{"id":6013,"date":"2026-04-08T13:31:13","date_gmt":"2026-04-08T11:31:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/?page_id=6013"},"modified":"2026-04-14T13:55:32","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T11:55:32","slug":"parliamentarism-study","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/en\/parlamentarismus-studie\/","title":{"rendered":"IParl Parliamentarism Study 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

IParl Parliamentarism Study 2026<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

How the population thinks about parliament, what expectations they have and how they judge parliamentary performance affects the legitimacy of our political system. This is all the more true at a time when democracy - and with it parliament - has come under pressure from a variety of challenges. In this context, our Population Study 2026 examines citizens' attitudes towards the principles and practice of parliamentary functioning.<\/p>

The data presented below is an excerpt from the IParl Parliamentarism Study 2026. This representative survey was conducted by policy matters<\/a> (Gesellschaft f\u00fcr Politikforschung und Politikberatung mbH) was conducted from 11 February to 2 March 2026 among 2,050 people over the age of 18 who are eligible to vote in Germany. The survey was based on two key aspects of attitudes towards parliament: The principles and practice of parliamentary democracy are confronted with critical and sometimes contradictory assessments. However, the role of parliament as a central political legitimising body is not questioned - in times of low satisfaction with democracy and state output.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/figcaption>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figure>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRead as PDF<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Ambivalence and relevance - initial results<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>
Learn more<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div>
Learn more<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div>
Learn more<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div>
Learn more<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div>
Learn more<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>
<\/div><\/a><\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div><\/a><\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div><\/a><\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div><\/a><\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div><\/a><\/div>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Evaluation of democracy and Bundestag<\/h4>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\"\"<\/a>Overall, just under 80 per cent of respondents are in favour of the idea of democracy, a figure that is in line with comparable surveys from the recent past. However, this fundamental idealistic support does not go hand in hand with satisfaction with the functioning of democracy in Germany. In addition to the assessment of the functioning of democracy in general, respondents were also asked about the work of the Bundestag: only just over 15 per cent of respondents were (somewhat) satisfied with this (democracy in general: 33 per cent). At the other end of the assessment scale, more than a third of respondents (34.5 per cent) expressed clear dissatisfaction with the work of parliament (democracy in general: 22 per cent). The overall assessment of parliament is therefore significantly worse than that of democracy.\u00a0<\/p>

If the majority of Germans are predominantly critical of the work of the Bundestag, this inevitably raises the question of socio-demographic differences. There are only minor differences between the individual categories in terms of both gender and level of education. It becomes clearer when differentiating by age: the older the respondents, the higher their satisfaction with the work of the Bundestag. Particularly in the group of over 80-year-olds, satisfaction and disapproval are more or less balanced. In the classic east-west comparison (excluding Berlin), there is a higher level of Bundestag satisfaction in western Germany, albeit at a low level. This also applies to satisfaction with democracy in general, but contrary to expectations, not to support for the idea of democracy. Here, approval is 0.8 percentage points higher among respondents living in eastern Germany.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Evaluation of democracy and Bundestag<\/h4>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Overall, just under 80 per cent of respondents are in favour of the idea of democracy, a figure that is in line with comparable surveys from the recent past. However, this fundamental idealistic support does not go hand in hand with satisfaction with the functioning of democracy in Germany. In addition to the assessment of the functioning of democracy in general, respondents were also asked about the work of the Bundestag: only just over 15 per cent of respondents were (somewhat) satisfied with this (democracy in general: 33 per cent). At the other end of the assessment scale, more than a third of respondents (34.5 per cent) expressed clear dissatisfaction with the work of parliament (democracy in general: 22 per cent). The overall assessment of parliament is therefore significantly worse than that of democracy.\u00a0<\/p>

If the majority of Germans are predominantly critical of the work of the Bundestag, this inevitably raises the question of socio-demographic differences. There are only minor differences between the individual categories in terms of both gender and level of education. It becomes clearer when differentiating by age: the older the respondents, the higher their satisfaction with the work of the Bundestag. Particularly in the group of over 80-year-olds, satisfaction and disapproval are more or less balanced. In the classic east-west comparison (excluding Berlin), there is a higher level of Bundestag satisfaction in western Germany, albeit at a low level. This also applies to satisfaction with democracy in general, but contrary to expectations, not to support for the idea of democracy. Here, approval is 0.8 percentage points higher among respondents living in eastern Germany.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Views on the work of the German Bundestag<\/h4>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\"\"<\/a>The finding of a relatively high level of dissatisfaction with the work of the Bundestag is followed by the question of what the criticism is directed at. In detail, seven items were surveyed that are orientated towards the three dimensions of the system model (input, throughput, output) as well as the \u201eclassic\u201c parliamentary functions. The randomised statements to be evaluated were formulated either positively (blue) or negatively (red). The approval ratings are shown in ascending order in the following diagram.<\/p>

The duration of the decision-making process is clearly the most critical factor (72.6 per cent). Only 3.4 per cent disagree with the (negative) statement that the Bundestag takes too long. However, this assessment is not surprising for two reasons. Firstly, it can be assumed that the majority of the population does not make a clear distinction between political debates in the run-up to parliamentary treatment and the actual procedures in the Bundestag. Secondly, the second half of the SPD, B\u00fcndnis 90\/Die Gr\u00fcnen and FDP (\u201etraffic light\u201c) government term in particular was characterised by lengthy debates, which the respondents may still be aware of. Depending on the situation and the subject matter, the public debate can presumably also swing in the other direction; consider, for example, the discussion about the (very) short time frames during the European sovereign debt crisis in 2009\/2010. However, the criticism of the length of time required for political decisions, which in a democracy are made in broad participatory processes for good reason, is by no means new.<\/p>

The same applies to criticism of the \u201eexpertise\u201c of MPs. Only slightly less than ten per cent are generally satisfied with the expertise available, although research rightly describes the Bundestag as a parliament of experts. Although it is unclear which standards are used to judge the population, two things are obvious: firstly, the recent increase in debates about the (non-)existing professional or academic qualifications of MPs is likely to influence public perception. Secondly, well-known complaints and myths about a \u201eparliament of teachers\u201c or \u201eparliament of lawyers\u201c continue to have an effect.<\/p>

Occasionally, the items also reveal ambivalent assessments. Although almost three in ten respondents (28.5 per cent) agree with the statement that different opinions from the population are discussed in plenary sessions, only just over a tenth (11.6 per cent) think that the interests of the population are sufficiently taken into account (the reverse wording was chosen in the survey). The difference between agreement with the good \u201eexplanation of Bundestags decisions\u201c (12.1 per cent) and the feeling of being \u201ewell informed about what is happening\u201c (25.7 per cent) is presumably due to the way the work in parliament is presented and categorised in the media.\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Views on the work of the German Bundestag<\/h4>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The finding of a relatively high level of dissatisfaction with the work of the Bundestag is followed by the question of what the criticism is directed at. In detail, seven items were surveyed that are orientated towards the three dimensions of the system model (input, throughput, output) as well as the \u201eclassic\u201c parliamentary functions. The randomised statements to be evaluated were formulated either positively (blue) or negatively (red). The approval ratings are shown in ascending order in the following diagram.<\/p>

The duration of the decision-making process is clearly the most critical factor (72.6 per cent). Only 3.4 per cent disagree with the (negative) statement that the Bundestag takes too long. However, this assessment is not surprising for two reasons. Firstly, it can be assumed that the majority of the population does not make a clear distinction between political debates in the run-up to parliamentary treatment and the actual procedures in the Bundestag. Secondly, the second half of the SPD, B\u00fcndnis 90\/Die Gr\u00fcnen and FDP (\u201etraffic light\u201c) government term in particular was characterised by lengthy debates, which the respondents may still be aware of. Depending on the situation and the subject matter, the public debate can presumably also swing in the other direction; consider, for example, the discussion about the (very) short time frames during the European sovereign debt crisis in 2009\/2010. However, the criticism of the length of time required for political decisions, which in a democracy are made in broad participatory processes for good reason, is by no means new.<\/p>

The same applies to criticism of the \u201eexpertise\u201c of MPs. Only slightly less than ten per cent are generally satisfied with the expertise available, although research rightly describes the Bundestag as a parliament of experts. Although it is unclear which standards are used to judge the population, two things are obvious: firstly, the recent increase in debates about the (non-)existing professional or academic qualifications of MPs is likely to influence public perception. Secondly, well-known complaints and myths about a \u201eparliament of teachers\u201c or \u201eparliament of lawyers\u201c continue to have an effect.<\/p>

Occasionally, the items also reveal ambivalent assessments. Although almost three in ten respondents (28.5 per cent) agree with the statement that different opinions from the population are discussed in plenary sessions, only just over a tenth (11.6 per cent) think that the interests of the population are sufficiently taken into account (the reverse wording was chosen in the survey). The difference between agreement with the good \u201eexplanation of Bundestags decisions\u201c (12.1 per cent) and the feeling of being \u201ewell informed about what is happening\u201c (25.7 per cent) is presumably due to the way the work in parliament is presented and categorised in the media.\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Relevance of parliamentary governance<\/h4>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\"\"<\/a>For some time now, international comparative research has not only noted a decline in satisfaction with democracy, but also an increasing tendency towards authoritarian styles of government. These effects are also becoming increasingly apparent in some established \u201eWestern\u201c democracies, with verbal attacks on the courts and the weakening or even bypassing of parliaments in favour of an executive that \u201erules through\u201c. Against this backdrop, we have asked whether there are situations or crisis scenarios in which bypassing parliament by the government is considered justified.<\/p>

The majority of respondents (44.2 per cent) did not see a sufficient need for exclusive government decisions in any of the situations listed - not even in the event of a military attack - a fact that can be viewed positively from the perspective of a functioning separation of powers. Only 3.3 per cent agreed with the opposite case, i.e. the demand for a fundamental bypassing of popular representation. The two situations with the highest approval rates are a military attack on an EU country (29.0 per cent) and a health emergency (23.9 per cent), which find empirical anchor examples in the Russian war of aggression on Ukraine and the experiences of the coronavirus pandemic.<\/p>

Just under one in ten respondents agree with the statement that parliament can be bypassed to combat climate change or high unemployment figures. Overall, the clearly negative assessment of the performance of the Bundestag has not yet led to a fundamental disdain for parliamentary government. In other words: The relevance of the Bundestag has not fundamentally collapsed in public perception.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Relevance of parliamentary governance<\/h4>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

For some time now, international comparative research has not only noted a decline in satisfaction with democracy, but also an increasing tendency towards authoritarian styles of government. These effects are also becoming increasingly apparent in some established \u201eWestern\u201c democracies, with verbal attacks on the courts and the weakening or even bypassing of parliaments in favour of an executive that \u201erules through\u201c. Against this backdrop, we have asked whether there are situations or crisis scenarios in which bypassing parliament by the government is considered justified.<\/p>

The majority of respondents (44.2 per cent) did not see a sufficient need for exclusive government decisions in any of the situations listed - not even in the event of a military attack - a fact that can be viewed positively from the perspective of a functioning separation of powers. Only 3.3 per cent agreed with the opposite case, i.e. the demand for a fundamental bypassing of popular representation. The two situations with the highest approval rates are a military attack on an EU country (29.0 per cent) and a health emergency (23.9 per cent), which find empirical anchor examples in the Russian war of aggression on Ukraine and the experiences of the coronavirus pandemic.<\/p>

Just under one in ten respondents agree with the statement that parliament can be bypassed to combat climate change or high unemployment figures. Overall, the clearly negative assessment of the performance of the Bundestag has not yet led to a fundamental disdain for parliamentary government. In other words: The relevance of the Bundestag has not fundamentally collapsed in public perception.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Conflict, co-operation, aversion to violence<\/h4>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\"\"<\/a>In the recent past, the more dynamic party system has led to completely different situations in the relationship between the parliamentary majority and the opposition. While in the 18th parliamentary term (2013-2017) the
Although the Rules of Procedure have been adapted to allow for the participation of a \u201emini-opposition\u201c, finding majorities to amend the constitution now often requires the governing parties (at federal and state level) to be more willing to cooperate with the opposition. We wanted to know from the interviewees how they assess the interrelationship of conflict and cooperation between majority and opposition in the German Bundestag.<\/p>

Almost two thirds of respondents agreed with the statement that \u201ethe opposition and the government should sometimes argue fiercely in Bundestag\u201c (conflict). At the same time, 60.2 per cent called for a willingness to cooperate on both sides (statement: \u201cIt is important that the opposition works together with the government\"). The required interplay is particularly clear in the intersection. This includes all respondents who (tend to) agree with both statements (40.9 per cent). For this group, conflict and cooperation between government and opposition are not contradictory, but complementary.<\/p>

With regard to the socio-demographic distribution of the conflict item, the difference by gender is striking. Although a majority of women (56.2 per cent) also support a conflictual approach between the government and the opposition, the proportion is significantly (almost 18 percentage points) lower than the male approval rate. There are also differences in age that contradict the expectation of a stronger dissent orientation among young people (between 18 and 39 years of age). This is particularly true for young women, who have the lowest approval rating at 50 per cent. Although the youngest age cohort also has the lowest approval ratings among men (71.8 per cent), this is at a significantly higher level than among their female peers (over 20 percentage points difference).<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\"\"<\/a>It is not only the opposition in Bundestag that has the task of formulating criticism - in addition to other functions. Dissatisfaction can and should also be voiced by citizens. Two phenomena in particular have recently attracted attention in the public debate. On the one hand, there are recurring warnings of a supposed curtailment of freedom of expression, while on the other, politicians from all parties are increasingly exposed to aggressive insults and even violent attacks. This also feeds into the diagnosis made in many places of an increasing polarisation of society. However, it is unclear whether uncivil behaviour and a willingness to use violence are also popular among large sections of the population.<\/p>

In the item battery presented, the highest approval rate is found for written complaints to MPs (which was included as an example of civil complaint behaviour). However, it is also noteworthy that more than eleven per cent of respondents have no sympathy for corresponding complaint emails. While opinions differ when it comes to booing MPs, there is a clear decline in understanding for verbal abuse. This applies both in personal confrontations and on social media. Just under two thirds of respondents (65 per cent and 64.4 per cent respectively) have a negative view of such verbal abuse.\u00a0<\/p>

Invasion of privacy or damage to property are also clearly rejected by the vast majority of the population: around four-fifths have no sympathy for demonstrations in front of MPs' private homes (79.5 per cent). Graffiti on constituency offices meets with even less approval (only 4.3 per cent of respondents consider this to be a justified protest action a). Every individual case of violence or assault against politically active people is one too many. However, the survey shows that only a very small minority (2.4 per cent) show understanding for physical assaults.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Conflict, co-operation, aversion to violence<\/h4>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

In the recent past, the more dynamic party system has led to completely different situations in the relationship between the parliamentary majority and the opposition. While in the 18th parliamentary term (2013-2017) the
Although the Rules of Procedure have been adapted to allow for the participation of a \u201emini-opposition\u201c, finding majorities to amend the constitution now often requires the governing parties (at federal and state level) to be more willing to cooperate with the opposition. We wanted to know from the interviewees how they assess the interrelationship of conflict and cooperation between majority and opposition in the German Bundestag.<\/p>

Almost two thirds of respondents agreed with the statement that \u201ethe opposition and the government should sometimes argue fiercely in Bundestag\u201c (conflict). At the same time, 60.2 per cent called for a willingness to cooperate on both sides (statement: \u201cIt is important that the opposition works together with the government\"). The required interplay is particularly clear in the intersection. This includes all respondents who (tend to) agree with both statements (40.9 per cent). For this group, conflict and cooperation between government and opposition are not contradictory, but complementary.<\/p>

With regard to the socio-demographic distribution of the conflict item, the difference by gender is striking. Although a majority of women (56.2 per cent) also support a conflictual approach between the government and the opposition, the proportion is significantly (almost 18 percentage points) lower than the male approval rate. There are also differences in age that contradict the expectation of a stronger dissent orientation among young people (between 18 and 39 years of age). This is particularly true for young women, who have the lowest approval rating at 50 per cent. Although the youngest age cohort also has the lowest approval ratings among men (71.8 per cent), this is at a significantly higher level than among their female peers (over 20 percentage points difference).<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

It is not only the opposition in Bundestag that has the task of formulating criticism - in addition to other functions. Dissatisfaction can and should also be voiced by citizens. Two phenomena in particular have recently attracted attention in the public debate. On the one hand, there are recurring warnings of a supposed curtailment of freedom of expression, while on the other, politicians from all parties are increasingly exposed to aggressive insults and even violent attacks. This also feeds into the diagnosis made in many places of an increasing polarisation of society. However, it is unclear whether uncivil behaviour and a willingness to use violence are also popular among large sections of the population.<\/p>

In the item battery presented, the highest approval rate is found for written complaints to MPs (which was included as an example of civil complaint behaviour). However, it is also noteworthy that more than eleven per cent of respondents have no sympathy for corresponding complaint emails. While opinions differ when it comes to booing MPs, there is a clear decline in understanding for verbal abuse. This applies both in personal confrontations and on social media. Just under two thirds of respondents (65 per cent and 64.4 per cent respectively) have a negative view of such verbal abuse.\u00a0<\/p>

Invasion of privacy or damage to property are also clearly rejected by the vast majority of the population: around four-fifths have no sympathy for demonstrations in front of MPs' private homes (79.5 per cent). Graffiti on constituency offices meets with even less approval (only 4.3 per cent of respondents consider this to be a justified protest action a). Every individual case of violence or assault against politically active people is one too many. However, the survey shows that only a very small minority (2.4 per cent) show understanding for physical assaults.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Outlook<\/h4>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The descriptive findings presented will have to be elucidated in further detailed analyses through a systematic comparison of all data. For example, the question must be asked to what extent the parliamentary evaluation is related to factors such as party preference, political interest, the feeling of political self-efficacy or socio-economic status.<\/p>

Other aspects of public opinion are also analysed using the data. The following topics in particular provide further insight into how the principles and practice of parliamentary democracy are assessed:<\/p>

  • Composition of the Bundestag: What socio-structural changes would the population like to see?<\/li>
  • Ideas of democracy: Who is in favour of largely unrestricted majority decisions and who is in favour of liberal protective elements such as judicial controls?<\/li><\/ul>

    \u00a0<\/p>

    The IParl Study 2026 also contains two survey experiments in which respondents were exposed to different information variants. Firstly, scenarios are analysed in which the influence of parliament is drastically reduced. The second experiment asks whether respondents react more positively when unpopular measures are taken by a more socially representative parliament.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    IParl-Parlamentarismusstudie 2026 Wie die Bev\u00f6lkerung \u00fcber das Parlament denkt, welche Erwartungen sie hat und wie sie die parlamentarischen Leistungen beurteilt, ber\u00fchrt die Legitimit\u00e4tsgrundlagen unserer politischen Ordnung. Umso mehr gilt dies in einer Zeit, in der die Demokratie \u2013 und mit ihr das Parlament \u2013 durch vielf\u00e4ltige Herausforderungen unter Druck geraten ist. In diesem Kontext fragt […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-6013","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nIParl-Parlamentarismusstudie 2026 - IParl<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/en\/parliamentarism-study\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"IParl-Parlamentarismusstudie 2026 - IParl\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"IParl-Parlamentarismusstudie 2026 Wie die Bev\u00f6lkerung \u00fcber das Parlament denkt, welche Erwartungen sie hat und wie sie die parlamentarischen Leistungen beurteilt, ber\u00fchrt die Legitimit\u00e4tsgrundlagen unserer politischen Ordnung. Umso mehr gilt dies in einer Zeit, in der die Demokratie \u2013 und mit ihr das Parlament \u2013 durch vielf\u00e4ltige Herausforderungen unter Druck geraten ist. In diesem Kontext fragt […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/en\/parliamentarism-study\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"IParl\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-14T11:55:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Parlamentarismusstudie.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"634\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"421\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/parlamentarismus-studie\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/parlamentarismus-studie\/\",\"name\":\"IParl-Parlamentarismusstudie 2026 - IParl\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/parlamentarismus-studie\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/parlamentarismus-studie\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Parlamentarismusstudie-300x199.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-08T11:31:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-14T11:55:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/parlamentarismus-studie\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/parlamentarismus-studie\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/parlamentarismus-studie\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Parlamentarismusstudie-300x199.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Parlamentarismusstudie-300x199.png\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/parlamentarismus-studie\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Startseite\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"IParl-Parlamentarismusstudie 2026\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/\",\"name\":\"IParl\",\"description\":\"Institut f\u00fcr Parlamentarismusforschung (IParl)\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"IParl Parliamentarism Study 2026 - IParl","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/en\/parliamentarism-study\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"IParl-Parlamentarismusstudie 2026 - IParl","og_description":"IParl-Parlamentarismusstudie 2026 Wie die Bev\u00f6lkerung \u00fcber das Parlament denkt, welche Erwartungen sie hat und wie sie die parlamentarischen Leistungen beurteilt, ber\u00fchrt die Legitimit\u00e4tsgrundlagen unserer politischen Ordnung. Umso mehr gilt dies in einer Zeit, in der die Demokratie \u2013 und mit ihr das Parlament \u2013 durch vielf\u00e4ltige Herausforderungen unter Druck geraten ist. In diesem Kontext fragt […]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/en\/parliamentarism-study\/","og_site_name":"IParl","article_modified_time":"2026-04-14T11:55:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":634,"height":421,"url":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Parlamentarismusstudie.png","type":"image\/png"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Estimated reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/parlamentarismus-studie\/","url":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/parlamentarismus-studie\/","name":"IParl Parliamentarism Study 2026 - IParl","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/parlamentarismus-studie\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/parlamentarismus-studie\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Parlamentarismusstudie-300x199.png","datePublished":"2026-04-08T11:31:13+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-14T11:55:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/parlamentarismus-studie\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/parlamentarismus-studie\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/parlamentarismus-studie\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Parlamentarismusstudie-300x199.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Parlamentarismusstudie-300x199.png"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/parlamentarismus-studie\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Startseite","item":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"IParl-Parlamentarismusstudie 2026"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/","name":"IParl","description":"Institute for Parliamentary Research (IParl)","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6013","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6013"}],"version-history":[{"count":123,"href":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6013\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6186,"href":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6013\/revisions\/6186"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.iparl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6013"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}