Secondly, a great deal of pressure groups existed within the Second Reich. Historians, such as Geoff Eley have recognised the importance of these popular movements. It is argued that the elites lacked any real union of purpose and that the Kaiserreich was a state of many regions with very different political and cultural traditions. For example, the Agrarian League consisted of mainly peasants and had a third of a million members, all of whom were campaigning to protect their agricultural interests. There were also a number of working-class trade unions which were represented by the SPD who campaigned for improving living and working conditions; Germany had the largest trade union movement in the world. Catholicism was also represented as the Catholic education, youth organisations and trade unions were all closely linked with the Centre Party. It is also significant that although women were denied the vote, they too became increasingly involved in mass movement politics – this suggests a progressive attitude towards politics. The existence of these groups have led historians to highlight the tremendous growth of political activity in the Kaiserreich and also its diversity. Therefore, it can be argued that if autocracy existed before WW1, these groups would not have been able voice their views, again suggesting that perhaps Germany was showing elements of moving towards a parliamentary democracy.
Furthermore, a number of social reforms were introduced during the Second Reich, particularly under the chancellorships of Caprivi and Bulow. German rulers saw the SPD as a threat to the German political system and so an effort was made to integrate the working class in response to growing industrialisation and fears of a socialist revolution. Measures were therefore taken in order to appease the demands of the SPD; this in itself suggests that power was not autocratic. 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. This meant that the Kaiser ruled virtually unopposed and held extensive powers namely the ability to make alliances, sign treaties and wage war, as well as having full control over foreign and diplomatic policy. The Reichstag’s only real power was that it could vote to block the budget. In essence, the fact that the constitution was so rigid, inflexible and left power almost entirely in the hands of the Kaiser meant that the system essentially had an inability to change or progress at all thus disputing the idea of a growing parliamentary democracy.
In addition to this, the historian John Rohl has argued that everything in the Second Reich depended on the Kaiser’s ‘personal rule’. The Kaiser’s erratic character as well as the fact that he was charmed by an inner circle of friends, advisors and military officers, allowed him to gain control over all sources of power. This disputed A.J.P Taylor’s conclusion that ‘no one ruled Berlin’ and instead places the Kaiser at the centre of power. The extensive power of the Kaiser is demonstrated in 1908 during the Daily Telegraph Affair. In an interview with a journalist, the Kaiser expressed his wishes for closer relations with Britain, but his comments attracted much criticism for making such an important statement of foreign policy to the foreign press. It was Bulow’s position as Chancellor that suffered as he was accused of not censoring the interview appropriately. This underlined how vulnerable the office of Chancellor was to the personal whims of the Kaiser. However, although it is argued that the Daily Telegraph Affair weakened the Kaiser’s strong hold on politics as the affair left him depressed, embarrassed and considering abdication, the Zabern Affair of 1913 demonstrated that any perceived curtailment of the Kaiser’s power was false. In Zabern, there were disturbances between the French population and German soldiers which resulted in widespread protests against the German presence. The German army overreacted and there were a number of civilian deaths. The response of the Kaiser was astonishing as he continued on his hunting expedition. When the Reichstag found out they were enraged and Bethmann-Hollwegg failed to answer their questions adequately. Most significantly, there was a vote of no-confidence in the Chancellor was it was ignored and overruled by the Kaiser. It is therefore clear that the Kaiser retained ultimate power in the Second Reich and the fact that the Chancellor, the army and the Reichstag were ultimately answerable only to the Kaiser suggests that an effective parliamentary democracy was not emerging.
Finally, despite the previous recognition of pressure groups within the Second Reich, there was undoubtedly a continuing position of the elites dominating politics. They managed to incorporate the middle and the working class by measures such as trade unions and Weltpolitik; an expansionist policy which attempted to extend Germany’s power. However, Weltpolitik was a policy that was used not only to justify expansion of the country but also to absorb the growing working class into the regime in order to ensure stability and unity of the political system. 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.
by
jgreen0708hotmailcouk (student)
