Editorial: The Dependence of Government on Parliament. (1933)

Editorial from the January 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are often told by opponents that it is useless to organise for the capture of the political machinery because the capitalists who control it can at any time suitable to them stop holding elections and refuse to hand over control to a Socialist majority. What these critics fail to appreciate is that modern highly developed capitalism cannot function with any degree o£ efficiency without the machinery of representative government, which the capitalists have had to build up.

This has been illustrated by the events in Germany. Hindenburg was elected President by a huge majority over Hitler. In the Reichstag, however (the German Parliament), Hitler’s party is the largest single party, although it has not a clear majority. In these circumstances, and as the parties could not agree to form a coalition which would provide a majority as basis for a government, Hindenburg used his powers under Article 48 of the Constitution—an article for which the Social Democrats are responsible—to appoint his nominee, Von Papen, as head of the Government. Faced with a hostile Reichstag, Von Papen decided to seek the support of the electors at a General Election. It was held but failed to give him the support he needed. In consequence of that failure, Von Papen had to go, and his place has been taken by Von Schleicher. Von Schleicher, in order to stabilise his position, promptly had to withdraw his predecessor’s unpopular measures in an endeavour to secure the support of a parliamentary majority. To do this, Von Schleicher has had to placate not only several of the political groups, but also the trade unions, whose leaders he consulted. He has even made concessions sufficiently far-reaching to attract a section of the principal opposition party— Hitler’s party—so that there is now a distinct likelihood that Hitler’s forces will be divided.

And the immediate reason for this change of front? It was given in reports from Berlin correspondents to several London newspapers. A continuance of Von Papen’s Government, lacking a parliamentary majority, and imposing an unpopular policy, would lead the supporters of the opposition parties to express their discontent outside parliament. There would be disorder which would at once endanger property and disturb the functioning of the capitalist system. The Berlin correspondent of the Daily Express wrote (December 3rd): —

A revival of the Von Papen Chancellorship would mean riots and strikes ana bloodshed all over the country.

The Berlin correspondent of the Daily Herald (November 30th and December 3rd) wrote:—

                                                    Rumbles of Revolt 

                                                    Scare Berlin 'Change.

FEAR OF RETURN OF VON PAPEN. 

Shares tumbled headlong on the Berlin Bourse today in fear of an upheaval, when it was reported that Von Papen would be appointed Chancellor to form a “Fighting Cabinet" against Parliament.

(Daily Herald, November 30th.) 

"Up to the very end the old President fought for his favourite. Von Papen. 

But at the last moment, three of the most important Ministers of the last Papen Cabinet refused to support him.

(Daily Herald, December 3rd.)

The Times and other papers printed similar accounts.

Another aspect of the influence of political instability on capitalist finance was the refusal of foreign financiers to ratify an agreement to provide a loan of 60 million marks for development of the German Post Office. The German Government wished to take advantage of the lower interest rates obtainable abroad and had made practically all arrangements for borrowing the money when the political situation was rendered uncertain by the fear that Von Papen’s Government might try to dispense with Parliament. Immediately the foreign lenders withdrew from the almost completed negotiations, leaving the Post Office no alternative but to borrow a much smaller sum in Germany at higher interest rates.

The new Government, led by Von Schleicher, assured of trade union support or at least their tolerance, is now offering a programme of social reforms (increased unemployed pay, etc.), the release of political prisoners, and the abandonment of proposals to alter the constitution—all in order to secure a parliamentary majority and, with it security for capitalist industry, trade and finance to continue functioning.

So far, there never has been in any country an organised Socialist Majority face to face with the defenders of capitalism. When that situation arrives, that organised majority will be able to deal with every eventuality. The idea that a clique of capitalist politicians, shorn of support among the electorate, could bar the road to Socialism is ludicrous.