- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
A 22-year-old German politician who secretly served in Ukraine’s army now faces expulsion from the pro-Russian Alternative for Germany party after calling his own leadership “Russia-kissers.”
Do you remember that they put the focus on the candidates because from that election on they were supposed to be taken?
The point is not that the largest group has to be taken but that the parliament itself should choose the president. The current modus was acceptable when the EU had no power. Now the EU can create regulations that become law.
I disagree, I don’t think it should be that way. And it doesn’t make it any less democratic, what we have is literally how most parliamentary democracies work.
Can you name such a country please? I only know countries where the head of government is either elected directly or chosen by parliament.
The closest to the exact situation of the EU are Estonia, Germany, and Spain:
Then you’ve got different, close enough nomination/appointment systems:
Italy:
Australia, Canada, India, Jamaica, Malaysia, New Zealand, the UK, Denmark, Portugal:
Sweden:
Then you have some countries close to what you would like:
Japan, Thailand, Ireland:
Source
Note that in the case of the EU, the President of the Commission plays the role of the head of government (aka, the equivalent of what most countries call Prime Minister), not head of state. As established in my previous comments, the head of state of the EU is the European Council.
This is exciting. Like foenkyfjutschah I didn’t know. Thanks a lot for the detailed answer.
This makes the EU more acceptable but it also shows that Germany is less democratic than expected.
It’s a tradeoff. It’s still democratic, as the parliament can in all these instances reject a candidate, while bringing stability by not having endless debates in a potentially fractured parliament on who should be nominated.
Because the head of state doesn’t pick someone randomly, they pick a candidate that will have the approval of the Parliament. So there is still talks, agreements, compromises with parties of the Parliament, so that the nominated candidate is a candidate that would have likely come out of weeks/months of debates and votes.
The vote that follows the nomination is a safeguard, to prevent a shitty stuborn head of state from imposing their government.
So the tradeoff is, slightly less democracy (no debate), faster government appointment (which is desirable for the good of everyone), while keeping a democratic safeguard. And it works, that’s why failing votes following the nominations are extremely rare.
it’s actually quiet different in Germany: the parliament elects the chancellor, which would be the equivalent to a prime minister.
what you proclaim in your post though once ended up very miserable for a lot of the world.
guten abend!
It’s actually not. Yes, the Chancellor is elected by the Parliament, but after nomination by the President, your head of state.
Per the German wikipedia article on the Chancellor of Germany:
And per your Basic Law, Article 63:
The election of the Chancellor in Germany is just like the election of the President of the European Commission: There is one candidate, either they are voted in, or they are not. If the parliament disagrees with the nominated candidate, then they must elect one themselves, yes. But it has never happened since 1949, and the only close call was Merz.
You can actually have a look yourself at the list of chancellor elections, and you’ll see that it’s always been a Yes/No vote on the nominated candidate, just like for the Presidence of the European Commission.
And this Basic Law was ratified after the miserable passage of history you mention.