GERMAN ELECTIONS

Evening Star, Issue 25701, 26 January 1946, Page 9

GERMAN ELECTIONS

BUREAUCRACY V. DEMOCRACY [Written by H.S.K.-K. for the ' Evening Star.'] The local government electio,ns at present being held in the Americanoccupied zone of Germany are of interest, not only because they show the present distribution of political parties in the Reich. Rather, the policy of the Allies in sponsoring these elections indicates along what'lines the future political development of Germany is meant to be shaped. At the recent Potsdam Conference an agreement was reached between Britain, ,-Russia, and America relating to the principles which shall guide the Allied Control Council in its endeavours to reconstruct German political life on a democratic basis. Article 9 of the Potsdam Agreement subsequently .laid down that, in order to achieve the conditions best suited for the growth of democratic institutions, German administration should be decentralised and the effective control of public life should be placed in the hands of local government authorities. Field-Marshal Montgomery amplified this part of the agreement a few days later by stating that all those tinged with Nazi ideas would not be eligible for office and were to be replaced by persons who could be trusted to assist in developing democratic institutions. So far, so good. The intentions of the Control Commission may, however, be negatived, not by the obstruction of the German electors who are now casting their votes, hut by the system of local government itself. Even though the German and the British systems appear superficially similar, in actual fact they are fundamentally different. The character of a regime is usually reflected in its system of local government. In Germany the central executive was never fully .responsible to a democratic assembly—except in the brief period of the Weimar Republic—and local government likewise had an independent executive. Whereas during the days of the Republic, however, the Reich Government came to depend on Parliament, the local administrations never developed democratic practices. This was due to the special position occupied in Germany by the bureaucracy, which was confirmed in its power by the constitutions of the local government units. ■ , In Brtnsh countries the elected councils are supreme 1 * in municipal affairs, and control local policy through their committees. In Germany, on the other hand, the councillors even in preHitler times, had little, if any, responsibility. The executive was separate, or distinct, from the. elected council, and was made up, in post administrative units, of professional bureaucrats. Independent of the electorate and appointed for a longer period than the councillors, the executive's position was immensely strong, particularly, as it also -acted, as an< agent for the State. When the Nazis came to power they thus found in local government a system which suited their policy well, and saw. little need 'to change it. Apart from the appointment of Nazi supervisors, the old executives were left alone. The council, on the other hand_, was made appointive. As the council had been impotent to direct local affairs in. any case, this was of little practical im- j portaflce. This whole system of local self-1 government, without the superstructure of Nazism, is now to be made 'the basis for a democratic revival in Germany. One can see from the apportionment to power in- local, districts that the Allied Control Council is not facing merely a problem left it by the Nazis, but a much more fundamental one. When Article 9 of the Potsdam Agreement refers . to the " restoration " of local -self-govern-ment in Germany on democratic lines, one may doubt whether the Allies are aware of the fact that democratic principles were lacking in all forms of German- administration. As in other matters of policy confronting the Allies in Germany, the issue is, in the end,

whether 'short term stop-gap measures be adopted, or whether a far-sighted policy should prevail. Although German administration was renowned for its efficiency, this was only achieved *by indifference to democratic practices. The advantages of German efficiency were paid for by the overwhelming disadvantages of renouncing participation in government. The present unsettled s£ate of Germany, and the need to maintain law and order, make it only too tempting for the Allies to leave intact a system which promises quick results in bringing order out of chaos. Such short-term considerations should not determine Allied policy. It maybe a strain on the Allied administration to shoulder all the burden in Germany unaided for a while longer, bub ' this is preferahle to a restoration of authoritarian institutions which once before helped the Nazis to achieve their ends. Instead of reconstituting local authorities and thus putting the . bureaucracy back, ino power, the Allied Control Council should have carried on without permitting elections' to he held; it should rather have instituted a widespread educational programme to teach the Germans that the' expert —{he bureaucrat —has his place in advising the elected representatives of the German people, and not in shaping and dominating their policy. Until and unless Germany does learn what democracy really means, it is not only - futile, but dangerous, to hold elections which will confirm in power a hody of \ bureaucrats who are not under popular control. This way, the basis of another authoritarian structure is being laid.