Reasons For The Disintegration Of The Weimar Republic

The Weimar democracy was the first of its kind in Germany. This new way of ruling come with its difficulties during the years of 1918-1933 and it is argued that the ‘Weimar Republic certainly bore a considerable weight of problems from the very start’ (Fulbrook 1992: 45). Multiple approaches attempt to explain the varying causes of the disintegration of the Weimar Republic. Theories such as Modernisation theory, the Cultural approach, Structuralism and the Transition approach each contribute an explanation for the fall of the Weimar Republic. The reasoning behind the collapse is multifaceted and therefore all interpretations must be taken into account.

Democratisation has often been linked to economic growth (Lipset 1959). Modernisation theory

The Junkers had agricultural concerns as territory had been taken away on behalf of the Treaty of Versailles which made ‘agricultural self-sufficiency all the more difficult’ (Abraham 1981: 53) whereas the bourgeois wanted a government that would accommodate rapid modernisation. The difference in interests led to radically different patterns in voting (Bernhard 2001: 395) which may have also aided the party fragmentation. Nevertheless, it is contested that the Cultural approach places too much emphasis on the role of the public. It does not take into account the individual actions of any important political actors or institutional flaws. For example, Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution give the President emergency powers to authorise the Chancellor by Presidential decree (Fulbrook 1992: 29). Without these powers President Hindenburg may have never appointed Adolf Hitler; leading to the fall of the Weimar

The Transition approach claims that democracy is not dependant on the state of the economy or structural context. There will be a successful democratic outcome ‘if elites learn the ‘right’ way to proceed’ (Grugel 2014: 57). By the end of 1932, the Weimar Republic only had a small majority who wanted to protect the rule of law (Feuchtwanger 1995: 316). It was known that President Hindenburg had intentions of replacing the current democracy with a ‘more authoritarian political system’ (Fulbrook 1992: 45) which was fully supported by many other important political figures. General Kurt von Schleicher heavily influenced Hindenburg’s plans for a more authoritarian regime (Fulbrook 1992: 49). The sheer lack of any leader committed to upholding the democratic system since Friedrich Ebert may have facilitated the corrosion of the Weimar system. Still, this idea is elitist and voluntarist (Grugel 2014: 60). Transition theory places too much importance on things happening because actors chose to make them happen. This is not always the case. For example, the economic market cannot always be predicted and therefore political leaders may not always know the best course of action – resulting in conflict either