The constructive vote of no confidence (in German: konstruktives Misstrauensvotum) is a variation on the motion of no confidence which only allows a parliament to withdraw confidence from a head of government only if there is a positive majority for a prospective successor. The concept was invented in Germany but is today also used in Spain, Hungary and Slovenia.
Contents |
While Carlo Schmid is generally considered to be the main contributor to this constitutional innovation, the concept actually originated in the Free State of Prussia in the aftermath of World War I.
Governments in the 1919 Weimar Republic were usually very unstable. One factor was that a Chancellor (or Reichskanzler as he was then called) would frequently be voted out of office without his successor having sufficient backing in Parliament. This led to quick succession of many Chancellors in office (see the Chancellor of Germany page for a list) and finally to the imposition of cabinets that were dependent on the confidence of President Paul von Hindenburg. This instability was seen as contributing to the rise of the Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler.
To overcome this problem, two provisions were included in the 1949 German constitution, the Grundgesetz (Basic Law). It means that the Bundeskanzler may only be removed from office by majority vote of Parliament (the Bundestag) if a prospective successor also has the support of a majority. The relevant provisions are as follows:
As a result, the failure of a Motion of Confidence does not automatically force either the resignation of the government or a new election. Rather the government may continue as a minority government if the opposition is unable to agree to a successor via a constructive vote of no confidence.
Also, the Federal President may dissolve the legislature only after the failure of a Motion of Confidence, and the legislature may not dissolve itself either. This provision is intended to limit the power of the President, which was also considered a weakness in the Weimar Republic. One consequence of this is that in contrast to other parliamentary democracies, the German Chancellor does not petition the head of state to dissolve the legislature. Rather, in the past, the Federal Chancellor has proposed a Motion of Confidence which he intentionally loses. However, this practice has been restricted by the German Constitutional Court since the election of Helmut Kohl in 1982.
Since 1949, only two Constructive Votes of No Confidence have been attempted. One has been successful.
| Date | Opposition candidate (party) | Chancellor (party) | Yes | No | Abstention | absent/invalid | Vote successful? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| April 27, 1972 | Rainer Barzel (CDU) | Willy Brandt (SPD) | 247 | 10 | 3 | 236 | no |
| October 1, 1982 | Helmut Kohl (CDU) | Helmut Schmidt (SPD) | 256 | 235 | 4 | 2 | yes |
On April 27, 1972, an attempt to vote Chancellor Willy Brandt (SPD) out of office in favor of opposition leader Rainer Barzel (CDU) failed by a margin of only two votes. This came as a surprise, since it was known that several members of the SPD-FDP coalition strongly opposed Brandt's Ostpolitik and the government no longer had a clear majority after several deputies had switched over to the opposition. Mathematically, the opposition should have had a majority of 250 votes compared to 246 left for the coalition, and it needed 249 for bringing down Brandt.
The vote was highly influenced by tactics; although being secret, the voting of the CDU was exposed by the coalition mostly abstaining from the vote. In the end, only 260 votes were cast: 247 with yes, 10 with no, and 3 abstentions from voting. It was thus clear that the missing votes had to be looked for within the CDU faction. In June 1973, CDU member Julius Steiner admitted to Der Spiegel magazine to have abstained from voting. Later he claimed to have received 50 000 DM in return from one of the leading SPD figures, Karl Wienand. Leo Wagner of the CSU was suspected to have received a bribe as well, but conclusive evidence could not be found. After the 1990 German reunification, it became clear that the bribe money that was offered to several CDU politicians came from the East-German Stasi (secret police) who at the time saw a need for Brandt to stay in power. This is somewhat ironic because Brandt's Ostpolitik is today seen as one of the major steps that eventually led to the implosion of the communist states after 1989.
However, as the government no was no longer backed by a majority in parliament, on September 22 Chancellor Brandt proposed a Motion of Confidence to the Bundestag, which he lost intentionally to make way for the West German federal election, 1972.
On October 1, 1982, Helmut Schmidt was successfully voted out of office in favor of Helmut Kohl, marking the end of the SPD-FDP coalition. The vote was not as tricky technically as the earlier one since it was clear this time that the FDP wanted to switch over to a coalition with the CDU and was already in negotiations at the time the vote happened. The FDP was no longer content with the SPD economic policy, and at the same time the SPD was internally divided over NATO stationing of nuclear missiles in Germany. Still, the vote succeeded only with a slim majority of seven votes.
To obtain a clearer majority in the Bundestag (which seemed to be in reach according to the polls), after the vote, Helmut Kohl put up a Motion of Confidence in which the new CDU-FDP coalition intentionally voted against the Chancellor that it just put into power. This trick allowed for the dissolution of the Bundestag according to Article 68 Grundgesetz (see above). Still, the action prompted for a decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court, which, in a somewhat helpless ruling, upheld the move but put up criteria for such motions in future. After all, the new Bundestag had already been elected in March 1983, yielding a strong majority for the new coalition, which eventually lasted until 1998.
A system with no remarkable differences to the German system exists in Spain today. It was approved in the new constitution of 1978 for the national Parliament, and also came into force in territorial assemblies.
The President of the Government (Prime Minister) must resign if he proposes a vote of confidence to the Congress of Deputies (the lower house) and it is defeated, or if the Congress, on its own initiative, adopts a constructive vote of no confidence. As with the German Basic Law, the term "constructive vote of no confidence" does not actually appear in the Constitution of Spain. The relevant provisions are as follows:
The unicameral National Assembly may remove the Prime Minister of Hungary by a constructive vote of no confidence. Article 39A (1) of the constitution provides that:
In March 2009, Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsány announced he would hand over his position to a politician with a higher support of the parties of the Hungarian parliament. The Alliance of Free Democrats (SZDSZ) opposed most candidates for the post proposed by the Hungarian Socialists, but on 30 March 2009, Gordon Bajnai managed to get the backing of both parties. A constructive motion of no-confidence against Ferenc Gyurcsány took place on 14 April. Bajnai became Prime Minister.
A variant of the constructive vote of no confidence has been in place in Israel since the direct election of the Prime Minister was abolished in 2001. A vote of no confidence by the Knesset (parliament) does not elect a new prime minister, but must merely propose a formateur: a presumptive nominee charged with seeking to form a new government. The candidate proposed must still secure a positive vote of confidence before becoming prime minister, and may fail to do so. The system therefore does not seem to guarantee continuity in the same way as the constructive vote of no confidence used in Germany and elsewhere. The Basic Law of 2001 provides in Section 28 (b) that:
The constructive vote of no confidence (in German: konstruktives Misstrauensvotum) is a variation on the motion of no confidence which allows a parliament to withdraw confidence from a head of government only if there is a positive majority for a prospective successor. The concept was invented in Germany, but is today also used in Spain, Hungary, Slovenia and Poland.
Contents |
While Carlo Schmid is generally considered to be the main contributor to this constitutional innovation, the concept actually originated in the Free State of Prussia in the aftermath of World War I[citation needed].
Governments in the 1919 Weimar Republic were usually very unstable. One factor was that a Chancellor (or Reichskanzler as he was then called) would frequently be voted out of office without his successor having sufficient backing in Parliament. This led to quick succession of many Chancellors in office (see the Chancellor of Germany page for a list) and finally to the imposition of cabinets that were dependent on the confidence of President Paul von Hindenburg. This instability was seen as contributing to the rise of the Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler.
To overcome this problem, two provisions were included in the 1949 German constitution, the Grundgesetz (Basic Law). It means that the Bundeskanzler may only be removed from office by majority vote of Parliament (the Bundestag) if a prospective successor also has the support of a majority. The relevant provisions are as follows:
As a result, the failure of a Motion of Confidence does not automatically force either the resignation of the government or a new election. Rather the government may continue as a minority government if the opposition is unable to agree to a successor via a constructive vote of no confidence.
Also, the Federal President may dissolve the legislature only after the failure of a Motion of Confidence, and the legislature may not dissolve itself either. This provision is intended to limit the power of the President, which was also considered a weakness in the Weimar Republic. One consequence of this is that in contrast to other parliamentary democracies, the German Chancellor does not petition the head of state to dissolve the legislature. Rather, in the past, the Federal Chancellor has proposed a Motion of Confidence which he intentionally loses. However, this practice has been restricted by the German Constitutional Court since the election of Helmut Kohl in 1982.
Since 1949, only two Constructive Votes of No Confidence have been attempted. One has been successful.
| Date | Opposition candidate (party) | Chancellor (party) | Yes | No | Abstention | absent/invalid | Vote successful? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| April 27, 1972 | Rainer Barzel (CDU) | Willy Brandt (SPD) | 247 | 10 | 3 | 236 | no |
| October 1, 1982 | Helmut Kohl (CDU) | Helmut Schmidt (SPD) | 256 | 235 | 4 | 2 | yes |
On April 27, 1972, an attempt to vote Chancellor Willy Brandt (SPD) out of office in favor of opposition leader Rainer Barzel (CDU) failed by a margin of only two votes. This came as a surprise, since it was known that several members of the SPD-FDP coalition strongly opposed Brandt's Ostpolitik and the government no longer had a clear majority after several deputies had switched over to the opposition. Mathematically, the opposition should have had a majority of 250 votes compared to 246 left for the coalition, and it needed 249 for bringing down Brandt.
The vote was highly influenced by tactics; although being secret, the voting of the CDU was exposed by the coalition mostly abstaining from the vote. In the end, only 260 votes were cast: 247 with yes, 10 with no, and 3 abstentions from voting. It was thus clear that the missing votes had to be looked for within the CDU faction. In June 1973, CDU member Julius Steiner admitted to Der Spiegel magazine to have abstained from voting. Later he claimed to have received 50 000 DM in return from one of the leading SPD figures, Karl Wienand. Leo Wagner of the CSU was suspected to have received a bribe as well, but conclusive evidence could not be found. After the 1990 German reunification, it became clear that the bribe money that was offered to several CDU politicians came from the East-German Stasi (secret police) who at the time saw a need for Brandt to stay in power. This is somewhat ironic because Brandt's Ostpolitik is today seen as one of the major steps that eventually led to the implosion of the communist states after 1989.
However, as the government was no longer backed by a majority in parliament, on September 22 Chancellor Brandt proposed a Motion of Confidence to the Bundestag, which he lost intentionally to make way for the West German federal election, 1972.
On October 1, 1982, Helmut Schmidt was successfully voted out of office in favor of Helmut Kohl, marking the end of the SPD-FDP coalition. The vote was not as tricky technically as the earlier one since it was clear this time that the FDP wanted to switch over to a coalition with the CDU and was already in negotiations at the time the vote happened. The FDP was no longer content with the SPD economic policy, and at the same time the SPD was internally divided over NATO stationing of nuclear missiles in Germany. Still, the vote succeeded only with a slim majority of seven votes.
To obtain a clearer majority in the Bundestag (which seemed to be in reach according to the polls), after the vote, Helmut Kohl put up a Motion of Confidence in which the new CDU-FDP coalition intentionally voted against the Chancellor that it just put into power. This trick allowed for the dissolution of the Bundestag according to Article 68 Grundgesetz (see above). Still, the action prompted for a decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court, which, in a somewhat helpless ruling, upheld the move but put up criteria for such motions in future. After all, the new Bundestag had already been elected in March 1983, yielding a strong majority for the new coalition, which eventually lasted until 1998.
A system with no remarkable differences to the German system exists in Spain today. It was approved in the new constitution of 1978 for the national Parliament, and also came into force in territorial assemblies.
The President of the Government (Prime Minister) must resign if he proposes a vote of confidence to the Congress of Deputies (the lower house) and it is defeated, or if the Congress, on its own initiative, adopts a constructive vote of no confidence. As with the German Basic Law, the term "constructive vote of no confidence" does not actually appear in the Constitution of Spain. The relevant provisions are as follows:
The unicameral National Assembly may remove the Prime Minister of Hungary by a constructive vote of no confidence. Article 39A (1) of the constitution provides that:
In March 2009, Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsány announced he would hand over his position to a politician with a higher support of the parties of the Hungarian parliament. The Alliance of Free Democrats (SZDSZ) opposed most candidates for the post proposed by the Hungarian Socialists, but on 30 March 2009, Gordon Bajnai managed to get the backing of both parties. A constructive motion of no-confidence against Ferenc Gyurcsány took place on 14 April. Bajnai became Prime Minister.
Subsection (8) of section 87 of the Constitution of Lesotho stipulates that a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister shall be of no effect unless the National Assembly nominates one of its members to be appointed Prime Minister in place of the incumbent Prime Minister:
"A resolution of no confidence in the Government of Lesotho shall not be effective for the purposes of subsections (5)(a) and (7)(e) unless it proposes the name of a member of the National Assembly for the King to appoint in the place of the Prime Minister."[1]
A variant of the constructive vote of no confidence has been in place in Israel since the direct election of the Prime Minister was abolished in 2001. A vote of no confidence by the Knesset (parliament) does not elect a new prime minister, but must merely propose a formateur: a presumptive nominee charged with seeking to form a new government. The candidate proposed must still secure a positive vote of confidence before becoming prime minister, and may fail to do so. The system therefore does not seem to guarantee continuity in the same way as the constructive vote of no confidence used in Germany and elsewhere. The Basic Law of 2001 provides in Section 28 (b) that:
|
|
Wikis
Search