Firing Back: AfD’s Push to Haul Ministers to Court for Taxpayer Extortion
Far-right political party, AfD, pushes for accountability of the Minister due to waste-related issues.
By Tom Kollmar
The Alternative for Germany (AfD) aims to take ex-cabinet members to court - if they recklessly or intentionally pocket taxpayers' hard-earned money. This is the plan behind their proposed legislation, which was discussed in the Bundestag last night. According to their bill, ministers should face job-related legal liability in such instances of fiscal mismanagement.
From the procurement of coronavirus masks by the ex-Health Minister Jens Spahn to the toll fiasco involving the ex-Transport Ministers Alexander Dobrindt and Andreas Scheuer, there are numerous examples of questionable state decisions that cost taxpayers dearly, the AfD argues. Both situations, they claim, show at least gross negligence.
"It's virtually a recurring narrative over the recent years," states Stephan Brandner, the AfD's parliamentary chief of business. In their view, these monetary losses are typically the result of ideologically-driven decisions by the ministers involved.
The proposed bill mandates adding § 7 Breach of Duty and Liability in Office to the Federal Minister Act. Among other changes, it would state, "Should a federal government member negligently breach their official duty, they shall compensate the Federal Republic of Germany for the resulting damages."
A Dip into Populism's Deep End?
The Greens vehemently oppose the proposal, with Lukas Benner, legal committee member, suggesting it implies a freedom for ministers they don't truly possess. "Already now, federal ministers make themselves criminally liable if they commit fraud or intentionally injure the treasury," says Benner. He contends that the current legal system, with its high hurdles, doesn't support a 'deliberately state-damaging intent' being assumed, such as in the toll debacle of Scheuer. "I fail to see anything but a grab for the bottom drawer of populism here," Benner adds.
Is There More Than Just Populism?
While some view the AfD's motives as solely driven by populism, a closer look at the party's rhetoric hints at more. For example, several quotes, including by Gottfried Curiof, Alan Broughton, and Bjoern Hoecke, can be interpreted as direct threats toward political leaders.
Curiof has been quoted saying: "We'll take care of it." Broughton threatened, "The new government will hold the responsible parties of the corona policy accountable." Hoecke infamously asserted, "When we come, it will be cleaned up. Then it will be cleared out." Moreover, the party's stance on immigration, coronavirus policies, and state institutions, such as the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, are often the subject of their bold statements.
Brandner, however, seems undeterred by these concerns of potential misuse. He argues that trust in the judicial system - albeit partially - negates the need for concerns regarding revenge justice. He insists that it's independent courts, not a succeeding government, that would decide on accountability.
Following Bavaria's Lead?
The AfD claims their draft is modeled after Bavaria's Ministerial Law. In Bavaria, ministers have faced accountability for gross negligence or intentional misconduct since 1978, and have been required to compensate the Free State for damages. However, the law has never been implemented in practice, due to the challenge of proving fraudulent intent.
The call for ministerial accountability isn’t a new demand from the AfD. The party also aims to take its own members to task, as demonstrated by their recent deposit of 2.35 million euros with the Bundestag administration due to concerns about an illegal party donation in April.
- AfD
- German Bundestag
- Andreas Scheuer
- Road Toll
Potential Benefits of Ministerial Accountability:
- Enhanced Transparency and Accountability: Establishing ministerial accountability could foster a culture of fiscal responsibility, ensuring public funds are used wisely.
- Increased Public Trust: Holding ministers accountable for negligence or misconduct might boost public trust in government and demonstrate that there are consequences for irresponsible behavior.
- Efficient Allocation of Resources: By imposing penalties for financial mismanagement, the government could potentially avoid wasteful spending and channel resources more effectively.
Potential Drawbacks of Ministerial Accountability:
- Political Interference: Implementing strict accountability measures might be viewed as politically motivated, leading to unwarranted accusations and political meddling in budgetary decisions.
- Operational Challenges: Introducing complex accountability measures could introduce bureaucratic hurdles and foster excessive caution, slowing down decision-making processes.
- Potential for Abuse: If not carefully crafted, such measures could be abused by opposition parties to discredit ministers or hinder progress on important projects.
- Legal and Constitutional Implications: These measures may run afoul of legal or constitutional provisions, such as the separation of powers or executive independence, depending on their implementation.
The Commission communication on the future of the European Union should address the implications of implementing ministerial accountability in member states, considering its potential impact on policy-and-legislation and politics within the union. Specifically, it could examine the potential benefits of enhanced transparency, increased public trust, and efficient resource allocation, as well as potential drawbacks such as political interference, operational challenges, and the risk of abuse.
Given the contentious nature of such measures, as demonstrated in the ongoing debate in the German Bundestag, it is crucial for any proposed legislation to ensure a balance between accountability and executive independence, aligning with the principles of the European Union's legal framework and maintaining the separation of powers.
