Moderate reform played a small part in keeping power in the hands of the Kaiser but its limited scope together with the lack of any real success show that it may have been other factors that kept power in the hands of the Kaiser. This is clearly shown in the lack of substance inherent in Bulow’s and Hollweg’s reforms to placate the socialists together with the failure of Hollweg’s reforms to reform the constitution. On the surface it would appear that Bulow’s reforms to solve the socialist threat show that it was actually reform that maintained power in the hands of the Kaiser, these include the laws to extend accident insurance, to give longer and more generous hours to workers in poor health and those to reduce the amount of factory work. In actual fact, the introduction of a tariff law in
The political establishment in Germany succeeded in maintaining the political status quo through a policy of moderate reform. How far do you agree with this judgement? The political establishment in Germany did succeed in maintaining its power through a policy of moderate reform; however, it can also be argued that this was also achieved by using extreme reforms as well for instance the suppression of the SPD. The moderate reforms gave a small power to the Reichstag which looked great but as a whole it was completely useless in the part of the Reichstag because of the Kaiser’s power to easily dissolve it. Bismarck who recognised the appeal to Germany's growing working classes, initiated a "carrot and stick" approach of simultaneous repression and an overt effort to acquire popular support.
The first main difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives in the mid-1860s is their beliefs. The Liberals led by William Gladstone, were general believers of Gladstonian Liberalism. This was essentially “peace reform and retrenchment”. Gladstone’s own financial policies that were based on balanced budgets, low taxes, and laissez-faire (self-help) were better suited to the developing capitalist society of Britain in the mid-1860s. The Liberals were not very big supporters of the Monarch and wanted the Monarchy out of the political area and it just to be solely the government.
There may be elections and parties but they are mostly limited by one and the range of candidates is very low. Examples for authoritarian regimes are North Korea, Iran, Burma, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. But in the UK we use the representative democracy which is also known as Indirect democracy because people elect representatives who make the decisions for us what means the citizen rule indirect. The Government is given authority to direct people and to achieve their goals. Authority is power in a positive way because the Government has the right to tell others what to do but they can’t force anyone.
Similarly, there were several signs of social progress and cultural development, but the years were significantly characterised by cultural polarisation. Therefore the blanket statement: “Germany experienced a period of political calm, economic development and social progress in the mid 1920s” ignores the problems in Weimar Germany at this time and is therefore not entirely correct, each clause contains some validity. In politics, there was a clear reduction in extra-parliamentary attempts opposing the government and political system. This was particularly significant as the preceding 1919-23 period was characterised by such threats from the Left and Right of the political spectrum, for example the Spartacist uprising, the Kapp Putsch and the Beer Hall Putsch. However, the mid 1920s cannot be said to have been years of political stability.
This general shift to the centre ground gained voters back, who had previously been Labour, but had voted Conservative recently. These reformers were not against socialism however and previously, many were socialists, yet they saw the need for voters, rather than ideology. Further, New Labour was a lot less socialistic when it came to economic policy. In fact, New Labour adopted a Keynesian approach to the economy, much like the New Right. The Third Way has been enthusiastic when it comes to capitalism.
Using 3 or 4 points, explain why Weimar was a failed political experiment. Provide evidence. It was not a political experiment, but it failed in its democratic process through its constitutional laws. -Many ordinary electors in Germany, whatever their private political views, saw voting for the three democratic parties as the best way to prevent the creation of a German Soviet and ward off the threat of a Bolshevik revolution. Not surprisingly, therefor, the Social Democrats, the left -liberal Democrats and the Centre Party (The churches political wing) gained an overall majority in the elections to the Constituent Assembly.
Overall I believe that the economy for pre-Conquest England as well- governed to an extent as the King did have large control, he did control this well, but he may have been seen as too powerful where the government is concerned. However it wasn't well developed so therefore in my opinion it wasn't very prosperous. The political aspect of pre-conquest England was fairly good due to the fact that Edwards court
Whereas what works best for the German culture is a multi party dual executive form of government where a majority of the power is located in the chancellor and the other branches are not quite as important but still serve their rolls to help the government to move forward. Ultimately, the distinguishing features of the two governments may seem small but they are actually quite significant and are the result of the two nations drastic difference in the way their relative histories progressed. The American presidential system is the result of the breaking away from the Great Britain; and the German presidential system is a direct result of the fall of Hitlers Nazi Germany. Both forms of democracy rose as a solution to tyranny and oppression and consequently produced two of the worlds front running
The German confederation was formed after the Vienna Settlement in 1815. During the 1860’s and 1870 Bismarck came into power and led Prussia in working with the German confederation to ascend in power and unify the confederation into a country. The German country would then be led by Prussia, with Bismarck in power. By 1871, this goal was eventually achieved after many contributing factors. The wars in which Prussia fought were undoubtedly significant to the unification of Germany, but however, I feel that it was not the sole factor that contributed to the unification of Germany.