3 ms·

This has to be understood in historical context. Germany has had a very Bad experience with an excessively fragmented parliament in the Weimar republic, which l

by brazzy 15y ago

This has to be understood in historical context. Germany has had a very Bad experience with an excessively fragmented parliament in the Weimar republic, which led to constant Government breakups and reelections, paralysing the country politically and paving the way for someone who promised to do away with all that sissy democracy stuff... That's why the 5% threshold was established.

muuh-gnu 15y ago
> This has to be understood in historical context. Thats what he said. How do you know that he honestly sees this as a problem for the country and not just a problem for his party? He is literally advocating getting rid of political competition and decreaasing the overall possible choice for the electorate, so you have to be really really sure that he is honest and has no horse in this race, but as a member of a party which wouldnt be affected by the change but immensely profit off it, he has one.
- brazzy 15y ago
  people can have more than one reason to say something. In fact, that's the case more often than not.
stesch 15y ago
That's what is being taught at school in Germany. But there are a lot or people who say that it wasn't the number of parties, it was the lack of democrats. (Democrats, not the US party. People who support democracy.)
- brazzy 15y ago
  The poor performance of the republican (form of government, not the US party) system was one of the reasons for the lack of democrats.
- thirdsun 15y ago
  There's truth to both reasons mentioned here and they aswell as several others certainly added up to the failing of the Weimarer Republik. It's not as if you have to narrow it down to one specific reason. In fact the constituion back then was very progressive and ambitious, even by todays standards, but with the lack of support even in official positions (e.g. Justice, Army sticking with the former structure and personnel) it didn't last very long. Add to that the people's wide spread opinion of being burdened with unfairly tough first world war reparations and the regular abuse of emergency law ("Notverordnungen", not sure if the translation is correct) and there are a lot of ears listening to the ideas of the NSDAP. This may be true for most things in life, but if there's one subject that can't be explained with only one aspect or reason, it's the republic of Weimar. It's decline is the sum of several unfortunate developments and circumstances.
  - gwillen 15y ago
    Google translate says "emergency decrees" for "Notverordnungen", which I would agree with. "Emergency law" is an ok but (to me) slightly confusing translation. I think a more common American English phrasing would be "abuse of emergency powers". ("Emergency powers" appears to be "Notverordnungsrecht".)
pdelgallego 15y ago
That is, imo, a very simplistic explanation of what happened in the Weimar republic. The interwar period were complex and convoluted times The military overspend during WWI and draconian terms that the winners impose over Germany destroyed the economy of the country, creating a spiral of hyperinflation[1], both led to an inevitable second conflict, as Keynes pointed in "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" that was written many years before the WWII [1] A great book about Weimar hyperinflation cycle is "When money dies: The nightmare of the Weimar collapse"
- brazzy 15y ago
  I did not intend or claim to provide a full explanation, just explain one significant factor that is relevant to this topic.
- guan 15y ago
  However simplistic, it’s hard to deny that in the public understanding of German political history, that’s the generally accepted explanation for political stagnation and crisis in the Weimar Republic. Similarly, the German public understands hyperinflation as leading to the rise of Hitler and the Second World War. There was a genuine and severe hyperinflation crisis in the years after World War I, but the main economic reason for the Nazi ascendance to power in the early 1930s was actually a period of _deflation_ and mass unemployment. The Nazi rise to power coincided with an inflationary policy (Germany exited the gold standard in 1931), in part supported by the Nazis, that decreased unemployment and increased economic growth. This is why it’s kind of funny when the current inflation aversion of German policymakers is attributed to a national trauma about hyperinflation. It’s true that the hyperinflationary period 1919-1923 was deeply painful for Germans and you can understand that they don’t want to repeat that, but surely the consequences of the deflationary period leading to the rise of National Socialism were worse. (That doesn’t mean that Keynes was wrong, but a story that sees hyperinflation leading to WWII is probably too simplistic. It’s more like hyperinflation → gold standard → Great Depression → deflation → Nazis gain more seats → leave gold standard → Nazis gain absolute power.) See http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2010/06/30/197736/austerity-going-global/ http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2010/06/30/197736/austerit...
maayank 15y ago
As an Israeli, and in continuance with netcan's good comment above, I could certainly see that happening here as a result of fragmented parliament. edit: I say it not to reflect on Israeli society or politics per se, but to agree that fragmented parliaments cause such problems.

by brazzy 15y ago

muuh-gnu 15y ago

> This has to be understood in historical context. Thats what he said. How do you know that he honestly sees this as a problem for the country and not just a problem for his party? He is literally advocating getting rid of political competition and decreaasing the overall possible choice for the electorate, so you have to be really really sure that he is honest and has no horse in this race, but as a member of a party which wouldnt be affected by the change but immensely profit off it, he has one.

brazzy 15y ago
people can have more than one reason to say something. In fact, that's the case more often than not.

stesch 15y ago

That's what is being taught at school in Germany. But there are a lot or people who say that it wasn't the number of parties, it was the lack of democrats. (Democrats, not the US party. People who support democracy.)

brazzy 15y ago
The poor performance of the republican (form of government, not the US party) system was one of the reasons for the lack of democrats.
thirdsun 15y ago
There's truth to both reasons mentioned here and they aswell as several others certainly added up to the failing of the Weimarer Republik. It's not as if you have to narrow it down to one specific reason. In fact the constituion back then was very progressive and ambitious, even by todays standards, but with the lack of support even in official positions (e.g. Justice, Army sticking with the former structure and personnel) it didn't last very long. Add to that the people's wide spread opinion of being burdened with unfairly tough first world war reparations and the regular abuse of emergency law ("Notverordnungen", not sure if the translation is correct) and there are a lot of ears listening to the ideas of the NSDAP. This may be true for most things in life, but if there's one subject that can't be explained with only one aspect or reason, it's the republic of Weimar. It's decline is the sum of several unfortunate developments and circumstances.
- gwillen 15y ago
  Google translate says "emergency decrees" for "Notverordnungen", which I would agree with. "Emergency law" is an ok but (to me) slightly confusing translation. I think a more common American English phrasing would be "abuse of emergency powers". ("Emergency powers" appears to be "Notverordnungsrecht".)

pdelgallego 15y ago

That is, imo, a very simplistic explanation of what happened in the Weimar republic. The interwar period were complex and convoluted times The military overspend during WWI and draconian terms that the winners impose over Germany destroyed the economy of the country, creating a spiral of hyperinflation[1], both led to an inevitable second conflict, as Keynes pointed in "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" that was written many years before the WWII [1] A great book about Weimar hyperinflation cycle is "When money dies: The nightmare of the Weimar collapse"

brazzy 15y ago
I did not intend or claim to provide a full explanation, just explain one significant factor that is relevant to this topic.
guan 15y ago
However simplistic, it’s hard to deny that in the public understanding of German political history, that’s the generally accepted explanation for political stagnation and crisis in the Weimar Republic. Similarly, the German public understands hyperinflation as leading to the rise of Hitler and the Second World War. There was a genuine and severe hyperinflation crisis in the years after World War I, but the main economic reason for the Nazi ascendance to power in the early 1930s was actually a period of _deflation_ and mass unemployment. The Nazi rise to power coincided with an inflationary policy (Germany exited the gold standard in 1931), in part supported by the Nazis, that decreased unemployment and increased economic growth. This is why it’s kind of funny when the current inflation aversion of German policymakers is attributed to a national trauma about hyperinflation. It’s true that the hyperinflationary period 1919-1923 was deeply painful for Germans and you can understand that they don’t want to repeat that, but surely the consequences of the deflationary period leading to the rise of National Socialism were worse. (That doesn’t mean that Keynes was wrong, but a story that sees hyperinflation leading to WWII is probably too simplistic. It’s more like hyperinflation → gold standard → Great Depression → deflation → Nazis gain more seats → leave gold standard → Nazis gain absolute power.) See http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2010/06/30/197736/austerity-going-global/ http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2010/06/30/197736/austerit...

maayank 15y ago

As an Israeli, and in continuance with netcan's good comment above, I could certainly see that happening here as a result of fragmented parliament. edit: I say it not to reflect on Israeli society or politics per se, but to agree that fragmented parliaments cause such problems.