Since George Floyd's death in the USA, racism in the state and institutions has been discussed in Germany again. It is also about the "R-word".
Berlin (dpa) - In principle, most agree: "Race" should no longer be in the Basic Law. The Chancellor is open to a discussion about it and speaks of "arguments worth considering".
Interior Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU) is ready for talks, Federal Minister of Justice Christine Lambrecht (SPD) wants to delete the word, Greens, Leftists and Liberals want to replace it with a better wording.
Racism in the state and institutions has been discussed in Germany not only since the death of black US citizen George Floyd. It is always a question of whether the word in question should continue to appear at a central point in the constitution.
The fathers and mothers of the Basic Law did not think about it 70 years ago, says constitutional historian Michael F. Feldkamp. In the draft of Herrenchiemsee, the basis for the deliberations in the Parliamentary Council, "race" did not occur.
It was only in the sixth session of the Policy Committee on October 5, 1948 that the word was tacitly introduced. This should also make it clear: The Basic Law is not limited to the Germans, but means all people, says Feldkamp.
"Nobody should be disadvantaged or favored because of their gender, their lineage, their race, their language, their home and origin, their beliefs, their religious or political views. Nobody may be disadvantaged because of their disability." So it says in Article 3 paragraph 3.
"Of course, the term race has now been scientifically refuted: there are no races," says Göttingen constitutional lawyer Alexander Thiele. "But the concept of race in the Basic Law was initially a reaction to the racial madness of the National Socialists and can be found against this background not only in the Basic Law, but also in international guarantees of fundamental rights, such as the European Convention on Human Rights." In France, the term had been deleted two years ago. "In this respect, we are dealing with a European debate."
The "R-word" has an eventful and sometimes inglorious career in Europe. With the Enlightenment, scientists began to classify nature in categories - plants, animals, but also humans were divided into species, families, groups and even races. In the second half of the 18th century, the word appeared more frequently in travel reports to describe the population of other countries. Body characteristics and characteristics were assigned to certain "races". The Nazis then adopted it in their language, for example in the Nuremberg "Racial Laws" and the "Aryan Paragraph".
For human rights expert Hendrik Cremer it is historically understandable why the authors of the Basic Law meant racist discrimination after the Holocaust. "The only problem is that the current wording suggests that there are actually different human races," says the lawyer from the German Institute for Human Rights. This has an injurious effect on those affected.
"They are practically forced to classify themselves as a" race "and use racist terminology if they want to claim discrimination." For Cremer, it is about a change of perspective in the language of the Basic Law. "To put it in a nutshell: there is racism, but there are no" races "".
State lawyer Thiele does not share the criticism, for example from parts of the CDU, of deleting the term and the warnings about "symbolic politics". "The constitution is also an expression of its time, not just a historical document. It is intended to facilitate and enable integration in the present. That is why it can also be adapted to accommodate social changes without at the same time following every current development."
Wouldn't it have been enough if the Basic Law stated: All people are equal before the law? For reasons of justice, it can make sense to differentiate, says Thiele. "Think of the tax. We don't want everyone to pay the same amount of tax. We want to differentiate, in this case based on performance. Absolute equality is not fair." Paragraph 3 then lists the reasons for which the state is generally not allowed to differentiate between people, such as religion and descent.
Like Cremer from the Human Rights Institute, constitutional lawyer Thiele also suggests deleting the term race, but replacing it with a formulation that denounces racial discrimination and thus does not suggest the existence of races. "That could be achieved with a term like" discrimination on grounds of racism "." It is something like that in the Brandenburg state constitution. The Greens had already made a similar proposal.
The Basic Law does provide for high hurdles for reform. The article can only be changed with a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag and Bundesrat. The procedure would not be new.
"The Basic Law has been changed again and again - and has doubled in terms of the amount of text material compared to 1949," says constitutional historian Feldkamp. The authors of the Basic Law - were very open to innovations: "If it had been a topic, they would have probably also discussed gender issues."
Website Alexander Thiele
German Institute for Human Rights
