The role of the president was also reduced, making it a largely ceremonial, figurehead position.
To further decentralize power, the role of the state governments was increased, in order to provide a balance for the legislature. The upper house in the German government, or the Bundesrat, has considerable power over the legislature, or Bundestag. The Bundesrat has “vigorously defended state interests” (Hauss, p. 154) in an effort to keep the Bundestag in check. The massive and complex bureaucracy that was created under Nazi Germany and helped Hitler to gain such strong control over the state was also dismantled and brought under tighter control.
New election rules were put into place to ensure the participation of the public, the stability of parties, and to limit the ability of small, fringe parties like the Nazi party to gain power and influence. The proportional representation rules for the number of seats won in the Bundestag help ensure participation, and the five percent hurdle that must be crossed in order to gain any seats in the Bundestag at all keeps small parties in check and helps to “convince people that casting a ballot for a new, fringe, or extremist party means that they are wasting their vote.” (Hauss, p.145)
There is another issue that concerned the Allied powers after World War II; there was still a large portion of the population that was at least somewhat entrenched in Nazi ideology. To help combat this problem from developing, restrictions were placed upon the public and the media. There was, and is, a prohibition on any form of Nazi ideology and propaganda, and any communist ideas. The dissemination of Nazi propaganda and ideology through pamphlets, for example, is punishable by law in Germany. The state also is in control of media sources such as television stations, to reduce the ability of extremists to spread their ideas. These sorts of techniques seem to have worked. There is neo-Nazism in existence in Germany, but most of them are “better thought of as violent hooligans than as ideologically sophisticated extremists. Of all the people arrested for their participation in racist attacks, 70 percent are men with little education. Many seem more angry about their personal prospects as a result of unification and the influx of hundreds of thousands of immigrants than they are committed to right-wing extremism.” (Hauss, p.144)
The German military was restricted after World War II, and there was an implementation of a welfare system. The German military can only act in self defense, to avoid repetition of the aggression of World War II. There are conscientious objector laws in place, so German citizens cannot be forced into military service. Also, Germany’s military policy is subject to and subordinate to NATO. With respect to the economy, wages are kept high, the focus is on exports, and there are apprenticeship programs in place. There is guaranteed health care, pensions, and education. To keep the working class happy, there is a system of “codetermination” between business and labor in large companies. This guarantees labor unions seats on the executive board of all major corporations. The effect of all of this is a largely content population with low poverty, a high standard of living, and a high level of education and skill training.
What this all means for Germany is that the country was able to transform itself from one of the most ruthless, fascist governmental systems in history to a stable democracy by putting an infrastructure in place to support and ensure its development and longevity, and by shifting the ideological perspective of its population. The question remains as to how the German experience after World War II can prove to be useful when applied to countries in similar situations, or those nations that have newly adopted democracy, such as the present situation in Iraq. The important factor to consider is that there were pre-existing conditions present in Germany that allowed the nation to make the transition so well. The German people had experience living under the rule of a constitution previous to World War II, and had political parties that were well established. They also had the benefit of knowing exactly what went wrong in their governmental system, so those errors could be avoided in the future. There was the important presence and control of Allied powers, along with their financial aid, which eventually progressed into the Marshall Plan and the establishment of the European Union. Germany was able to reindustrialize quickly, thanks largely to their vast capacity and capability for industry before and during World War II. There were few unresolved conflicts present, such as those over race and religion. Any existing disputes, especially those over boundaries, were settled by the Allies, and the boundaries were kept in place by the tension created by the Cold War. There was also re-institution of elements of the old regime that was so well established.
Nations such as Iraq that face uncertain and potentially unstable democratization are often at a disadvantage when compared to the success of Germany. For example, Iraq has no experience with democracy, and it seems that they were raised to have contempt for it. There are no established, old parties that can re-emerge, and no experience with constitutional rule. Iraq does have the benefit of occupation and aid from western nations that was so beneficial to Germany, but there are boundary disputes, ethnic and religious conflicts, and there isn’t an existing high industrial capacity and capability. Clearly, the same strategies that were used in the reconstruction and democratization of Germany cannot be employed in nations like Iraq, because the same conditions don’t exist. However, the success of Germany is not without its fundamental lessons. Re-education of the population is important to the success of the newly established government, because the people must accept its legitimacy. Establishing laws and regulations to avoid repeating the mistakes and situations of the past will help to ensure a longer life for the government. Seeing the process through to completion through overseeing the government, extensive reconstruction, and a firm commitment to giving financial aid is also important to avoid creating resentment and chaos. More than any other lesson, the German experience has proven that there must be careful consideration of the causes of the problems of any nation, and taking steps to prevent the recurrence of those problems.
Section 3, Question 5:
Two major political issues in India that have the potential to cause conflict that would threaten democracy are social and cultural diversity, and poverty. India has had more success with maintaining democracy than most developing countries, largely thanks to measures that have been adopted to combat those two problems. The success of India’s experience with conflict over diversity and poverty may serve as a guide for other nations that are newly democratizing and developing economically. India has been and is still threatened by the same issues that exist in these developing countries, so the ways in which India has managed to survive could likely be adopted in some form by other third world nations.
India is one of the most culturally and socially diverse nations in the world. It has a tremendous geographical size and a huge population as well. There is considerable diversity in the languages spoken within India’s borders. There are so many languages and dialects that “the only language educated Indians have in common is English.” (Hauss, p. 355) There are three main religious groups in India, and most importantly, there is a caste system in place. All of this diversity creates an environment that fosters a considerable amount of conflict along social and cultural lines, especially in the Punjab and ongoing Kashmir conflicts.
To combat social and cultural conflict and violence, Indian government has taken several actions. The first and most important is the government’s commitment to maintaining a unified India. The government also was willing to work with cultural and linguistic groups that desired more autonomy. Varshney’s article, “Why Democracy Survives” outlines more reasons why ethnic and cultural conflict has not torn India apart like it has other developing nations. Varshney makes an important distinction between dispersed conflict and centrally focused conflict. In many third world countries, Varshney believes that they are torn apart by conflict because it is centrally focused. In centrally focused conflict, there are only a few ethnic or cultural groups spread across the country. Conflict breaking out between two or more groups encompasses much of the country, and it becomes difficult for the central government to keep it under control. The conflict escalates quickly, and becomes threatening or even crippling to democracy. India, however, has experienced centrally focused conflict. Because there is a tremendous amount of diversity across the entirety of India, conflicts are often confined to specific areas, as was the case with the Punjab and Kashmir conflicts. This means that if conflict, even extremely violent conflict, breaks out in a specific area, it stays relatively contained. The central government is therefore better able to handle the situation without having much of a threat come to the state itself. Even if democracy temporarily breaks down in one area, the rest of the nation is largely unaffected and continue to function normally. Lastly, the official eradication of the caste system has boosted equality and minority participation in government, even though the system continues to exist socially.
Poverty is another issue that typically poses a severe threat to third world nations, but has not done so in India. There are low levels of sanitation, life expectancy is quite low, and yearly average GNP per capita is less than $300. (Hauss, p.356) However, much has been done by the Indian government to improve the quality of life for its people. The Integrated Rural Development program and the “green revolution” gave the agricultural, rural sector of the Indian population the skills and technology they needed to boost agricultural productivity. This not only transformed India from a state in which famine existed to a nation of surplus food, but it was “enough to blunt the contradiction between industrialization and the existence of industry.” (Varshney, p.42) Also, according to Varshney, Nehru’s decision to not push too quickly for industrial development before the agricultural component of the economy had fully developed played a major role in the longevity of the democratic state. Most recently, the Indian government has decided to open itself more to the world market, bring in outside investment, encourage exports, and develop its already world class technology industry even further.
Some lessons may be learned from India by newly democratizing third world countries. The first would be to encourage equality, so that participation in government can be enjoyed by all. Secondly, promoting slow, but steady growth allows changes to happen slowly, rather than quickly and haphazardly, which could pose a threat to a developing democracy. Encouraging diversity, and understanding of and respect for that diversity should also be an important goal of developing nations, to keep conflicts under control. Once the economy has been somewhat stabilized, a slow, but steady move towards involvement in the world market and encouraging further development of the economy’s main strengths may help other nations to gain prosperity and governmental stability. Overall, these sorts of steps, if they are successful, will strengthen the democratic government in developing nations by giving it legitimacy with the general population and to the rest of the world.
