Juli Zeh on Brosius-Gersdorf's withdrawal: "A development that I consider unhealthy"

In your opinion, how big an influence did right-wing media have on the failure of her candidacy? In my opinion, the media as a whole played a fairly large role in the failure of her candidacy. I don't know why the voices of reason were so poorly heard. We really need to return to a form of debate that relies on neutral information dissemination through the media and gives citizens the opportunity to form their own opinions, instead of presenting preconceived attitudes and opinions as an invitation to either subscribe to them or get upset about them. The latter promotes team building within society – it's increasingly about "us" and "them."

This may be an attempt to find a political home again in the face of perceived disorientation. But it doesn't meet the requirements of a democratic society, which sees all sovereignty as belonging to the people and thus also to information consumers. Now would be the time for a massive increase in the sense of responsibility in editorial offices, beyond clickbait and other digital business models, which I understand but which are damaging to our country.

Couldn't one also say that the furor surrounding Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf also reflects the public's growing interest in the Federal Republic of Germany's justice system? That would be welcome, wouldn't it? Although I always like to think positively, I would disagree on this point. The growing interest in constitutional jurisdiction is a symptom of a two-pronged development that I consider unhealthy. On one track, people want to see politics legally regulated in order to remove more and more issues from democratic opinion-forming—according to the motto: what is good and right must be established and can be codified in the constitution, and politicians only have to implement it, and the judges will then monitor it.

At first glance, this may seem like a beautiful utopia, but at second glance, it represents a loss of faith in the ability of democracy to produce the best long-term solutions that preserve social peace. The second track is the politicization of the law – for example, the election of a constitutional judge, which should not be about a culture war but rather about the person's professional qualifications. In other areas, too, we see a tendency to consider legal issues, for example in the area of sexual criminal law, against a highly charged political backdrop, which often complicates objective legal work. These developments seem to me to be symptoms of a weakening of the separation of powers, which I view with concern.

Anyone who looks at Frauke Brosius-Gesdorf's positions—regarding abortion, mandatory vaccination, and retirement until age 70—might think that she wasn't a candidate for the SPD, but for the Greens. What do you think?

Above all, I think we need highly qualified lawyers for the office, not extensions of political stances. For decades, the judges of the German constitutional courts have proven – and continue to do so – that they are capable of making legal decisions independent of personal political positions. This is the ideal situation, which we should demand and trust. Instead of turning constitutional jurisdiction into a stage for an often very superficial debate, which often seems to me to serve the need for infotainment rather than a functioning judiciary.

The second candidate for the Federal Constitutional Court, Ms. Kaufhold, appears ideologically closer to the Left than to the SPD. For example, she has advised Deutsche Wohnen & Co. Why does the SPD propose candidates who represent opinions that are rather alien to the core of the SPD?

I don't know why the SPD chose the candidates they did, as I wasn't present at the discussions. However, it's important to understand that, as already mentioned, these aren't political offices. Rather, one must try to find candidates who, firstly, are professionally qualified and, secondly, on whom different parties can agree. Given the prevailing majority, you can't simply "pick" someone you like. Therefore, compromise and consensus must be possible regarding a specific appointment. I'm sure the SPD had these criteria in mind when selecting the candidates—and they certainly also tried to prioritize promoting women, which largely reflects a societal desire.

We're increasingly hearing that we could end up with American-style conditions in Germany with regard to the justice system. Do you share this concern?

At least with regard to the politicization of the judiciary I just described, yes. That worries me, too. One might think that's a good thing; it might be constitutionally and socially desired. But I grew up in a system that places great value above all on the independence of the judiciary and the genuine separation of powers, and I still consider that a good idea and a democratic value, and I would like to protect it.

If our system were to become Americanized, wouldn't we also need public hearings of Federal Constitutional Court judges like in the US? Oh no, please not! Then the public's propensity to get excited and focus on individuals and their opinions would only intensify. My wish would be to work in the opposite direction and remember that people who hold positions, for example in the judiciary, are perfectly capable of separating their personal views from the needs of the case.

Of course, there are limits where political views are so blatant that they destroy or at least damage professional qualifications. But not every case is such an extreme. The rule is that countless people in positions of social responsibility manage to separate their own desires and opinions from the demands of their job quite well. So many of us already fulfill this task in our personal professional and private lives. A teacher, a psychologist, a pastor, and even simply a mother and father – all of them, if they have a certain amount of power and make decisions, should maintain a certain distance from themselves and not try to push through their personal ideas at all costs. And we manage to do that, or at least most of us do! It would be important to me to recognize and promote this in all areas. It is an important step in the return to objectivity.

Judge positions at the Federal Constitutional Court are still held by the CDU, SPD, Greens, and FDP. Why are the Left and AfD not allowed to nominate judges when they enjoy such strong public support?

On the one hand, this is the result of the AfD's idea of a firewall that prohibits cooperation with the AfD – in the hope of keeping this party out of the political arena. On the other hand, there is a fear in many committees that the separation between private political views and professional demands described above will not work if someone takes extreme positions.

Do you think that's right?

To what extent the firewall actually works, and to what extent the concern about more difficult work in the committees being made if Left Party or AfD candidates are or would be included, is ultimately beyond my control, because the answer to that is speculative. However, what is becoming very clear in the state constitutional courts of some states is that if a two-thirds majority in the state parliament is needed to elect a judge, one will soon be left with the sad choice between a total blockade of the system or cooperation with the AfD or the Left Party. If I were allowed to suggest something myself, it would be more along the lines of changing the election procedure for these judicial offices. In my opinion, there should be a second or third round of voting in which decisions can be made by a simple majority, because otherwise we are unlikely to escape this dilemma in the medium term.

You are a state constitutional court judge in Brandenburg. If you were nominated for the Federal Constitutional Court, would you accept the nomination?

I would consider it a great honor and struggle with the decision because I feel a deep sense of gratitude toward our country and feel called to give something back through my commitment whenever I can. But ultimately, I would decline the nomination because it would mean completely giving up my artistic work. Even state constitutional court judges have to work very hard and, sadly, aren't even paid for it, apart from an expense allowance—we all work on a voluntary basis. At the Federal Constitutional Court, the workload is much higher; you can't do that in addition to another job.

Is democracy in Germany becoming unstable? Democracy in Germany could become unstable in the future if we don't soon understand that a democracy requires, among other things, two ingredients: First, a certain willingness to compromise and reach consensus, and not the tendency to distinguish oneself and elevate oneself above others through particularly staunchly presented positions. Second, the trust that other people are always just as reasonable and unreasonable, stupid and clever as oneself. In other words: more community spirit and less narcissism on all fronts are necessary to keep our democracy stable. This applies even in the most intense clash of opinions, which can only be fought sustainably with objective arguments and not with the methods of a media wrestling match.

Do you have feedback? Write to us! [email protected]