- Hedwig Richter. Demokratie. Eine deutsche Affäre. Vom 18. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart. München: C. H. Beck, 2020 [podcast]
A few months ago on my blog devoted to the idea of checks and balances, I mentioned the book written by Hedwig Richter on the history of German democracy [see]. I was struck by one statement from the introduction, which the editors published online: « Demokratiegeschichte ist immer auch die Geschichte ihrer Einschränkung » (The history of democracy is also, always, the history of its limitation). And when I saw an explicit reference to checks and balances, I decided to take the plunge and to buy the book. I can only say this: it is a tremendoulsy important book. I was impressed by the freshness of Dr. Richter's approach—a bold feminist, pro-markets, pro-capitalist, pro-checks and balances view that is bound to create ripples well beyond Germany.
Demokratie. Eine deutsche Affäre could not have arrived at a better time. The fragility of American democracy, the global pandemic, the siren's song of both left- and right-wing populism —as turbocharged by social networks— these warning signs, all mentioned by the author, call for a spirited defense of democracy. Clearly motivated by the success of German democracy, Dr. Richter's passionate, optimistic, yet realistic outlook is exactly what the doctor ordered. In this review I will concentrate on some of the author's main points: the interplay between women's rights, checks and balances, prosperity, free markets, private property and capitalism, the problem of 'revolution' —as opposed to 'reform'—, and some remarks about the notions of checks and balances and mixed government.
Capitalism and women's rights reconciled
In 1972, a group of feminist authors published the ground-breaking Frauenhandbuch, with explanations about the female body, contraception methods and other topics related to the life of modern women. Yet, the volume displayed a distinctively anti-capitalist, anti-bourgeois, anti-clerical and even anti-Western outlook. One of the greatest achievements of Dr. Richter is to break this distorsion —still appealing to feminists in many places— into pieces. Economic prosperity, made possible by stable property rights, capitalism and free trade, is what really empowers women. I cannot over-emphasize the importance of this argument.
It is a 'self-evident' truth, a good example of what Hedwig Richter calls an important but « unspektakuläre Selbstverständlichkeit ». Yet, it is rarely formulated in explicit terms. For some reason, feminism in many places is still dogged by a doubtful belief in ... revolution. But revolution rarely comes without physical violence. And violence hurts women disproportionately. Ergo, revolution is a deeply anti-democratic procedure. Reform is the way to go: "Revolutionen haben sich nicht der Gleischstellung der Frauen verschrieben" (Revolutions are have not concerned themselves with gender equality). This verdict —expressed by Dr. Richter as a syllogism of sorts— is without appeal in the eyes of a trained historian. But it is rarely seen in print. I hereby salute the courage of Hedwig Richter's deeply democratic, modern, pro-capitalism and enlightened feminism.
From a rhetorical point of view, revolution is far more appealing than reform. But, when it comes to women's rights and democracy, reform is the unsung hero—it is the central force of our age (p. 145). The author reminds us of the horrors of last century's revolutions. In the dramatic months following the end of World War I, revolution was devastating Russia with a heavy toll of widespread hunger, pogroms, massive violence—and 8 million dead. How could such a complete breakdwon of strong government and personal security possibly benefit women? In the meantime, in Germany, Friedrich Ebert and his colleagues were making the point that revolution was not in the interest of the proletariat. Just a couple of decades later, the nazi regime became a reality. It, too, was 'revolutionary', says Dr. Richter. This is surely one of the strongest indictments of revolution I have ever read.
To drive the point home, the author isn't shy about using a word that mostly shows up, as far as I know, in anti-modern, anti-capitalist litterature on politics: the physical body. (She briefly mentions Michel Foucault). How the body is treated, writes Prof. Richter in the conclusion of her book, is an indicator of the condition of a democracy: « Gewalt über den Körper zerstört die Freiheit » (Violence done to the body destroys freedom). And here comes another indisputable point: never in history has the human body received a better treatment than in our modern, liberal capitalist societies where property rights are respected. The reason is simple: our body is, quite obviously, our most basic form of property. Democracy can be understood as « ein neuer Körperregime » (a new bodily regime).
Checks and balances
This topic is, as readers of the blog Contrapesos know, quite dear to my heart. Prof. Richter mentions the key term —checks and balances (in English: there is no satisfactory German translation)— three times. Her point is that, without a well-functioning system of checks and balances in place, democracy is likely to succumb to the siren songs of demagogues and populists of all sorts. German history is there to prove the point. But what exactly constitutes a system of checks and balances? The author is somewhat imprecise on this point. The reason, I think, is that you cannot have a racconto of more than 300 years of political history and a political science treaty packed inside a volume of less than 400 pages.
Hedwig Richter does mention the « weitgehende Unabhängigkeit der Justiz » (the ample independence of the Judiciary), federalism, and the ups and downs of the parliamentary system that has served her country well in restraining arbitrary government ever since the end of Word War II. When discussing checks and balances, she focuses on the big picture: what matters, ultimately, is a political system that puts Menschenwürde (human dignity) on center stage. Checks and balances achieve that by systematically ensuring that each democratic achievement is matched by an accompanying limitation (Einschränkung) as a security-enhancing mechanism.
Democracy is like a living organism. Her life is made possible, paradoxically, by her own restraint: « ...dass sie, will sie erfolgreich sein, immer auch von ihren Einschränkung lebt ... Demokratie lebt von ihrer Einschränkungen » (Democracy lives from its own restrictions). No limitations, no sustained democratical life. To be sure, this isn't exactly a novel idea. Aristotle implied as much in his discussion of an out-of-balance democracy: οὐκ ἔστι πολιτεία (Pol. 1292.a). For those of us who feel a passion for political checks and balances, one of the most pressing challenges is to formulate the idea in terms that appeal to as vast an audience as possible. In other words: we need a rhetorical strategy. If I'm not mistaken, this is another aim of Dr. Richter's book—it is vitally important to find the right, positively worded expression. Chapeau !
Mixed government
By the time I reached the fourth part of the book, I was already enthralled by its central message about democracy, women's rights and political checks and balances. But from there it truly became a page-turner. I took dozens of notes. Two quotes from Hitler drew my attention: the nazi regime is a « vereinfachte Demokratie » (p. 236) and « Ich habe nicht die Demokratie beseitigt, sondern sie vereinfacht » (pp. 235-236). The enormity of this last statement is mind blowing: I have not removed democracy; instead, I have simplified her. A simplified democracy. This idea lies at the core of the warning formulated, already 2500 years ago, by proponents of the mixed regime in Ancient Greece. Simple regimes —whether monarchic, aristocratic or democratic— are dangerous in terms of security and freedom, because they invariably lead to their 'degenerate' forms, namely tyranny, oligarchy and mob rule.
Already in 1810, Mariano Moreno, the leader of Río de la Plata's independentist movement, had issued a stark warning: "Las formas absolutas contienen defectos gravísimos" (see). This is the dark side of democracy. The nazi regime really thought itself as an expression of pure democracy. Its apologists used some very telling words to decribe nazi 'democracy': rein,(pure), unverfälscht (unfalsified), wahr (true), besser (better), echt (real). The remedy is there for all to see: the mixed regime. Dr. Richter uses terms that are familiar to the student of mixed regimes: « ... dieses krumm gewachsene Gemisch aus Volksherrschaft, Repräsentazion, Eliteneinfluss, Verfassungen, Freiheit, Einschränkung » (p. 236).
This idea can be traced back to the greek terms μίξις and κρᾶσις (see). She also speaks about Machtbalance, a balance of power. Yet, the author cannot bring herself to explicitely present the mixed regime in positive terms. For example, she uses the expression « kontaminierte Mischform ». Why the negative connotation? To me, the mixed regime is a glorious human invention (*). When it comes to the elements of modern Germany's successful πολιτεία μικτή, Prof. Richter's list includes: the decided leadership of an élite group of lawgivers, the reinforcement of the executive and of the judiciary vis-à-vis the legislative power, and federalism. Time and again, she emphasizes the decisive role played by élites in bringing about institutional reform. This is another element of the mixed regime, nowadays present in all countries with robust checks and balances in place.
Missing from this picture, however, is the role of the Constitutional Court at Karlsruhe (†) and the independent central bank. The Bundesbank is not mentioned by Prof. Richter, although it is becoming more and more evident that an independent central bank is a key component of modern mixed regimes with checks and balances (1, 2). All in all, the message of the German constitution, enacted in 1949, is clear: the 'sovereignty of the people' needs to take a back seat: « Keine Frage: das Grundgesetz hält das Volk auf Distanz » (p. 264). It is no coincidence, writes Hedwig Richter, that the sovereignty of the people shows up in the Constitution for the first time in Article 20, well behind the enumeration of individual rights.
And here comes a really key point: the German experiment with democracy highlights how vitally important it is to emphasize the primacy of the rule of law —Rechtsstaat, estado de derecho, état de droit— over the sovereignty of the people. In the event of conflcit, basic rights have primacy over democracy. Einschränkungen, anyone? Brilliant!
Translation urgently required!
I am leaving many aspects of the book out of this review. In particular, the concluding chapter is remarkable for its mix of optimism and realism. Democracy, writes Dr. Richter, is a learning process. It seems to grow stronger at the turn of each crisis. We can be sure that there will be no shortage of crisis in the years ahead. And we have already a sense of how fragile democracies can be, especially in light of the events of January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C. According to The Economist, democracy had a terrible year, as the world witnessed and "unprecedented rollback in democratic freedoms in 2020" (see).
But if we are somehow able to deal with coming crisis with the potent mix of checks and balances, feminism, capitalism, property rights, individual freedoms and 'meritocracy', the world will be in good shape going forward. Only one thing remains to be said: Demokratie. Eine deustche Affäre urgently needs to be translated into English, Spanish, Portuguese and French. Surely, Germany's success story deserves a much wider audience.
(*) John Adams considered it "the most stupendous fabric of human invention [...] Not the formation of languages, not the whole art of navigation and ship-building does more honor to the human understanding than this system of government".The two most important histories of the idea are written in German: Gerhrard J.D. Aalders. Die Theorie der gesmischten Verfassung in Altertum (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1968) [see] and Wilfried Nippel. Mischverfassungstheorie und Verfassungsrealität in Antike und früher Neuzeit (Bochum: Klett-Cotta, 1980) (see)
(†) See the brilliant analysis of Mogens Herman Hansen about the Constitutional Court at Karlsruhe in terms of the mixed regime: "The Mixed Constitution versus the Separation of Powers: Monarchical and Aristocratical Aspects of Modern Democracy", History of Political Thought, Vol. XXXI, No. 3, Autumn 2010, pp. 509-531 [see].
_________________
No comments:
Post a Comment