I find it interesting how it was nearly impossible to form a coalition during the latter part of Weimar Germany. As the nation became increasingly fragmented the more established poltiical parties were abandoned by many in favor of several more radical parties who were more in line with their specific agendas. This allowed for a climate where Hitler was able to become Chanellor without what could be considered a clear mandate from the electorate. Instead he
simply relied on the Nazis being the most supported party in an extremely fragmented country where the other main parties were having a difficult time working together.
When thinking about this it is interesting to compare the Weimar situation to situations where you have fewer competing political parties that try to have broader interests, and are less focused on individual groups. Safer more established parties such as the the old liberals, the SPD, and the Center Party were being abandoned for more radical parties which were more specializded in their target constituencies. The effect of this was that the Nazis were eventually able to take power without a mandate and with alliances that were of necessity not of idealogical compatability.
This problem is especially interesting to compare to the American two party system where you have parties that can draw from extremely varied constituencies and tie together different types of issues which shouldn't necessarily be tied together. However forcing groups to operate under one big tent can have a moderating effect. In order to have success as a party it is necessary to have broad appeal, and to come together to resolve matters within the party even when there are differences or they run the risk of losing power altogether.
This is not to say that the reason for Germany's problems was that it had too many competing political parties because given that multi-party systems are far more common than two party systems and it clearly does not create instability in many of these countries. However it did have a very interesting effect in what was already an extremely fragmented poltiical situation. When voters continually splintered off from moderate political parties in favor of more radical groups the anymosity proved to make it impossible for a governable majority. The result was the Nazis emerging without a clear mandate. However not having clear control of the Reichstag did not prevent Hitler from solidifying his power in other ways once he was established.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i like how you accurately seem to state the effects of the many parties as not neccesstating the rise of Nazis but rather only making it more possible in a state that was already increasingly radical with other problems. I also like your views of the American two party system as forcing moderation in order to get everyone under the tent. basically, the many parties only made it easier for radical groups to take hold and radical ideas to disseminate.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to compare America and Germany as both are essentially a loose collection of different groups of people with different borders that were somehow amalgamated into one country in theory under one specific ruling body. Places where multiple party systems are able to thrive haven't necessarily undergone the same process, plus in most of those areas it usually does boil down to the more moderate groups having the most power.
ReplyDeleteI think it was nearly impossible to for any coalitions to form simply because of the fragmentation and abandonment of the center. With a strong center party or parties to balance out the extreme left and right there was no way of negotiating anything. Why would a strong right party like the Nazis negotiate out a coalition with a party weaker than them? It comes down to a matter of power I think. Because the fringes had so much power they could neutralize the center parties who felt they had to choose a side before they lost all support. In a way this is similar to what happens in American politics. Smaller parties have their platforms that may be seen as more or less extreme than the two main parties. When these parties want the voting bloc attributed to the smaller party they simply absorb the smaller party. In the United State though there is a little more consideration given to the smaller party as their cause is typically adopted by one of the two major parties.
ReplyDeleteI found merit in your analysis of the multi party system in Weimar Germany. It truly is remarkable to think that an upstart party, the party of Hitler, virutally monopolized the government in less than a decade by totally legal means. I always enjoyed your mentioning of the two party system in America, it is highly relevant. While I often find myself at odds with both of these political machines, especially over their cooperation in the suppression of third parties(not exactly positive bipartisanship), but it is undeniable that our two party system brings a sense of stability that has enabled our democracy to prosper for several hundred years.
ReplyDeleteI like your comparison between the multi-party and two-party systems but I have a question about your idea that the Nazis did not have a popular mandate. While they did not control an absolute majority (ie they were short of the 305 seats needed to straight up control the Reichstag), I think you could defintely argue that the Nazis had a 'mandate' in the sense that they were far and away the largest party in the Reichstag and they were winning 40-some percent of the votes. Arguably, they had a popular mandate to NOT govern like the bourgeois parties and to try something radically different.
ReplyDelete