In what ways did German political parties develop between 1924 and 1928?

Introduction:

• Quieter and more prosperous conditions of 1924-28 provided pro-democracy parties with opportunity to establish stable democratic system supported by majority of Germans.

Governments of the Weimar Republic, 1923-30:

• 1923-4, Chancellor Wilhelm Marx → Coalition: Centre, DDP, DVP.

• 1924-25, Chancellor Wilhelm Marx → Coalition: Centre, DDP, DVP.

• 1925, Chancellor Hans Luther → Coalition: Centre, DVP, DNVP.

• 1926, Chancellor Hans Luther → Coalition: Centre, DDP, DVP.

• 1926, Chancellor Wilhelm Marx → Coalition: Centre, DDP, DVP.

• 1927-8 Chancellor Wilhelm Marx → Coalition: Centre, DDP, DNVP.

• 1928-30 Chancellor Hermann Muller → Coalition: SPD, DDP, Centre, DVP.

Why did stable democracy fail to develop in these years?

• Deputies in the Reichstag didn’t represent particular constituency → under proportional representation, deputies chosen by party lists to collectively represent large area so there was thus no direct connection between deputy and his/her constituents.

• Party list system gave party committees control over Reichstag deputies → deputies not allowed to display any individuality but had to behave according to dictates of party bureaucracies. This resulted in Reichstag becoming rather sterile debating chamber remote from concerns of ordinary voters.

• Leaderships of pro-democratic parties at fault → factional rivalries weakened parties.

• When leading party members became ministers in coalition cabinets, party committees wouldn’t allow them flexibility to operate on own initiative.

• Party leaders often gave higher priority to protecting interests of own party and the interest groups they represented rather than wider national interest.

• Differences between main partied meant opportunities to form workable coalitions = very limited.

• There was never any possibility of a coalition involving both SPD and DNVP because former believed in partliamentary democracy whereas the latter fundamentally rejected Weimar political system.

• Right-centre coalition of ZP, DVP and DNVP → Parties tended to agree on domestic issues but disagree on foreign affairs.

• Alternatively, broad coalition of SPD, DDP, DVP + ZP ---> Agreed on foreign policy but disagreed on domestic issues.

• In this situation, little chance of democratic government establishing stability → of 7 governments between 1923 and 1930, only two had majorities and longest only survived for 21 months, with only reason this lasted so long because opposition parties unable/unwilling to unite.

• Often it was conflicts between parties forming coalition governments that led them to collapse.

• Thus parliamentary system brought into disrepute and support for democratic institutions suffered.

Responsibility of the Parties:

• Attitude of Weimar’s political parties towards parliamentary government lacked responsibility.

• Legacy from imperial years when parties had pursued own narrow interests in knowledge that it was the Kaiser who ultimately decided policy.

• But parliamentary democracy needed political parties to show more responsible attitude towards government.

The SPD

• 1924-28: Left-wing SPD remained largest single party in Reichstag

• Party divided between desire to uphold interests of working class and commitment to democracy.

• Party had taken leading role in 1918 revolution and establishment of Weimar Republic and therefore had vital interest in success of democratic govt.

• BUT SPD participated in only one of the 6 coalition cabinets established in these years.

• Although it had been in the process of becoming thoroughly reformist, moderate party since 1890s, couldn’t let go of revolutionary Marxist rhetoric that was its trademark since foundation in 1860s: old argument between extreme left-wing socialist programme vs moderate gradual reform hindered party.

• This hangover from the past tended to make SPD inflexible on important issues and unable to make compromises that participation in coalition governments involved.

• Some members, especially those connected with trade unions, feared joining coalitions with other parties would weaken principles.

• Other moderates wanted to participate in government in order to influence it.

• Party tended to be more comfortable in opposition than govt → 1920-8 didn’t join any of the fragile government coalitions which obviously weakened power base of those democratuc coalitions.

• Had close links with trade unions and appealed mainly to industrial workers.

• Limited appeal to young people and women, and no support among farmers, agricultural workers or Mittelstand.

• SPD remained strongest party during these years but although committed to democracy not prepared to take on responsibility of govt. Until 1928.

The Centre Party:

• Established to defend the interests of Roman Catholic Church in German Empire → this remained priority in Weimar Republic

• Party based on religious affiliation so appeal crossed class and occupational boundaries: supported by industrial workers + industrialists, farmers + landlords, and professional groups e.g. teachers.

• Broad-based and solid electoral appeal made party more flexible and pragmatic than SPD but also tended to cause divisions over socio-economic issues aiming to bridge gap between different classes who had voted for them.

• Vital to success of Weimar democracy → no coalition government formed without its participation and provided real political leadership in Weimar politics, taking ministerial posts.

• In early years, differences put to one side under strong leadership of Matthias Erzberger and Joseph Wirth..

• Important leadership change in 1928 reflected growing drift to right→ new leaders, Ludwig Kaas and Heinrich Bruning, less committed to parliamentary democracy than Wilhelm Marx, his predecessor. Divisions within party widened with shift to right. This was a worrying sign for future of ZP and Germany itself.

• Party’s support didn’t increase because appeal restricted to traditional Catholic areas.

The DDP:

• Liberal party in decline by mid-1920s

• Appeal mainly to academics and professional groups → gave impression of being composed of worthy intellectuals with limited political experience.

• Increasingly riven by internal disputes + had great difficulty in conveying clearly + unequivocally what it stood for.

• Lacked clear leadership and membership involved in internal bickering over policy.

• But was a party committed to success of parliamentary democracy and participated in all coalition governments during this period.

The DVP:

• Conservative DVP, like DDP, committed to parliamentary democracy + also participated in all coalition governments during this period.

• Support amongst academics but main support from industrialists.

• DVP provided leading politician 1924-9, Gustav Stresemann.

• Party divided despite Stresemann’s efforts to bring unity.

• After Stresemann’s death in 1929, party drifted to right and increasingly became narrow pressure group promoting interests of big business.

Overall Position of Liberal Parties:

• Not strong → although had joined all governments of period and had capable statesman in Stresemann, there were worrying trends.

• DVP share of vote, though consistent in mid-1920s, nearly halved from 22% in 1920 to 14% by 1928

• Stresemann addressed DVP executive committee on 26 Feb. 1928: “Let us not fool ourselves about this: we are in the midst of a parliamentary crisis that is already more than a crisis of conscience. The crisis has two roots: one the caricature that has become the parliamentary system in Germany; secondly the complete false position of parliament in relation to its responsibilities to the nation”.

• Reasons for Liberals’ collapse after 1930 b/c of divisions within both parties.

• Moves to bring about united liberal party came to nothing

• As a result German liberalism failed to gain popular support + after 1929 position declined dramatically.

The DNVP:

• Conservative + nationalist

• Broadened appeal in 1920s beyond traditional base amongst landowners in east Germany → by mid-1920s support from industrialists, professional groups and even some industrial workers.

• Anti-democratic and nationalist → main aims the restoration of the monarchy and dismantling of Treaty of Versailles.

• As anti-Weimar party, DNVP refused to join coalitions most of the time

• As the republic began to recover after 1923 crisis, became increasingly clear that DNVP hope of restoring right-wing govt. Were diminishing → continuous opposition policy meant party had no real power and achieved nothing.

• Some influential groups within DNVP realised that to have any influence on government policy party had to be prepared to participate in government.

• Growing diversity in the party led to increased division over policy and tactics, with many newer and younger members willing to compromise with democratic parties → decisions to join Luther cabinet in 1926 and Marx cabinet in 1927 a significant change in party tactics. More sympathetic, but essentially expedient attitude, towards Weimar Republic an encouraging development.

• But more conciliatory policy not popular within all groups of party and in 1928 Reichstag election DNVP suffered significant loss of support (vote fell by a quarter) , encouraging the right in the party to return to anti-democratic ways and assert influence.

• Alfreed Hugenberg, extreme nationalist and media tycoon, chosen as party leader in 1928 and shift to right confirmed → He utterly rejected parliamentary democracy and used all resources to promote his political message.

• In 1929, Hugenberg led DNVP into alliance with Nazis and paramilitary group in campaign against Young Plan + henceforth DNVP returned to blind opposition to Weimar Republic.

Conclusion:

• When viewed in comparison with early years of Weimar Republic or 1929-32, period of 1924-8 can be interpreted as time of political stability.

• Political violence receded and no attempts by extremist groups to overthrow republic by force

• But fundamental weaknesses in Weimar political system remained and stable cabinets elusive, as they had been in post-war years.

• Parties represented narrow sectional interests, making it difficult for politicians with national appeal and national programme to emerge.

• Circumstances of Weimar Republic’s creation deepened divides

• But many of the Weimar Republic’s democratic politicians understood need to compromise in order to establish coalition governments but their parties, and interests of people they represented, placed severe constraints on their freedom of action.