3 ms·

By that standard the USSR had lots of democratic elections. Some of the unwritten standards by which we judge an election democratic or not are things like "do

By that standard the USSR had lots of democratic elections. Some of the unwritten standards by which we judge an election democratic or not are things like "do people get beaten up for campaigning". When we see violence and then a leader who wins 97% of the vote in places like Africa, we don't hesitate to call it a sham democracy. Why would we do differently for Germany?

pluma 9y ago
Hitler wasn't elected with 97%. The NSDAP's election results looked like this: May 1924: 6.6% December 1924: 3.0% May 1928: 2.6% September 1930: 18.3% (second largest party) July 1932: 37.4% November 1932: 33.1% March 1933: 43.9% (last free election) November 1933: 92.1% March 1936: 98.8% April 1938: 99.1% Sure, the NSDAP won 90% of the vote after all other parties were dissolved in June 1933 but all elections before that were "democratic". The NSDAP didn't even get into power with a direct majority. They formed a coalition government with another party, the KSWR/DNVP (who got 8% of the vote). Also note that by that point the government had been destabilized since the 1920s, ruling only with an absolute minority of the votes. In 1930 the left-wing parties (KPD and SPD) actually campaigned against ever having another war with very successful demonstrations. The NSDAP campaign in 1930 was the first campaign organised by Goebbels. It was based on conspiracy theories like the economical crisis being an international conspiracy against Germany, appeals to national identity, scaremongering against communism and capitalism. They actually toned down the anti-semitism on Goebbels' orders. This was a "small government" democracy in action. An unstable one, yes, but the elections were democratic. The Nazis exploited the instability of the government and the economy and they used scaremongering and demagoguery to get the relative majority, but they won democratic elections and they had a significant share of the votes before being in a position to force the outcome.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  I didn't say he was, though I can see why you might have parsed it that way. I was referring to African elections where that sort of result is fairly common. Even in the last election you label as "free" the Nazis had stormtroopers on the street, no? And a significant reason they were able to win the Enabling Act was because they simply blocked other politicians from turning up at all, and violently threatened the ones who did? Or am I misremembering history?
  - pluma 9y ago
    The turning point however was the 1930 election that made them the second largest party. The Enabling Act ultimately led to the formal dictatorship but the Reichstag Fire Decree (also post-election 1933) was what effectively ended civil liberties and political opposition. By the time the 1933 election happened, Hitler was already chancellor and NSDAP thugs were openly assaulting political opponents. The reason I pointed it out as the "last free election" is that it was the last election that at least offered people the option to vote for someone else. Starting with the election of 1930 the NSDAP had enough popular support to slowly force its way into dictatorship. Maybe this could have been prevented with a more stable political climate (i.e. a strong majority government and a less fragmented Reichstag) but there's no way around the fact that many millions of people voted for the NSDAP. This is why every German who's familiar with their history is uncomfortable with the popularity of the right-wing nationalist AfD today. They may not be the NPD but they're certainly at risk of being enablers. This is also why openly anti-constitutional parties can be banned (but also why it's so difficult to do so). EDIT: Let me reiterate my point for emphasis: While Hitler's rise to power wasn't exactly democratic, the NSDAP was only able to get him into that position because millions of people voted them into the Reichstag. How many people didn't vote for Hitler doesn't matter -- most Americans didn't vote for Trump either.
    - peoplewindow 9y ago
      But why do you think getting elected and then ending democracy is an exclusively Nazi pre-disposition, when it's mostly been communists doing that, and why do you think it was free speech that led to Hitler when free speech is the first thing people like him get rid of? Democracy and freedom of speech are the primary bulwark against people like that, not the cause of it!
      - pluma 9y ago
        It's not nazis who are the problem, it's populism. Populism exploits an inherent vulnerability in democratic systems. If you value freedom of speech above all, you allow for populism to thrive. Note that while Germany does censor specific nazi symbolism to prevent a direct repeat of its own history, the constitution is actually written in a way that is not simply aimed against nazism but to uphold human dignity. If you allow for humans to be dehumanised in political speech, for in-group/out-group rhetoric to be pushed to such limits that other humans are portrayed as subhuman or inherently worthless or evil, it doesn't matter whether you're a nazi or a communist or an anarchist. Saying free speech is important because Hitler got rid of free speech is a false equivalency. It's like saying free trade is important because Stalin got rid of free trade. It's not either one or the other. You don't have to allow people to incite hatred in order to protect a society's freedom.

pluma 9y ago

Hitler wasn't elected with 97%. The NSDAP's election results looked like this: May 1924: 6.6% December 1924: 3.0% May 1928: 2.6% September 1930: 18.3% (second largest party) July 1932: 37.4% November 1932: 33.1% March 1933: 43.9% (last free election) November 1933: 92.1% March 1936: 98.8% April 1938: 99.1% Sure, the NSDAP won 90% of the vote after all other parties were dissolved in June 1933 but all elections before that were "democratic". The NSDAP didn't even get into power with a direct majority. They formed a coalition government with another party, the KSWR/DNVP (who got 8% of the vote). Also note that by that point the government had been destabilized since the 1920s, ruling only with an absolute minority of the votes. In 1930 the left-wing parties (KPD and SPD) actually campaigned against ever having another war with very successful demonstrations. The NSDAP campaign in 1930 was the first campaign organised by Goebbels. It was based on conspiracy theories like the economical crisis being an international conspiracy against Germany, appeals to national identity, scaremongering against communism and capitalism. They actually toned down the anti-semitism on Goebbels' orders. This was a "small government" democracy in action. An unstable one, yes, but the elections were democratic. The Nazis exploited the instability of the government and the economy and they used scaremongering and demagoguery to get the relative majority, but they won democratic elections and they had a significant share of the votes before being in a position to force the outcome.

peoplewindow 9y ago
I didn't say he was, though I can see why you might have parsed it that way. I was referring to African elections where that sort of result is fairly common. Even in the last election you label as "free" the Nazis had stormtroopers on the street, no? And a significant reason they were able to win the Enabling Act was because they simply blocked other politicians from turning up at all, and violently threatened the ones who did? Or am I misremembering history?
- pluma 9y ago
  The turning point however was the 1930 election that made them the second largest party. The Enabling Act ultimately led to the formal dictatorship but the Reichstag Fire Decree (also post-election 1933) was what effectively ended civil liberties and political opposition. By the time the 1933 election happened, Hitler was already chancellor and NSDAP thugs were openly assaulting political opponents. The reason I pointed it out as the "last free election" is that it was the last election that at least offered people the option to vote for someone else. Starting with the election of 1930 the NSDAP had enough popular support to slowly force its way into dictatorship. Maybe this could have been prevented with a more stable political climate (i.e. a strong majority government and a less fragmented Reichstag) but there's no way around the fact that many millions of people voted for the NSDAP. This is why every German who's familiar with their history is uncomfortable with the popularity of the right-wing nationalist AfD today. They may not be the NPD but they're certainly at risk of being enablers. This is also why openly anti-constitutional parties can be banned (but also why it's so difficult to do so). EDIT: Let me reiterate my point for emphasis: While Hitler's rise to power wasn't exactly democratic, the NSDAP was only able to get him into that position because millions of people voted them into the Reichstag. How many people didn't vote for Hitler doesn't matter -- most Americans didn't vote for Trump either.
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    But why do you think getting elected and then ending democracy is an exclusively Nazi pre-disposition, when it's mostly been communists doing that, and why do you think it was free speech that led to Hitler when free speech is the first thing people like him get rid of? Democracy and freedom of speech are the primary bulwark against people like that, not the cause of it!
    - pluma 9y ago
      It's not nazis who are the problem, it's populism. Populism exploits an inherent vulnerability in democratic systems. If you value freedom of speech above all, you allow for populism to thrive. Note that while Germany does censor specific nazi symbolism to prevent a direct repeat of its own history, the constitution is actually written in a way that is not simply aimed against nazism but to uphold human dignity. If you allow for humans to be dehumanised in political speech, for in-group/out-group rhetoric to be pushed to such limits that other humans are portrayed as subhuman or inherently worthless or evil, it doesn't matter whether you're a nazi or a communist or an anarchist. Saying free speech is important because Hitler got rid of free speech is a false equivalency. It's like saying free trade is important because Stalin got rid of free trade. It's not either one or the other. You don't have to allow people to incite hatred in order to protect a society's freedom.