How accurate is it to say that the Weimar constitution failed to make a significant change from the previous political system of the Kaiserreich Flashcards
introduction
Following resignation of Prince Max on 9th November, Ebert immediately initiated changes to Germany under the Weimar Republic. Although it was a new system to Bismarcks’, it is hard to identify much radical change, instead we saw shifts in power from one group to another in society, or very little change at all.
Citizens rights/ bill of rights
Bill of rights introduced, provided sick pay, freedom of speech/religion/ trade unions as well as unemployment benefits. For the first time people could voice their political ideas or criticise political systems without fear of prosecution, which they could not do under the Kaiserreich. This was a radical social change that transcended into politics too, and once again liberalism could be freely accepted in Germany- previously the SPD were banned by Bismarck in 1878 after it was suspected that they were responsible for two assassination attempts on the king.
-Explanation-Weimar was radically different in this area of the country because Ebert had much more sympathy towards workers and their rights, shown through his approval of trade unions to protect the workers rights which would benefit the workforce in the long term. The bill of rights was a catalyst for the shift in importance towards social and political issues of lower classes in the 1920’s, suggesting radical change.
Change of leadership
Facts- the change of leadership after the Kaiser abdicated on 9th November appears to bring radical change as Ebert is put in control. Although Weimar should’ve elected a president every 7 years, allowing those who could vote the chance to vote for an elected leader, Ebert remained in power until 1925 and retained many of the powers that the Kaiser had, like control over the army and the ability to dissolve the reichstag. Was even called Ersatz- Kaiser (substitute Kaiser) and Ebert’s article 48 powers were very similar to those of the Kaiser (bypass the kaiser) so THE CHANGE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED RADICAL
Explanation- the dominance of a non elected leader continued under Ebert, providing a false sense of democracy with the proposed elections that failed to be carried out, suggesting that the leadership of the country was changed by name only, which can not be considered significant/ radical change.
Representation of the people (PR)
Facts- did change under Ebert, with new voting system and proportional representation, where a party gaining 60,000 votes in a state got a seat, and having 30,000 votes across the country ensured you a seat too. This allows wider representation of different parties as well as different people, as parties gain seats relative to their support. The chancellor comes from the party with the most votes. Reichstag was elected assembly chosen by men and women over 20. (women couldn't before, and many more parties included) Explanation- in isolation, the weimar system looks to radically change the democracy of Germany for the better with a new level of democracy. Representation of many more people was at the forefront of agenda, including new parties and now both men and women over 20. The reichstag now had power over the bundesrat and therefore the Junkers, suggesting a shift in political power from the rich land owners in Prussia to lower class people from across Germany. This change however was really just a shift in power from the rich to the poor, and ended with one group (reichstag) ruling over the former Bundesrat, and wasn’t really progressing democracy if the power of the rich and poor still wasn’t equal. Whilst it may be considered more significant than anything relevant to the judiciary/army, it wasn't a particularly positive change.
Judiciary/ army (Ebert groener pact)
Facts- Judiciary was most obvious example of lack of change under Ebert, remained untouched and was made up of right wing junkers who were biased against left wing politicians and criminals, whilst being much more lenient towards right wing people eg Hitler given 5 years for treason in 1924(which was punishable by death), but served only 9 months, whilst Fechenbach, a left wing secretary was given 11 years for violating press laws
This shows a distinct lack of change or progression for Germany’s legal system which arguably needed fixing the most, it undermined the political freedom of Weimar by oppressing left wing politicians and favouring the right wing.
Facts-army was supposed to be brought onto Ebert’s side under Ebert- Gröner pact in Nov 1918 but were unreliable and leader Von seeckt was reluctant to stop uprisings in Munich 1823, proving their lack of allegiance and support for Ebert.
This may be considered a radical change from Bismarck but it was certainly a very negative change as the leader of the country had lost the support of the army, whereas the army was drawn from 4 states to serve under the Kaiser during the Bismarck system.
judgement/ line of argument
Overall, on the surface Ebert looks to be making radical change, with the Bill of rights being the most significant and proportional representation offering a good amount of significant social reform for new voters and parties alike. PR had positives and negatives due to the shift in power away from the junkers, but effectively still had reichstag ruling over Bundesrat; Weimar only offered positive significant changes the form of the bill of rights. The basis of both Weimar and Bismarcks system still relied on the dominance of one person, and two separate elected assemblies that didn’t have equal power or political involvement. The political and social changes provided by the Bill of rights and PR were not enough to consider Weimar Germany to be radically different to Bismarcks’ system, even if the Bill of rights and PR were radically different in themselves.
