'No government has achieved more than this one'

He may not always be at the forefront of the political debate, but Felix Braz, Minister of Justice, is one of the inconspicuous but efficient creators of Luxembourg's coalition government. In an interview with the Luxemburger Wort, he talks about the face-veil ban and other controversial examples of blue-red-green realpolitik. And, by the way, he also reminds his coalition partners there is still a third party in government.

Interview by Christoph Bumb

Q: Why does Luxembourg need a face-veil ban? 

A: There have been prohibitions on covering one's face in Luxembourg at the municipal level since 1902. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the opinion of the State Council [an independent body that advises the government and Parliament] from December 2016 say the present municipal regulations are not based on a sufficient legal basis.

A new, reinforced basis with possible decisions in the 105 municipalities would not be desirable. That is why I have proposed to the government a national solution, which transfers the competencies completely into the hands of Parliament, the police and the judiciary and defines for the whole the country where hiding one's face is allowed or not. I prefer the so-called Dutch model because it is closer to the principle of social coexistence as well as freedom of religion than the French-Belgian one. With the law, we also create legal certainty.

Q: Are you wholly convinced of the necessity of the law? 

A: I do not speak in my own name but always in my capacity as Justice Minister. My role as Justice Minister and member of government is to ensure the divergent positions in society are reconciled as much as possible and that our basic principles do not become mutually exclusive. That is why I am fully behind this text. It is a good and balanced text.

Q: No one has ever been prosecuted in the country because of a full veil. Could these principles not have been adhered to without law? 

A: On the basis of the now clarified situation, without law, we would still have to deal with legal opacity, which should not be put upon municipalities or citizens. But you are right: the criminal code cannot solve all problems. And I am firmly convinced that, in Luxembourg, we have other societal integration and absorption forces with which we can achieve an environment where no woman in the country has to hide her face.

The fact everyone has to stick to the law is one thing. The fact we also need a discussion in the country, which deals with the consistency of personal freedoms and social life, is just as clear to me.

Q: The question of the necessity of a law is also pressing because the government, at some point, had a different point of view on the matter. How and why did this remarkable change of opinion occur?

A: I dispute this view. It is not a change of opinion, nor is it a U-turn, as is sometimes commented. Prime Minister Xavier Bettel said in November 2015 that "the government is of the opinion a burka law is not necessary because the communities already have the necessary competencies". This is nowadays clearly not the case anymore.

I was always in line with the premier in this dossier. At that time, in response to a parliamentary question by MPs (Gilles) Roth and (Diane) Adehm, I said I would also think about the possible reinforcement of the legal basis, as I already had doubts back then. That was still a hypothesis.

Q: And yet the Prime Minister said at that time no law was needed ... 

A: At the time, this was in line with my state of regimental and legal knowledge, even though I had doubts. 

Q: At that time, it was called "no law". Today comes a law: Couldn't one objectively consider this a U-turn?

A: The opinion, which the government has received from the State Council, has only recently become clear. On this basis, the government has taken its final decision.

Q: If not a U-turn, then is it a change of opinion?

A: No, neither. The statement was correct at the time, with the knowledge and the facts known at that time. 

Q: But obviously not anymore. Is it so hard to admit as a politician that one can change one's mind when the facts change? 

A: Not at all. Everyone has the right to change their mind. In this case, the Prime Minister's statement remains true from today's point of view at that time.

Q: You have to explain this sentence ...

A: If you write of a U-turn, I would agree with that if there were a change of intent. This is not the case. Only the path I had already indicated in November 2015 has changed because of the Jurisprudence of Strasbourg and the recent opinion of the State Council. That a government adapts its policies to the facts is even necessary. We now have a bill that seeks balance and contributes to legal certainty.

Q: What would the Green opposition politician Félix Braz think of this law?

A: I have always striven for the greatest possible consensus, particularly in matters of social policy. These questions should be carefully considered, the rights of all must be respected. The answers to such questions should bring people closer together, in mutual respect. This applies to the government as well as the opposition.

Q: Another example is the anchoring of the national state of emergency in the Constitution. Why does Luxembourg need a constitutional reform to combat terrorism? 

A: I am surprised some observers overlook the essential element of the state of emergency. In the legal sense, the emergency article is a marked improvement compared with the old text. The exceptional situation is more strictly limited than before, and Parliament's rights are significantly strengthened.

Q: But the state of emergency is extended to a national crisis situation ... 

A: Correct. This is the only point that can be discussed.

Q: Some jurists do not, for example, think the new article shows progress...

A: You can, of course, ask "Do we even have to write it in the Constitution at all?"

Q: That was the question.

A: I think it was necessary. We need clear rules on what happens in that case. The Constitution should prescribe what happens, even if it comes to a state of emergency. Especially then, it must not come to fortuitous government actions. In the scenario of an exceptional situation, the government, which is then in power, will have to act. It is important that it then works on a clear constitutional basis, be it in a national or international crisis situation. 

Q: In both of the aforesaid laws, there has always been criticism from your own ranks. Isn't it a problem for a progressive government, if especially the younger generation does not always seem to identify with your policies?

A: The views of the Greens in these questions are consistent. The Greens stand and stood for the defense of all fundamental rights. This includes both the rights of freedom and the right to living in safety. That these debates are not always easy for a Green Party is self-evident because they are very important to us.

We do not, however, play out one principle against the other but try to find a consensus solution, which represents progress for the widest possible majority of citizens. This applies to the coalition, Parliament and the whole country. I am a member of a party that values basic democracy. Everyone is allowed to have a say. 

Q: What will be the legacy of the Greens after their first government involvement? 

A: We have succeeded in establishing our programme in government policy. In a coalition, no party can establish 100 per cent of its programme. That is a good thing.

I think the Green government members are fulfilling their responsibilities on a daily basis. We stand behind the programme and behind the results of this government without any ifs, ands or buts.

Of course, we have the greatest influence on our own departments. There, we are concentrating on our work and want to push things forward. Members of the government try to stay out of party politics as much as possible. This does not mean, however, if that is your next question, that we do not address things internally. When we recognise a problem, we address this internally in the coalition and do not always have to issue it into the world.

If you want to speak of a legacy, that would only happen after the Greens leave the government. But there, we want to give ourselves more time.

Q: To hear you speak, the Greens seem to have always been a well-behaved, pragmatic, realpolitik party ... 

A: One must not forget the developments of the past decades. The fact some members of the Greens took early responsibility at the municipal level, even in the largest municipalities, still benefits us today. This experience removed us from a pure 'opposition' logic.

The Greens want to have the power to shape things. That is why our first government participation at a national level was also smaller and less spectacular than some observers might have thought. We do our work out of conviction but also with understanding and realism.

Q: How do you explain that, despite some of the objectively good government results, the polling numbers for the coalition have not improved significantly?

A: I would not express it in this way. In recent surveys, the approval numbers for this coalition have been growing. Only in the calculation of the seat distribution are the government parties not yet doing well.

But the trend is also pointing in the right direction. In general, I am not afraid to comment on the polls in detail. The fact the opinion polls, which only show a snapshot of Luxembourg, are sometimes commented on and interpreted for months is quite surprising to me.

Q:What is the Green's goal in the coming elections? 

A: We want to emerge stronger from the coming elections and be confirmed as a government party. We hope our work and commitment to the cause will be recognised by voters. This work is by no means over. It is much too early for election campaigns.

Q: What is still left of the blue-red-green agenda? For which project does this coalition stand in the elections? 

A: We have reformed the country, and that is our track record. This government has implemented more than any government in a legislative period, at all levels and in all policy areas.

From 1974 to 1979, the social-liberal coalition had also made a lot of progress, especially many fundamental reforms that were tackled for the first time. We cannot repeat that, but we changed a lot. Here I also think of all the areas I am responsible for: nationality reform, abortion, family law, corporate law, imprisonment, same-sex marriage, LGBT ... but also in all other government departments, a lot has happened that would not have been possible in other coalitions.

We have reformed this country, made it more sustainable and contributed to a political and social opening-up. We implemented that for which this coalition stood in 2013.

Q: The question was actually what this coalition still has to offer beyond 2018 ... 

A: The past four years will have a significant impact on the upcoming elections. The fact that, in October 2018, there will be four and no longer only three parties capable of governing to elect, is new. This gives citizens a wider choice.

Until 2013, only three parties were in the raffle for coalition formation. This time, the Greens have also proved they are able to govern. And to your question: A possible coalition programme can only emerge from the programmes and positions of the parties.

Q: What is your personal goal? 

A: My goal is to strengthen the Greens in the elections. I am motivated about entering the election campaign with this government's track record. 

Q: Rumour has it you are friends with some of your governmental colleagues ... 

A: That's true ... 

Q: Rumour also has it that you get along really with Claude Wiseler (president of the Christian Social People's party parliamentary fraction). Can anything be deduced from this?

A: I generally try to cultivate a respectful relationship with all people. That includes political competitors. With Claude Wiseler, I maintain a very proper relationship. With other people from the CSV as well. This does not, however, answer the question of political preferences or divergences.

There are some policy areas where I do not know what the position of today's CSV is. With Claude Wiseler, for example, I was able to co-operate very well, trustingly and loyally, on the nationality reform dossier. The search for consensus was and should continue to be the strength of Luxembourgish politics, irrespective of the government composition.

Q: A CSV-Green coalition is, therefore, at least an option? 

A: The question is asked often, and the answer is always the same. Can the four largest governing parties form a coalition with each other? Well, of course. This is a banality. It is equally normal, however, that a governmental majority, which has successfully worked together, wants to be acknowledged by the electorate. This is how it will be this time. In the end, the voters will decide.

Q: Both Xavier Bettel and Etienne Schneider want to remain or become prime minister. What do you want? 

A (smiling): Without the Greens, it will be neither of them.

(Translated from German by Barbara Tasch)