Today we are talking to a political activist who has already achieved a lot in Germany.
You could say she moves people - namely to take to the streets. She is also an author and entrepreneur.
Born in Frankfurt am Main , she lived in Russia for 22 years, but returned to Germany in 2014 for political reasons.
She is a co-organizer of the Germany-wide demonstrations organized by the "Germany Stands Up" alliance.
One of the demands she repeatedly makes there is that politicians should be held liable. That's what we're talking about today.
Welcome, Stephanie Tsomakaeva.
Hello, nice to be here. Thank you.
Yes, we are very pleased. First of all, in principle:
In everyday working life, it is common for employees to be liable for any damage they cause.
Politicians have political immunity.
Does this mean that politicians are not liable for offenses and damages?
Yes, they must be liable.
The only problem is that there are generally no laws that would regulate what we would like
them to be liable for - namely political decisions.
Immunity only protects them from being taken away ad hoc.
This is a historical story that developed in the middle of the 19th century to protect the legislature from the executive, in
short - so that the king could not take the deputies away, lock them up briefly and
then release them again when the vote was over.
And that still applies today; it makes perfect sense that the police can't just take a few AfD MPs away for questioning.
And then the vote is over and that's it.
So, of course, we don't want that today either. In this respect, immunity is a very sensible story.
The only problem is that, as I said, the criminal prosecution we would like to see has no laws to regulate
it these days. And that's what we need to introduce.
Yes, so that means it was still the case that these laws are still from the transition period from
the monarchy to democracy, the remnants, so to speak.
And it should ultimately protect politicians from arrest.
Right.
Another term. You have written a book on the subject of politicians' liability.
Since then, it has also become more and more public.
There they also write about political indemnity.
It's a term that many people don't know. Can you explain it?
Yes, that's the second thing.
That is the freedom of opinion of the MP in parliament, that the MPs there can say anything and cannot be charged for it.
Well, we know the drill. Some people in the opposition already have their bathrobes ready in
case they insult one of the ministers or something.
Because he has spoken his mind, he must expect to be persecuted.
A member of parliament is allowed to do that in parliament. They are allowed to insult each other in
case of doubt. They are allowed to make accusations.
Only the rules of procedure in parliament regulate whether or not this becomes a call to order.
A well-known example is Lars Hünich, who described the others as perpetrators in the Brandenburg state
parliament after the coronavirus committee of inquiry.
If we had done that as citizens, we would probably have been reported for it.
His indemnity as a member of parliament protects him from being charged with defamation.
So actually - dating from the same time - a very sensible story.
The only problem is that, above all, immunity can always be waived for criminal proceedings.
But of course there has to be a paragraph somewhere in the legal code that says that something is
punishable, for example, that wasting taxes is punishable.
But we don't have that. It doesn't exist.
So tax evasion is punishable, but tax waste is not.
Exactly. And that's why, even if the immunity were lifted, unfortunately there's nothing they could be punished for.
In your opinion, do we need a catalog of crimes that a politician is not allowed to commit?
Yes, so I think the most sensible thing would be to introduce three paragraphs.
So that's the first thing we've just talked about - fiscal waste. This is what is known as budget embezzlement.
I would expand paragraph 266 - the classic embezzlement paragraph - to include budget embezzlement.
And Andreas Scheuer is a good example of this.
Two billion was approved by the budget - contract for three billion signed.
That would be a classic embezzlement story.
The second point, which is also very important, is the enforcement of laws. One of the main tasks of the
state is to ensure that what the members of parliament have decided is subsequently enforced by the executive.
This means that the non-prosecution of criminal offenses should also be punishable.
So if the Minister of the Interior does not ensure that the laws are complied with, then he should be liable
for the consequences and it should be a criminal offense.
I would propose paragraph 138 in the Criminal Code, which states that the
non-prosecution of criminal offenses is also punishable.
And the third point?
The third point is the restrictions on fundamental rights.
Because "restricting fundamental rights" is in principle "restricting personal
freedom". And that should also be punishable by law.
And then what about assertiveness?
I mean, you can make laws about anything.
If it is not claimed and checked afterwards, it has no value.
Yes, that's exactly the problem, i.e. the non-prosecution of criminal offenses.
And of course we have a special situation with politicians in that nowadays the public prosecutors are subject to
instructions from the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Justice - sorry - the Minister of Justice is a hybrid function.
He is a member of parliament, he is the executive and he is the judiciary.
So there is no separation of powers in Germany at the moment.
And that's where you should actually start.
We would need our own jurisdiction. I would argue in favor of a separate politicians' liability court.
In self-government, where we elect judges ourselves.
There don't have to be many, there aren't many. What are we talking about?
Perhaps over 200,000 people at most, roundabout, who are affected by this.
So all the heads of authorities, all the state governments, mayors perhaps.
At the municipal level, they are pretty much liable, which is a bit different.
But all the MPs are not many people in total.
In other words, if there were a small court that we as citizens directly elect, which administers itself, then we
would also have a chance to enforce this with our own public prosecutors who are not subject to instructions.
Now let's get specific: How do you introduce a dish like this?
Yes, of course it's not that easy. But it can also be done via a referendum by amending the national constitution.
So we couldn't introduce it immediately at federal level, but we could introduce it at state level.
In 16 federal states this would have to be done 16 times, but that would be possible.
Yes. Let's go one step further.
There are jokes about politicians at demonstrations along the lines of: "Anyone who believes that
people's representatives represent the people also believes that lemon squeezers fold lemons."
In other words, the man in the street feels he is being hoodwinked by politicians.
We saw it again in the last election. Election promises before the election, absolutely contradictory implementation afterwards.
How did this mismanagement in politics, which now borders on destruction, actually come about?
Well, that's because people still believe in the old superstition of "those up there, us down here".
So hope that when someone else comes to the throne, something will change somehow.
The problem is that we believe in the throne. So the throne is the problem.
I believe that the transformation that is currently taking place will not only lead in the direction of more centralization
and a more totalized state, but also in the other direction.
That's what we're doing with decentralized organizations and self-making, i.e. self-empowerment.
The powerful can only do what they want because we let them do it, because we don't hold them accountable, because we
don't do it ourselves, because we sit on the couch and complain.
And as soon as we have shed our superstitions and take control of them and hold them accountable, and also do it ourselves in case
of doubt, think for ourselves, have a say, that will change.
But during the so-called corona pandemic, many people have experienced this, they wanted something different, but
in the end they were towed away by the police, house searches, reported by neighbors. It didn't work out there.
So they thought they were powerful in their own right and were dealt the iron rod.
Yes, the ones who lead the way always have it the hardest, that's true. We've all experienced it ourselves in some way.
Nonetheless, the big walks ended up overturning the vaccination requirement, which would have
come into force if the walks had not taken place.
So it was the people on the street who said: No, not with us.
We go somewhere else, because we go for a walk in the evening.
And we'll show you that in the end you don't have enough police to bring us all under control.
That led to the MPs saying at some point: No, well, now we have to decide somehow according to what the people want.
Good evidence that in the end, we just have to do it. We have to get off the couch.
Yes. What way do you see to turn back the clock on political immunity? In other words, to
really introduce this liability for politicians?
Yes, so I don't think turning back will help us now.
So of course you could reintroduce paragraph 266, the embezzlement paragraph, for everyone.
I believe this was changed in 1997 with the Bugwellen decision .
Since then, things have been getting worse and worse in politics.
We used to have the impression that they somehow resigned from time to time, that they somehow took responsibility.
That was because you had to go to prison for three years if you made over 50,000 marks.
And that applied to all of them. Including the little suitcase story with Kohl.
That was the reason why it was abolished.
So in any case, I think it would make more sense for us to do better in the future and really
introduce special paragraphs for politicians.
Last year, we sat down with two other lawyers to think about how this could work, to formulate a law in real terms.
And we have noticed that politicians have taken themselves out almost everywhere in a wide variety of ways.
And have therefore come to the conclusion that it would be better to go via a right of veto of the people.
In other words, giving people the opportunity via referendums to say whether a law should be introduced or not.
And if politicians introduce it anyway, then include liability and formulate it the way we would like it to be.
Because, as I said, the change, the turning back, I think we are at a point where the laws are already
so, so many that we can no longer find out everywhere.
So maybe one day a super-intelligent AI will help us.
But at the moment it really is a gigantic mess, where they have explicitly taken themselves out in the most diverse forms.
So we would have to change so much, it would be a whole law book again.
So in the end it means even more laws after all?
No, not at all. So the solution to the whole dilemma is that we introduce a popular objection.
So this is something we can do via referendums at state level, where all laws that are passed in parliaments are given a
three-month waiting period and in these three months the people can collect to be able to decide again on the law itself.
And that would be a popular objection. Then the people decide: yes or no.
Then it would have the final decision-making authority. And that would already help a lot.
And for the three months, we could introduce a politicians' liability and formulate it as we would like it to be.
And any politician who then decides to say: "No, we have to change something here very urgently, very quickly, we can't wait
three months until the people have somehow decided, we'll do it now", could then apply 138a,
266a, i.e. the paragraphs we would like to have.
Can a referendum on the introduction of a popular objection be initiated by anyone?
Yes, that can only be initiated by a private individual. No organizations are allowed to do that.
And that means that we would need 16 people in 16 federal states for a popular objection that we want
to enforce as far as possible throughout Germany.
It is always best to have a deputy so that there are two of you and you can somehow help each other in the backup.
So, of course, with a whole group as supporters in 16 federal states, 16 referendums and then changing the
constitution in this way so that we end up with the final decision-making power of the people.
You should learn the word. It's really important.
That in the end, once we have pushed this through, we can really decide on all issues, on all laws that the politicians
decide in parliament, in case of doubt again in a referendum.
That could really bring everyone together. Including the Greens, who are afraid of the AfD if it ever comes
to power and then makes laws that they are afraid of.
Or the AfDers, who are afraid that the Greens will come to power and pass laws that they don't want.
They could then rally the population and trigger a popular objection. In other words, to vote yes or no again on every law.
And we are confident that in this way we can really work together with many people, because, as I said, the Greens should be
just as interested in this as AfD members or all other parties.
This has nothing at all to do with the Greens and AfD, but it is simply that it is interesting across all political camps in the
end that we can decide for ourselves once again whether we want what politicians have decided and are not at the
mercy of what we have experienced in the corona crisis, for example. That's what the whole story is about.
But if the politicians have already removed themselves from liability, will they even agree to such a law?
No, we can only enforce that with a referendum.
And that is currently possible in the political situation in Germany?
At state level, yes.
And if that were to apply to 16 state laws, i.e. the coronavirus legislation, if we remember, was not federal legislation, it
was always state legislation. And we could then prevent that.
Another factor that we haven't even discussed yet is the relatively powerful lobby groups from industry and
business, which have a very strong influence on politics.
Yes, you could say that they ultimately call the shots in Europe and America too. How can we curb this influence?
Yes, well, you probably can't contain the influence at all.
The other side never sleeps. And they have a lot of money and a lot of power.
In this respect, the question is rather: How can we manage to organize ourselves alternatively in parallel?
How can we bring the better model to life?
How can we make it so that people are simply much more interested, much more keen and much more fun to
live differently, to do politics differently, to make decisions differently? And we are in the majority.
So the few lobby groups, the few powerful people, the few who have a lot of money, they need us not only to
earn them money, but also to support their decisions.
And of course, they have a lot of money. But in the end, we have to formulate an alternative.
We have to say how things can be done better and set an example.
And those who go in front, yes, that's true. It's usually hard for them.
But luckily there are brave people who do that.
Yes, that's right. It's nice that you're doing the same with your club.
And how can we support your cause? And where can interested parties get in touch?
Yes, the book is available. I'm happy if someone buys it and reads it or simply gives it to a politician.
So maybe just buy it and send it to the newly elected direct candidate so that they can read it.
It could also be that a few MPs end up saying: that's so good, we'll introduce it.
And saw off their own branch, so to speak. There are also people who feel responsible.
Yes, or we have several projects at the moment.
So one of the big projects is wabeo.de. This is our election monitoring.
And that is, in principle, the self-empowerment to control what is done by the executive.
And actually, everything in this respect, where you deal with politics and control what our
representatives do, is a support of what we do.
Ms. Tsomakaeva, thank you for this interview. Thank you very much and all the best for your work.
Likewise, thank you very much for your work. We really appreciate the alternative media and support them wherever we can.
br] Yes, thank you very much!