The Weimarer Republik (Weimar Republic) was Germany’s genuine attempt at creating its first-ever democracy. Trying to make it the perfect democracy, its leaders tried to build it on the principal of political and social equality for all. But the Weimar Republic lasted only 14 years before it collapsed. What happened? Was it not democratic enough? Was it too democratic? Let’s take a look.
“Weimar Republic” – an unofficial Designation
Between 1919 and 1933 – after Emperor Wilhelm II had abdicated and before the Nazi regime assumed power – the German state is commonly referred to as the Weimar Republic. That is an unofficial designation, however, because officially, Germany continued to be called Deutsches Reich, (German Empire), Deutscher Volksstaat (German People’s State) or Deutsche Republik (German Republic). The term “Weimar Republic” is based solely on the fact that the German state’s constitution was adopted in the city of Weimar. It was not until the 1930s that the term became mainstream.
Conditions preceding the Weimar Republic
In its fourteen years of existence, the Weimar Republic faced copious problems. They included hyperinflation, political extremism with right- and left-wing paramilitaries, attempted revolutions, public discontent and antagonistic relationships with the victors of World War I. Hyperinflation was such that in 1919, one loaf of bread cost 1 Mark; by 1923, the same loaf of bread cost 100 billion Marks. The value of the paper Mark had declined from 4.2 Marks per U.S. dollar in 1914 to one million Marks per dollar by August 1923. The German people blamed the Weimar Republic rather than their wartime leaders for the country’s defeat and for the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles.
Banknote from the hyperinflationary period of the Weimar Republic – a 1923 banknote in the amount of 20,000 Mark, worth barely the paper it was printed on. www.walled-in-berlin.com
Why did the Weimar Republic last only 14 years?
The constitution of the Weimar Republic contained many features that were to insure a perfect democracy, such as a Bill of Rights that guaranteed the freedom of speech, freedom of religion and equality under the law. But the constitution also had two great weaknesses. http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/germany/weimarstrengthweakrev3.shtml One of those weaknesses was something called “proportional representation.” It meant that each party was allocated the number of seats in the Reichstag (Parliament) that was proportional to the number of people who had voted for the party. But no minimum number of votes was required to get into the Reichstag. As a result, dozens of tiny parties ended up sitting in the Reichstag. When none could garner enough seats to represent a majority, the government could not get any laws passed.
The other serious built-in weakness in the constitution of the Weimar Republic was Article 48. That article stated that in an emergency the president could issue decrees without the agreement of the Reichstag. But the article failed to define what would represent an “emergency.” It was under Article 48, the Enabling Act of 1933, that Adolf Hitler assumed power.
These two major flaws in the constitution, albeit democratic and well-intended, made it impossible for the Weimar Republic to survive.
For a sneak peek at the first 20+ pages of my memoir, Walled-In: A West Berlin Girl’s Journey to Freedom, click “Download a free excerpt” on my home page and feel free to follow my blog about anything German: historic and current events, people, places and food.
Walled-In is my story of growing up in Berlin during the Cold War. Juxtaposing the events that engulfed Berlin during the Berlin Blockade, the Berlin Airlift, the Berlin Wall and Kennedy’s Berlin visit with the struggle against my equally insurmountable parental walls, Walled-In is about freedom vs. conformity, conflict vs. harmony, domination vs. submission, loyalty vs. betrayal.
Tags: democracy, democratic, Emperor Wilhelm II, Enabling Act of 1933, Germany, hyperinflation, Reichstag, Treaty of Versailles, Weimar Republic, Weimarer Republik
Can laws be enacted that change the way people feel about their personal situation? How they feel about the way a bad economy or unemployment is affecting them? How they feel about the level of crime or corruption where they live? If people don’t believe that the larger or “established” political parties in their country – those which have controlled their parliaments or houses of government – are representing them or serving their needs or striving to improve their situation… does this dissenting belief just disappear because a law is passed?
Neither the removal of an “enabling act” nor laws designed to muzzle “tiny parties” and their constituents from being heard in parliament actually change people’s opinions or beliefs thereby changing the outcome of history. History happens – will happen – not because of laws or any perfectly written “constitution” – but in spite of such.
One could argue that had the problems and discontent in “Weimar Germany” been properly addressed during its’ fourteen years history wouldn’t have turned out the way it did. Or, one could say “If we had just passed more laws against dissatisfaction and unhappiness or the public expression of such… then that would’ve fixed everything.” Which approach is more likely to have succeeded?
You are absolutely right in that dissatisfaction cannot simply be legislated away. During the Weimar Republic widespread dissatisfaction was compounded by the large number of political parties, which reduced the effectiveness of the individual vote. The Enabling Act was not designed to reduce discontent among the populace, it was meant to concentrate power in one individual without involving parliament, thereby eliminating checks and balances. Such concentration of power in the hands of a responsible leader can work for short periods. In the hands of an irresponsible leader, however, it can be a disaster. Can we ever create a perfect system? Probably not. But we have to try to come as close as possible and to learn from history.
“dissatisfaction cannot simply be legislated away.” But forever will they try…
I didn’t mean to imply that the Enabling Act was to be used – or that Hitler used it – to “alleviate” or put a cap on “discontent” but actually rather (as you say) to work for a short period during what would be considered an “emergency”. But the invocation of this power is as you note not inherently right or wrong. It depends on the individual who is invoking it.
But then it always does depend on the integrity and character of the individuals in these positions of power no matter what beautiful words are on paper in any constitution. Decades ago a friend of mine from Latin America having emigrated to the US complained of corruption in her home country and how that affected the quality of life there (to the extent that she saw no alternative but to move away from the land of her birth). I wrongly and naively assumed her country just didn’t have a solid, well-thought out constitution or set of laws to follow. She said: “No, they have a wonderful constitution (with ‘checks and balances’) just like the US. They just ignore it.”
My opposition to the exclusion of “tiny parties” from the political process in the name of national ‘cohesion’ or ‘non-fragmentation’ is that neither is really achieved: The problems in the country are still there… dissatisfaction is still there (and growing) whether the “big parties” choose to see it or not. Maybe the big parties (and their members) who are able to get in the door of the Bundestag to further consolidate their influence and thus hold on power are pleased with things as they are and so that’s why they like the status quo – it keeps the “lesser” and allegedly less important political parties out. The big guys become entrenched while fragmentation happens anyway. Were this not the case “A-f-D” for example would today just be three random letters of the alphabet. There must’ve been a need for it that the “established” parties have been ignoring.
I agree (but I’ll go further): I’m confident a “perfect” system cannot be attained especially considering that any government would still have to be staffed top to bottom with mere fallible, corruptible, imperfect humans. A more fair, responsive and thus effective system might be developed but for it to be fair and responsive you’d have to allow freedom of speech as a starting point. Germany does not. I wonder: could Germany function with an entirely direct-representation system like the US where one votes for individuals to hold various offices and not for parties?
I read this article in the Economist https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-3 regarding the German system. It doesn’t really leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Machiavelli said men are scoundrels (with which I agree) and so I don’t place a lot of hope in us either learning from history (which history?) or in society earnestly searching to improve the current systems of government when the status quo favors the established. On the subject of “history”, have you ever seen “1984” with John Hurt? I always think of those scenes with him at his job in the Ministry of Truth, day in and day out editing “history” to fit the needs of The Party.