There is clear evidence for and against the Second Reich being democratic, though in the years it only reaches “Nascent Democracy”, even if that. However, on the whole the Second Reich is most definitely based around Kaiser therefore quite far from democracy. Kaiser shows his power all throughout the three case studies; Hottentot Elections, Daily Telegraph Affair and the Zabern Crisis. As well as that it is clear from the Constitutional Theory that there is little to no democracy and that there is Kaiser Absolutism.
According to the Second Reich constitution, it is clear that during the years of the Second Reich there was no democracy. The German Electorates could only elect the Reichstag, which had little power. The Reichstag was only able to accept or reject the laws that were proposed by the government and veto treaties agreed by the Kaiser. However, the Kaiser was able to summon and dissolve the Reichstag at any given time. Therefore most of the time the Reichstag would agree with Kaiser, which shows Kaiser Absolutism. This was similar for the Imperial Government.
The Chancellor and the Cabinet did the day-to-day running of the Germany. However, at any given time the German Emperor was able to dismiss the Chancellor. Therefore at the end if something was not going according to Kaisers’ vision for Germany he has the power to change so. The first case study, the Hottentot Election was in 1907. The war in German West Africa causes outrage among the people and the Reichstag (SDP and ZP).
The Term Paper on National Socialism German Party Hitler
National Socialism National Socialism, commonly called Nazism, was a German political movement initiated in 1920 with the organization of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). The movement culminated in the establishment of the Third Reich, the totalitarian German State led by Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1945. The roots of National Socialism ...
This is because Germany commits Genocide twice. Later on the Kaiser and Chancellor worked on a budget together to collect taxes to spend in Africa, in hopes of improving and extending the Empire.
However, both the ZP and SDP disapproved and therefore vetoed the budget. At this point the Reichstag shows its power by standing against the Kaisers wish. This shows Nascent Democracy as it is also about exercising the power, and here part of the Reichstag hoped to do so. However, the Second Reich constitution shows that Reichstag had little power as at any given point it could have been dissolved by the Kaiser. This is what happened in this case, the Kaiser dissolved the parliament and worked on a new propaganda with the Chancellor.
This led to a massive win for Kaiser and therefore the Bundesrat voted yes for the budget and it became a law. This clearly shows Kaiser Absolutism as the Emperor used his power to his advantage, ignoring the majority. However, at the same time this case shows that there is also a slight Nascent Democracy as it proves that the Kaiser recognised the peoples vote, this is because he had to organise a whole propaganda in order to gain votes. The Daily Telegraph Affair was in 1908, when an interview on foreign affairs, with Kaiser, was published.
As the result of the interview Kaiser lost diplomacy as well as damaged his and Germanys reputation. At this point the Chancellor had to step in as he was put in a bad position. The Chancellor told Kaiser that this situation cannot be repeated, to which the Emperor agrees to. However, after doing so he then dismisses the Chancellor. This shows that the Second Reich is a lot more democratic as it shows Nascent Democracy. This is because the Kaiser steps down and lets the Chancellor over take, at the same time he responds to the public’s concern by doing so.
However, at the same time this also shows Constitutional Monarchy as in a way it seems that Kaiser only did his speech and almost handed over the rest to the Chancellor, which almost seemed like it was part of the day-to-day running of Germany. On the other hand, this still shows slight Kaiser absolutism as he does dismiss the Chancellor, and therefore showing his power. So technically it seems that Kaiser did not have to listen to the Chancellor but by doing so he took the pressure off of himself. The last case was the Zabern Crisis.
The Essay on Of Power and Time
Time The article by Mary Oliver is very deep and passionate in a way you can’t help but relate to, in a way you almost understand where the writer is coming from. Through out this article the writer explains through out a poem of how it is to be a writer. The article fails to revolve around any specific thing but does so with descriptive elegance. Oliver is talking through her poetry and saying ...
In 1913 Lieutenant Forstners “racist” actions lead to many demonstrations against him throughout Zabern. The major of Zabern made an attempt to move Forstner out to a different place but it failed as Kaiser did not consider this as a great issue. As a result Forstner could no longer take the pressure of the hate and therefore paralyses one of the locals and is put on trial, but in the army court. He however was deemed innocent, as the one in charge of the army court was Kaiser. The SPD demanded that Forstner is dismissed and therefore it leads to a vote of confidents in Chancellor.
Even though the Reichstag vote against the Chancellor is still backed up by the Kaiser therefore there is no change. This shows that the Reichstag had achieved nothing, meaning that they have little power, which is backed up by the constitutional theory. Here the outcome is yet again one that shows Kaiser Absolutism. It clearly shows that once you are backed up by the Kaiser you are above everyone else power wise at that time, which shows the Emperors power On the whole, I believe that the Second Reich was not democratic.
However, it can be said that it was heading towards Nascent Democracy as in every case the people put pressure on the government, setting political agenda. However, during that time it was Kaiser Absolutism as in every case I wrote about Kaiser used his power to change something, whether it had a big or a small impact on the final outcome. Therefore at the time it was not democratic as Kaiser was able and had the right to dismiss the main body that was elected by the people, the Reichstag.
