Ever wonder how democracies truly fail? When do elections go bad? Today, an example that many of you are familiar with…
In 1930, economically depressed Germany was whalloped by the Great Depression. The Social Democrats and other traditional political parties of the centre and right had no answer to the nation’s woes, and in the elections of September 1930, a new political Party called the National Socialists rose from relative obscurity to win 18.3% of the vote, making them the second largest political party in Germany. They were led by a vegetarian socialist known as Adolf Hitler.
President Paul von Hindenberg remained in power, but Hitler had broad public appeal, finding support in farmers, war veterans, and the middle-class who had been hard-hit by both the inflation of the 1920s and the unemployment of the Depression. The Social Democrats found their power base in the urban working classes.
But Nazi power grew. In the 1932 elections, the Nazis became the largest party along with the communists. Both were unable to come to a compromise agreement with the other parties to form a government, and new elections were called. The Nazis lost seats in the parliament, but remained the largest party. Hindenberg, who remained a lame-duck president, eventually appointed Hitler Chancellor of a coalition government cobbled together after the elections.
When the parliament was set on fire (and the communists were blamed for it), the Reichstag Fire Decree suspended civil liberties. In the following elections in March 1933, the Nazis received 43.9% of the vote, negotiated a coalition with the several other smaller parties, forming a Nazi cabinet and keeping Hindenberg as president. The Enabling Act, passed by the parliament after Nazi paramilitaries physically expelled the Communist deputies, gave Hitler legal dictatorial authority. Under the Enabling Act the Nazi cabinet could pass legislation itself, bypassing the Reichstag, but only measures submitted by the Chancellor (Hitler). The Enabling Act was to lapse after four years or upon the installation of a new government and was dutifully renewed every four years.
Using the Enabling Act, Hitler’s government soon banned all other political parties. Labor unions were put under Nazi control. Hitler ordered every member of the military to swear a personal oath of allegiance to him. When President Hindenburg died on August 2, 1934, Hitler’s cabinet passed a law combining the offices of president and chancellor, with Hitler holding both offices. This consolidation was approved by 90% of the electorate in mid-August 1934. And from there, a decade of darkness that ravaged the globe began.

Comments to this entry
Eye Dream Awake
August 27, 2005
11:50 am
Speaking of Coming Anarchy, Curzon wrote an entry yesterday about the rise of Hitler that I don't really have words for. It's very good. Read it here....
Chirol
August 27, 2005
1:14 pm
Chief Wiggum
August 27, 2005
8:42 pm
"The River War" _and Churchill's World War II speeches are all examples of a particular kind of hardheadedness- the ability to establish moral priorities. The appeasers found it morally repugnant to seek an allance with Stalin or to support a military coup against Hitler, since he had come to power democratically, notwithstanding postelection backroom deals. The appeasers, writes Professor Rahe, indulged their moral sensitivities at a terrible cost; "they were more nice than wise. In refusing to commit the smaller sin, the incurred a far greater wrong."_ (p. 26)
Regarding our present intrigues, does any of this sound familiar?
J.Kende
August 27, 2005
9:03 pm
Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace
August 27, 2005
9:27 pm
cowlick
August 28, 2005
5:21 pm
Today, George and Osama are doing the same thing, except this time around they are using religion. Duh!
The Coming Anarchy thesis and what it has led to has a big, glaring, gigantic flaw: If it is true that raw, centralized power is necessary to prevent the outbreak of anarchy, then why in the world was it necessary to topple that paragon of raw, centralized power preventing civil war called Saddam Hussein? Can you tell me WTF the logic is here? Because it does seem to me that there is a BIG contradiction in your logic.
Mr. "Curzon" would have everyone believe that leftism is idealistic and naive; it is, however, ironic that, when it is once pointed out to him that the purpose modern wars has been to kill-off the working class, his hard-edged "realism" is found wanting: appartently, the world is a nasty and brutish place, but not so much that the ruling class would actually have the working class kill itself off by nurturing its racism and religious fanaticism.
Alas, it seems to me smug Mr. Curzon's fate is the same as that other nihilistic "realist": hanging from the neck of a whipped horse, crying like an innocent babe.
maskull
August 28, 2005
6:06 pm
Which has put a kink in pointing to B. J. Clinton "the most popular elected leader since Adolf Hitler" ...
The main consideration is the overwhelming, undeniable popularity of these guys. Adolf Hitler. Jo-Jo Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot.
Now if the people who tore down the statues of Stalin or Sadam had stopped to consider how much they could get on eBay ...
Curzon
August 29, 2005
12:09 am
J.Kende
August 29, 2005
12:59 am
It also sucks in far too many well intentioned, otherwise thoughtful, respectfully idealistic, passionate, dedicated, and caring young people of upstanding personal character who who are hooked into the vision of the world of the left because they are often exposed directly to very little else. But that vision corrupts, and over time even those bright lights dim because of it.
Get out while you can.
snow
August 29, 2005
7:43 am
Please spare us the dubious leftist theories. Hasn't the world had enough of class warfare theories, which have pretty much been debunked. I highly doubt that Hitler remotely thought this way. He was concerned with building his power and he did it in any way he could.
snow
August 29, 2005
7:48 am
"The real purpose of WWII was to channel working class hostility against the ruling class itself, through racism. It worked. Today, George and Osama are doing the same thing, except this time around they are using religion."
IJ
August 29, 2005
11:38 am
Enlightened dictatorships? This is very topical: a key change the US seems to be proposing (the precise details are secret) for next month's World Summit is that trade, foreign investment, and aid should be conditional on good governance and sound economic policies.
Who is going to set the example for these essentials?
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Dangers of Democracy; Democracies in Danger
December 3, 2005
2:46 am