The German Emperor has considerable powers, he had personal control over the armed forces and he could appoint and dismiss all ministers including the Chancellor. Secondly, the Federal Council (Bundesrat) represented the different states of the Empire. It had 58 members. It had the powers to change the constitution however no change could be made if the 14 delegated from Prussia did not approve. Thirdly, the parliament was elected by universal male suffrage and secret ballot.
How far do you think Russia had moved in the direction of a parliamentary system of government by 1914? A parliamentary system of government is where there is a government in which members of the cabinet are appointed from elected members of an assembly, and in order to remain in power, must hold the vote of the majority. Right from 1613, Russia had been an autocracy ruled by Tsars. The tsar had no limits on his power and one of the Tsars strongest supporters was the official State Church, the Russian Orthodox Church. The Tsar had advisers, but he was not bound to listen to their advice, and laws were made by imperial decree.
Kaiser Wilhem II was an unpredictable, intelligent man with a poor judgement, hardly the kind of person you would give almost unchallenged political powers. The Kaiser's constitutional powers showed that he certainly had enough potential powers to be a authoritarian leader and i believe he fulfilled all his potential by using his power to 'ensure the constitution preserves the power of the elite' which was Bismarks main aim as the chancellor. The Kaiser could appoint and dismiss the Chancellor, dissolve the Reichstag with the consent of the Bundesrat, control Germany's foreign policy and serves as the commander of chief of the armed forces. The plethora of consitutional powers the Kaiser held clearly supports the
The president was still a very powerful figure; he could block new laws by calling a referendum and could rule without the Reichstag in times of emergency (Article 48). In the right hands, Article 48 could work to Germany’s advantage by ensuring a swift response to a crisis like a war. The president, like before, could still appoint his ministers and chancellor. The Reich cabinet and chancellor, were under Article 54 of the constitution accountable to the Reichstag and had to resign if they lost the Reichstag’s confidence. The New parliament set up was to be made up of 2 houses; The Reichsrat and the Reichstag.
The Weimar Government, whilst built in opposition to the wartime ideologies, was unable to detach itself from the power of the German military between the years of 1919 and 1934. The Weimar Republic was formed in 1919 after the abdication and exile of Kaiser Wilhelm II left the country leaderless and the Reichstag switched from imperial politics to democratic politics, a form which the German army famously did not support. As such the impact of the German Army upon the Weimar Republic was largely to support their own political – generally right-wing – agendas. This can be directly linked to the interference of military groups and military groups in the political sphere of Weimar Germany. The involvement of the German Army and other military groups in Weimar politics served to strengthen the Republic in the early years but later lead to its downfall.
Hitler’s authority was derived from his personal qualities as opposed to being vested in the office which he held. “All authority within the Party was ultimately concentrated in the hands of the leader, Hitler.” The party was organised around the idea of the Fuhrerprinzip. This laid down that power was concentrated in the hands of one leader and that his authority was absolute. This gives the impression of a very ordered power structure, but in reality it was more complex. Even before 1933, the Nazi Party leadership, Hitler aside, was undermined by its inability to exert control over the regional Gauleiters, who saw themselves as Hitler’s personal representatives responsible only to him.
To what extent is it reasonable to describe modern British prime ministers as presidents in all but name? Few, if any, now doubt that the office of prime minister dominates the British political system. As long as the holder of that office is not faced by too many limiting factors, such as a small parliamentary majority or a divided party, the British system has moved away from the traditional ‘cabinet government’ model to a ‘prime ministerial’ model. We argue that the system has now become ‘presidential’. * PMs perform most of the functions of a head of state: The prime minister has come to be, effectively though not legally, the head of State, the leader of the nation, irrespective of party allegiance.
Parliament in Britain is generally regarded as making laws that apply to the entire population but there is no universal agreement that it should have unlimited power to make laws of whatever kind. In many constitutions, legal limits on parliament to make laws are set out in their written constitutions but as Britain does not have such a written constitution, does it mean that there are no legal limits on parliament? The traditional doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty was first defined by Dicey in the 19th century in his book “The Law of the Constitution”. According to Dicey’s theory, parliamentary sovereignty means, “the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a ride to override or set asides the legislation of parliament.” This idea of parliament being sovereign was formed at time where England was not a democratic country and it could be argued that this theory is dated and can no longer be regarded as an immutable part of UK Constitutional law. If Dicey’s theory is placed in historical context, it was produced in a very different political environment to today.
Russia and England 1850 – 1900 In comparison to England Russia's politics and government was specifically run by one man, the Tsar Nicholas II and all decisions had to be confirmed by him before acted upon. This lead to a lack of political freedom in Russia as there was no voting system and all decision making was left to the Tsar so Russia was built in the view of one man's intentions. Whereas England at the time had Queen Victoria on the throne backed by a liberal government, which lead to decisions being made by the people so England was built to govern the needs of the people. In terms of economy England wiped the floor with Russia due to it's connections with other colonies across the seas leading to naval trade, allowing them not
When he was president, He believed that the “Government should be the great arbiter of the conflicting economic forces in the Nation, especially between capital and labor, guaranteeing justice to each and dispensing favors to none. (Whitehouse.gov).” Roosevelt had earned the title the “trust buster” By forcing the dissolution of a great Railroad combination in the Northwest. During his presidency, He initiated a massive public relations effort. He made the U.S. Navy stronger and created the “Great White Fleet,” Sending it on a world tour as a testament to the U.S. military power. He also helped expedite completion of the Panama Canal, which was vital for travel between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans in half the time previously required.