Now it's official: Angela Merkel, as Chancellor, violated the Basic Law when she spoke out in South Africa in 2020 on the election of the prime minister in Thuringia.
This is an important political key decision on the neutrality obligation of members of the government and on equal opportunities for the parties - which of course can only come as a complete surprise to those who have not taken note of the recent Karlsruhe case law.
She has already met federal presidents and federal ministers - and it was always about dealing with radical parties that the others do not want to deal with.
The tight decision is on this line, except that this time it refers to the head of government, ie party-political neutrality is also required in the highest government office.
One can actually ask whether this isn't an unrealistic, artificial view: chancellors aren't political eunuchs;
they only came into office through parties, are always on duty, also for the party - and are also perceived as such by the citizens.
On the other hand, there is a keen sense of the inappropriate use of state resources.
Even the greatest advocates of party democracy are aware that the state and its offices should not be the prey of the parties, that the oath should not be sworn to a party.
The view expressed in the dissenting opinion that state resources should of course not be used in the election campaign is also artificial.
Politicians are always campaigning.
Angela Merkel could easily have avoided breaking the constitution
The Karlsruhe view is not that artificial if you consider how easily Angela Merkel, who is otherwise so controlled and supposedly thinking from the end, could have avoided breaking the constitution.
First, she spoke, unusually enough, from far away South Africa, where she held a government press conference with a "preliminary remark" on the Thuringian Prime Minister election, which had to be reversed.
She was no longer CDU chairwoman, but could easily have said in advance that she is now speaking as a CDU politician about her party's dealings with the AfD.
But no, she had her statement posted on the government website.
Incidentally, despite the extremely embarrassing farce that an FDP politician was elected with the help of the AfD and CDU,
The Second Senate's decision comes at an unusual time.
The AfD is now being observed by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution.
The party, it must not be forgotten, failed several times in Karlsruhe.
But especially in the fragile time of a fraying extremism that can no longer be precisely assigned, in which anti-constitutional "lateral thinkers" and friends of the Russian war of aggression mingle, the constitutional court insists on the neutrality of the office holders and equal opportunities for the political parties.
So that court that is often ridiculed as a political organ of government.
This case law in particular can prove to be an anchor of stability.
In times of large and cross-camp coalitions, the fact that every party can depend on being treated equally before the law threatens to disappear.
Chancellor Merkel said at the time that it was a "bad day for democracy".
She has her part in that.
This must not be repeated either.Keywords: