188 Habermas: An intellectual biography
Ultimately, when the Round Table advanced its draft constitution in
April 1990 – with a preamble penned by novelist Christa Wolf – it
won only a minority of the East German Volk skam me r vote. But the
issue had already been mooted by the victory of the CDU in March.
Habermas viewed these developments bitterly: He used the
word “annexation” (Anschluss) instead of accession (Beitritt), thereby
invoking Nazi Germany’s absorption of Austria in 1938. Kohl’s
determination to be “lord” of the process, wrote Habermas, meant
that there had been no time for the East’s own public sphere to
develop. Habermas viewed the March elections as nothing more
than a struggle between the Western parties for control of the East.^68
What galled Habermas most about those who advocated swift acces-
sion was their hypocrisy: “It is curious that those who now support
accession through Article 23 for decades were against the reunifi-
cation clauses in the preamble of the Basic Law.”^69 Habermas was
pointing to a revanchism implicit in the case for Article 23: “When
will the day foreseen by Article 146 come, if not now? Are we still
waiting for the East Prussians and Schleswig?”^70 Only those with
revanchist hopes for German territory surrendered in 1945 could
support Article 23 and reject the applicability of Article 146, he
alleged; if Article 146 were used, it would preclude any future claims
that the German Volk was still dispersed and incomplete.^71 Furt her,
reunification under Article 23 would “leave Article 146 empty....
[I]t contradicts the methodological principle of interpreting the
constitution as a unified whole.”^72 Clearly, Habermas was becoming
quite involved with constitutional jurisprudence and methods.
Unification did not close the question of a new constitution
completely. The reunification treaty merely postponed debate on
Article 146. The Joint Constitutional Commission was established
to discuss the reforms reunification might require. The lawyers who
remained opposed to a new constitution developed three new argu-
ments for why the Basic Law should remain legitimate in reunified(^68) Habermas, “Nochmals: Zur Identität der Deutschen. Ein einig Volk von
aufgebrachten Wirtschaftsbürgern,” in NR, 212.
(^69) Habermas put “accession” (Beitritt) in quotation marks to underscore his
critique.
(^70) Ibid.
(^71) Ibid., 216.
(^72) Ibid., 217.