On the occasion of today's decision of the president not to hold consultations with one of the parliamentary groups, I think it is necessary to note what the constitutional imperative is in this case.
According to the provisions of Art. 99 of the constitution, the presidential institution is obliged to hold consultations with the parliamentary groups. That is, with all parliamentary groups. The President has no margin of discretion to exclude any group from these consultations. It is not a matter of political assessment or personal considerations, but only a matter of implementing the constitutional provision.
Here, neither the personality of the president nor the composition of this or that parliamentary group is of any importance. The question is about the principled implementation of the constitutional commitment of the head of state to hold consultations with all parliamentary groups. This imperative requirement is enshrined in the constitution, because in this way the role of the president as a "neutral power" is embodied, i.e. one that is a priori removed from the current political agenda and aims to build and maintain balanced relations with everyone in the parliament. If the presidential institution doesn't consult with everyone, how will it decide who to hand the third term to, if it comes to that, say?
The meaning of these consultations is this - to have a conversation in front of the public with everyone on the ground of an institution equidistant from political struggles. The opposite would mean an inclusion of the political terrain, which is unfortunate.
It is necessary for the responsible institutions to ignore their personal biases and to follow only the well-trodden tracks of the constitution. By upholding the letter and spirit of the Basic Law, we will emerge from the current political crisis. The Constitution is that stabilizing factor that will allow - by order, rules and clear procedure - to overcome any political volatility.
It just has to be followed.