Following a parliamentary victory, the German chancellor can force municipalities into lockdowns to curb COVID-19. Rob Hyde reports.
Germany's 1949 constitution, created in the aftermath of World War 2 and designed to limit centralised government control, forged a republic by entrusting each region, or federal state, with far-reaching powers. 71 years later, Germany's states are semiautonomous, each manages key policy areas from school syllabuses to the provision of health care.
The interplay between national and regional politics lies at the heart of Angela Merkel's newly won lockdown powers. According to the German constitution, the national government is responsible for taking ”measures against diseases that are dangerous to the public, or are transmissible”. However, up until last week, even under the terms of the government's Infection Protection Act (Infektionsschutzgesetz), the 16 German states still held powers to enact and enforce their own COVID-19 measures. The result was a patchwork of regional approaches to curfews, retail, schools, and sports.
With skyrocketing infection rates, Merkel had urged the 16 regional leaders to back her push for tougher lockdowns across Germany. When this proved politically unviable, however, she changed tack. Turning to the German parliament, the Bundestag, she sought the legal right to force municipalities with over 100 cases per 100 000 people to activate a so-called emergency brake and enter lockdown.
The move proved highly controversial. As Merkel's vote was held inside the Reichstag on April 21, 2021, around 10 000 protesters clashed with 2200 police officers outside the government buildings. 29 officers were injured, and 230 arrests were made.
Inside the Reichstag, Merkel won: 342 German MPs voted for, 250 against, and 64 abstained. Merkel's Christian Democratic Union officially backed their leader's deal, as did the Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union, and the Social Democratic Party. In a written statement to The Lancet, Bärbel Bas, deputy chairperson of the Social Democratic Party parliamentary group for health, education, and research and petitions, said that by backing Merkel's deal, the Bundestag was “fulfilling its duty to protect citizens”. “We need an emergency brake…In the case of particularly high infection figures, clear and uniform federal regulations are needed that are easy for everyone to understand.”
Although the Green Party (Die Grünen) abstained, Merkel's plan was fiercely opposed by both the far-left Die Linke party and the far-right Alternative für Deutschland party. The plan was also rejected by the liberal Free Democratic Party. In a statement to The Lancet, Andrew Ullmann, chairman of the health committee for the Free Democrats' parliamentary group, wrote Merkel's emergency brake risked unpicking Germany's entire federal system. “In Germany, the principle of federalism is deeply rooted in historical responsibility. We must not shake this. Finding unity in diversity must not lead us to abolish our federal constitutional state.”
Merkel's emergency break has received a mixed blessing from Klaus Reinhardt, president of the German Medical Association. Despite saying that an emergency brake was “the right thing to prevent ICUs [intensive care units] from being overloaded”, Reinhardt said it was wrong to use case rates as the only criterion for determining lockdowns. He argued that figures on vaccinations delivered per day and numbers of COVID-19 patients in ICUs should also be used.
Thomas Gerlinger, professor in the School of Public Health at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld, Germany), told The Lancet that Merkel's emergency brake could lead to “more clarity” in Germany because the situation up until now has been “totally chaotic”.
“In Saxony-Anhalt, I could shop in a department store. But at the same time, in Berlin, the number of COVID cases per 100 000 was lower…Despite this, people had to present a negative [SARS-CoV-2] test result to enter Berlin's shops. Such conflicting examples breed public mistrust.”
Others, however, feel Merkel's emergency brake is unlikely to help. Jens Holst, professor at the department of health sciences at Fulda University of Applied Sciences (Fulda, Germany), says that, before the recent changes, the regions had been well served by a diversified approach. “I don't think a blanket policy is the way forward. Some states need stricter and milder responses accordingly.”
“It wasn't really a problem that regional laws were different before. Residents objecting to local [COVID-19] regulations could simply hop state and have a rather different experience.”
This online publication has been corrected. The corrected version first appeared at thelancet.com on May 20, 2021