Democracy: The Iraqi and the German Way

(Sorry, folks, for not posting in the last couple of days. A severe case of flue kept me from any meaningful activity...)

The German media, at least for the time being, generally welcome the high voter turnout in the Iraqi election for a constitutional assembly. This stands in marked contrast to the sneering and dismissive tone the German media employed ahead of the election.

It is tempting to compare the steps towards democracy taken in post-Saddam Iraq to those in post-Hitler Germany.

Iraqis just had national elections in which voters selected a 275-member National Assembly that will choose the next president and two vice presidents, in addition to drafting the nation's constitution. The constitution will then be presented to the Iraqi people for approval in October 2005. In December 2005 a new parliament is elected, based on the new constitution. (Facts as described by U.S. Dept. of State; more here)

In a nutshell: the Iraqi people elected a National Assembly, they (the Iraqi people) will vote on a new constitution, presented by this National Assembly, and then they (the Iraqi people) will elect a new parliament. The whole process of establishing democracy in Iraq is "people driven".

On contrast, the whole process of establishing democracy in Germany in 1948 was "elite driven".

Here is how it worked:

In mid-1948 - three years after Germany's defeat - the Military Governors commissioned the prime ministers of the eleven reorganized states to convene a national assembly to write a new constitution for Germany. They specified that the new constitution must establish a federal form of government, protect the rights of the respective states, and provide for the protection of individual rights and freedoms. Within the framework of these broad principles, Germans were free, subject to Allied approval, to draft a constitution of their own making.

The prime ministers moved at once. They appointed a committee of experts to prepare a draft constitution for the assembly's consideration. Twenty-five persons - all Germans - accomplished this task in 14 days. No Americans were present during this period. The initiative then shifted to the state legislatures. They elected the national assembly's 65 delegates. There was no Allied interference in these elections. All 65 delegates were members of political parties represented in the state legislatures. Fifty-four of the delegates - again all Germans - were members of these legislatures. Over the next ten months, the assembly - known as the Parliamentary Council - produced the Basic Law, which in time would become one of the world's great constitutions.

Conflicts did arise between the assembly and the Military Governors, particularly over the powers of the national government. ... In fact, the Military Governors made a number of concessions. For example, they originally insisted on the popular ratification of the Constitution, but gave way to the German view that the state legislatures should perform this function.

Appointed experts ... delegates elected by state legislatures ... no popular ratification of the Constitution (Germany's Basic Law = Grundgesetz): the involvement of the German population was limited to the election of the first federal parliament which in turn approved the Grundgesetz.

Even though I agree that the Grundgesetz proved to be a successful framework for Germany's post-war start to democracy, an early-on direct participation of the population in the election of the constitutional assembly as well as a final popular vote on the Grundgesetz would have provided an additional democratic impetus for the future. Much of Germany's political and economic worries of today stem from too much reliance on elite decisions, and too little trust in the will of the German people.

It is quite telling that - mirroring the process of adoption of the Grundgesetz - the new European constitution is not supposed to be ratified by the German population.

Glad to see the Iraqis choose a different path to democracy...

Comments

[Ulan Bator]

"Much of Germany's political and economic worries of today stem from too much reliance on elite decisions, and too little trust in the will of the German people"

I think it´s the other way round. Much of our problems are rooted in the elites strong dependence on the popular will. This is in part fostered by the strong roll of federal governments in overall decision making leading to a state of a "constant electon campaign", because there´s always a federal election in the near future.

BTW: This blog provides the best examples for why the general public should not be trusted. It is often irrational and can be too easily manipulated by the media.

[Der Schakal]

@Ulan

Quote: "This blog provides the best examples for why the general public should not be trusted. It is often irrational and can be too easily manipulated by the media."

Your statement sounds harsh, but I unfortunately find it often true.

And the repercussions in politics can be devastating. Thank God Europeans weren't voting elsewhere in the world - the damage is limited to our own countries, and so we in Germany have to live with our Red-Green coalition and hope the economy here doesn't completely collapse. Not to speak of unresponsible foreign politics.

It speaks for a Representative Democracy or is the reason no government should base all decisions on direct vote or rule according to polls for that matter. Democracy only works when the public is well informed. Yet, the solution cannot to give up on it and return to Aristocracy, but to inform the public.

[George M]

@ Ray

The former President of Harvard University, William Connant, was an uncelebrated individual who played a major role in designing the democracy of both countries: the U.S. and Germany.

Connant's contribution to American democracy was the American High School: he pretty much designed it with educating Americans to be proficient at governing themselves. The idea of Student Government, which has also been applied to the University system, was his. Even such benign institutions such as "home room," were designed so that in at least one class per day, a student who is an accademic elite, can rub shoulders with a kid who is majoring in industrial arts.

The high school concept was popular in Germany in the 1970s and 80s. Here, it is called Gesamtschule.

Connant was asked by President Harry Truman to be German Occupation Governor. (To be honest, don't know whether he was Governor for the American Sector or for all of what is now the BRD). Connant would be the first civilian Occupation Governor of Germany and the last Occupation Governor of Germany. The legend is that Connant worked closely with Conrad Adenauer in drafting the "Grundgesetz." The Grundgesetz was drafted with particular emphasis on minority rights, individual rights and anti-militarisim.

My take on this is that Connant was a strong believer in democracy at the grass roots level. Any influence he had on the drafting of the Grundgesetz was to broaden the participation for all Germans, not just elites.

I believe, that the American high school is an institution that is long in the tooth. But I am not sure that it is Connant’s fault. It think the fault lies with our present generation of educators. Ditto for the Grundgesetz. If there is any problem with German democracy, it is something that this genertion of politicians have screwed up.

[George M]

@ Ray

Forgive me. Typical Saturday morning foggy-headedness. Not William Connant, but James B. Conant (one n). William Connant was our local elementary shool principal...sorry.

[fuchur]

the whole process of establishing democracy in Germany in 1948 was "elite driven"
Obviously, Professor Kommers disagrees: "Fifth, (...) the restoration of democratic constitutionalism must be a "bottom-up" (...) affair.(...)
Top-down would not have worked in Germany..."

the Grundgesetz proved to be a successful framework for Germany's post-war start to democracy
I sense true enthusiasm... Let´s cite Kommers again: "one of the world's great constitutions". One of the world´s greatest, I might add :-). (although

I must admit that the pursuit of happiness is just beyond cool ;-) ).

Much of Germany's political and economic worries of today stem from too much reliance on elite decisions, and too little trust in the will of the

German people.
No kidding? I thought our worries stem from too much reliance on idiot decisions. (insert random Bush/Schröder/Kohl joke).
Call me a bloody capitalist, but in opinion people become "elite" because they are smarter and work harder than the others (or because they just

made the right decisions). So it would be a very good idea to listen to them.
However, as Ulan Bator pointed out: politicians want to be elected... So for years and years they

have refrained from attacking the "painful" issues. A true Staatsmann must have the courage to sometimes forego the will of the people and just do

what (he thinks) is right.

Glad to see the Iraqis choose a different path to democracy...
I really wish I could share your optimism. As Professor Kommers also points out in the article, there are significant differences between the

situation in Iraq now and in postwar Germany. Germany´s traditions of democracy and especially of trust in government reach back far beyond the

Kaiserreich. There were no ethnic conflicts. And who knows what would have happened without a Wirtschaftswunder?

Note from David: fuchur, I'm not sure I get your point. (Which doesn't matter anyway...)
Just for the record: Using approvingly one quote from a lenghty article doesn't mean I agree with other positions in the article. I sure noticed Kommers' "bottom-up" description of Germany's democracy. Do I have to mention his position in my posting? I don't think so.
I just happen not to agree with him on this point. No need for me to first quote and then refute him. Period.

[RSN]

Ulan Bator's and Der Schakal's comments are indicative of the essential faultiness to be found in European parliamentary democracy versus American constitutional democracy. Without a strong, sensible Constitution, - with a clear, tri-partite division of power - democracy is weakened.

Parliamentary democracy, where the parliament is always stronger than elected officials, and where judges are obliged to cede interpretation of constitutional laws to the parliament, will always degenerate into a large debating club of elites where coalition politics and consensus are prized over decisiveness and action. The American Constitution has a proven track record of responding to crises faster than the weaker, European models (with the possible exeption of the British Parliament, where traditions tend to serve the role of structural support). The European Constitution, in fact, will only cement Europe's role as that of a freeloader to American initiative in the future.

It is also laughable and hypocritical that Ulan and Schakal should cite this blog as an example of "why the general public should not be trusted. It is often irrational and can be too easily manipulated by the media." I cannot but help think that this is the Euro attitude adopted whenever confronted with a contrapuntal argument against the subservient culture developed by parliamentary coalition politics.

The blog continues to be the most fascinating and innovative socio-political force in recent American innovations. No wonder it is denigrated by Europeans.

It is easy to see why America continues to be the stronger democracy in the world, and why American growth rates predominate in all sectors of societal development: economic, scientific, cultural, and political.

[fuchur]

@George M
Interesting. The Gesamtschule has always been dear to the German left. But I think an American highschool is quite different from a Gesamtschule: in America, you can to some degree choose your classes, so you have again some kind of "elite". In a G., the teaching schedule is fixed, so everybody has to attend the same courses. The idea being that the example of the "good" students would prompt the "bad" students to work harder, thus raising the overall level. Turns out it worked rather the opposite way...
So I thought the idea had been abandoned. However, amidst the recent PISA-panic some have apparently digged it up again and present it as the remedy to all problems.

[Ulan Bator]

@RSN: What i actually wrote was: "This blog PROVIDES the best EXAMPLES for why the general public should not be trusted".

What I mean is that this blog, by giving many examples of bias in the german media, shows you how easy the public can be influenced by a one-sided media.

If you live in germany and talk to the people here about politics and economics, you will realize very quickly that their points of view are almost identical with what big media outlets like Spiegel Online provide them on a daily basis. It´s actually quite disturbing.

I would argue that you can´t expect from everyone to read dozens of different international newspapers, magazines, books and blogs to get a "balanced" view of the world, but then one has to find a way to limit the influence of the uninformed masses on politics.

That doesn´t mean abolishing democracy all together, but one must find a new institutional setting, in which the opinion of well educated and informed experts have a greater influence on on politics.

[fuchur]

@RSN
I´m not familiar with the term "constitutional democracy". Every democracy is based on some kind of "constitution". And everywhere it is difficult, but certainly possible, to change it. I see no difference to the USA here?
The difference I see is "parliamentary democracy" vs "presidential democracy". But France would be "presidential", too. And why is Britain´s system so un-European??
Certainly the US system is not perfect either. One problem is the "lame duck" tendency. I guess one could come up with more...

[Chomskybot]

I have to make some remarks concerning this (excellent) post:
1. In Germany, the physical and moral breakdown was much larger than it has been in Iraq. Millions of people were displaced. Hundreds of cities were smoking ruins. Nobody knew how life would go on. So, these were bad preconditions for "people-driven" democracy.
2. A second obstacle was the distrust against the people's will, caused by the election of Hitler in 1933. This had a strong influence on the new constitution.

Note from David: Hitler wasn't "elected" as chancellor in 1933. He was appointed by Reichspraesident von Hindenburg. As to the Nazi election successes, the last free elections in Germany prior to the start of the Third Reich were held in November 1932. The Nazi party slipped to 33 % of the vote. They lost more than 2 million votes compared to the July 1932 elections. Hitler considered committing suicide. Well, Germany's political and business elites had different plans for him...

[Ray D.]

@ posters:

This article was written by David.

---Ray D.

[JKZeller]

@ fuchur

The 'elite" do not necessarily deserve their status. Most of the Hollywood Left worked very hard to reach their noteriety, sometimes using their brainpower to acheive this. Their political statements, though very public due to their "elite" status, are puerile drivel. Other "elites" include those who've inherited wealth and reputation from others, but, in reality, are basically worthless individuals (witness, Teddy Kennedy). Still other "elites" slimed their way into power and status through sheer cunning and vain ambition (witness, John "French Dip" Kerry). Happily, most Americans reject the inauthentic.

So, der Fuchur, I believe your real attachment to "elites" is due to both a very basic European love of aristocracy and a very German need to do what he's told to do.

[RSN]

Ulan: I stand corrected. I thought that you were taking a negative view to the role of blogs in general. My apologies.

In the US today, the MSM has finally felt threatened enough by blogs to start campaigning against them. The European MSM reaction isn't as developed yet; however, there seems to be a chorus of European commenters on blogs who seem to equate blogs as an uncontrolled and undisciplined voice of populist politics. One can almost hear the inevitable call for the "civilizing" hand of regulation....

fuchur: American academia often tries to explain the difference between European parliamentary democracy vs. the American system by emphasizing the term constitutional democracy. The US Constitution is the only thing that really defines the nation. European nations, on the other hand, have so many cultural factors (common language, race, etc.) that bind a nation together, that a constitution is usually viewed as just one factor out of many. Therefore, tinkering with the constitution is not seen as weakening the nation. Yet it's exactly this tinkering which led to the present weakness of Europe in general when facing the challenges of a globalized world.

(As to Britain being un-European: look at all the democracies in Europe. Almost all of them are less than 100 years old. The vast majority of European parliaments were so weak they did not survive the challenges of war and social upheaval. Only Britain stands out - out of the major nations - as the exception).

Of course the US system is not perfect, but it is more effective than parliamentary democracies, where constitutions can be changed (and often are) much more easily and readily than the US Constitution. Thus Euro constitutions have evolved into legal documents enshrining coalition politics that ensure hard decisions and choices will be difficult to make or enact.

As to lame duck tendencies, if you mean by that not the proper term (the sitting president is weak until a newly-elected one takes office), but by the broader term that seems to have taken hold, namely that a presidential campaign puts all decisions on hold, then I would like to remind you that no real decisions were put on hold during the last American election campaigns. The only decisions that were put on hold were those of the European freeloader states, who decided not to form foreign policy lines until they saw who the winner was in US elections. That is a European problem, not an American one.

[Jeff]

@ fuchur

You said "Germany´s traditions of democracy and especially of trust in government reach back far beyond the Kaiserreich. There were no ethnic conflicts."

That must have been news to the Prussians, Bavarians, etc who revolted in 1848. Freiheit und Einheit was their slogan, and the revolution failed. They must not have thought they had Freiheit or Einheit. German city states were oligarchies. And most of Germany was deep in feudal bondage until well into the 18th century.

I guess all those Poles in East Prussia were not an ethnic minority, or the French in Alsasce-Lorraine. Yep no minority problems in the Kaiserreich.

And no religious disputes either (well except for 1618 through 1648.) Wait I forgot the Kulturkampf.

Just because many of us here are Americans, please do not assume that we know nothing about German history.

[Chomskybot]

I have to add two more points:
3. The U.S. had less experience in "nation building" in 1945 than they have now, and they had more soldiers. Two factors that favor elite-driven democracy over relying on the people.
4. Germany had to be saved from communism, people-driven democracy may have produced "undesired" results.

[Jeff]

@ Chomskybot

Right. I had forgotten how delightful the Soviet Army was as an occupier. A whole lot more pleasant to have been in Berlin under Zhukov's troops than in Munich under Eisenhower's or Hamburg under Montgomery's. It was why they had all those elections in the East while democratic institutions were precluded in the West. Everyone in the US was terrified that the Germans would vote to join their cousins in the Soviet Zone.

Do you have any bridges you want to sell me?

@ Jeff, "Just because many of us here are Americans, please do not assume that we know nothing about German history". Being a descendant of an orphaned illegitimate daughter of a Grenzesoldaten and Prussian peasants your statement struck a cord with me. I'm American because Europe's elites ran roughshod over their own people. I often wonder if Germans know their own history.

[Del Hoeft]

@ Jeff, "Just because many of us here are Americans, please do not assume that we know nothing about German history". Being a descendant of an orphaned illegitimate daughter of a Grenzesoldaten and Prussian peasants your statement struck a cord with me. I'm American because Europe's elites ran roughshod over their own people. I often wonder if Germans know their own history.

[Jeff]

@ Del

Forty years ago I was planning to be a professional historian on Hohenzollern Prussia and Hapsburg Austria. Small things like Vietnam and marriage got in the way.

But my wife's grandmother had fled Germany in 1923 after Erzberger and Rathenau were murdered. I used to have long conversations with her about the Germany she had left. When people babble about the long tradition of German democracy I can do nothing but laugh hysterically.

What Germany did have was a wonderful history of municipal administration and a strong commitment to the rule of law. Those were the long-term historical bases for the establishment of a strongly democratic government in western Germany after WW II.

[PacRim Jim]

I can hear it now: I vas never a member of ze anti-American partei.

[Mark]

A different path, however, doesn't necessarily lead to a different democracy.

Indeed, the type of mini-state federalism devised by German "elites" seems to have well suited a country already organized somewhat along ancient tribal lines.

So, while the path to the Iraqi constitution will, rather, lead through a plebiscite, it may yet end up at a destination resembling Germany.

And that may be a good fit.

Then, if Iraqis can be Iraqis first, ahead of their religous and political affiliations, they have the resources to become the greatest power in the Middle East. Through their commerce and industriousness, their culture will overspread the globe.

It might be "east-meets-west" in a way which will spawn profound, positive change.

[Jabba the Tutt]

"As to Britain being un-European: look at all the democracies in Europe. Almost all of them are less than 100 years old. The vast majority of European parliaments were so weak they did not survive the challenges of war and social upheaval. Only Britain stands out - out of the major nations - as the exception."

@RSN: Would I be correct to say that only Britain (Except Sweden)of the State with Parliaments had not been either occupied or defeated in war?

The US and Britain seem to respond to problems more quickly and decisively than other Democracies. One difference between the US and parliamentary democracies is the party system. In the European countries, parties control who becomes a candidate and is tightly bound to the party. To advance in such a system, one must kiss the butts of political superiors for 40 years. With such training, any sense for taking decisive action is breed out of the system. In the US, becoming a candidate is a self-selection. Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to run for Governor of California. Two months later, he was elected Governor. He has an about 70% approval rating.

[Del Hoeft]

The Parliamentary system encourages tribalism by giving parties that have no popular appeal an opportunity to join coalitions (after the election). The glory of the American system especialy for a multi-cultural society is that elections are won in the center not on the fringes. Fischer holds his high office by virture of the fact that he appeals to what? 10% of the population.

[ATM]

I don't think you can say whether the problem is whether the elites control govt or the they respond to easily to the popular will. The elites created a system where they continuously gave benefits to the electorate via government to preserve social stability. The electorate bought into the system.

[George M]

@ Fuchur

"n a G., the teaching schedule is fixed, so everybody has to attend the same courses. The idea being that the example of the "good" students would prompt the "bad" students to work harder, thus raising the overall level. Turns out it worked rather the opposite way..."

This sounds like the exact result of forced racial integration during the 1960s. Judicial elites thought that the answer to higher achievements of European (White) Americans was to force the schools to take quotas of African American students. The results were White flight (European American families moving out of the city or sending their children to private schools) and the decline in achievement for all students.

Years later, Educators came across another disturbing phenomenon: Asian immigrants. Asian students achieved much better results than both European and African American students. In California, it got so bad that the Education elites instituted discriminatory racial quotas for Asian students.

Conent's high school differed from the Gesamtschule in the sense that elite students and average students were not supposed to compete one on one. Rather, they were to learn citizenship through a mock student government, participation in sports, and common classes such as American history and "Civics" Civics is kind of like Fahrschule for new voters.

[Jeff]

@ Mark

I agree: how a democracy gets formed is immaterial compared to the fact that it gets formed and works.

My recollection is that the framers of the US constitution were not picked by popular election (in fact only white male property owners were permitted to vote in most of the US at the time of the constitution), and yet a pretty good constitution resulted anyway.

@ Del

I am not sure that proportional representation itself is such a terrible thing. One of the unusual features of American government is that the executive power in the US is independent of the legislative power. Congress can pass motion after motion of no confidence in the President with no legal effect whatsoever. What seems to lead to a very messy form of democracy (but still democracy) is to mix legislative proportional representation with executive dependence on the legislature.

@ Jabba

I agree. The absolutely unique aspect of American democracy is the primary system. Primaries ensure that parties are responsive to the views of their members. I have spoken to Europeans who really have no clue what the primary system is and does.

I suspect even proportional representation would be more effective if it was subject to a primary system.

[fuchur]

@Jeff
Just because I am German, please do not assume that I know everything about German history ;-).

You criticized my "Germany´s traditions of democracy and especially of trust in government reach back far beyond the Kaiserreich. There were no ethnic conflicts."

I take it you agree that there is a long tradition of German "trust in government", as you say in your comment to Del Hoeft.
There were no ethnic or religious conflicts in post-WWII Germany.
As for "traditions of democracy" in Germany: I guess I define that in a broader way. There may not have been any full-fledged German democracies. But ever so often you find democratic ideas shining through:
-municipicial administration is probably the best example ("Stadtluft macht frei"). E.g. think of the Hanse
-the Prussian and Bavarian kingdom each had parliaments before the Kaiserreich (1873?). I recall that Prussia had the "Zensuswahlrecht", assigning each citizen a number of votes according to the amount of land he possessed. Still, I count this as a democratic tradition.
I don´t know details of Bavaria, but Ludwig I&II were both quite weak kings.
-the revolts of 1848 are part of Germany´s democratic tradition

As for the Kaiserreich itself: for all I know, it was designed as a constitutional monarchy (somewhat like Great Britain).

[Jeff]

@ Fuchur

"Just because I am German, please do not assume that I know everything about German history."

ROFL (Sorry my German is so long gone that I have no idea how to roll on the floor in German.)

The fact of the matter is that democracy, the idea that all adult citizens except criminals have a voice in politics, is not very old anywhere. Universal (white, male) suffrage was introduced in the US and British colonies like Australia only in the early 19th century. Britain did not introduce universal suffrage until 1919. What Britain and its offshoots had were very strong traditions of representative government (see for example Burke's speech to the electors of Bristol in about 1776.)

In the rest of Europe, representative government was very weak. The medieval estates were moribund at best through the 17th and 18th centuries. Moreover, those estates were far from democratic: the typical form was tripartite, with one house holding hereditary landowners, another the higher clergy, and the last a combination of rich burghers and country gentry, no peasants, no artisans allowed. Nor were the city states of Germany democratic in any modern sense: they were oligarchies.

I agree with you that German municipal adminstration was the best in Europe, perhaps the world, for a long time. And that induced a sense of trust in government. A sense of trust in government is not perhaps the best foundation for democracy. The government is the people's servant, not its master, and excessive trust can become a foundation for mastery.

We can agree as well that modern German democracy first found its voice in 1848, but we must remember that the revolution of 1848 failed miserably. And yes, Prussia had estates, but Bismark solidified his position in Prussia by subverting, not following, the Prussian constitution. Compared to Britain, the US, Australia, and even France, democracy in Germany
was not firmly rooted in the political soil as the failure of Weimar demonstrated.

I believe that democracy is now firmly rooted in the soil of at least western Germany. I worry about eastern Germany, which went from 12 years of Nazism to 45 years of Marxism, 57 years of totalitarian rule. Experience there with democracy is very new, and expectations have been disappointed. I fear that Germans must not take democracy for granted out of some (mistaken) notion that centuries of German tradition support it.

I am now talking about modern Germany, and I must admit I know very little about it so I may be wrong.

[So so]

Schwerer Fall von Ofenrohr, so so. Na dann gute Besserung.

[Joe]

One minor point, which I find to be interesting. Many of the comments about Iraq in the Arab press refer to those who continue to commit acts of terror against the Iraqi people as terrorists.

I note with interest how the liberal MSM in the US continues to call them insurgents. Some in the democratic party even referred to them as freedom fighters and minute men.

I wonder what the European press is now calling these people?

[Joe N.]

One reason there has been so little advancement over the years in Bosnia is clearly a problem of listening to western europe. The construction of human helplessness is a problem in the EU, but an even greater problem with the former east block states. With that burden, it clearly make thinking about forming a good and workable society a harder task.

[Joe]

One thing for sure, hopefully they will not follow the german economic model in Iraq.

And I have to shudder to think what europe could do to their constitution.