In the Weimar Republic, a legal dispute raised the question: can a politician’s party force them to resign their seat if they deviate from the party line? This issue was brought to light in 1926, with two notable cases involving German politicians Eugen Haller and Hermann Reich.
Eugen Haller: A Voluntary Resignation
Eugen Haller, a member of the KPD (Communist Party), was accused of misappropriating funds. He voluntarily asked the authorities to investigate the matter. Although the investigation was dropped due to lack of evidence, another provision in the election law required further action. This clause stated that an MP would lose their seat if they left the party that nominated them. Haller had indeed left the KPD and joined the SPD (Social Democratic Party).
The question arose: did Haller’s change of party also mean he had to give up his parliamentary seat? The State Court of Württemberg ruled that Haller’s party membership didn’t automatically equate to his mandate. He hadn’t actively resigned, so he kept his seat.
Hermann Reich: The Mandate Blanket
In another case, Hermann Reich, a politician with a colorful career in various left-wing parties, was accused of secretly signing a resignation statement. Reich denied this, claiming he only knew about the party’s intention to expel him. The Hamburg State Court ruled against Reich, stating that his signature on the resignation statement, even if blank, was sufficient to constitute a resignation.
Related: German court allows sampling as artistic pastiche
Fritz Morstein Marx, a young lawyer, challenged this interpretation. He argued that the constitutional principle of free mandate was incompatible with the practice of requiring MPs to sign resignation statements. He believed this practice was a form of undue influence on the politician’s actions, and thus against the law. He also criticized the phrase “only under the control of his conscience,” stating that it was more suited to a catechism than a constitution.
Marx further argued that a mandate given conditional upon the MP’s adherence to the party’s instructions was not necessarily invalid, unless it involved a financial advantage. He believed that in parliamentary practice, the imperative mandate was a fact, and that the party leader’s role was merely to act as a messenger.
Marx concluded that the constitution and democratic principle required both free mandate and disciplined parties. He believed that the voter should know what they were voting for, and that parties that discredited themselves with voters would suffer at the next election.
Fritz Morstein Marx, the author of this critique, later emigrated to the U.S. in 1933 due to the rise of Nazism. He worked in the U.S. government’s budget office during World War II and later became a professor in Germany.
