The German State from 1867 to 1871 - Coursework Example

?The German from 1867 to 1871: As An Autocratic, Conservative and Militaristic Government) It is true that the German from 1867 to 1871 was essentially autocratic, conservative and militaristic. This statement is in fact contended to provide a comprehensive description of the dissolved North German Confederation. To defend such argument, the North German Confederation’s history shall be discussed and examined. When the North German Confederation was constituted, two German people became famous, King William I and Otto von Bismarck. King William I was the Confederation’s emperor. Bismarck, on the other hand was the government’s chancellor (Turk, 1999). Their designations were in accordance with the Confederation’s constitution. Bismarck was actually the one who drafted the said constitution. He made it possible for the newly constituted state to have an emperor and a chancellor. He designed the constitution in such a way that he would be designated to a high position. The new constitution was observed to be the revised version of the Prussian constitution (“World,” n.d.). The main difference was the inclusion of the chancellor position. The addition of such designation in the constitution was of course with a purpose. It was designed by Bismarck so that he will have a greater role in the affairs of the Confederation. Significantly, the constitution accorded great powers to Bismarck, the chancellor (“North,” 2009). Although the constitution made Bismark responsible to the Reichstag, he was not accountable to them (“North,” 2009). This means that Bismark had power and control over the Reichstag. Nevertheless, the Reichstag did not have power over the chancellor. The grant of authority was one sided. Stated in another sense, there was no balance of power between them. The distribution of power under the Confederation’s constitution was unfair. It granted more power to the chancellor and less to the legislature. It could have been fine if the legislature was also accorded with the power to check the works of the chancellor, some sort of limitation. Nonetheless, the Reichstag did not have the authority to check the works of Bismarck. In other words, there was no check and balance between the two offices of the government. The legislature, instead of being the defender of the rights of the German people, became Bismark’s shield as to any expulsion attempt. Bismark then had the confidence to do anything he wanted to do. He was assured of the fact that the legislature does not have the power to evict him from his office. The constitution granted Bismarck an unlimited power to rule. Thus, in its essence, the new government was autocratic. Bismark was able to effectively control the internal affairs of the government. The set-up allowed him to become the direct intermediary between the people and the emperor (“North,” 2009). In a sense, the Reichstag was like a puppet to the government. It was part of the Confederation but it was absent in the minds of the people. In other words, it was a useless legislature. It was only there by its name and not by action. Bismark could have envisioned for such kind of legislature in his chancellorship. He could have aimed to be exercising some of the powers of the legislature. As a consequence, he was able to retain the power over the budget for German military (“North,” 2009). The ultimate decision with regard to the said budget depended on him. The Reichstag could not object or whatsoever to the decision that Bismark would declare. Its ability to reject any bill was only a theory (“World,” n.d.). In practice, the Reichstag was only restricted in the areas of foreign and military policy (“World,” n.d.). Moreover, Bismarck was also able to prevent some civil servants from becoming part of the Reichstag. These civil servants were the ones who opposed Bismarck’s political ideals in the year 1860 (“North,” 2009). In this sense, Bismarck had used his political power to advance his selfish desires and personal interests. He made sure that all his political moves would inure to his own benefit. Analytically, Bismarck’s tactical skills had made him successful in making the North German Confederation an autocratic one. As he was a long admirer of autocracy, he had effectively included autocratic rules in the Confederation’s constitution (Greer & Gavin, 2004). The North German Confederation therefore did not reflect liberal ideas and hopes. Stated otherwise, liberalism was defeated and Germany set on a path which was essentially authoritarian. Bismarck firmly believed that an autocratic leadership is compatible with the Confederation’s political system. Through autocracy, he was able to control the internal affairs of the North German Confederation. He also used it to get the support of the other German states. From 1867 to 1871, the German state was also seen as conservative. Bismarck, the government’s chancellor, was actually described as a conservative politician (“History,” n.d.). He was ruling the North German Confederation for his own class, the Lutheran aristocrats who own large tracts of land in Prussia. Specifically, this class was called as Junker or country squires. The Junker was against the Catholics in Germany, particularly those in the southern region (“History,” n.d.). The reason of which was religious in nature. This fact implies that during that period, the northern part of Germany was pro-Lutheran while the southern part was pro-Catholic. This goes to say that the German people were divided in terms of religious affiliation. They could not agree on one religion. In this context, Bismarck could have envisioned Germany’s unification through the Lutheran religion. Thus, he devised methods that would weaken the Catholics in the Southern part of Germany. To note, Bismarck was actually a member of the Lutheran church. His religion was Lutheran. As such, he was against the Catholic church that was trying to influence the people in Germany. Bismarck wanted that his religion will reign all over Germany and not just in the northern region. He considered being a Lutheran an opportunity. Through the Lutheran church, he could influence the other parts of Germany and the rest of the world. Basically, he patterned such strategy after the Roman Catholics. He planned to use his religion to influence the rest of the German people. Bismarck could have observed the effectiveness of religion in gathering people’s support and sympathy. Aside from being against the Catholics, the land-owning aristocrats also opposed the emerging left-wing political parties in Germany based on political grounds (“History,” n.d.). This means that the Junker only supported the right-wing parties of the North German Confederation. Since Bismarck was a member of the Lutheran aristocrats, it is to be presumed that he was a member of a right-wing party. Moreover, since he was a conservative politician, it is contended that the right-wing parties are conservative parties and not liberal parties. To emphasize, conservative parties are not open to any other type of political plan except those that are in accord with the conservative way. In contrast, liberals are open to diversity in different arenas. To help the Junker fight its enemies, Bismarck took advantage of his position as the chancellor of the North German Confederation. He then devised an organized plan. He targeted first the Catholics in the southern part (“History,” n.d.). The struggle became known as Kulturkampf or culture battle (“History,” n.d.; “Kulturkampf,” n.d.). Culture here pertains to the culture that the Catholic religion had brought in the southern region and practiced by the southerners. Bismarck planned to replace such culture with that of the Lutheran. He aimed to lessen the power and influence of the Catholic religion in the region. To do this, he attacked the educational policy in the southern area. He insisted that the German state must train and license the priests instead of delegating such tasks to the religious orders (“History,” n.d.). Religious orders actually refer to Catholic congregations whose charism is education (Fernandez, 2002). He thought that the method would weaken the power of the Catholics and hamper their religious operation. Bismarck was confident that through it, the German state would be able to neutralize the situation. Neutralizing the situation means that the priests would be fair in teaching religion in the southern schools. Limitations would be implemented. Since the Catholics knew of Bismarck’s real motive regarding the recommended educational policy, they struggled hard so that the policy will not be implemented. Nonetheless, since Bismarck was very influential, there were Catholic archbishops who were imprisoned (“History,” n.d.). Without doubt, Bismark desired “to subject the Roman Catholic church to state control” (“Kulturkampf,” n.d.). This indicates that the German state would have the authority to interfere with the affairs of the Catholic church. Instead of separating the influences of church and state, there would be a one-sided infringement. The German state could control the operation of the Catholics but the Catholics could not control the affairs of the state. This basically reflects the authoritarian leadership of Bismarck. The resistance of the Catholics in the south was also due to the fact that Bismarck’s educational policy would be favoring the liberals (“History,” n.d.). It was Bismarck’s strategy to temporarily make an alliance with the National Liberals so that his policy would be successfully implemented. The National Liberals actually had many members in the Reichstag, the legislative body of the North German Confederation (“History,” n.d.). Despite such fact, Bismarck was able to maintain his allegiance with the conservative party in northern Germany. The North German Confederation was essentially militaristic. The military character of the defunct government was based on its chancellor’s militaristic leadership. In fact, the chancellor was called the Iron Chancellor (“History,” n.d.). Bismarck always emphasized the importance of military in the German state. In a military form of governance, one could expect strict implementation of policies. It was Bismarck’s contention that Prussia would only become a strong state if its military policy would be one of iron and blood (“History,” n.d.). This statement suggests that Bismarck was in favor of instituting violent ways like killing just to strengthen Prussia or the North German Confederation. The term “iron” refers to a rule which is autocratic or dictatorial in nature. This is a leadership which is as hard as an iron. This entails strict compliance of state rules and policies. Bismarck believed that through the blood and iron policy, Prussia’s army would be transformed into a major power in the European arena (Lee, n.d.). He actually shared that belief to the parliament to increase the military budget and population in Prussia (“Otto,” n.d.). He declared that great questions “will not be settled by” majority decisions and speeches but through blood and iron (Bismarck, as cited in “Otto,” n.d.). One of the questions that the parliament entertained during that time was about German unification. In suggesting the blood and iron policy to the members of the parliament, Bismarck made it appear that he was interested in uniting the German people. However, in truth, according to Keith Tankard (2009), he did not fundamentally believe in German unification. Instead, he wanted to expand Prussia. He desired to make Prussia the powerhouse of the northern region instead of Austria. The expansion of course would be achieved through a battle or war (Tankard, 2009). As described by Tankard (2009), Bismarck was at heart, a Prussian militarist. In such case, it can be stated that the chancellor firmly believed in the military’s capacity to conquer lands and topple down the enemies. Being the chancellor of the North German Confederation, he wanted the government to be the most powerful in the entire region of Germany due to military force. In a sense, Bismarck offered a new way of leading Germany. He was able to convince the parliament that a strong military was crucial for Prussia to maintain its power in Germany. Ultimately, the German state which existed in 1867 to 1871 was fundamentally militaristic because of Bismarck’s influence in the parliament’s decision-making process. Bismarck was so influential that he was able to convince the parliament of the necessity of increasing the military population and budget in Prussia. His intense interest to make Prussia the most powerful state was in fact supported by the German emperor. Although his idea of uniting Germany was radical or revolutionary and that it was substantially opposite to the parliament’s democratic ideals, he was still able to get the sympathy of the majority of its members. This goes to say that Bismarck’s authoritarian, conservative and militaristic rule in Germany contributed much to the government which replaced the North German Confederation. As a fact, the Confederation’s constitution was used by the German Empire in making its plan of governance. References Fernandez, E. (2002). Leaving the priesthood: A close reading of priestly departures. Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Greer, T., & Gavin, L. (2004). A brief history of the western world. California: Cengage Learning. History of Germany. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis /PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=mmk Kulturkampf. (2011). In Encyclop?dia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/324668/Kulturkampf Lee, R. (n.d.). The ‘blood and iron’ policy. Retrieved from http://www.xtimeline.com /evt/view.aspx?id=67284 North German Confederation. (2009). New World Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/North_German_Confederation?oldid =913781 Otto von Bismarck & German Unification. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/historical/biography/otto_von_bismarck.html Tankard, K. (2009). Prussian militarism. Retrieved from http://worldhistory.knowledge4africa.com/modern/realism-00.jsp Turk, E. (1999). The history of Germany. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. World War One, Otto Von Bismarck. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://history-world.org /otto_von_bismarck.htm Read More