Luis Rubio
As Marx pointed out, history repeats itself, the first time as a tragedy, the second as a farce. For his part, Santayana argued that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Repeated or not, it is imperative not to ignore critical historical moments to at least understand the risks and potential implications of the times in which Mexicans are living. Certainly, the experiences of each nation have to do with their particular circumstances, and these are not transferable to other latitudes, but, at the same time, there are similarities that are always important to elucidate. Starting from this perspective, Frank McDonough* has just published a magnificent history of the Weimar Republic in Germany between the two world wars. What follows are the conclusions reached by the author, which it is impossible not to look at with concern given the parallels, similarities, and differences they entail.
“The commonly held view that the ‘Great Depression’ led to the collapse of Weimar democracy and brought Hitler to power is not credible. The USA and Britain suffered economic problems that were often as difficult as those of Germany, but democracy did not collapse in either of those countries. This suggests there was something specific about the nature of the political and economic crisis that was peculiar to Germany and this time…
“A total of 13.74 million people voted for Hitler of their own free will in July 1932 [of a total of 37.2 million votes cast]. Solid middle-class groups, usually the cement that holds together democratic governments, decided to support a party openly promising to destroy democracy… Hitler’s party grew because millions of Germans felt democratic government had been a monumental failed experiment. To these voters, Hitler offered the utopian vision of creating an authoritarian ‘national community’ that would sweep away the seeming chaos and instability of democratic government, and provide strong leadership…
“There were two aspects of the Weimar Constitution that undoubtedly contributed to the failure of democracy. The first was the voting system, based on proportional representation, which gave Reichstag seats in exact proportion to the votes cast in elections. In Germany, this system did not work. In July 1932, 27 different political parties contested the election, ranging across the political spectrum with each representing one class or interest group. These differing parties reflected the bitter divisions in German society and made the task of creating stable coalition governments extremely difficult, and eventually impossible…
“Those who drafted the Weimar Constitution were unwittingly culpable in offering a means of destroying democracy. This was the special powers the Weimar Constitution invested in the role of the President. No one realized when drafting the Constitution how an antidemocratic holder of the post could subvert the power of the President. Article 48 gave the German President extensive subsidiary powers in a ‘state of emergency’ to appoint and dismiss Chancellors and cabinets, to dissolve the Reichstag, call elections, and suspend civil rights…
“The two German presidents of the Weimar years were quite different. Social Democrat Friedrich Ebert was an enthusiastic supporter of Weimar democracy… Paul von Hindenburg was a great contrast. He was a right-wing figure who had led Germany’s militaristic armed forces during the Great War of 1914-1918… It was President Hindenburg who mortally damaged the infant democratic structure in Germany more than anyone else. It was not the Constitution or the voting system that was the fundamental problem, but the culpable actions of Hindenburg, who chose to deliberately subvert the power it had invested in him…
“The real problem Hindenburg faced was that the three previous Chancellors had no popular legitimacy and no parliamentary support. Hindenburg’s presidential rule had taken Germany down a blind alley…
“Even in the period of deep political and economic crisis between 1930 and 1933, during the time of authoritarian ‘presidential rule’, there was no attempt to overthrow the Republic… The two decisive ingredients in the period from 1930 to 1933 were the supreme indifference of President Hindenburg and his inner circle to sustain democratic government and the dramatic rise in electoral support for Adolf Hitler.”
This story can be read in many ways. My impression upon reading and rereading it is that there are signs of México’s past and present reality -perhaps since the beginning of the democratic transition in the late 90s- that could well end up determining the future. Of course, history is not linear or deterministic, and things evolve differently in each nation and circumstance. A look back over the past decades shows how much Mexico has changed and the infinite opportunities that could lie in the future. But it is worth keeping in mind that just as the country could confidently evolve favorably, the opposite cannot be ruled out.
*The Weimar Years: Rise and Fall 1918-1933
@lrubiof
Further Reading: