The German Bundestag has passed controversial reforms to the Constitutional Court under the guise of protecting democracy, but critics argue this move is a blatant power grab by the political establishment to sideline rising populist forces.
Supporters claim the changes will prevent so-called ‘extremists’ from blocking court nominations and give the judiciary more autonomy, yet the measures appear designed to consolidate control and undermine dissenting voices.
Interior Minister Nancy Faeser declared the reforms necessary to combat “arch-enemies of democracy,” painting the hard-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) as a threat. However, this rhetoric masks a deeper agenda to rig the system in favor of establishment parties. AfD MP Stephan Brandner blasted the reforms, accusing the government of using an “emergency mechanism” to neutralize new political movements, effectively silencing opposition.
The reforms introduce sweeping changes that some view as deeply undemocratic:
- Erosion of Consensus: The requirement for a two-thirds majority in judicial appointments—a cornerstone of fairness and collaboration—has been quietly replaced. Now, a simple majority in the Bundestag can force through nominations, making it easier for the ruling coalition to stack the court with ideologically aligned judges.
- Manipulation of the Bundesrat: If parliament fails to agree on a nominee within three months, the power shifts to the Bundesrat, a body historically dominated by establishment parties. This ensures dissenting voices are overruled, further entrenching elite control.
- Judicial Overreach: The court is now empowered to prioritize cases based on its own criteria, bypassing chronological order. Critics fear this could be exploited to sideline cases challenging the establishment.
This power play comes as populist parties gain traction ahead of federal elections, prompting the government to preemptively neutralize their influence. The timing of the reforms, just two months before the elections, raises serious questions about democratic fairness.
Commentators have compared the move to judicial power struggles in Poland, where accusations of political interference in the courts have sparked widespread criticism. Yet, in Germany, establishment parties seem intent on replicating similar tactics to maintain their grip on power.
By branding dissenting parties as “extremists,” the government has bypassed decades of democratic norms under the pretense of safeguarding the judiciary. Instead, these reforms erode trust in democratic institutions and set a dangerous precedent for silencing opposition under the cloak of protecting democracy.
