Was the political calm in the Golden Years?

Was the political calm in the Golden Years?

1. No

   • Coalition governments
     • Specific governments
       • June 1924: DDP, Centre, DVP
       • Jan 1925: DDP, Centre, DVP, BVP, DNVP
       • Jan 1926: DDP, Centre, DVP, BVP
       • May 1926: DDP, Centre, DVP, BVP
       • Jan 1927: Centre, DVP, BVP, DNVP
       • June 1928: GRAND COALITION
     • Each government was only in office for an average of 11 months
     • 4 of 6 governments were minorities
     • Only half of governmental changes were due to elections
       • Collapsed over flag use (national or imperial)
       • Collapsed over creation of religious schools
     • Product of proportional representation system
       • Co-operation was difficult
         • Politicians stuck to political principles rather than compromise for effective government
   • Political system and parties
     • Parliamentary system failed to build on changes of 1918
       • No development of original constitutional ideals
       • Did not strengthen the political structure
     • Parties still acted as interest groups rather than national parties of government
       • Narrow sectional interest parties grew
         • Reich Party for People's Rights and Revaluation
           • Wanted to compensate losers from hyperinflation
     • Differences
       • Large differences between parties
         • Sometimes street fights
           • Nazis and KPD
       • Internal divisions
     • No shared political outlook
     • No party was passionately committed to the republic
       • Opposition from left and right remained
   • SPD
     • Opted out of middle class coalitions
       • Keep trade unions' support
       • Prevent workers defecting to KPD
       • Created centre-right coalitions wary of left-wing
         • Political instability
     • Remained largest party in Reichstag
     • Agreed to join Grand Coalition
       • Polarisation made a stable majority government unlikely
     • Divided
       • Desire to uphold working class interests
         • Feared coalitions would weaken principles
       • Commitment to democracy
         • Wanted a say in government to influence decisions
       • Moderates vs extremists
   • Election of Hindenburg
     • Ebert's death made Presidential position uncertain
     • No commitment to the republic unlike a socialist
     • Influenced membership of coalitions
       • Excluded SPD
       • Included DNVP
       • Ruled out 'grand coalition' across political spectrum
     • Did not want powers in Article 48 to be reduced
   • Opposition from elites
     • Industrialists
       • Resented burden of welfare state
       • Wanted greater control of wages
       • Landed aristocracy lost influence
     • Generals
       • Wanted army to be above politics
       • Sought a more authoritarian system
     • Judges, state employees and civil servants
       • Found democracy distasteful
     • Church leaders, teachers and newspaper editors
       • Did not aim to win support for democracy despite influence in society
       • No progress in political education
     • Promoted conservatism
     • Growing contempt and cynicism for party politics
       • Weimar still blamed for Treaty of Versailles
         • Stab in the back myth
       • Anger about continued reparation payments
       • Lack of heroes or commemorative days lost public support

2. Yes

   • Pro-Weimar Parties
     • Majority in 1924 and 1928 elections
       • Support grew from 52% to 73%
     • System of government seemed well established
     • Stable when compared to previous years
   • Political extreme
     • No attempted coups, assassinations or challenges
     • By 1928, left and right extremists held 30% of vote combined
   • Hindenburg and the elites
     • Elites supported democracy because they feared a worse alternative
     • Hindenburg's election attracted conservatives because of his army background