3.10 - Presidential Government & Erosion of Democracy
Key facts and dates
Between 1930 and 1933, Germany witnessed a gradual dismantling of parliamentary democracy through constitutional mechanisms, setting the stage for authoritarian rule. This period, marked by political instability and economic crisis, saw key figures and policies erode democratic norms under the Weimar Constitution.
Timeline of key events
- 1930 – Heinrich Brüning becomes Chancellor, beginning the shift towards presidential government.
- 1931 – Brüning issues 44 emergency decrees under Article 48, bypassing parliamentary law-making.
- 1932 – 60 emergency decrees issued; Reichstag passes only 29 laws, highlighting its diminished role.
- May 1932 – Brüning resigns; Franz von Papen appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg, lacking parliamentary support.
- December 1932 – Kurt von Schleicher becomes Chancellor, continuing reliance on presidential authority.
- January 1933 – Hitler appointed Chancellor, capitalising on the precedents of authoritarian governance.
The increasing use of Article 48 and emergency decrees
In the early 1930s, the Weimar Republic faced severe economic and political challenges, including the Great Depression and parliamentary deadlock. One of the key mechanisms that facilitated the erosion of democracy was the extensive use of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which allowed the President to issue emergency decrees without parliamentary approval.
How Article 48 undermined democracy
- Purpose of Article 48 - This provision was designed for use in times of crisis, granting the President temporary powers to restore order by bypassing the Reichstag (the German parliament).
- Escalating reliance on decrees - The use of emergency decrees surged, with 44 issued in 1931 under Chancellor Heinrich Brüning and 60 in 1932, reflecting a growing dependence on presidential authority.
- Diminishing role of the Reichstag - In contrast, the Reichstag passed only 29 laws in 1932, demonstrating how legislative power was sidelined as emergency decrees became the primary means of governance.
- Impact on democratic norms - This overuse shifted decision-making away from elected representatives to the executive, weakening the democratic principle of parliamentary sovereignty and normalising rule by decree.
President Hindenburg's role in undermining parliamentary democracy
Paul von Hindenburg, President of Germany from 1925 to 1934, played a central role in the decline of democratic governance. His actions, while constitutionally legal, prioritised authoritarian control over democratic processes, significantly altering the political landscape.
Hindenburg's authoritarian influence
- Appointment of unsupported chancellors - Hindenburg appointed chancellors like Brüning, Papen, and Schleicher, who lacked majority support in the Reichstag but enjoyed his personal confidence, bypassing the need for parliamentary backing.
- Frequent dissolution of the Reichstag - He repeatedly dissolved the Reichstag when it failed to support his chosen governments, calling for new elections that often deepened political fragmentation and instability.
- Authoritarian figurehead - Despite maintaining constitutional appearances, Hindenburg effectively ruled as an authoritarian leader, using his powers to govern without consistent parliamentary input, thus setting a precedent for concentrated executive control.
The rise of the 'presidential cabinet' system
As parliamentary democracy weakened, a new form of governance emerged known as the 'presidential cabinet' system. This system further eroded democratic accountability by shifting the basis of political power from the Reichstag to the President.
Features of the presidential cabinet system
- Dependence on presidential favour - Chancellors and their cabinets relied on Hindenburg's support rather than securing a vote of confidence from the Reichstag, inverting the traditional democratic model of accountability.
- Influence of the Kamarilla - Hindenburg was surrounded by a close circle of conservative advisers, often referred to as the 'Kamarilla', who wielded significant influence over political decisions, further sidelining elected representatives.
- Consequences for democracy - This system meant that governments were answerable to the President and his unelected advisers rather than the people's representatives, undermining the core principles of parliamentary democracy and establishing a framework for authoritarian rule.
The progression of less democratic governments under Brüning, Papen, and Schleicher
Between 1930 and 1933, the governments of Heinrich Brüning, Franz von Papen, and Kurt von Schleicher became progressively less democratic, each building on the precedents set by the previous administration. Their tenures marked a steady drift towards authoritarianism.
Evolution of governance styles
- Brüning (1930-1932) - As the first chancellor to heavily rely on Article 48, Brüning governed with emergency decrees to address the economic crisis, often ignoring parliamentary opposition. While he aimed to stabilise Germany, his methods diminished democratic participation.
- Papen (1932) - Appointed in May 1932, Papen had even less parliamentary support and relied almost entirely on Hindenburg's backing. His government was openly elitist, showing contempt for democratic processes and further alienating the Reichstag.
- Schleicher (1932-1933) - Taking over in December 1932, Schleicher continued the trend of presidential dependency, attempting to maintain control through military influence and emergency powers. His brief tenure represented the final step before the complete collapse of democratic governance.
- Cumulative effect - Each chancellor moved further away from parliamentary accountability, creating a political environment where democratic norms were increasingly irrelevant, paving the way for the Nazi takeover in 1933.
The motivations behind the erosion of democracy
The shift towards presidential government raises questions about whether this erosion of democracy was a deliberate strategy or a pragmatic response to crisis. Understanding the motivations behind these actions provides insight into the fragility of the Weimar Republic.
Possible reasons for the shift to authoritarianism
- Pragmatic response to crisis - The period was marked by severe economic hardship and political gridlock in the Reichstag, with no stable coalitions emerging. Using Article 48 and presidential authority may have been seen as a necessary, temporary measure to enact urgent policies.
- Deliberate authoritarian intent - Some argue that Hindenburg and his conservative advisers, including the Kamarilla, intentionally undermined democracy, preferring a return to monarchical or authoritarian rule over the instability of parliamentary governance.
- Mixed motivations - It is likely that both factors played a role, with initial pragmatic decisions evolving into a more systematic rejection of democratic principles as conservative elites sought to protect their interests against rising extremist movements.
The toleration of constitutional erosion by democratic parties
A striking feature of this period was the passive acceptance of democratic erosion by parties committed to the Weimar Republic, most notably the Social Democratic Party (SPD). This toleration contributed to the normalisation of authoritarian practices.
Why democratic parties accepted the changes
- SPD's 'toleration policy' - The SPD, the largest democratic party, adopted a policy of tolerating Brüning's emergency rule rather than opposing it outright. They feared that challenging presidential authority might lead to even worse outcomes, such as a military coup or the rise of extremist parties like the Nazis.
- Fear of worse alternatives - Many democratic politicians believed that supporting, or at least not resisting, presidential government was a lesser evil compared to the potential chaos of further parliamentary deadlock or violent revolution from the far left or right.
- Significance of inaction - This reluctance to defend democratic principles allowed the precedents of emergency rule and presidential dominance to become entrenched, weakening the Weimar system's ability to resist the eventual Nazi seizure of power in 1933.