Is Democracy the real way to go?

No, the titular question does not take that into account.

In the case of the Reichstag, the fatal flaw was that with a two thirds majority, the Chancellor could dispense with the Reichstag, could rule without reference to the Reichstag. After the Reichstag fire, Hitler was able to ban left-wing parties, but even then he couldn't get a majority, and he certainly didn't have two thirds. He made a coalition government with von Pappen and the DNVP (German National Peoples Party--the former principle conservative party). Von Pappen had been a member of the Centre Party, a center-right Catholic Party. Hitler negotiated through von Pappen with the Centre Party, promising to lift political disabilities against Catholics in Germany. So, the Centre Party and the DNVP voted with the NSDAP to pass the enabling act, which gave Hitler the right to govern (and importantly, to legislate) without reference to the Reichstag. Hitler merely eliminated all other political parties over a short period of time.

The form of governance, whether in a democracy or not, is crucial.

There has never been a democracy on any large scale during the known history of our planet. It is a very bad idea for a government. The republic system Is the best system it seems. provided you have representatives that actually want to help their constituents. America is disgusting because it is full of corruption and sadists.

And what does1930s Germany have do with democracy? Democracy has never and will never be a form of government that exists in reality. People in America are mostly like Cyracuz. they use words they do not understand. It sickens me how often i here the news talk about the spread of democracy. that is a big part of all that is wrong with this world. people using words they do not even know the meaning of. but just so someone is saying it. democracys do not exist. We come close to democratically electing the representatives for our Representative/republic government but ask a felon about that.

Cyracuz is from Norway or Denmark, or something like that. That doesn't keep him from knowing the meaning of the words he uses.

I am from Norway
But don't pay any mind to this guy, roger. I was unfortunate enough to comment on his grammar in a post where he was ridiculing quantum physics, among other things, and since then he seems to be systematically hunting down my posts... I must have hit a nerve.

Don't take much, does it?

Apparently not.

For anyone else who might be interested, 1930s Germany has a lot to do with democracy. It was a constitutional monarchy converted to a constitutional presidency, and the ability of Hitler to pervert the system is very much a propos to what Wandel and i were discussing.

This clown "Doubt doubt" is, i take it, another philosophy forum refugee? They sure bred some strange ones there.

Huh? Bismarck was over 20 years dead in 1919, when Germany adopted its first democratic constitution.


That's certainly the common wisdom you read in German history books. Personally, I doubt that you can sustain any democratic system without a population of (small-d) democrats. German Democrats, in the middle of the Great Depression, were a minority, divided into in-fighting factions.

The powers of the Chancellor, and especially the power to legislate without the Reichstag upon a two thirds vote of that body, were unchanged from the system Bismarck created. I agree with you about "small d" democrats, but i would say that you have that problem with just about any population, to a greater or less extent. But to this day, the German Chancellor weilds powers far in excess of a Westminster-style Prime Minister, or the American president. That's a legacy of Bismarck, who wanted that power, and Wilhelm I, who couldn't have cared less.

From "History Home-dot-co-dot-UK," here is an outline description of the major points of the constitution of the Second Reich:

The Constitution:

Prussia dominated the new Germany that was called the Second Reich. It covered two thirds of the land area and contained the same proportion of the population. It had practically all the industry.

The new constitution drawn up by Bismarck was a Federal system.

Each of the twenty-five states had considerable control over their affairs and decided their own form of government; e.g. Bavaria and Saxony were ruled by kings.

Under the constitution there were to be three branches of the Federal government:

1. The Presidency which was held by the King of Prussia (as German Emperor). The German Emperor had considerable powers. He had personal control of the armed forces. He appointed and dismissed all ministers including the Chancellor.
2. The Federal Council (or Bundesrat) represented the different states of the Empire. It had fifty-eight members. Seventeen were from Prussia, six from Bavaria, four from Saxony. It had the power to change the constitution. However no change could be made to the constitution if fourteen delegates objected. This in practice meant that Prussia could always stop change.
3. The Parliament or Reichstag was elected by Universal Male Suffrage (all males over 25 could vote) and Secret Ballot. It voted on the Federal budget and its consent was needed for all legislation. This was the most advanced system in Europe at this time.

However, the powers of the Reichstag were limited:

* It could not initiate legislation.
* It had no say in the appointment or dismissal of the Chancellor or Imperial ministers. The Imperial Chancellor was appointed by the Emperor. He was in charge of foreign policy.
* The Kaiser (in effect Bismarck) could dissolve it any time with the agreement of the Bundesrat.


This is not significantly different from the 1919 constitution, i believe. (I'm not claiming to expert in this matter, i'm going on what i've read.)

EDIT: I believe the current German constitution was adoped in 1950, no?

The system Bismarck created, though, wasn't a system with a powerful chancellor. It was a system with a powerful Kaiser (emperor). Bismarck was a powerful chancellor because his constitution made Wilhelm I a powerful Kaiser, yet Wilhelm I had no interest in politics. To be sure, that was probably good enough for Bismarck. But when Wilhelm I died, the first thing his successor Wilhelm II did was to fire Bismarck and to take things into his own hands. Bismarck's successors in the office of chancellor were sock puppets of Wilhelm II's. The office of chancellor in Germany's 1870 monarchy held little constitutional power of its own.

In 1919, having lost World War I and its Kaiser having fled the country, Germany established a democracy. As you said in your earlier post, the president in that constitution (not the chancellor!) was a powerful office---so powerful that historians sometimes dub it as "an elective monarchy". But Hitler never held this office until Hindenburg died in August 1934. By then, all political parties were already shut down, all states dissolved, the Reichstag packed with Nazis, and all power in Hitler's hands.

Legally speaking, Hitler obtained these powers from two sources: President Hindenburg's Reichstag Fire Decree and the Reichstag's Enabling Act of 1933. The Reichstag Fire Decree was an emergency decree under article 48 in the Weimar Constitution, and as such required no approval from the legislature. The Enabling Act was an allegedly-temporary change of the Weimar constitution, which per its article 76 required a two-thirds majority of both the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The Enabling Act got this majority. (It certainly helped that the Communist legislators had already been thrown in jail under the Fire Decree when the Reichstag voted on the Enabling Act.) Could you be mixing up the Fire Decree and the Enabling Act into one entity? The Weimar constitution enacted no power to rule by decree if two thirds of parliament voted for it.

Anyway, the regular powers of the office Hitler did officially hold in 1933---that of the chancellor---were fairly weak under the Weimar constitution. It was only in the (West-) German constitution of 1948 that Germany vested greater powers in its chancellor. But even those powers are much weaker than those of the US president, and I'd say they're about the same as those of the English prime minister. When you say that the German chancellor has extraordinary powers, what powers are you thinking of?

Thanks, Thomas . . . as i pointed out, i don't consider myself expert. The power of the Chancellor to which i refer are the appointment of minister and the promulgation of policy which in other democracies would be in the power of the legislature, or subject to legislative approval.

Correct me if I'm wrong ( I'm sure someone will) but you cannot measure democracy at the federal level in American government, then proclaim that as an authority on democracy.
American government, at the federal level, is a republic system based on capitalist interests.
If you want to get a good look at democracy, you need to look at the local and state governments. There is a huge difference in the way local government operates as compared to federal. At the level of local government, democracy is definitely the way to go.
Anyone can make a difference at the level of your city council, for instance, in rural areas government begins at the township.
These offices are held by your neighbors, not professional politicians.
My understanding of America is a Republic of Democratic States.

Democracy works best if people care about the governing of their nation.

There is nothing in the constitution about democracy. The constitution guarantees a repulican form of government. A republic is a government of laws (and by implication, no member of the government is above the law). At the time of the American revolution, in some states (New Jersey and Pennsylvania) some women had the vote, as widowed heritors of property of a certain value. Most states had a property requirement for the franchise. After the revolution and before the ratification of the constitution, there was an uprising in western Masschusetts (then, very much a frontier area) called Shays' Rebellion. The militia was called out to put it down, but the legislature co-opted the political appeal of the rebels by granting manhood suffrage. That meant men who were white and who had attained the age of majority. This doesn't sound like much to us, but it was the broadest franchise in history at the time. Most states followed suit, sooner or later, because there was great discontent among returning veterans of the war, almost all of whom had not been paid for their service, and many of whom came home to find that their land had been seized for arrears of property taxes. For a comparison, less than 5% of adult, white males in England at that time had an effective franchise (in many areas, there were rotton or pocket boroughs where a handful of electors, beholden to a landlord, chose two members of Parliament--Old Sarum was the most notorious, where a dozen or fewer men, all tenants of the local rich man, sent two members to Parliament). Some municiple boroughs sent no one to Parliament at all.

Democracy is most noticable at the local level in the United States, where voters choose the county managers, vote on property tax levies for schools, construction, road maintenance and who determine by-laws and policies with their vote. In many nations, the local subdivisions are governed by individuals appointed by the national government, while, of course, in the United States there are the fifty state governments.

I would say that genuine democracy is almost impossible, because decisions need to be made on a daily basis. Switzerland has probably come closer than any other nation. As Wandel and i were discussing, the form that governance takes is the measure of how genuinely democratic a government is. Electing a President popularly is not very meaningful if that President is not restrained by law--i.e., if one does not live in a republic. Living in a republic does not mean much if the people don't have at least representative access to the legislative process.

Fair enough. That does make him a little weaker than the English prime minister, though the promulgation of policy is limited to the executive branch's policy. Mrs. Merkel cannot stop the Bundestag from enacting a law that's against her policy. (Rarely a problem, because the chancellor is usually the leader of the major governing party, whose legislators usually do the its bidding.)

Compared to American or French presidents, though, the German chancellors are much weaker. They play no role in the appointment of federal judges. They aren't the military's commanders-in-chief. (At least in peacetime that's the defense-ministers' job). Moreover, the Bundestag can recall the chancellor and elect a new one at all times.

Well, theoretically, a President could be recalled, too. It's unlikely to happen, though, beause it would require both impleachment and conviction by the Senate. I don't know that i'd say that your Chancellor is much weaker than the President, however. The President can only form policy for the executive branch, and can be overruled by the Congress. In fact, Congress has the right to create or to eliminate executive offices and officers.

Once again, keep in mind that the President can only appoint executive branch and judicial officers subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. In practice, Presidents don't seek the advice of the Senate, but they have to have the approval of the Senate, and that can be a process fraught with partisan wrangling. We haven't seen that recently because Mr. Bush's appointments were sent to a Republican Senate, and approval of appointments is subject only to a simple majority vote, which means that Mr. Obama's appointments will be approved so long as the candidate is not odious to the Democrats in the Senate. Treaties are different matter, as they require a two thirds vote of the Senate.

That costitution of the Second Reich seems to place an awful lot of power in the hands of the Chancellor, so long as the Kaiser were willing or indifferent, and later, of course, the President. No Prime Minister nor President was ever able to dismiss the legislature. I know nothing about the 1950 constitution, so i don't have a point of comparison.

That is the success of the American system, it has freed us from the tyranny of the landholder. Our system has proven itself, in that regard, over the years as there have been many attempts at such tyranny. Even today big business seeks the role of the landholder, it is our ever developing system of laws which protects us.

You are quite right that those decisions are virtually impossible to make democratically. The term democracy may be a bit of a misnomer, possibly no more than an ideal. It is probably more realistic to think in terms of democratic process, as that is closer to the truth.

I'm not very skilled at understanding politics, but it seems to me that the flaw in the ideal democracy occurs when there is nowhere for the minority to go. Democracy works better at the local level simply because those of the minority have the option to relocate among like minded people. On a large scale democracy would depend chiefly on acceptance by the minority view.