Germany -- Politics and government -- 1918-1933; Germany. Verfassung (1919)
Such are the facts. The parties of the coalition have attempted to
justify them and to prove that the imperative injunctions addressed by
the unions to a government which had to yield almost at every point did
not constitute a violation of the constitutional principle of national
sovereignty. They pointed out that the first of the “Eight Points”
recognizes expressly the rights of national representation; that the
decisive influence accorded to the unions in matters of social and
economic legislation had to be exercised through the intermediacy of
representatives speaking for the unions in the ministries charged with
the preparation of law; and that the last word belonged, therefore,
always to the popular representation; that, although it is true that the
unions protested against the nomination or the retention of Kuno and
Schiffer in the ministry, yet in reality the cabinet of Hermann Müller
had been constituted according to the customary forms after an accord
with the parties of the majority.
Other members of the governmental parties, on the contrary, pleaded
extenuating circumstances. The Minister of Post and Telegraph, Giesbert,
after having participated in the “Bielefeld Agreement,” declared that
he did not want to examine whether this accord was contrary to or
in conformity with the Constitution; for, “extraordinary epochs and
extraordinary circumstances compel extraordinary measures. The conviction
of those who participated in the conference (of Bielefeld) is that this
agreement was the only possibility of avoiding chaos and devastation in
the territory of the Ruhr.”[23]
But the opposition parties unanimously insisted that the Government’s
attitude was really contrary to the principle of national sovereignty.
In a democracy only the parliament elected by the whole people should
decide; only it could appoint the Government and it was responsible
for its decisions and nominations only to the people of the nation
themselves. As for vocational associations, their function is to defend
only the corporate interests of their members and they had no right to
encroach on the political domain. In the events of March-April, 1920, the
unions, leaving their vocational domain, revealed themselves the real
masters of Parliament and of the Cabinet, which had to submit to their
injunctions. The Independents congratulated themselves and proclaimed
that thereafter the Government was placed under a certain surveillance
of the organized proletariat. The parties of the Right indignantly
refused to acknowledge a “side government” (Nebenregierung) over the
regular government. “Henceforth,” said one of the opposition journals,
“workingmen’s organizations can say that their orders are always carried
out. It is true that the Democrats seem troubled by the state of affairs.
But what difference does that make? There are only three parties that
govern Germany--workingmen, employés, and civil servants.”[24]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account