One of the major achievements resulting from World War II was the establishment of a viable parliamentary democracy in Germany. The only previous attempt at democracy in Germany was the failed Weimar Republic, followed by 12 years of dictatorship under Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime. Democracy in the post-war Federal Republic of Germany has so far passed the test of refusing to compromise democratic principles when it was challenged by the domestic terrorism of groups like the Baader-Meinhof gang and the lengthy East-West conflict. But is Germany still a parliamentary democracy? Among those asking the question is no less than Germany's former federal president, Roman Herzog. According to Germany's constitution (called the "Basic Law"), federal law is enacted by the German parliament, the Bundestag. In an article written earlier this year, however, Herzog pointed out that the majority of laws affecting domestic German policies no longer originate in Berlin, but rather in Brussels. It involves European Union legislation that has to be adopted by EU member countries. In fact, according to an analysis by Germany's ministry of justice, between 1998 and 2004, 23,167 laws and decrees took effect in Germany. An incredible 84 percent of them never were debated or passed as legislation by the Bundestag. Instead, they were laws and decrees issued by the European Union's Council of Ministers. "The Bundestag has to adopt every decree passed by the [EU] Council of Ministers," Herzog wrote, adding "that the question can be asked whether the Federal Republic of Germany can still be called an unrestricted parliamentary democracy" (Welt am Sonntag, Jan. 14, 2007). Germany's federal government in the person of the chancellor is elected by the Bundestag. It would seem logical, then, for the chancellor and all cabinet ministers to be subject to oversight by the Bundestag and its resolutions. However, because Germany is a member of the European Union, that's not the case. An agreement between the German government and the Bundestag, however, gives the federal government the right to act at variance with the wishes of the Bundestag when it comes to applying EU decisions involving "important foreign policy matters or [EU] integration policy." Transfer of power from national to supranational Although his comments were intended primarily for his own country, the situation Roman Herzog described applies to all other EU countries as well. Since 1957 when the Treaty of Rome was signed, national parliaments like the Bundestag have approved one EU treaty after another. Those treaties provided the legal framework for expanding either the European Union itself by admitting new members or its scope by extending the realm of EU jurisdiction. In the latter case, each time a national parliament approved a treaty, it transferred, either immediately or potentially, a portion of its own legislative power to Brussels. However, since the Bundestag itself is a democratically elected parliament, one could argue that the German people themselves have indirectly approved this transfer of power from Berlin to Brussels. At their meeting last month in Lisbon, EU leaders approved a new treaty for the European Union that will replace the constitution rejected in 2005 by French and Dutch citizens in national referendums. For the first time, the new treaty will give national parliaments a consultative voice in proposals for new EU legislation. If approved, the Lisbon Treaty will allow each national parliament to receive proposals directly from Brussels rather than via its respective national government, for the purpose of determining whether proposed legislation infringes on its jurisdiction. However, as Roman Herzog points out, under the new treaty national parliaments will not be able to force the EU to withdraw any legislation. Objections by at least one third of national parliaments of EU countries would mean only that the European Commission must review a proposal, but without any obligation to amend or withdraw it. The Lisbon Treaty also introduces the new "double majority" voting system that would actually make it easier for new EU legislation to be passed. Instead of the current unanimous vote requirement, the "double majority" system means that legislative proposals would be passed if a minimum of 55 percent of member states (currently 15 of 27 countries) representing at least 65 percent of the EU's population approves the measure. The new system takes effect beginning in 2014, with a complicated transition period to 2017 granted at Poland's request. With its "double majority" provision, the Lisbon Treaty will make the transfer of power from national parliaments to Brussels easier. Overlapping jurisdictions—iron and clay The fact that a national government could ignore resolutions of its parliament in the interest of EU unity reflects a complaint some have about the current EU and its future development. The EU has become to some extent a system of confusing, overlapping and partial jurisdictions. EU members may join the euro monetary union and the Schengen Treaty if they wish, but don't have to. With the "opt-out" provision of the Maastricht treaty, EU members may decline participation in other EU institutions. Hence, Britain and Ireland will apply EU decisions in the area of police jurisdiction and justice affairs as they wish, but with no authority to prevent their EU partners from proceeding to full integration in these areas. The EU approach of allowing its members to be "partially unified" reminds one in some ways of Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar's dream recorded in Daniel 2. Nebuchadnezzar saw a human image with a head of gold, arms and chest of silver, a midsection of bronze and legs of iron. The feet and toes of the image were a mixture of iron and clay. From the prophet Daniel's interpretation of that dream, we learn that the four parts of the image represent four successive kingdoms. The fourth and final kingdom will exist when Jesus Christ returns, symbolized in Daniel 2:44 by a stone not cut by human hands (symbolizing the fact that it comes from God), which strikes the image on its feet. The 10 toes of the image are 10 kings who are in power when that occurs. The Luther Translation for verse 43 describes the 10 toes graphically: "They will mingle themselves by marrying, but they will not cleave to one another, just as iron cannot be mixed with clay" (emphasis added). A marriage is an agreement based on a contract. A contract made between nations is a treaty. In Revelation 17 we also read about this union of 10 kings who will be in power at the time of Christ's return. The context of Revelation 17, when compared to Daniel 2 and 7, shows that these 10 kings will actually be a revival or resurrection of the fourth beast of Daniel 2, the Roman Empire. Like its predecessors, that final resurrection of the Roman Empire will be centered in Europe. Revelation 17:13 tells us that the 10 kings comprising that resurrection "will give their power and authority" to a central authority called "the beast." In other words, the "beast" does not take or wrest authority from the 10 kings. Instead, the kings give or cede their power to him because they "are of one mind." The European Union is no doubt a forerunner to that final union of 10 leaders and the nations they represent. In a manner perhaps similar to the way that national parliaments have successively ceded more jurisdiction to the EU's Council of Ministers, a future group of 10 leaders will voluntarily turn over power to a central authority. Those 10 "kings" could well be democratically elected leaders who are authorized by their respective national parliaments to promote European unity in a crisis situation. They could also be leaders who act at odds with the desires of their national parliaments. However it occurs, in the European Union there is already a pattern established for the voluntary transfer of power from the national level to a central authority. The next step in transferring national sovereignty to the EU will take place over the next 18 months as EU members decide whether they will ratify the Lisbon Treaty. This time, though, France and the Netherlands are not planning any national referendum on the question. The matter will be decided by national parliaments, virtually assuring the treaty's approval by the proposed deadline of spring 2009. WNP