Constitutional debate | Born into the revolution

Mr. Gehrke, you were a member of the Constitutional Working Group of the Central Round Table, which convened on December 7, 1989, to overcome the crisis in the GDR and initiate initiatives for a democratic GDR. How did you come to this honor, as a trained electrician and economist, without any legal knowledge?

I was a representative of the United Left at the round table…

... which had addressed the public on 10 September 1989, parallel to the New Forum, and sat at the Central Round Table alongside other citizens' movements such as Democracy Now and new parties such as the SDP/SPD, which had been founded in the GDR in the autumn of 1989 following the fall of the Wall.

Because we believed that something fundamental had to change in the GDR as quickly as possible. And for this to happen, the left had to unite. We knew that what was practiced in the GDR as socialism was not attractive to the masses. For us, that wasn't socialism. We wanted a new socialist beginning, one that was non-sectarian and non-orthodox.

Who were "we"? Members of their former conspiratorial group from the 1970s in the GDR?

No. Our small oppositional communist underground group was exposed by the State Security Service in 1977. Over the years, everyone went their own way. Since then, I've maintained close political contact with the remnants of other exposed left-wing groups, and especially with Thomas Klein. With him and other new like-minded people, Trotskyists, autonomists, supporters of Yugoslav self-management socialism, and Christian socialists—a handful of people from different groups and regions, from Leipzig, Aschersleben, and Berlin—we founded the Initiative for a United Left.

The starting signal was the "Böhlen Platform" on September 4, 1989. Why did you meet in Böhlen?

We didn't meet there, but in a small village near Bautzen.

So the location of their call for a United Left was merely intended to mislead the authorities? Just as the KPD, which was illegal during the Nazi era, held its Brussels conference in 1935 not in the Belgian capital, but in Kunzewo near Moscow, and its Berne conference in 1939 in Draveil near Paris .

Back then, we were still illegal in the GDR and had to fear persecution. We also expected a military dictatorship like the one in Poland. I studied in Leipzig, at Karl Marx University. During the student summers, we had to work in the open-cast lignite mines around Leipzig, including in Böhlen. Hence the fake location. At our peak, we had about 1,500 members. Unfortunately, our goal of creating the broadest possible alliance of the left, from the opposition to democratic forces in the SED, failed.

Back to the Central Round Table in Berlin and its Constitutional Working Group. Why did they even bother to draft a new constitution for the GDR when the call for German unification was already being heard?

Yes. But it's not true that the majority of GDR citizens wanted German unity as early as December 1989; it's just a rumored claim. Quite the opposite: A serious opinion poll conducted in December by the West German research group Wahlen together with sociologists from the GDR Academy of Sciences and published in the final issues of "Spiegel" in 1989, numbers 51 and 52, found that 73 percent of GDR citizens were in favor of an independent, thoroughly reformed, democratic GDR. And of an open approach to the Federal Republic, but not at the price of being swallowed up by it. However, the mood changed rapidly between January and March 1990.

Because of the People's Chamber elections, in which West German parties were heavily involved. And Hans Modrow, then head of government in the GDR, returned from a visit to Moscow on February 1, 1990, with the slogan "Germany, united fatherland."

Not only that. A lot of things came together, and internal power struggles also played a role. Modrow boycotted the Round Table on the succession plan for the Stasi; with massive support from the SED/PDS, he wanted to create an Office for National Security. We, the opposition, disagreed with this because the Modrow government was not a democratically elected government. Fundamental decisions should have been left to a democratically elected government. The streets were mobilized, there were strikes. And that was the end of the first Modrow government. The second followed immediately, the "Government of National Responsibility," which we as the United Left did not join. We must also not forget that back then, every day, a new scandal was being stirred, and federal politicians and the Western media repeatedly proclaimed the bankruptcy of the GDR. The general directors of the GDR combines began threatening rationalization measures and were already negotiating with entrepreneurs from the West, who suddenly drove through the gates of GDR factories in black BMWs or Mercedes, without any representation of the employees' interests. These were the beginnings of unbridled capitalism in the GDR. Panic set in. People suddenly developed social anxiety. They hadn't experienced that before – they only knew the fear of the Stasi or the Party, but not of unemployment or even homelessness. Compounding the pressure from the West was the lack of prospects in the East. Even the opposition offered none, considering the immediate social needs of the population.

The Central Round Table's draft constitution could have offered this perspective, but it failed to attract public attention. Even though it could have been the most democratic constitution in German history, it was drafted with significant input from representatives of civil society. And the draft was also intended to be passed by referendum.

It was supposed to take place on June 17, 1990. It is true that it would have been the most democratic constitution in German history, not only in terms of its content, but also in terms of its origins, emerging from a democratic revolution. Therefore, the draft constitution of the Central Round Table has been systematically concealed. It was drafted in an incredibly short time, within a quarter of a year. We were able to present it in time for the meeting of the first democratically elected People's Chamber on April 5.

And this draft constitution was drafted entirely without Western influence? Which would have been unique at the time, because "Western experts" were active in all areas of society in the GDR.

Because we weren't lawyers and weren't familiar with legal terminology, which had to be clear to avoid misinterpretation, we naturally brought in suitable legal advisors, including from the West, such as Ulrich Preuß from the New Forum. I recruited Rosemarie Will from the Humboldt University in Berlin for us, the United Left, but she then switched to the SED/PDS. No, the Western experts didn't interfere; they gave us truly useful advice. They also came from social movements or the SPD. They knew the intricacies of the legal debate in the Federal Republic regarding the enforcement of emancipatory rights. Women's rights, for example. Or regarding environmental issues. Or even regarding the right of class action. In the Federal Republic, you could only sue as an individual, and that made it difficult against a powerful corporation. Or the disputes that the unions waged regarding lockouts. So there were common interests. The discrepancy that emerged relatively quickly in the working group was not between East and West, but between the grassroots democratic citizens' movement and the representatives of the party state. Our biggest opponent was one of the two representatives of the East German Social Democratic Party (SDP) in our working group, Richard Schröder, who had no interest in grassroots democracy, came from the Hegelian school, and was a firm supporter of state authority.

Was there a heated, escalating argument?

No, we stayed objective.

Modrow had already convened a constitutional commission within the People's Chamber in November. Competition?

This wasn't really competition. The People's Chamber led a shadowy existence politically, but was formally needed to pass laws. The most important initiatives were brought to the People's Chamber by the Round Table. However, there were also disputes on the details, for example over a trade union law. The FDGB, the Free German Trade Union Confederation, wanted one just like that, tailored to its needs, of course. We didn't want that. Above all, we didn't want the state to dictate what a trade union is and isn't, what it should or shouldn't do. The law was passed by the People's Chamber anyway, but ultimately had no effect. That's why it hasn't been our main problem since the second Modrow government.

Rather?

This was the increasingly open interference of Kohl and his gang.

What would you say are the advantages of the draft constitution of the Central Round Table of the GDR compared to the Basic Law of the Federal Republic? Even the preamble, formulated by Christa Wolf, is completely different—not only more lyrical, but also without reference to God.

Aside from the lack of reference to God, the preamble written by Christa Wolf is notable for its reminder of the "responsibility of all Germans for their history and its consequences" and its emphasis on the fact that it is a constitution for all citizens, not for a nebulous people. This succinctly summed up the central idea of ​​our draft constitution. Consider the enormous public outcry in West Germany when Hans Haacke dedicated his artwork in the Reichstag in 2000 to "The People" instead of "The German People."

Furthermore, the preamble to the Basic Law contains a lie, stating that "the German people, by virtue of their constituent power, have given themselves this Basic Law." Yet it was selected founding fathers and three founding mothers who formulated it in 1948/49, far from the war-traumatized German people, in the idyllic seclusion of Herrenchiemsee Palace.

Indeed. Our draft constitution was not an authoritarian state constitution "from above," but rather a constitution-making "from below," created as and for a community based on solidarity. This is the fundamental difference from the Weimar Constitution and the Basic Law, which is characterized by deep distrust of the population.

Did you see your constitution as an alternative to the Basic Law?

No, not as a counter-proposal, but as a further development. This applies to two central points. First, that fundamental rights are direct rights, meaning they can be enforced by everyone. Those enshrined in the Basic Law actually apply if there is a law passed by the Bundestag. Unless a constitutional complaint is filed, and that is very costly for an individual citizen. Second, the special role of the civil movement, social groups, and associations in initiating legislation and demanding information from the state.

The Freedom of Information Act is in danger of being dismantled under the new federal government if the likely new Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has his way, as his recent reaction to the protests against his collusion with the AfD on migration issues has given rise to fears of this.

Correct. Furthermore, our draft included a referendum. And we emphasized strong cooperative and communal land ownership if it was larger than 100 hectares. Private monopolies were prohibited. Environmental protection was also much stronger in our draft, especially in the early versions. Under the influence of the increasingly powerful East German CDU's glorification of the market economy, some ecological demands were watered down in the final version. Our constitution, too, was a compromise, and I have a number of criticisms of it. It codified a socially regulated market economy with more rights for individual citizens and social movements, but also enhanced environmental protection compared to the Basic Law. This all went far beyond the Basic Law at the time.

And the right to work.

Not the right to work, but in a more diluted form as the right to work and employment promotion. Gender equality is also found as a widely interpreted legal right. In other words, much of what corresponded to the modern emancipatory challenges of the 1980s. In summary, one can say: Our draft constitution offered a realistic social alternative for all of Germany to the neoliberal capitalism that was then prevailing. While the Round Table's draft constitution did not anticipate the self-governing socialism sought by the United Left, it did envision a realistically possible red-green, social citizens' republic in which the environment would be accorded strong protection and civil society and plebiscitary elements would be anchored. It is claimed that this draft constitution was utopian. But it did not envision a utopia, even if it did not prevail. The political potential for this existed in both East and West Germany. In the East, an alliance between the SPD and the New Forum was just as realistic as an SPD-Green government at the federal level was in West Germany. This political alternative was not implemented, but that was the result of a political struggle, not a lack of potential.

There was no debate on your draft constitution in the People's Chamber. It was rejected at a scheduled current affairs session on April 19.

With a narrow majority of twelve votes.

Although supported by PDS, Alliance 90/The Greens, New Forum, the United Left and SDP.

However, the Alliance for Germany had won the People's Chamber election on March 18, 1990. The majority was fairly clear. Moreover, the Social Democrats only partially supported our proposal.

But the GDR could not join the FRG on the basis of the 1974 “socialist constitution,” even though the People’s Chamber had since deleted the first article, “the leading role of the SED”?

That is why, after a new draft from the Ministry of Justice, which contained elements of our draft, Lothar de Maizière, the new and last Prime Minister of the GDR and a lawyer, sat down and, apparently under pressure from Wolfgang Schäuble, quickly formulated constitutional theses which then became the basis of a rump constitution on the basis of which the State Treaty on Monetary, Economic and Social Union could be finalised.

I don't even remember that anymore.

All of this is deliberately kept secret from the bourgeois public, especially the Round Table's draft constitution. It was also not mentioned in the Federal President's eulogistic speech last year on the 75th anniversary of the Basic Law. Nor was the draft constitution of the Board of Trustees for a Democratic Federation of German States, which was largely initiated by SPD legal expert Herta Däubler-Gmelin and influenced by the Round Table's draft constitution. Yet Frank-Walter Steinmeier himself, as a member of the Young Socialists (Juso), had edited the left-wing legal journal "Democracy and Law," which was under surveillance by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution because of its proposals for a left-wing interpretation of the Basic Law and the so-called Radical Decree.

However, it seemed as if the Round Table's draft constitution would be given another chance, at least as a source of ideas, when a federal constitutional commission was appointed in 1991 to possibly update the Basic Law.

No chance. The balance of power in the Bundestag was clearly reactionary, thanks in part to the East Germans. The necessary constitutional debate initiated by the SPD and the Greens, which was mandatory under the Basic Law with German reunification, was effectively buried. The commission installed by Kohl and his co-chairs as a morgue for constitutional amendment dissolved in 1994 – concluding that major changes to the Basic Law were as unnecessary as a referendum was impossible.

And yet your draft constitution has been positively repealed in East German state constitutions, most notably in Brandenburg.

But also in Berlin. The referendum, which was not part of the West Berlin constitution, has been incorporated into the Berlin constitution. Without it, we wouldn't have remunicipalized our water, and there wouldn't be a legal option to expropriate profit-hungry real estate sharks like Deutsche Wohnen and the like as soon as the political balance of power allows.

Your comment on the Basic Law as it is today?

The Basic Law contains both authoritarian features of a "chancellor and party democracy" and important elements of a liberal democracy, which must be defended at all costs in times of "illiberal democracies" à la Orbán and Co. Its most important weakness, however, is that it is not fundamentally anti-capitalist. Thus, democratic freedoms are permanently surrounded by the reality of capitalist social power relations, which are not democratic. Incidentally, the same would have happened to the constitution drafted by the Round Table.

Furthermore, the Basic Law has been amended numerous times since 1949. The "emergency laws" passed in 1968, against which the APO, the extra-parliamentary opposition, was formed, still exist today, although the justification for them became obsolete with the end of the bloc confrontation. And after 1990, the Federal Constitutional Court reinterpreted the limits on Bundeswehr deployment definitively stipulated in the Basic Law to national and alliance defense, enabling warfare around the world, such as the Federal Republic of Germany's wars in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. The Basic Law must be defended against this, too. In my view, the Basic Law has experienced far more deterioration than improvement over the decades.