However structuralists have argued that mass political movements in Germany were on the rise and did in fact influence politics. The power the Kaiser has was overwhelming because he didnt have to answer to neither the reichstag or the bundesrat, he ultimately has complete utter control over domestic and foreign policy. This would suggest that Wilhelmine Germany was an authoritarian state under the kaisers rule, but many historians such as Wehler suggested his own version of the argument which states that Wilhelmine Germany was in fact shaped by the elites (junkers) and the army which simply controlled the Kaiser from the shadows. In this essay i will discuss these interpretations offering the view that Wilhelmine Germany was an 'authoritarian' state under the rule of elites and ultimately the kaiser. Kaiser Wilhem II was an unpredictable, intelligent man with a poor judgement, hardly the kind of person you would give almost unchallenged political powers.
Account for the successes and failures of democracy in Germany in the period 1918–1933 The democracy in Germany from 1918 to 1933, the Weimer Republic, is considered as both successful and unsuccessful. The democracy system in Germany was chaotic when it first emerged, but it became relatively stable until it collapsed during the great depression in 1929 and was then taken over by Nazism. Democracy refers to a form of government that is controlled by people and was a condition under the Treaty of Versailles. The success of democracy can be seen through the establishment of the bills of rights and mainly through the Stresemann era. - It was a provisional government formed due to the abdication of the Kaiser.
Russia and Germany both have a multi-party system that is being controlled by one party, causing their distribution of authority to be slightly more concentrated than it should be. General Information The semi-presidential system used in Russia is relatively new and was established in hopes to avoid some of the weaknesses seen in Parliamentary and Presidential systems. In Russia, the head of state (the President) and the head of government (the Prime Minister) share the power of the executive. This aspect of the head of state and head of government sharing the executive power is what distinguishes Russia’s semi-presidential system from the others. The President is elected by a voting process similar to those in Presidential systems.
(Document 6) As written in The Origins of the Second World War, by A.J.P. Taylor, if more countries kept getting involved with the issue of the Munich Agreement, Czechoslovakia would have been safe. Taylor also thought that German people were the only ones in the world who can “turn Hitler out” This was to be thought because the Germans were the ones who put him into power in the first place. “The appeasers” feared that the loss of Germany would result in the domination of Europe” (Doc
Due to these factors it makes the parliamentary democracy within Germany appear as though they were just trying to please the people which I will now explore. One example of Germany being a parliamentary democracy is the Reichstag as it was elected on a system of universal male suffrage (over 25’s). The Reichstag also had some control over the defence budget, the annual budget and also had a say on legislation. However, it is debatable as to how much parliamentary democracy the Reichstag actually had as its powers were very limited and could be dissolved by the Kaiser if he chose to do so. Also, despite the Reichstag having some control over the defence budget, the military was not actually accountable to the Reichstag and did not have full control over the budgets.
The New parliament set up was to be made up of 2 houses; The Reichsrat and the Reichstag. The Reichsrat was the upper, but less important house in the legislature. It represented the 17 Lander (states) in the law making process. It could block or undo laws passed by the Reichstag, but the latter could override a Reichsrat veto by passing a measure by two thirds majority, the Reichsrat could also be overruled by a referendum. Germany was still a federal country, but the federal government in Berlin had more power over the states than ever before.
Liberalism v. Fascism Shawna Sirianni Hawaii Pacific University Abstract On the surface, few political ideals could be further apart than liberalism and fascism. One is centered upon a totalitarian government that controls nearly every aspect of life, while the other seeks to edify the individual and provide equal opportunity for all. Looking deeper however, we find that the motivations for each ideal are similar, even though their means of achieving their desired outcomes are quite different. Liberals and fascists seem to have little in common. Liberalism promotes equity and opportunity for the individual while fascism is all about the greater good and support of the establishment.
Each state would have considerable control over their own affairs and decided their own form of government. For Example Bavaria and Saxony were ruled by kings. the Federal government had three branches to it. The first part was the Presidency which was help by the King of Prussia, as known as German Emperor. 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.
Easterners saw unification as a political goal that would give them more freedom and richness; while the West Germans, according to 'Andreas Staab', saw unification as a welcome but not desperately pursued political gift. However there was no merge of equals as Germany was united by West Germany taking over East Germany. (Peter Pulzer, German Politics, 1945-1995). Of course this has brought many problems to Germany, specially to East Germany but has also brought some prospects to the country. With The West taking over the East, it meant that GDR had to accept 'terms of accession to the system of the Federal Republic' (Dividing and Uniting Germany).
|Essay Topic | |For new democracies in the developing world, which system— | |presidentialism or parliamentarism— is more likely to ensure political | |stability? Why? And do we have a universal answer for all countries? | Introduction According to Mahler (2008), the presidential system and the parliamentary system are the most popular approaches to the executive institutions that can be found in political systems around the world. Those studying Comparative Politics have always been keen on finding out whether the presidential or parliamentary form of government is more conducive to a stable government and democracy.