Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kermit_thegreen_frog t1_j4326id wrote

Id have to disagree. The weimar republic had inherint problems that meant it was inevitable that the weimar republic was either going to collapse or have to face huge reforms. The problem that the reforms scenario has is that any leader that takes power isnt going to want to make those reforms, and even if they wanted to they wouldnt be capable to. This is due to 2 factors. Artical 48 of the constitutions means that the chancellor can inact laws without the approval of the reichstag, this would be abused in the later years by people like von papen and brüning, this shows that the people in power wont stop the rise of dictatorship. But hypothetically if someone came to power and wanted to change things, theyd need to change the constitution. The problem with this is that in order to change the constitution you needed 2/3 support in the reichstag, which was hard to gain due to the fractured nature of the reichstag due to the proportional voting system that was used in the republic. The nazis only managed to alter the constitution with the 'enabling act' after the center party agreed to vote in favour for act because the nazis said theyd protect catholic interests. In few scenarios will 2/3 of the vote be found to alter the constitution. So it can be concluded that the weimar republic was doomed from the get go and that it would always either end up in a dictatorship or regime change

2

Grandjehan t1_j4lxj9f wrote

This argument almost argues that the United States is destined to fail as well. Executive orders are able to be made by the President, and while they can't single-handedly dissolve the legislature, depending on the nature and purview of SCOTUS, executive orders can basically be whatever they want them to be. The American constitution also seems just as difficult if not more difficult to amend than in the Weimar Republic (given our own fractured nature and pluralistic voting system). Would you argue that the U.S. has inherent problems, making its collapse inherent in the absence of major reforms? And if not, what would you say are the main differences between the likelihood of the 2 democratic systems' odds of failure?

1