency where the chancellor can pass new laws if the cabinet gets the permission of the Bundesrat to enact a decree in the next 6 months, although the Bundestag can always oust the chancellor via a vote of no confidence and can pass laws on their own authority anyway (some laws don't require the Bundesrat's consent, some do). The state of legislative emergency has never been used though. Also, at the start of the Bundestag's electoral period or in weird situations like if the chancellor dies in office, is completely incapacitated while in office, or resigns or refuses to work at all as chancellor, then the vice chancellor named by the previous chancellor becomes acting chancellor and the Bundestag elects a successor. The president names a first option, and if the Bundestag agrees by absolute majority vote, they are the chancellor. If not, the Bundestag has any quarter or more of their members submit nominees and they are voted on sequentially in order of who is tabled first in a yes, no, or abstain vote, and the first with an absolute majority in favour of them is chancellor. If they fail to elect anyone in 14 days of that, then they hold a final round with any nominees submitted by any quarter or more of the members and each member gets one vote and casts it for one candidate. If the one with the most votes also has an absolute majority they become chancellor, if not, the president decides between minority government or a new election. The other members of the cabinet are chosen and removed solely on the initiative of the chancellor in law, and the chancellor can head a ministry themselves if they wish other than the finance ministry, the defense ministry, and some economic ministry, but is normally constrained by the coalition they lead and their own party to appease them by including the party in their decisions as to whom among them to appoint, and normally the coalition will mandate a fraction and sometimes the individual ministries each party is to get and the chancellor thus has no real power over any of those cabinet members, and screwing up the political decision as to who becomes a minister and who they go into coalition with can end their career by evaporating their political capital. By the way, the chancellor candidate is chosen by a session (usually an extraordinary one) of the party congress held in the months before an election, which will also publish a manifesto the party will run on. This is usually the chair (Vorsitzer(in)) of the party but not always, a popular minister-president of a state who is probably the chair of the party's branch in that state might be chosen, maybe a popular minister who might only be on the Bundesparteivorstand as an assessor or deputy chair or general secretary might be chosen, it's complicated. They (and all other members of a party's board and the positions among it like chair and deputy chair) are chosen in a contested ballot or a yes or no ballot, if multiple names are nominated they vote with one vote per member and the one with the majority wins, if no majority, eliminate last place until someone has a majority, if uncontested, they have a yes or no vote and must get a majority to be retained, and this always happens at every regular party congress for a term which by law can be no more than 2 years. The delegates of the party congress is decided by the next level lower, IE a federal party congress's delegates are chosen by the same secret ballot process with a yes or no or contested vote by the state party congress, and so on with the district level congresses, then the constituency level, then the kreise/kreisefreistadte level, then the parish level which is usually just a general meeting of the membership which are the rank and file members. A party congress also grants assent to hold anything more than exploratory talks for coalition and ratifies any coalition agreement. The ballot for the chancellor and votes of confidence or no confidence are also by secret ballot I should add, the same is true in every state for their ministers-president (most states elect their cabinet by secret ballot with a vote to confirm or deny the minister-president's choices and may need to give consent to the transfer of a minister to another portfolio or to depose them, a limit the chancellor does not have).
Curiously, both Brand and Schmidt also had asked parliament if they still support them as chancelor in the same year, and both got the opposite result than what they got in the vote of no confidence.
I don't need a vpn, I get ARD, ZDF, WDR, NDR via my cable network in Nijmegen. My parents have a few more channels, but I don't need shit from RTL, though I do miss Arte.
hey, could you make a video to explain what powers the chancellor actually has? "head of the government" sound great but what can and what cant a chancellor do?
A Chancellor for all intents and purposes is what the president is in the us, while the actual german president is more akin to a ceremonial role like, say, queen elizabeth in the uk. except the president is the one who, after elections, carries out the act of officially recognizing the elected chancellor, and has the power to remove them from office as well. i think.
@@jenshep1720 in theory, yes. but about her practical powers ... just look at the current corona management issues. she and the prime ministers of the 16 federal states can "agree" on certain rules and actions, but when five minutes later the PMs decide to bend or even break those agreements, there's noone to stop them. which explains the current chaos and distrust in the government. federalism is really great and all, in quiet times. but in times of crisis you need a strong focal figure who can tell ppl what to do and (at least temporarily) has the power to make them, which our political system just doesn't have.
@@dorderre god yes... another example of that, our educational system. i dont have to tell you what a shitshow the constant g8/g9 shift is, or how immune to any sort of reform it is. finlands schools look like 5 star hotels compared to ours. the gymnasium i went too looks more like a concrete prison without guards, which is rapidly falling apart structurally, rather than a school.
According to the constitution, the chancellor sets the "Richtlinien" (basic guidelines) of the government. They don't decide the specifics in any given field of policy (unless they take on the role of minister in addition to their role of chancellor), but they decide on the broader picture. In practice, of course, a lot of that is layed out beforehand between the parties forming the coalition. The chancellor also chairs the proceedings of the cabinet. The cabinet reaches decisions by simple votes. If the chancellors proposals do not get a majority, they cannot force their will on the cabinet. They can hire and fire ministers, but that is the nucular option and therefore seldomly used. For the most part, the chancellor in reality is a mediator and gets to set the government's overall position on any given subject that hasn't been covered in the coalition agreement, yet. They might also take over any ministerial responsibility where no ministry has been established (in german informally called "Chefsache"). Adenauer served both as chancellor and foreign minister for a while, for example. That is during peacetime. In the case of war, the chancellor becomes the (nominal) commander in chief.
Their direct power is actually quite limited. Basically, mainly they can appoint and dismiss the ministers and the vice chancellor without the ability of the president to say no so long as the chancellor follows legal procedure and is not doing something unconstitutional, and they can set the portfolios, IE what departments, the ministers have and how many ministers there will be. They can also force the Bundestagpräsident to convene a meeting of the chancellor, but so can the Bundespräsident, the Bundestagpräsident themselves, and a third of the delegates to that. They also usually but not always have to countersign the actions of the Bundespräsident. They have the ability to direct the general policy but not so much the very specific policy, and must abide by the law while doing it, and cannot direct the activities of the civil service in specific decisions made by the Beämter. They chair the cabinet meetings, but if they don´t then the vice chancellor can also do this. They can also demand that the Bundestag openly say whether a majority of its members supports them or not, but not applied to any specific motion or bill proposal, but the Bundespräsident decides what to do next if they lose as to whether to keep them as a minority government and hold new elections. They can if they wish personally be the minister for departments except for finance, defense, and economic planning. During a state of war declared by the Bundestag, they hold supreme command of the military. Another obscure power is that if they lose a vote of confidence but the Bundestag cannot agree on replacing them, and the Bundespräsident does not decide to hold new elections as a result, and the Bundestag has failed to approve a specific bill proposal, a minority government can, with the approval of the Bundespräsident and the Bundesrat, declare a state of legislative emergency, and if the Bundestag even during this state of legislative emergency fails to act on the bill in a way acceptable to the chancellor, then the Bundesrat, the Bundespräsident, and the chancellor can force a law to be passed on their own, but this only lasts six months, and the Bundestag has the power to oust the chancellor at will and can pass laws of their own as well at will. However, the chancellor has important limits on these powers in practice. Because one party almost never has an absolute majority, they must agree to share power with coalitions that usually demand at least some ministries and the ministers themselves to not be of their choice and beyond their control, including usually the vice chancellorship. And they must have support from their own party to govern, and so they need to appease powerful people in their own party, and ergo, will have big limits on whom among their own party they can appoint, often the ministries controlled by their party in practice will be chosen by the executive committee and legislative Fraktion of their party. And as they are usually the chairperson of their own party, they need to be elected by their party by secret ballot every two years, even if the election is uncontested a vote happens on a yes or no basis, and if they do not get a solid majority, over 70-80%, they look stupid or broken and incapable of leading a united party able to do things. The coalition deal has to be agreed upon by their party´s legislative Fraktion and the party´s executive committee, the former of whom are half chosen by lists controlled by state party conventions and the other half chosen by assemblies of delegates or party members in each of 299 constituencies, and the latter of which is chosen by the federal convention in the same way the party chair is every two years, and in some parties the coalition must be approved by the party membership, and to begin negotiation needs the approval of the party´s federal convention, executive committee, and legislative caucus. As well, there is a long list of civil rights which the constitutional court is all too happy to defend, and is half appointed by the Bundestag without proposal of the executive needing 2/3 of the Bundestag to consent to the appointment, and the other half is chosen by the Bundesrat which is even more abstracted from chancellor control, also by a 2/3 vote there. The chancellor must abide by statutory laws as well, which are detailed and provides for a lot of things to be done with transparency rules as well. The chancellor´s foreign policy and other powers are limited by the European Union, which controls many vital things like the monetary policy and indirectly has some limits on fiscal policy as well (like some debt and deficit limits), border controls, many aspects of regulation, and so on. The chancellor also has limited powers over the sixteen Bundesländer, which are highly autonomous to the point that many of them have semiformal diplomatic relationships with other countries, and what is not controlled by the Bundesrat, the Bundestag, and the European and international association bodies like the UNGA or UNSC are mostly controlled by the Länder, far more than Austria.
The German chancellor can be very easily impeached. The parliament just has to elect a new one in a vote of confidence. As it happened in 1982 when Helmut Schmidt lost a vote of confidence against Helmut Kohl.
I know this principle of immunity from prosecution for members of the legislative/parliamentary bodies is fairly common across the world (even if it can be waived), from a UK perspective I have to say, why is it there at all? Unless there is corruption in the police and judiciary that might pursue a prosecution from political reasons (in which case the country is in deep trouble anyway), then I don't understand why they can't be answerable in law. Impeachment in the UK has been redundant for a couple of centuries, and the reason why it existed was because Parliament had noted that some individuals had become so powerful as to put themselves beyond the law, so they invented the process to take it upon themselves to deal with it.
In the 19th century, there were many constitual monarchies. And it happened there, that monarchs would order the arrest of members of parliament for very shady reasons. In reality, it was just a trick to get rid of political opponents. In 1933, Hitler made all MPs of the Communist Party be arrested, because of an alleged conspiracy to overthrow the government. While they were in prison, the Reichstag passed the law to give Hitler total power.
That's different: you're thinking of motions of confidence (Vertrauensfrage), when the head of government can try to bring the Bundestag into line by asking the question: "Do you trust me?" What I'm talking about is a vote of no confidence (Misstrauensvotum), when the Bundestag can challenge the chancellor, hoping to replace him or her.
@@comsubpac No, they're not. If a vote of no confidence goes against the chancellor, the chancellor must be immediately replaced by the challenger named in the motion. If a motion of confidence goes against the chancellor, the chancellor can (but does not have to) ask the president to dissolve the Bundestag and order new elections, unless the Bundestag elects a new chancellor. This is laid out in Art 67 GG and Art 68 GG, if you want to check.
@@comsubpac nope. The vote of no confidence is regulated in Art. 67 GG, the motion of confidence is in Art. 68 GG. The result of a vote of no confidence is a new chancellor, the result of a failed motion of confidence is a new election.
the US President is head of state and head of the executive branch of government, there are 3 co-equal branches of government in the US, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial.
Yeah, the term "government" is vague and imprecise: sometimes it means specifically the executive, sometimes the ruling party or coalition in a parliamentary democracy, and sometimes it means the whole apparatus. The phrase "head of government" is, though, the standard phrase always used to describe the person who leads the cabinet. I'm so used to using "government" in the strict German sense of the word -- the chancellor, the cabinet, the ministries and the officials who work in them -- that I tend to forget that Americans usually interpret the word much more widely.
@@rewboss I'm not American, I tend to use the word "Government" to mean "the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office." which would, in the case of the US, be all 3 branches of government. if a policy is unconstitutional the Judicial branch rules to make it constitutional. I'm sure that the courts in Germany would perform the same role, else why have the Bundesverfassungsgericht?
@@johng.1703 Yeah, I'm in a real bind here, because if I use the word "government" in the sense that you (and I, before I left the UK) use it, I get shouted at by Germans.
@@johng.1703 An American would normally use the word administration to refer to what people from other countries with more parliamentary systems use to refer to the government.
@@robertjarman3703 they use Administration to refer to the group of people who currently administrate. it seem s in the US they administrate rather than govern.
02:28 .. if they fail to agree on a chancellor. But so far this has never happened. Well, if you mean “never agree” then you are right, but I remember after the last election they took months to finally get an agreement. Meanwhile the old chancellor just carries on, and on and on...
The president does not have to propose their nominee to the Bundestag at any given point. He just waited for the parties to try to get their act together before he triggered the rounds of parliamentary voting.
I'm easily certain that you, *@rewboss* to some small extent at least feel uncomfortable about Trump. I still seriously like your Channel however. The "way" how Trump _does and can_ at least in a needed way for this video at least, you clearly make contrasts and comparisons to in this video. Bad leaders, different kinds of leaders, along with amazing leaders have LOADS of different ways they are, even per person. Communists, Liberals, Centurists, Conservatives and outright fascists do, too. Liberals and Marxists LOVE saying that "Trump is Hitler!" I like your Channel for loads of many different reasons as a contrast from that. To Conservatives, we compare Trump to Reagan and Nixon. I keep finding myself thinking about some Germans thinking about Trump- thinking to themselves sometimes with "😒Jah, jah... Hitler vwas Hitler😬... Trump just keeps talking on and on about how amazing is🙄🤦♂."🤣 Keep up the fantastic work otherwise though! :D
well, so far politicians in germany fairly easily lost their immunity and seats when facing criminal investigations or scandals of "technicly legal" corruption ... voters here may commit to a party, but in general dont do that with individual politicians. Which means the parties themselfs are pretty fast to cut lose a politician if they damage the parties image in any serious way. This works quiet well and fast, since the last Bundestag election in 2017 alone 22 member of the Bundestag got their immunity revoked with several of them losing their seat, including politicians being part of the ruling coalition. Ofc not all of them were guilty, which explains some of them remaining in office. The good thing about the german system is that politicians dont get to play judge and jury, as it happens with those impeachment trails in the US, they just hand someone over to the justice system. BTW, the immunity only stands for the time of being a member of the Bundestag, so at best a corrupt party with majority could drag the investigations and trails out ... they couldnt prevent them. As for pardons, not possible before a trail and being found guilty, hence they happen rarely and only with a major support from the parlament. I am quiet glad the german system was designed that way (to prevent repetition of certain history ofc), certainly not perfect but objectivly much more effective against corruption and other criminal activities then most other democracies around.
In practice, the chairman of a party always becomes the chancellor candidate. However, it's more difficult for the Christian Union Parties, because the Christian Democrates (CDU) compete in Germany without Bavaria and the Christian Social Union (CSU) in Bavaria (without Germany, lol). As rule of thump, a CSU chairman only will be Candidate, if he is a wanker and/or the Chistian Union Parties (CDU and CSU) don't have the chance to win the election. As another rule of thumb, no CSU member becomes chancellor. Conclusion: Because CDU/CSU have a save chance of winning next federal election, the chairman of the CDU wil be chancellor candidate and later chancellor.
That's the general practice, yes, but with the now former party president, Kramp-Karrenbauer, there had been a lot of speculation from the beginning whether she would be the next candidate for Chancellor, and finally, she didn't get to follow into Merkel's footsteps. It will also depend on how the next few regional elections go, if CDU underperforms in those (BaWü and RLP are in March, he might get under pressure to let another be Chancellor candidate, which could be Söder of the CSU, or even Spahn, if Söder is rejected. I believe there might be some surprises, the next coming months...
An interesting case was Strauß, chairman of the CSU and chancellor candidate of the CDU/CSU. The Union did "win" in the sense that they were the biggest single party in the Bundestag, but the governing SPD/FDP coalition remained in place so Schmidt stayed on as chancellor. Strauß was a divisive figure, one of those people you either love or hate, so the election campaign was particularly acrimonious, not good if you're trying to promote your candidate as the "candidate of peace". But what probably cost the Union a lot of votes was Strauß's response to the Oktoberfest bombing, just days before the election: he immediately blamed left-wing terrorists (it was actually a right-wing terrorist attack), and he attacked the Minister of the Interior. Worse, it emerged that the group which carried out the attack, which Strauß had previously dismissed as harmless nutcases, was trying to help Strauß win the election in the hope that they could use him to recreate Hitler's Third Reich.
@@rewboss Helmut Kohl presumably let Strauß go in the 1980 campaign, expecting him not to become chancellor, so that after Strauß' defeat would help himself in his own attempt to become chancellor. On recordings from the election's eve, Helmut Kohl can quite clearly be seen having problems with restraining grin. Well, it worked out 2 years later. Quite similar to this was the 2002 campaign, when Angela Merkel let Edmund Stoiber go ("Wolfratshausen Breakfeast"), and after his defeat she became chancellor(ette) in 2005. So, rule of thump: Let the Bavarians make a fool on oneselves, and then win the whole thing.
Thank you all for your comments. But just to clear one thing up: there is a big difference between a vote of no confidence (in German "Misstrauensvotum") and a motion of confidence (in German "Vertrauensfrage"). The former is an attempt by the Bundestag to remove a chancellor; the latter is very different, a challenge from the chancellor to the Bundestag to either get in line or force him out.
I am of course tallking about a vote of no confidence. And there really have been only two of those.
Quick Correction: “Impeachment” is not removal from office, it's the equivalent of charging someone with a crime. The President, once charged with High Crimes and Misdemeanors [as described in the Articles of Impeachment], is then tried in the Senate. Putting this, again, in terms paralleling a “regular” trial: the judge is the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court the judge of the trial, the jury is the entire Senate, the prosecuting attorney is a group of members of the House of Representatives, and the defense attorney is whoever the President chooses.
To remove the President - which is the same as a conviction - 2/3 of the Senate must vote to convict.
Almost all Americans get this _wrong,_ because our tee-vee media keeps using, “impeached,” as if it means removed from office, and keeps repeating the mistake.
So literally a “mistrust vote” for the former and a “trust question” for the latter. No beating around the bush for Germans. One of the things I love about your videos is that it is helping me remove nearly a half-century of rust from my German fluency.
The Vertrauensfrage / motion of confidence mainly has two purposes. a) whip parliament into compliance, or b) force new elections. German parliament cannot dissolve itself and force new elections, and losing a motion of confidence on purpose is a way around that.
The VP is head of the senate as senate president.
@@John_Weiss - nope, Impeachement is NOT a trial. It is about the question if the President is still fit for office. He doesn't have to commit a crime or anything like this, if both the house and the senate think that he has no business to be the leader anymore, they can get rid of him.
4:30 But what if I'd like to get my info about Germany as a German from a British guy on an American website in English? :D (Thanks for all your informative content :)
Same
Very well said 😁😅..... - a real compliment for this channel 👍!
@@ca9603
People often enjoy "outside" perspectives on them self's (travel videos of one's home region ect.)
Well, I also read news about germany from other countries newspapers, like nzz, bbc and so on, since I can't stand german newspaper anymore.
@@Lorian667
I watch more NHK(World) (English language outlet of Japanese public broadcasting) than ARD ever since I got bored between BBC/CNN/FOX as recommend language comprehension practice.
i hate this word. Its doesnt have anything to do with peaches
same 🤣 I can't wait for peaches to be available in stores again 🤣 Everytime I hear that word I'm like... mh... a peach would be nice😅
Think of it as turning Trump into a peach...
@@k.williamjones3978 no thanks i want to eat peaches in the future without thinking of an orange old man
@@ActionAbe1 lol!
@@k.williamjones3978 I think sometimes his brain is as soft and soggy as a peach...
Oh boy, that's a lot of info, would have loved a visual on this ... but thanks so much for explaining anyway! Guess I'll just have to watch it again haha
Imagine the news headline: Angela Merkel impeached for bribery. 😂 Looking at what Schröder became after leaving politics, well... But Angela Merkel. Nah, never. 😂
Well.. there's a reason the CDU is mockingly called "Club Deutscher Unternehmer"
@@ranekeisenkralle8265 Schröder war von der SPD
@@hannofranz7973 I know, but with the big parties that essentially is mere semantics. They are both equally corrupt.
Kohl and the weapon deals.....
Great content as always!
Chancellor Merkel: "It's treason, then...." *ignites lightsaber*
Always interesting content on this channel! Thank you for sharing.
The chancellor can apparently "ask" the Bundestag for their confidence - at least that's how I understood what Gerhard Schröder did in 2001 (had the confidence) and 2005 (lost the confidence).
That's a different thing: that's a motion of confidence (Vertrauensfrage), not a vote of no confidence (Misstrauensvotum).
@@rewboss aaaahhh.. Thanks for explaining my government to me XD
You're the best!
2005 war das allerdings eine sogenannte "unechte Vertrauensfrage". Die dient dazu, durch Ausnutzung der Regeln vorzeitig Neuwahlen abhalten zu können - was im Grundgesetz eigentlich nicht vorgesehen ist. Der Bundeskanzler bittet den Bundestag ganz normal, ihm das Vertrauen auszusprechen. Hinter den Kulissen ist aber abgesprochen, dass sich die Abgeordneten der Regierungskoalition enthalten, wodurch nicht genügend Ja-Stimmen zusammenkommen und die Vertrauensfrage somit negativ ausfällt. Dann tritt der Kanzler zurück und der Bundespräsident kann den Bundestag auflösen und Neuwahlen anordnen. Das wurde bisher zwei Mal gemacht: 1982 und 2005. 1982 wurde Helmut Kohl (wie im Video erwähnt wurde) durch ein Misstrauensvotum Bundeskanzler und wollte sich durch eine vorgezogene Neuwahl Legitimiät verschaffen - er war ja nicht im Zuge einer normalen Wahl Kanzler geworden. 2005 kam es erneut zu einer unechten Vertrauensfrage, weil Schröder sich bessere Ergebnisse erhoffte (der eigentliche Wahltermin wäre 2006 gewesen).
@@untruelie2640 Und Schröder ist damit ordentlich auf die Nase gefallen....was mir damals so gar nicht leid getan hat.
Rewboss for chancelor!
1:42 Given the potential alternatives this year..... I'd appreciate that. Like... a lot. :)
I'd vote for rewboss.
@@xaverlustig3581 Me too. Rewboss demonstrated for years that he tries his best to be accurate, honest, open to criticism and stand his ground when he knows something's accurate but unpopular (see the many negative comments from conspiracy theorists on the Frankfurt server raid videos). I'd be confident he's on the side of the people instead of a lying, opportunistic power hungry politician. Even if he'd turn out to be bad at the job, at least I'd be sure I'm not being conned.
The next question will be: "How can the German president be removed from office?"
(Edit: I already know the answer.)
Justified question. I knew about the chancellor, I honestly wouldn't know that one...
@@minski76 I don't exactly blame you.
Impeachment by the Bundestag or Bundesrat, to be decided upon by the Federal Constitutional Court (Art. 61 (1) GG)
@@woolver42 no its more like either the Bundestag or the Bundesrat can sue the President infort of the Constitutional Court and they then decide if the president get's removed from office
@@fensti7917 Yep I corrected that, I read the law too quickly the first time, sorry.
there have actually been 5 votes of no confidence: willy brandt 1972 (no confidence), helmut schmidt 1982 (confidence), helmut kohl 1982 (no confidence), gerhard schröder 2001 (confidence) and 2005 (no confidence).
No, those were motions of confidence (Vertrauensfrage), not the same as motions of no confidence (Misstrauensvotum). That's a completely different thing, as the motion of confidence is initiated by the chancellor.
Yeah, but those additional ones were deliberately lost to force new Bundestag elections.
@@rewboss A vote of no confidence is essentially saying "we want to replace current chancellor X with new candidate Y". A vote of confidence is (usually) "let's see if we can still work together" (except rarely it is "we want an election right now, so let's break our own government" - it is pretty much the only way the Bundestag can force a new election once they have elected a chancellor). If that vote goes against the chancellor, it starts a clock where either the Bundestag can elect a new chancellor (via a vote of no confidence), or the chancellor can ask the president to dissolve the Bundestag and get an election going after which the new elected Bundestag will vote on a new chancellor as usual). (As any new chancellor needs a signature from the president, that pretty much means whoever reaches the president first.)
There is a difference between "Konstruktives Misstrauensvotum" (which is what the Bundestag initiates and which is described in this video) and the "Vertrauensfrage" which the Bundeskanzler asks, sometimes in combination with approving another law. If the "Misstrauensvotum" succeeds, the new Bundeskanzler is elected and the Bundestag continues (if it fails, everything stays). If the "Vertrauensfrage" succeeds, nothing changes, if it fails the Bundeskanzler can ask the Bundespräsident to dissolve the Bundestag (which will usually happen, unless the Bundestag elects a new Bundeskanzler).
(N.B.: I hate that UA-cam does not show new comments, while writing a comment ...)
Well....I will definitely would vote for Chancellor Andrew!
That's difficult if you're not a MdB. As a citizen you could only vote for the candidate for the Bundestag who promises to vote for Andrew. ;) Or are you a MdB?
@@MichaEl-rh1kv Nein. It is like the 'electoral college' in the United States, kind of, but if I could I would vote for Andrew. :). I guess we need a MdB to vote for him! :)
for a german, your english is very good.
I hope this is a joke, but just in case it's not: he's originally from the UK
It's one of those weird things. While a US president must be born in the US as a US citizen, there is no such stipulation for the office of chancellor. I am a naturalized German, and so according to the letter of the law, I qualify.
@@rewboss Goes nicely with the other weird thing which is half of Americans apparently considering themselves Irish or Scottish or German or whatever despite having never been to those places and despite three generations of their ancestors all being born in America.
@@rewboss The head of state of Canada is a British lady. Not the weirdest thing. The most successful Roman emperor was a guy born in modern Serbia or Croatia to a pig farmer. They invited a Frenchman to be the king of Sweden in 1810, and the first prime minister of Canada was born in Scotland. Boris Johnson held American citizenship and a Canadian PM as late as 1984 was born outside of Canada.
@@timolino567 Then again, if it wasn't for the Germanic Anglo-Saxons, the foundation for the modern-day English language wouldn't exist. Let's also not forget that since George I. in 1714, the United Kingdom is ruled by Germans, first by the House of Hannover, then by the House of Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha. They may call themselves the House of Windsor since WWI, but they're still descendants of Queen Victoria (the last Queen from the House of Hannover) and her consort Prince Albert von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha. So, if it wasn't for Germany, the United Kingdom as we know it wouldn't exist basically. ;)
Rewboss for Bundesmerkel 👌😎
And when you want german news in english or many other langzages, look for DW, Deutschewelle, ir in english, German Wave or Frequency!
They had news once even in klingon!
Yeah shame all of those resources really trash in terms of actual content, this is like suggesting the Local.de, in terms of trash content with a massive bias.
Alright, my question now is: What if the Chancellor dies, what is the process to transfer power to the Deputy Chancellor _as_ the new Chancellor?
Until now, no chancellor died in office, but chancellors have resigned. Then the president makes one minister acting chancellor, until a new chancellor is elected. In 1974 Willy Brandt resigned and Walter Scheel became chancellor for 9 days until Helmut Schmidt was elected.
In my understanding, “to impeach” means removing an officer holder for doing something criminal, something illegal or at least something really objectionable. That is per se not the case with the (constructive) vote of no confidence according to article 67 of the German Basic Law (i. e. the constitution). It was never argued, even by their political adversaries, that Willy Brandt in 1972 or Helmut Schmidt in 1982 were guilty of criminal or immoral behaviour. These votes of no confidence merely reflected mid-term changes in the political landscape and they subsequently pathed the way to general elections.
Article 61 of the Basic Law actually regulates an impeachment procedure, namely that of the Federal President, including a trial in front of the Federal Constitutional Court.
In the American system, impeachment is the _accusation_ of "high crimes and misdemeanours". Once the president is impeached by the House, the Senate then holds a trial and decides whether to convict or acquit. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached and then acquitted; Trump has been impeached twice and acquitted once, and is awaiting a Senate trial for the second impeachment.
Art 61 GG does outline a procedure that is basically an impeachment, yes. The slight difference is that the trial is conducted in an actual court of law. But otherwise, you're right: it is, in effect, an impeachment.
The official English translation (as published on the website of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection) of Art. 61 GG actually uses the term “impeachment”:
Article 61
[Impeachment before the Federal Constitutional Court]
(1) The Bundestag or the Bundesrat may impeach the Federal President before the Federal Constitutional Court for wilful violation of this Basic Law or of any other federal law. The motion of impeachment must be supported by at least one quarter of the Members of the Bundestag or one quarter of the votes of the Bundesrat. The decision to impeach shall require a majority of two thirds of the Members of the Bundestag or of two thirds of the votes of the Bundesrat. The case for impeachment shall be presented before the Federal Constitutional Court by a person commissioned by the impeaching body.
(2) If the Federal Constitutional Court finds the Federal President guilty of a wilful violation of this Basic Law or of any other federal law, it may declare that he has forfeited his office. After the Federal President has been impeached, the Court may issue an interim order preventing him from exercising his functions.
I find it remarkable that the threshold for initiating this process (one quarter of the Members of the Bundestag or one quarter of the votes of the Bundesrat) is remarkably low. On the other hand, if a really bad or rogue Chancellor is able to still rally a majority of Members of the Bundestag around him, he cannot be removed from office. Really an unlikely scenario, but still.
By the way (and this might be material for future videos): The German Basic Law is remarkably vague regarding issues like: what happens if the Chancellor is incapacitated or becomes insane, the chain of command, continuity of government etc. Renowned German constitutional law scholars like the late Federal President Roman Herzog have commented on this issue in the past. In 1974, during the events that led to his resignation from office, Willy Brandt was according to some observers almost unable to fulfil his duties.
@@wolfgangthiele9147 Actually, the bar is a 2/3 majority, if you read the text. The 1/4 threshold is required to table the motion, which is then debated and voted on: a 2/3 majority is required to actually impeach.
Also, you said "chancellor", but this process is for the removal of the president. I assume that's a typo.
It is, by the way, common practice for a supermajority to be required for extremely contentious or radical procedure, like impeaching a president or amending a constitution. The idea is to lessen the risk of the ruling party enforcing its will on a whim: for example, in order to convict Donald Trump, at least 17 Republican senators must vote for conviction as well as every Democrat senator. The theory is that such a vote would demonstrate bipartisan agreement.
@@rewboss
You are absolutely right, my apologies. Actually, yesterday, after I wrote this, I thought to myself: this can't be right, a minority group of politicians dragging the President in front of the Constitutional Court. Article 61 is really a very unlikely option, although Christian Wulff came somewhat closer because somebody paid for Wulff's visit to the Oktoberfest.
www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundespraesident-wulff-liess-sich-auf-oktoberfest-einladen-a-809132.html
Regarding the differences in removing the Chancellor from office vs. removing the Federal President:
The Bundestag can replace the Chancellor for any reason. In the past, this occurred because individual Members of the Bundestag had switched their party affiliation (1972) or because the smaller coalition partner, the traditional king maker of German politics, the FDP, decided it's time for a change (1982). But the same process could of course be used to get rid of a Chancellor who sets his private house on fire to collect insurance money.
The procedure for removing the Federal President on the other hand is much more demanding. He can't be removed simply for being politically inconvenient. While the role of the Federal President is mostly ceremonial, he can become very important, given the circumstances, and he could theoretically derail the whole political system.
Wow Andrew, you really seem to have a thorough knowledge of the governmental and legal systems--something that you've demonstrated many times before on this channel. Did you acquire this knowledge as a byproduct of the process of becoming a citizen? Here in the US, there's a trope about how the average American would fail the citizenship test that foreign-born persons have to pass in order to become naturalized citizens.
To be specific, Art. 67 GG is called "Konstruktives Misstrauensvotum" because it ensures immediate succession (hence, it's constructive). Helmut Kohl was the only one successful with that in October 1982, while Rainer Barzel in April 1972 was screwed over because of a tie (caused by the STASI paying off three MPs to flip their votes). In Weimar, this was technically a "Destruktives Misstrauensvotum" because it forced the Reichstag to dissolve.
The "Vertrauensfrage", aka Art. 68 GG, is very much subject to abuse. Helmut Kohl used it in December 1982 to lose on purpose and force early elections (in March 1983), and Gerhard Schröder did the same thing in July 2005 (forcing elections for September 2005), after the SPD lost the NRW elections. Even Willy Brandt used it in September 1972 to lose on purpose and forcing elections for November of the same year.
Impeachment per-se does not exist. However, German politics has one fundamental flaw: The "Fraktionszwang", where faction members are told by their party to ALWAYS vote along party lines. This is unconstitutional per Art. 38 Abs. 1 GG, which explicitly says that a member of parliament is only bound by his conscience. Those who violate the Fraktionszwang are stimatised publicly as "Abweichler", as party rebels. One example was in 2008, as the Hessian State Premier-designate Andrea Ypsilanti lost her election to State Premier in the Hessian parliament as four MPs chose to vote against her, because Ypsilanti openly broke her election promise to not work in any way with Die Linke. Everyone else followed the party line.
To be fair, the motivations of Kohl and Schröder were very different. In Kohl's case it allowed the voters to have a say in the government after a turbulent change at the top. Schröder just wanted to get more power - and got the answer at the ballot box, to my deep satisfaction.
Gibt es auch ein destruktives Misstrauensvotum?
I missed it out: you explained that in relation to Weimar
So, for anyone who wonders, the chancellor can go to the Bundestag and ask for a vote of confidence if they are questioning their level of support or are trying to get an election. This requires 0 other members of the Bundestag to agree to hold the vote, and also is an order from the chancellor whether they are a Bundestag member or not. The chancellor's motion needs an absolute majority to pass, so 355 right now. If it fails to reach this number expressly saying yes, the president then decides whether to keep the chancellor in a minority government or hold a new election and is absolutely free in their power to decide which. The president can also declare a state of legislative emergency where the chancellor can pass new laws if the cabinet gets the permission of the Bundesrat to enact a decree in the next 6 months, although the Bundestag can always oust the chancellor via a vote of no confidence and can pass laws on their own authority anyway (some laws don't require the Bundesrat's consent, some do). The state of legislative emergency has never been used though.
Also, at the start of the Bundestag's electoral period or in weird situations like if the chancellor dies in office, is completely incapacitated while in office, or resigns or refuses to work at all as chancellor, then the vice chancellor named by the previous chancellor becomes acting chancellor and the Bundestag elects a successor. The president names a first option, and if the Bundestag agrees by absolute majority vote, they are the chancellor. If not, the Bundestag has any quarter or more of their members submit nominees and they are voted on sequentially in order of who is tabled first in a yes, no, or abstain vote, and the first with an absolute majority in favour of them is chancellor. If they fail to elect anyone in 14 days of that, then they hold a final round with any nominees submitted by any quarter or more of the members and each member gets one vote and casts it for one candidate. If the one with the most votes also has an absolute majority they become chancellor, if not, the president decides between minority government or a new election.
The other members of the cabinet are chosen and removed solely on the initiative of the chancellor in law, and the chancellor can head a ministry themselves if they wish other than the finance ministry, the defense ministry, and some economic ministry, but is normally constrained by the coalition they lead and their own party to appease them by including the party in their decisions as to whom among them to appoint, and normally the coalition will mandate a fraction and sometimes the individual ministries each party is to get and the chancellor thus has no real power over any of those cabinet members, and screwing up the political decision as to who becomes a minister and who they go into coalition with can end their career by evaporating their political capital.
By the way, the chancellor candidate is chosen by a session (usually an extraordinary one) of the party congress held in the months before an election, which will also publish a manifesto the party will run on. This is usually the chair (Vorsitzer(in)) of the party but not always, a popular minister-president of a state who is probably the chair of the party's branch in that state might be chosen, maybe a popular minister who might only be on the Bundesparteivorstand as an assessor or deputy chair or general secretary might be chosen, it's complicated. They (and all other members of a party's board and the positions among it like chair and deputy chair) are chosen in a contested ballot or a yes or no ballot, if multiple names are nominated they vote with one vote per member and the one with the majority wins, if no majority, eliminate last place until someone has a majority, if uncontested, they have a yes or no vote and must get a majority to be retained, and this always happens at every regular party congress for a term which by law can be no more than 2 years. The delegates of the party congress is decided by the next level lower, IE a federal party congress's delegates are chosen by the same secret ballot process with a yes or no or contested vote by the state party congress, and so on with the district level congresses, then the constituency level, then the kreise/kreisefreistadte level, then the parish level which is usually just a general meeting of the membership which are the rank and file members. A party congress also grants assent to hold anything more than exploratory talks for coalition and ratifies any coalition agreement.
The ballot for the chancellor and votes of confidence or no confidence are also by secret ballot I should add, the same is true in every state for their ministers-president (most states elect their cabinet by secret ballot with a vote to confirm or deny the minister-president's choices and may need to give consent to the transfer of a minister to another portfolio or to depose them, a limit the chancellor does not have).
the out takes🤣
German in the Titel
Germans: Unser Video!!
Thanks for explaining German political system to Germans also😊
Someone send this man a calendar! :D
Curiously, both Brand and Schmidt also had asked parliament if they still support them as chancelor in the same year, and both got the opposite result than what they got in the vote of no confidence.
I don't need a vpn, I get ARD, ZDF, WDR, NDR via my cable network in Nijmegen. My parents have a few more channels, but I don't need shit from RTL, though I do miss Arte.
O, and thank God we have these channels along BBC1 and BBC2 for only 18.99 per month in my case.
hey, could you make a video to explain what powers the chancellor actually has? "head of the government" sound great but what can and what cant a chancellor do?
A Chancellor for all intents and purposes is what the president is in the us, while the actual german president is more akin to a ceremonial role like, say, queen elizabeth in the uk. except the president is the one who, after elections, carries out the act of officially recognizing the elected chancellor, and has the power to remove them from office as well. i think.
@@jenshep1720 in theory, yes. but about her practical powers ... just look at the current corona management issues. she and the prime ministers of the 16 federal states can "agree" on certain rules and actions, but when five minutes later the PMs decide to bend or even break those agreements, there's noone to stop them.
which explains the current chaos and distrust in the government.
federalism is really great and all, in quiet times. but in times of crisis you need a strong focal figure who can tell ppl what to do and (at least temporarily) has the power to make them, which our political system just doesn't have.
@@dorderre god yes... another example of that, our educational system. i dont have to tell you what a shitshow the constant g8/g9 shift is, or how immune to any sort of reform it is. finlands schools look like 5 star hotels compared to ours. the gymnasium i went too looks more like a concrete prison without guards, which is rapidly falling apart structurally, rather than a school.
According to the constitution, the chancellor sets the "Richtlinien" (basic guidelines) of the government. They don't decide the specifics in any given field of policy (unless they take on the role of minister in addition to their role of chancellor), but they decide on the broader picture.
In practice, of course, a lot of that is layed out beforehand between the parties forming the coalition.
The chancellor also chairs the proceedings of the cabinet. The cabinet reaches decisions by simple votes. If the chancellors proposals do not get a majority, they cannot force their will on the cabinet.
They can hire and fire ministers, but that is the nucular option and therefore seldomly used.
For the most part, the chancellor in reality is a mediator and gets to set the government's overall position on any given subject that hasn't been covered in the coalition agreement, yet.
They might also take over any ministerial responsibility where no ministry has been established (in german informally called "Chefsache"). Adenauer served both as chancellor and foreign minister for a while, for example.
That is during peacetime.
In the case of war, the chancellor becomes the (nominal) commander in chief.
Their direct power is actually quite limited. Basically, mainly they can appoint and dismiss the ministers and the vice chancellor without the ability of the president to say no so long as the chancellor follows legal procedure and is not doing something unconstitutional, and they can set the portfolios, IE what departments, the ministers have and how many ministers there will be. They can also force the Bundestagpräsident to convene a meeting of the chancellor, but so can the Bundespräsident, the Bundestagpräsident themselves, and a third of the delegates to that. They also usually but not always have to countersign the actions of the Bundespräsident. They have the ability to direct the general policy but not so much the very specific policy, and must abide by the law while doing it, and cannot direct the activities of the civil service in specific decisions made by the Beämter. They chair the cabinet meetings, but if they don´t then the vice chancellor can also do this. They can also demand that the Bundestag openly say whether a majority of its members supports them or not, but not applied to any specific motion or bill proposal, but the Bundespräsident decides what to do next if they lose as to whether to keep them as a minority government and hold new elections. They can if they wish personally be the minister for departments except for finance, defense, and economic planning. During a state of war declared by the Bundestag, they hold supreme command of the military.
Another obscure power is that if they lose a vote of confidence but the Bundestag cannot agree on replacing them, and the Bundespräsident does not decide to hold new elections as a result, and the Bundestag has failed to approve a specific bill proposal, a minority government can, with the approval of the Bundespräsident and the Bundesrat, declare a state of legislative emergency, and if the Bundestag even during this state of legislative emergency fails to act on the bill in a way acceptable to the chancellor, then the Bundesrat, the Bundespräsident, and the chancellor can force a law to be passed on their own, but this only lasts six months, and the Bundestag has the power to oust the chancellor at will and can pass laws of their own as well at will.
However, the chancellor has important limits on these powers in practice. Because one party almost never has an absolute majority, they must agree to share power with coalitions that usually demand at least some ministries and the ministers themselves to not be of their choice and beyond their control, including usually the vice chancellorship. And they must have support from their own party to govern, and so they need to appease powerful people in their own party, and ergo, will have big limits on whom among their own party they can appoint, often the ministries controlled by their party in practice will be chosen by the executive committee and legislative Fraktion of their party. And as they are usually the chairperson of their own party, they need to be elected by their party by secret ballot every two years, even if the election is uncontested a vote happens on a yes or no basis, and if they do not get a solid majority, over 70-80%, they look stupid or broken and incapable of leading a united party able to do things.
The coalition deal has to be agreed upon by their party´s legislative Fraktion and the party´s executive committee, the former of whom are half chosen by lists controlled by state party conventions and the other half chosen by assemblies of delegates or party members in each of 299 constituencies, and the latter of which is chosen by the federal convention in the same way the party chair is every two years, and in some parties the coalition must be approved by the party membership, and to begin negotiation needs the approval of the party´s federal convention, executive committee, and legislative caucus.
As well, there is a long list of civil rights which the constitutional court is all too happy to defend, and is half appointed by the Bundestag without proposal of the executive needing 2/3 of the Bundestag to consent to the appointment, and the other half is chosen by the Bundesrat which is even more abstracted from chancellor control, also by a 2/3 vote there. The chancellor must abide by statutory laws as well, which are detailed and provides for a lot of things to be done with transparency rules as well. The chancellor´s foreign policy and other powers are limited by the European Union, which controls many vital things like the monetary policy and indirectly has some limits on fiscal policy as well (like some debt and deficit limits), border controls, many aspects of regulation, and so on. The chancellor also has limited powers over the sixteen Bundesländer, which are highly autonomous to the point that many of them have semiformal diplomatic relationships with other countries, and what is not controlled by the Bundesrat, the Bundestag, and the European and international association bodies like the UNGA or UNSC are mostly controlled by the Länder, far more than Austria.
"taking bribes for example..." - (here we go, Birne)
The German chancellor can be very easily impeached. The parliament just has to elect a new one in a vote of confidence. As it happened in 1982 when Helmut Schmidt lost a vote of confidence against Helmut Kohl.
Yes it's called vertrauens Frage
0:15 ...even more people got a 2nd Nobel-Prize...!
...so he IS special...! ;-)
...well...
...not that kind of 'special' to be proud of...! :-(
4:20 I used the Helmut to destroy the Helmut.
I know this principle of immunity from prosecution for members of the legislative/parliamentary bodies is fairly common across the world (even if it can be waived), from a UK perspective I have to say, why is it there at all? Unless there is corruption in the police and judiciary that might pursue a prosecution from political reasons (in which case the country is in deep trouble anyway), then I don't understand why they can't be answerable in law. Impeachment in the UK has been redundant for a couple of centuries, and the reason why it existed was because Parliament had noted that some individuals had become so powerful as to put themselves beyond the law, so they invented the process to take it upon themselves to deal with it.
In the 19th century, there were many constitual monarchies. And it happened there, that monarchs would order the arrest of members of parliament for very shady reasons. In reality, it was just a trick to get rid of political opponents. In 1933, Hitler made all MPs of the Communist Party be arrested, because of an alleged conspiracy to overthrow the government. While they were in prison, the Reichstag passed the law to give Hitler total power.
Gerhard Schröder had two votes of confidence in 2001 and 2005. Helmut Kohl used one in 1982 to force reelections.
That's different: you're thinking of motions of confidence (Vertrauensfrage), when the head of government can try to bring the Bundestag into line by asking the question: "Do you trust me?"
What I'm talking about is a vote of no confidence (Misstrauensvotum), when the Bundestag can challenge the chancellor, hoping to replace him or her.
@@rewboss They are legally the same though.
@@comsubpac Not at all. One results in a new chancellor, the other doesn't necessarily.
@@comsubpac No, they're not. If a vote of no confidence goes against the chancellor, the chancellor must be immediately replaced by the challenger named in the motion. If a motion of confidence goes against the chancellor, the chancellor can (but does not have to) ask the president to dissolve the Bundestag and order new elections, unless the Bundestag elects a new chancellor.
This is laid out in Art 67 GG and Art 68 GG, if you want to check.
@@comsubpac nope. The vote of no confidence is regulated in Art. 67 GG, the motion of confidence is in Art. 68 GG. The result of a vote of no confidence is a new chancellor, the result of a failed motion of confidence is a new election.
When i tried the VPN and search for German election i get the same results
maybe because im in germany but that doesn't matter here
the US President is head of state and head of the executive branch of government, there are 3 co-equal branches of government in the US, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial.
Yeah, the term "government" is vague and imprecise: sometimes it means specifically the executive, sometimes the ruling party or coalition in a parliamentary democracy, and sometimes it means the whole apparatus. The phrase "head of government" is, though, the standard phrase always used to describe the person who leads the cabinet.
I'm so used to using "government" in the strict German sense of the word -- the chancellor, the cabinet, the ministries and the officials who work in them -- that I tend to forget that Americans usually interpret the word much more widely.
@@rewboss I'm not American, I tend to use the word "Government" to mean "the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office." which would, in the case of the US, be all 3 branches of government.
if a policy is unconstitutional the Judicial branch rules to make it constitutional. I'm sure that the courts in Germany would perform the same role, else why have the Bundesverfassungsgericht?
@@johng.1703 Yeah, I'm in a real bind here, because if I use the word "government" in the sense that you (and I, before I left the UK) use it, I get shouted at by Germans.
@@johng.1703 An American would normally use the word administration to refer to what people from other countries with more parliamentary systems use to refer to the government.
@@robertjarman3703 they use Administration to refer to the group of people who currently administrate. it seem s in the US they administrate rather than govern.
02:28 .. if they fail to agree on a chancellor. But so far this has never happened. Well, if you mean “never agree” then you are right, but I remember after the last election they took months to finally get an agreement. Meanwhile the old chancellor just carries on, and on and on...
The president does not have to propose their nominee to the Bundestag at any given point. He just waited for the parties to try to get their act together before he triggered the rounds of parliamentary voting.
You might want to monitor the comment section more closely this time. Seems like the subject has attracted certain "argumentative" types.
I do the best I can. But I generally allow comments that are not actually abusive, grossly offensive or highly inflammatory.
I'm easily certain that you, *@rewboss* to some small extent at least feel uncomfortable about Trump. I still seriously like your Channel however.
The "way" how Trump _does and can_ at least in a needed way for this video at least, you clearly make contrasts and comparisons to in this video.
Bad leaders, different kinds of leaders, along with amazing leaders have LOADS of different ways they are, even per person.
Communists, Liberals, Centurists, Conservatives and outright fascists do, too.
Liberals and Marxists LOVE saying that "Trump is Hitler!" I like your Channel for loads of many different reasons as a contrast from that. To Conservatives, we compare Trump to Reagan and Nixon.
I keep finding myself thinking about some Germans thinking about Trump- thinking to themselves sometimes with "😒Jah, jah... Hitler vwas Hitler😬... Trump just keeps talking on and on about how amazing is🙄🤦♂."🤣
Keep up the fantastic work otherwise though! :D
In CDU the Chairman is mostly the chancellor- candidate as well....
Not always, no. Sometimes the chancellor candidate is from the CSU, and as such cannot be the CDU chairman.
As i said.....mostly
Yay reading German media!
well, so far politicians in germany fairly easily lost their immunity and seats when facing criminal investigations or scandals of "technicly legal" corruption ... voters here may commit to a party, but in general dont do that with individual politicians. Which means the parties themselfs are pretty fast to cut lose a politician if they damage the parties image in any serious way.
This works quiet well and fast, since the last Bundestag election in 2017 alone 22 member of the Bundestag got their immunity revoked with several of them losing their seat, including politicians being part of the ruling coalition. Ofc not all of them were guilty, which explains some of them remaining in office.
The good thing about the german system is that politicians dont get to play judge and jury, as it happens with those impeachment trails in the US, they just hand someone over to the justice system.
BTW, the immunity only stands for the time of being a member of the Bundestag, so at best a corrupt party with majority could drag the investigations and trails out ... they couldnt prevent them. As for pardons, not possible before a trail and being found guilty, hence they happen rarely and only with a major support from the parlament.
I am quiet glad the german system was designed that way (to prevent repetition of certain history ofc), certainly not perfect but objectivly much more effective against corruption and other criminal activities then most other democracies around.
You could always throw peaches at her.
In practice, the chairman of a party always becomes the chancellor candidate. However, it's more difficult for the Christian Union Parties, because the Christian Democrates (CDU) compete in Germany without Bavaria and the Christian Social Union (CSU) in Bavaria (without Germany, lol). As rule of thump, a CSU chairman only will be Candidate, if he is a wanker and/or the Chistian Union Parties (CDU and CSU) don't have the chance to win the election. As another rule of thumb, no CSU member becomes chancellor. Conclusion: Because CDU/CSU have a save chance of winning next federal election, the chairman of the CDU wil be chancellor candidate and later chancellor.
That's the general practice, yes, but with the now former party president, Kramp-Karrenbauer, there had been a lot of speculation from the beginning whether she would be the next candidate for Chancellor, and finally, she didn't get to follow into Merkel's footsteps. It will also depend on how the next few regional elections go, if CDU underperforms in those (BaWü and RLP are in March, he might get under pressure to let another be Chancellor candidate, which could be Söder of the CSU, or even Spahn, if Söder is rejected. I believe there might be some surprises, the next coming months...
An interesting case was Strauß, chairman of the CSU and chancellor candidate of the CDU/CSU. The Union did "win" in the sense that they were the biggest single party in the Bundestag, but the governing SPD/FDP coalition remained in place so Schmidt stayed on as chancellor. Strauß was a divisive figure, one of those people you either love or hate, so the election campaign was particularly acrimonious, not good if you're trying to promote your candidate as the "candidate of peace". But what probably cost the Union a lot of votes was Strauß's response to the Oktoberfest bombing, just days before the election: he immediately blamed left-wing terrorists (it was actually a right-wing terrorist attack), and he attacked the Minister of the Interior. Worse, it emerged that the group which carried out the attack, which Strauß had previously dismissed as harmless nutcases, was trying to help Strauß win the election in the hope that they could use him to recreate Hitler's Third Reich.
@@rewboss Helmut Kohl presumably let Strauß go in the 1980 campaign, expecting him not to become chancellor, so that after Strauß' defeat would help himself in his own attempt to become chancellor. On recordings from the election's eve, Helmut Kohl can quite clearly be seen having problems with restraining grin. Well, it worked out 2 years later.
Quite similar to this was the 2002 campaign, when Angela Merkel let Edmund Stoiber go ("Wolfratshausen Breakfeast"), and after his defeat she became chancellor(ette) in 2005.
So, rule of thump: Let the Bavarians make a fool on oneselves, and then win the whole thing.
I don't care how, just DO IT FAST
In short: Yes
Why? History
Thx for Reading