“The political establishment in Germany succeeded in maintaining the
political status quo through a policy of moderate reform in the years
preceding the First World War.” How far do you agree with this judgement?
Point 1- kept status quo through moderate reform
- In 1881 – Caprivi’s ‘new course’ reforms
Sunday work prohibited
Employment of children under 13 forbidden
Women not allowed to work for more than 11 hours a day
Industrial courts were set up to arbitrate disputes
Attempt to development a consultative relationship with the Reichstag
- Bulow
Old age and invalidity law
Accident insurance was extended in 1900
Extension of the ban on child labour
A law making industrial courts compulsory in towns with populations above
20,000 people
1908 – Law to reduce the amount of factory work.
- Pacified the challenging force of the SPD who demanded social reform, taking away
their legislative initiative.
- Pandered to the needs of the working classes, not enough to give them power, but
enough to supress a strong demand for socialism (extreme ideology is followed when
people are in dire situations)
- Limited the ability of revolutionaries to sustain rhetoric that the government couldn’t
provide for workers and initiate reform.
- There was some support for Caprivi’s new course, but he resigned, as his reforms were
unsuccessful, as the inflexibility of the system allowed the powerful established
conservative forces to hinder change.
- The rejection of the 1905 Weltpolitik budget shows that a legislative incentive still
remained.
- The support for socialism and Marxism stayed strong
EX: At the Erfurt Congress of 1891 the SPD adopted a completely Marxist
manifesto aimed at overthrowing the Wilhelmine class system, and won 23% of
the vote.
EX: by 1912, they were the largest party in the Reichstag with 35% of the vote.
EX: trade union membership was high at 3 million.
- Although fundamentally, in terms of where power lay the status quo was maintained,
the political establishment were unable to withhold the shift in democratic sentiment
amongst the people, shown by an 84% voter turnout in 1907 and 1912 (as well as the
sizable support for the SPD)
- Thus, moderate reform was unsuccessful in maintaining the status quo)
Point 2 – mechanisms of the constitution kept the elites in power
Bundesrat – the federal council made up of representatives from the 25 regional states –
58 in total
- Prussia had 17 votes and only 14 were needed to veto legislation.
- Bismarck engineered the composition of Bundesrat to ensure the dominance of
Prussian conservatives.
- EX: the Prussian voting system for the Landtag was archaic, it was divided into three
classes, according to the amount of tax that one paid.
- The votes of those in the higher tax brackets were given more weight and thus those
who were appointed represented the interests of landed aristocracy and big businesses,
giving them disproportionate amounts of influence and hindering the passing of bills
that proposed any real reform.
, - The first class constituted 4.7% of the population, the second class 12.7% and the third
class 82.6%. This distribution meant that a first-class vote had 17.5 times the value of a
third-class vote.
- In 1917 (or 1910), Bethmann-Hollwegg attempted to pass bill that proposed reform of
the Landtag system, however the bill was watered down by the Kaiser and thus no
reform was made.
- However, there were informal mechanisms to lobby governments:
EX: Pressure groups, such as the Agrarian League who represented the interests of
farmers. There were Nationalist pressure groups such as the Navy League who
campaigned for naval expansion and had a membership of around 1 million. There
was also the German Colonial League and the Pan German league who supported
colonial expansion and sought a dominant role for Germany in Europe.
- Having said that, the most powerful of pressure groups were run by and represented
the interests of the conservative elite, so although they lobbied the government, they
didn’t pressurise them to enact social reform, more things such as protection of the
Junkers and colonialism.
The Kaiser and chancellor
- The Kaiser, along with the chancellor had the ability to pass all legislation.
- If it was unable to pass, they could dissolve the Reichstag.
Hottentot election 1907
The country followed the Kaiser’s political agenda in Weltpolitik.
- The Chancellor was only accountable to the Kaiser:
EX: The Daily Telegraph affair – the Kaiser forced Von Bulow to resign after he felt
that he had not supported him enough and sided too much with the Reichstag.
Bethmann lost the vote of no confidence yet the Kaiser kept him as chancellor.
- The army were only accountable to the Kaiser, and he took into account their interests
very strongly
Zabern Affair – The army were not held accountable for their actions in Zabern,
despite mass criticism from the Reichstag and an outcry from the people. –
moreover, after the Zabern affair, the chancellor was ismply able to overrule the
vote of no confidence in Bethmann Hollwegg, despite a clear opposition to his
chancellorship with the majority of deputies in the Reichstag.
- All in all, the personal rule of the Kaiser and his disproportionate amount of
constitutional powers meant that there was no effective pathway to properly lobby and
oppose the ideas of the government. Those with constitutional powers were almost
always acting in the interests of the affluent and those with influence, and thus any
demand for constitutional and social reform were not effectively imposed. Although
some may argue that pressure groups had the ability to lobby the government,
essentially they all lobbied in the interests of the elites, and thus the fundamental
issues in Germany were never solved, thus maintaining the status quo in terms of
where power lay.
- However, although the mechanisms were indeed in place, it can be argued that the
extent to which they were used is not as drastic as first assumed:
EX: The Kaiser chose not to dissolve the Reichstag when they failed to pass the
1905 Weltpolitik focussed budget, using inheritance tax. This shows that the
Kaiser was weary of the Reichstag, and in fact they did have some form of
influence in the Wilhelmine political system.
EX: the fall of the Bulow Bloc in 1912 – legislation was increasingly difficult to
pass – the Reichstag did have to ratify.
- Having said that, in the majority of cases the Kaiser undeniably acted in the interests of
the conservative elite, and managed to retain their elevated position in society.
- Moreover, the caveat to this argument, is that it can be claimed, that the political
establishment may have kept the status quo in terms of power, but they were unable to
stop the growing shift towards popular demand for democracy.
Point 3 – lack of effective opposition
political status quo through a policy of moderate reform in the years
preceding the First World War.” How far do you agree with this judgement?
Point 1- kept status quo through moderate reform
- In 1881 – Caprivi’s ‘new course’ reforms
Sunday work prohibited
Employment of children under 13 forbidden
Women not allowed to work for more than 11 hours a day
Industrial courts were set up to arbitrate disputes
Attempt to development a consultative relationship with the Reichstag
- Bulow
Old age and invalidity law
Accident insurance was extended in 1900
Extension of the ban on child labour
A law making industrial courts compulsory in towns with populations above
20,000 people
1908 – Law to reduce the amount of factory work.
- Pacified the challenging force of the SPD who demanded social reform, taking away
their legislative initiative.
- Pandered to the needs of the working classes, not enough to give them power, but
enough to supress a strong demand for socialism (extreme ideology is followed when
people are in dire situations)
- Limited the ability of revolutionaries to sustain rhetoric that the government couldn’t
provide for workers and initiate reform.
- There was some support for Caprivi’s new course, but he resigned, as his reforms were
unsuccessful, as the inflexibility of the system allowed the powerful established
conservative forces to hinder change.
- The rejection of the 1905 Weltpolitik budget shows that a legislative incentive still
remained.
- The support for socialism and Marxism stayed strong
EX: At the Erfurt Congress of 1891 the SPD adopted a completely Marxist
manifesto aimed at overthrowing the Wilhelmine class system, and won 23% of
the vote.
EX: by 1912, they were the largest party in the Reichstag with 35% of the vote.
EX: trade union membership was high at 3 million.
- Although fundamentally, in terms of where power lay the status quo was maintained,
the political establishment were unable to withhold the shift in democratic sentiment
amongst the people, shown by an 84% voter turnout in 1907 and 1912 (as well as the
sizable support for the SPD)
- Thus, moderate reform was unsuccessful in maintaining the status quo)
Point 2 – mechanisms of the constitution kept the elites in power
Bundesrat – the federal council made up of representatives from the 25 regional states –
58 in total
- Prussia had 17 votes and only 14 were needed to veto legislation.
- Bismarck engineered the composition of Bundesrat to ensure the dominance of
Prussian conservatives.
- EX: the Prussian voting system for the Landtag was archaic, it was divided into three
classes, according to the amount of tax that one paid.
- The votes of those in the higher tax brackets were given more weight and thus those
who were appointed represented the interests of landed aristocracy and big businesses,
giving them disproportionate amounts of influence and hindering the passing of bills
that proposed any real reform.
, - The first class constituted 4.7% of the population, the second class 12.7% and the third
class 82.6%. This distribution meant that a first-class vote had 17.5 times the value of a
third-class vote.
- In 1917 (or 1910), Bethmann-Hollwegg attempted to pass bill that proposed reform of
the Landtag system, however the bill was watered down by the Kaiser and thus no
reform was made.
- However, there were informal mechanisms to lobby governments:
EX: Pressure groups, such as the Agrarian League who represented the interests of
farmers. There were Nationalist pressure groups such as the Navy League who
campaigned for naval expansion and had a membership of around 1 million. There
was also the German Colonial League and the Pan German league who supported
colonial expansion and sought a dominant role for Germany in Europe.
- Having said that, the most powerful of pressure groups were run by and represented
the interests of the conservative elite, so although they lobbied the government, they
didn’t pressurise them to enact social reform, more things such as protection of the
Junkers and colonialism.
The Kaiser and chancellor
- The Kaiser, along with the chancellor had the ability to pass all legislation.
- If it was unable to pass, they could dissolve the Reichstag.
Hottentot election 1907
The country followed the Kaiser’s political agenda in Weltpolitik.
- The Chancellor was only accountable to the Kaiser:
EX: The Daily Telegraph affair – the Kaiser forced Von Bulow to resign after he felt
that he had not supported him enough and sided too much with the Reichstag.
Bethmann lost the vote of no confidence yet the Kaiser kept him as chancellor.
- The army were only accountable to the Kaiser, and he took into account their interests
very strongly
Zabern Affair – The army were not held accountable for their actions in Zabern,
despite mass criticism from the Reichstag and an outcry from the people. –
moreover, after the Zabern affair, the chancellor was ismply able to overrule the
vote of no confidence in Bethmann Hollwegg, despite a clear opposition to his
chancellorship with the majority of deputies in the Reichstag.
- All in all, the personal rule of the Kaiser and his disproportionate amount of
constitutional powers meant that there was no effective pathway to properly lobby and
oppose the ideas of the government. Those with constitutional powers were almost
always acting in the interests of the affluent and those with influence, and thus any
demand for constitutional and social reform were not effectively imposed. Although
some may argue that pressure groups had the ability to lobby the government,
essentially they all lobbied in the interests of the elites, and thus the fundamental
issues in Germany were never solved, thus maintaining the status quo in terms of
where power lay.
- However, although the mechanisms were indeed in place, it can be argued that the
extent to which they were used is not as drastic as first assumed:
EX: The Kaiser chose not to dissolve the Reichstag when they failed to pass the
1905 Weltpolitik focussed budget, using inheritance tax. This shows that the
Kaiser was weary of the Reichstag, and in fact they did have some form of
influence in the Wilhelmine political system.
EX: the fall of the Bulow Bloc in 1912 – legislation was increasingly difficult to
pass – the Reichstag did have to ratify.
- Having said that, in the majority of cases the Kaiser undeniably acted in the interests of
the conservative elite, and managed to retain their elevated position in society.
- Moreover, the caveat to this argument, is that it can be claimed, that the political
establishment may have kept the status quo in terms of power, but they were unable to
stop the growing shift towards popular demand for democracy.
Point 3 – lack of effective opposition
