Wer regiert in der Krise? Demokratie in Zeiten der Pandemie

The first pandemic that the Federal Republic of Germany experienced put democracy to a tough test. There was no experience, routines or even clear legal norms to guide the political elite and institutions. How well has democracy coped with the crisis? The balance is mixed. The executive branch has functioned well and acted courageously. Under the implicit, but constitutionally undeclared state of emergency, basic rights were suspended. In return, infection and mortality rates were kept comparatively low. The legal action of the executive was based on a basic law on infection control. In normative theory, this is a paper-thin legitimation for suspending fundamental rights. A controversial parliamentary debate did not take place. Parliament complied with the wants of the executive. Sovereign is he who decides on the exception. In fact, that was the executive branch. The third-order sovereign, the executive, surpassed the parliament, the second-order sovereign. The first order sovereign, the people, overwhelmingly complied and there were no protests or demonstrations. If such compliance becomes the recurring mode of governing democracy in crises, democracy is at risk.