The Weimar democracy, too, held the hope and promise of a free order in Germany. Weimar was not condemned to failure from the start. This task – the responsibility of democrats for democracy – is just the same today as it was then. They highlight the confidence, the trust, that the people need to have in a democracy, they highlight the fact that democracy must be realized and practised in a society, and they highlight the democratic spirit that must be nurtured and strengthened. Because these figures reflect a much bigger task than ”merely“ drafting the text of a good constitution. Why am I emphasizing this? Because at the outset there was no guarantee that the democracy based on the Grundgesetz would succeed. But it was not until Willy Brandt was Chancellor in 1972, that a majority, 52%, supported it. In 1955 some 30% of West Germans thought the Grundgesetz, the ”Basic Law“, was good. According to this, most West Germans of the time were indifferent to the new democratic constitution. Not long ago, a well-known polling organization unearthed an opinion poll from February 1949. Let me illustrate this with a simple example. For it draws attention away from the responsibility that all democrats bear in any democracy. In my opinion, the idea that Weimar was doomed to failure has not illuminated our analysis of the underpinnings of democracy, but has instead distorted it. Of course, these design errors did exist, one of the worst being the undemocratic “fall-back constitution” that permitted rule by Presidential decree in national emergencies. Namely the proposition that the Weimar democracy failed largely because of the errors in its constitution.
This claim is based above all on a proposition which to me seems more than questionable. We should not forget that when we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the constitution, the Grundgesetz, this May.īonn – and Berlin – are not Weimar. The western Allies, above all the United States, guided, supported and helped Germany along this path. But there was one major difference between 19: In 1945, the decision to create a democratic constitutional state, to decentralize authority, to protect basic rights and strengthen Parliament, was the sine qua non for the resurrection of any German state whatsoever. In 1918 the Democrats took on the heavy, nigh impossible responsibility for the aftermath of a war that they had not caused.Īfter 1945, Democrats were again forced to take responsibility, and the vow “never again will we be gripped by Nazi ideology” has become part of our democratic raison d'être. In contrast to 1918, it was not just the regime that collapsed in 1945, but the entire state. For it was separated from Weimar by 12 years of terror, millions of deaths, and the annihilation of a culture that was without historical parallel. In my opinion, this negative interpretation is not entirely justified.īonn never could have been Weimar. But the thesis always was and remains founded on a negative interpretation of Weimar. “Not Weimar” became the mantra used by the young democracy after 1949 to reassure itself that it was on the right path. A multitude of academic works have been written on this thesis, leading to its revival at the beginning of the new millennium in the updated form, ”Berlin is not Weimar.“ “Bonn is not Weimar” was a book title that became a seminal phrase in the 1950s.
No other period in German history has been judged so exclusively on the basis of its final throws as has the Weimar Republic. And I think that today's ceremony is a good indication of these intentions! I am delighted that the National Theatre in Weimar will remain a venue for socially oriented and thought-provoking cultural events. The process leading up to your renewed appointment was far from straightforward. I would like to start off by conveying my special thanks to the Director of the German National Theatre in Weimar, as well as my congratulations on the extension of his contract.
0 kommentar(er)
