• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

In the years before WW1, Germany was progressing towards an effective parliamentary democracy. Do you agree?

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐In the years before WW1, Germany was progressing towards an effective parliamentary democracy. Do you agree? The constitution of the German empire was enacted on the 16th April 1871 and is often referred to as ?Bismarck?s imperial constitution?. This constitution stood as the foundation for the Second Reich. Between the years 1871 and 1914, there is often debate over whether Imperial Germany was an entrenched autocracy, or whether there was a growing parliamentary democracy. This essay will analyse key aspects of the Second Reich namely the role of the Kaiser, the Chancellor and the Reichstag, the nature of politics, the existence of reform and where power essentially lay in order to demonstrate that any steps towards democracy essentially did not go far enough, thus disputing the idea that Germany was progressing towards an effective parliamentary democracy. Firstly, it can be argued that Germany was in fact progressing towards an effective parliamentary democracy. Universal male suffrage had existed right from the outset in 1871 for all men over the age of 25, thus deputies of the Reichstag ? the lower house of parliament ? were elected. Although the Reichstag did not hold any real power, elections to it were hotly contested causing Bismarck and later chancellors to be concerned with their outcome. ...read more.


Under Caprivi?s rule, restrictions on the SPD were removed, working conditions were improved through Labour Laws (passed between 1890 and 1892) and the child labour was abolished in 1891. In addition to this, in 1902 the Tariff Law restored a higher duty on imported agricultural goods which resulted in higher food prices. This meant that in the 1903 elections, more votes went to the SPD who were fundamentally anti-authoritarian. However, although it is true that a number of social reforms were passed, the Kaiser was merely pursuing policies that seemed progressive but in reality were a means of maintaining the status quo. This rejects the idea that Germany was progressing towards an effective parliamentary democracy. On the other hand, many will argue against the idea of democratisation. To begin, the Second Reich was unified not by liberals or reformist characters, but rather by authoritarian nationalists such as Bismarck. The constitution was incredibly rigid and allowed for the dominance of Prussia which led two thirds of the Bundesrat and had the ability to veto legislation. The constitution also declared that the Kaiser would be the King of Prussia and that he would have the ability to appoint and dismiss both the Chancellor and the Reichstag. ...read more.


This suggests that although there were elements of change, reform and democracy growing in the Second Reich, these were all merely tokenistic changes as the main objective of the Second Reich was to maintain the status quo. This again disputes the idea of Germany progressing towards an effective parliamentary democracy. In conclusion, although there are arguments to suggest otherwise, it can be deduced from the evidence that Germany was ultimately not making a change towards an effective parliamentary democracy in the years before WW1. The democratic elements that existed such as universal suffrage, pressure groups and reform were ultimately extremely limited as they were merely a means by which the ruling class could be seen to include the other classes. The ruling class were able to quell the threats which pushed for progressive change. Politics in the Second Reich was therefore chaotic, confused and has often been described as ?petrified?. In the years before WW1, Germany was essentially a semi-autocratic state where power lay with the Kaiser and the elites. Thus any impression of an effective move towards parliamentary democracy was false; Germany did not experience the implementation of a democracy until the Weimar Republic in 1919. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. How Successfully in the period 1870 to 1914 did the ruling elites of Germany ...

    The Socialists in Germany were comparatively moderate, as the German workforce enjoyed a relatively high standard of living, which continued to improve. For instance, over the period 18895 to 1907, wages increased by some 100 percent, whilst the cost of living only rose 22 percent in the same period.

  2. An entrenched autocracy. How far do you agree with this judgement of Imperial ...

    In conclusion, the best way to analyse the "entrenched power" of the Kaiser would be to compare the power of his rule with that of Britain and Russia. Britain was ruled by democracy (one vote one person), and the King of England had comparatively little say on final legislation passes and proposals to changes in constitutions.

  1. Causes of WWI and the roles of Women before WW1

    By 1914, Germany had the greatest increase in military buildup. With this, Germany was able to challenge Great Britain?s naval supremacy. Additionally, there had been a great deal of technological advancements in weaponry, such as: new artillery, battleships, airplanes, submarines, etc.

  2. The political establishment in Germany succeeded in maintaining political status quo through a policy ...

    However alone these reforms would have not been enough to maintain the political status quo as methods such as nationalist success acted as a distractions to divert the people?s attention away from moderate nature of the reforms. Without a doubt nationalism was an important method in the maintenance of the

  1. To what extent was Germany a parliamentary democracy in the years 1900-1914?

    The use of the secret ballot also helps to enhance the argument that Germany was an parliamentary democracy due to the fact that it allowed the electorate to cast their vote without fear of being persecuted for their choice. This system of voting, coupled with the fact that all males

  2. Evaluate the significance of the use of tanks had in the outcome of WW1

    However shell fire could (and did) easily destroy a tank...?[3] With a direct hit. This ultimately shows the flaws in the new armoured vehicle as it did not truly serve its purpose as a mobile armoured weapon. The time had come to put the tank to the test and this occurred at the Battle of the Somme.

  1. To what extent was Wilhelmine Germany an entrenched authoritarian state?

    Wehler?s Elitist theory offers the alternate argument that Germany was ?authoritarian? by suggesting that it was elites such as the army and judiciary who controlled German politics, rather than the Kaiser. The theory focuses on the policy of concentration/Sammlungspolitik which suggests there was an alliance of conservative interests in the Reich.

  2. The weakness of the liberal state in Italy in 1919 was mainly caused ...

    The unification of Italy was really only Piedmont?s expansion, with policies enforced on other parts of Italy that were not wanted by those territories, and were against the will of the majority of people. In addition the legacy of unification remained strong in people?s minds, for instance the economic north-south

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work