State election in the province of Saxony in 1946
The state election in the province of Saxony in 1946 was an election to the state parliament of the province of Saxony , which largely corresponds to today's state of Saxony-Anhalt .
The election was carried out on October 20, 1946. At the same time, the first state elections after the war were held in the other countries of the Soviet occupation zone . Up until 1990, the elections were the only state elections in the eastern part of Germany that followed democratic rules on a larger scale . The Socialist Unity Party (SED) failed, despite considerable support from the Soviet occupation authorities in Saxony-Anhalt absolute majority. As a result of the election, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) also provided the Prime Minister, Erhard Hübener .
Starting position
The Province of Saxony was formally established by the Soviet occupying power on July 17, 1945, which, in addition to large parts of the former Prussian Province of Saxony, also comprised the former areas of the State of Anhalt and various former Braunschweig and Thuringian exclaves. Despite the designation of the province , which on the one hand differentiated it from the state of Saxony and ultimately referred to the formally still existing state of Prussia, the status corresponded to that of the other, partly also newly structured German states. It was later renamed Saxony-Anhalt. The occupying power had set up a praesidium for the province. Erhard Hübener, a member of the German Democratic Party (DDP) and former governor of the Prussian province of Saxony, was appointed president . After the LDP was approved, Hubener became a member of this party. As a preliminary parliament, the occupying power had established an appointed state parliament , the Consultative Assembly (Saxony-Anhalt) . This only met twice and had no effect.
The situation in the country was shaped by the end of National Socialism and the consequences of the Second World War , the fighting in the country had continued until May 1945. Cities and infrastructure showed severe damage. The supply of the population with essential goods and the necessary reconstruction were central problem areas. The population of the country had risen sharply , mainly due to refugees and displaced persons .
In contrast to the West German states, Saxony-Anhalt was an occupying power with the Soviet Union , whose own state structure did not follow democratic rules, but represented a dictatorial system, with communism serving as the ideological basis. The Soviet occupying power endeavored to implement this system in their occupation zone as well. At the same time, the Soviet side and representatives of the KPD assured that they would strive for democratic development. In addition, many people assumed that the occupying powers would withdraw again in some time, which would open up new scope for action, also beyond the Soviet position. The state election took place in this tension between building a democracy and building a non-democratic socialist system.
In the run-up to the state elections, local elections were held in the municipalities of the state on September 8, 1946. The SED achieved 59.7% of the votes and was able to occupy 78.6% of the seats in the municipal councils. The LDP and CDU followed clearly behind. However, the LDP and CDU had been prevented from appearing in many municipalities from a formal point of view by the Soviet military authorities, as it was required that the parties making the lists each had to have their own local groups. In contrast to the SED, which was already well organized, the LDP and CDU lacked such groups in many communities. In the independent cities the SED achieved weaker results and in some cases did not become the strongest party. In the then state capital Halle (Saale) , too , the SED fell well short of its expectations with only 40.8%.
Elections to the district assemblies took place parallel to the state elections. In some districts the local Soviet commanders did not allow the LDP and CDU to vote, so that the district council election in several districts did not correspond to democratic principles.
Parties and candidates
.jpg)
Against the background of the Soviet objectives, the SPD and KPD were forced to merge into the SED in the Soviet occupation zone in 1946 . The SED thus took the place of the traditional parties SPD and KPD in Saxony-Anhalt , whereby its program was clearly oriented towards the ideology of Soviet stamping. On the so-called bourgeois side, the LDP and the CDU had been approved. The LDP and CDU were more oriented towards the West and were opposed to a communist development based on the Soviet model. The fourth grouping was the Association of Mutual Farmers Aid (VdgB), which, however, was largely led by members of the SED. The VdgB's top candidate was Otto Körting , a well-known member of the SED provincial organization who was connected to agriculture. The aim of the SED was to be successful in rural circles with the help of the VdgB and to counteract the LDP and CDU there.
Particularly prominent candidates of the SED were Walter Ulbricht and Käthe Kern , who each headed their electoral district election lists. The SED provincial chairmen Bruno Böttge and Bernhard Koenen should also be mentioned. Well-known politicians also competed for the CDU in Otto Nuschke and Leo Herwegen . The LDP's top candidate was Carl Delius , who was known throughout the Reich as a liberal politician from the time of the Weimar Republic .
Suffrage
It was elected according to proportional representation so that the composition of the state parliament reflected the proportions of the parties achieved in the election. The country was divided into nine constituencies. The division was based on a decision of the secretariat of the provincial board of the SED, which was confirmed by the presidium of the state province. The parties made their own lists for each of these districts. In addition, each party drew up a uniform state list, through which the excess votes that arose in the direct elections of the constituency lists were balanced. There was no threshold clause . 110 state parliament mandates were to be awarded.
| No. | Constituency name | MPs |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jerichow II , Salzwedel , Osterburg , Stendal , Gardelegen | 10 |
| 2 | Burg , Magdeburg , Schönebeck , Jerichow I , Wolmirstedt , Haldensleben , Wanzleben | 16 |
| 3 | Oschersleben , Wernigerode , Blankenburg , Halberstadt | 6th |
| 4th | Aschersleben , Bernburg , Quedlinburg | 7th |
| 5 | Dessau, Koethen , Zerbst , Calbe | 11 |
| 6th | Liebenwerda , Schweinitz , Torgau | 5 |
| 7th | Bitterfeld , Delitzsch , Wittenberg | 8th |
| 8th | Halle (Saale) , Merseburg , Naumburg , Zeitz , Weißenfels | 21st |
| 9 | Eisleben , Mansfeld , Querfurt , Eckartsberga | 12 |
The lists had to be submitted and approved. In addition to a declaration of consent, the respective candidates also had to present a certificate of eligibility , which showed that they were not burdened by the Nazis. People from the party leadership in the Soviet occupation zone of the respective party could also be nominated. Ulbricht and Nuschke were also able to run for candidates in Saxony-Anhalt.
People who were classified as formerly active National Socialists were also excluded from exercising the right to vote . This affected 12,899 people nationwide.
The election officer was the Vice President of the Province, Robert Sievert (SED). The provincial president and vice-presidents were not eligible to run for parliament.
Election campaign
Compared to the local elections, the LDP and CDU had succeeded in building functioning party organizations. The targeted disadvantages that had resulted from the non-approval of lists at community level did not exist in this form at state level. All four candidate groups were eligible for national election. However, the conditions for access to the mass media were considerably worse for the LDP and CDU. In particular, these parties lacked the necessary paper allotments, so their newspapers and information materials appeared in significantly reduced circulation. The Daily Rundschau , the official organ of the Soviet military administration, supported the SED quite clearly. There were also clear disadvantages when it came to access to radio .
The parties also waged an intense poster campaign. Here, too, the SED had advantages. The SED district executive in Bernburg reported on the considerable amount of election campaign materials available. According to this, there were 44,000 posters, 125,800 leaflets and 38,400 brochures.
Organs of the Soviet military administration tried in part to hinder the work of the LDP and CDU. Election events were monitored by the Soviet officers present. However, their ability to intervene was limited as their speeches first had to be translated. However, some of the speeches had to be submitted to the Soviet authorities beforehand for approval. There were also short-term or long-term bans on speaking against individuals and meeting rooms were closed. Most of the German provincial authorities succeeded in rejecting such interventions, so that in the end there was no decisive interference from the occupying power. An attempt by the Soviet general and head of the SMAD for the province of Saxony, Michail Kondratjewitsch Schljachtenko (1899–1953), has been handed down to the President Erhard Hübener (LDP) to influence Delius' election campaign (LDP). Hubener refused, however. The Soviet side did not take any further measures.
Delius clearly opposed the SED in his election campaign. During an election rally on October 12, 1946 in Wittenberg , he discussed the SED's proximity to the occupying power and warned against a one-party system. He called for bipartisan trade unions, the admission of former nominal members of the NSDAP into the parties and the reintroduction of religious education in schools.
The SED initially pursued the tactic of consolidating all emerging groups as part of a bloc of anti-fascist parties and integrating them into its policy. The other parties should be committed to the bloc policy and violations of the bloc policy can be prevented. In fact, there was agreement between the parties to campaign in favor of the bloc. In this way, the parties could often only formulate their alternative objectives in clauses. However, the disputes more often crossed the line of factual disputes. The SED circulated leaflets that LDP politicians personally attacked as fraudsters and profiteers. With anonymous leaflets, attempts were made to illustrate tendencies towards a self-dissolution of the LDP and the withdrawal of leading LDP politicians from the party.
There were also similar attacks against the CDU. The SED pursued the strategy towards the CDU of presenting it as a “new center party ” and thus a representative of Catholicism , which the predominantly Protestant population of the country hoped would lead to a rejection of the CDU. In fact, this fact could be seen as the reason why the importance of the CDU in Saxony-Anhalt lagged behind that of the LDP. On the other hand, however, the position of the CDU was strengthened by its successes in the West German zones. Against this background, the SED saw the CDU as its main opponent. The SED accused her of ultimately representing the policies of Konrad Adenauer and the West CDU . In its election campaign , the CDU committed itself to a Christian socialism , which it saw in contradiction to Marxist socialism. The question of religious education, which the CDU wanted to see rooted in schools, was of particular importance in the CDU election campaign.
There were also anonymous leaflets against the SED. Among other things, she was accused of being responsible for the disappearance of people, including children. Further allegations were that she would approve of the dismantling in the course of reparations, that the functionaries had privileges , that she was against freedom of the press and that she was striving for a dictatorship .
The proportion of displaced persons among the eligible voters was more than a quarter. The SED therefore felt compelled to question its previous position on the support of the separation of the German eastern territories, which was met with resistance by the general population, but naturally especially by the expellees. For example, through Max Fechner , the SED had publicly positioned itself to oppose the downsizing of Germany, but to only want to settle this question with a peace treaty. However, this did not give her a recognizable advantage. The SED later moved away from this position.
The ballot itself passed without any significant incidents, although the SED mobilized considerably on election day. The election actually enabled the voters, without fear of personal danger, to choose between the different lists and the different views that became clear despite the restrictions in the election campaign. In the internal assessments of the parties, however, the mood among the voters is reported that an election result that is unfavorable for the Soviet occupying power could lead to the occupying power teaching the population by force what [they] expect of them .
Despite all the restrictions, the state elections are essentially viewed as a democratic election.
Election result
| Eligible voters | 2,700,633 | |
| voter turnout | 2,473,184 | |
| 91.6% | ||
| Invalid votes | 142,673 | |
| SED | be right | 1,068,703 |
| proportion of | 45.8% | |
| Seats | 51 | |
| LDP | be right | 696,669 |
| proportion of | 29.9% | |
| Seats | 32 | |
| CDU | be right | 507.765 |
| proportion of | 21.8% | |
| Seats | 24 | |
| VdgB | be right | 57,374 |
| proportion of | 2.5% | |
| Seats | 2 | |
As a result of the election, the SED was by far the strongest party, but also clearly missed an absolute majority. The LDP, as the second largest party, then appointed the prime minister, leading an all-party government. The CDU became the third strongest force. The VdgB was of little importance in the choice. The two VdgB mandate holders belonged to the SED parliamentary group from the start.
Of the 110 seats, however, only 109 could be occupied. The LDP had not anticipated that its provincial list would be mandated on a large scale. Only four people were put on the provincial list. However, this list actually had five mandates. Attempts to draw a candidate from the electoral district lists instead were rejected by the Soviet military administration with reference to the electoral regulations .
For the elected representatives, see the list of members of the State Parliament of Saxony-Anhalt (1946–1952, 1st electoral period) .
The election results by constituency were:
| Constituency | Results | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Eligible voters | Voters | voter turnout | valid votes | |
| 301.179 | 267,247 | 88.7% | 251.825 | ||
| Political party | be right | percent | Mandates | ||
| SED | 98,607 | 39.2% | 5 | ||
| LDP | 82,861 | 32.9% | 3 | ||
| CDU | 61,474 | 24.4% | 2 | ||
| VdgB | 8,883 | 3.5% | 0 | ||
| 2 | Eligible voters | Voters | voter turnout | valid votes | |
| 436,899 | 394.212 | 90.2% | 371.209 | ||
| Political party | be right | percent | Mandates | ||
| SED | 192.051 | 51.7% | 9 | ||
| LDP | 93.064 | 25.1% | 4th | ||
| CDU | 80.096 | 21.6% | 3 | ||
| VdgB | 5,998 | 1.6% | 0 | ||
| 3 | Eligible voters | Voters | voter turnout | valid votes | |
| 186.404 | 165,639 | 96.9% | 154,759 | ||
| Political party | be right | percent | Mandates | ||
| SED | 70,858 | 45.8% | 3 | ||
| LDP | 44,072 | 29.5% | 2 | ||
| CDU | 35,522 | 22.9% | 1 | ||
| VdgB | 4,307 | 2.8% | 0 | ||
| 4th | Eligible voters | Voters | voter turnout | valid votes | |
| 200,559 | 181,380 | 90.4% | 172,690 | ||
| Political party | be right | percent | Mandates | ||
| SED | 84,457 | 48.9% | 4th | ||
| LDP | 52,270 | 30.3% | 2 | ||
| CDU | 32,423 | 18.8% | 1 | ||
| VdgB | 3,540 | 2.0% | 0 | ||
| 5 | Eligible voters | Voters | voter turnout | valid votes | |
| 286,336 | 265.751 | 92.8% | 251.251 | ||
| Political party | be right | percent | Mandates | ||
| SED | 121,601 | 48.4% | 6th | ||
| LDP | 77,750 | 30.9% | 3 | ||
| CDU | 46.180 | 18.4% | 2 | ||
| VdgB | 5,720 | 2.3% | 0 | ||
| 6th | Eligible voters | Voters | voter turnout | valid votes | |
| 160,416 | 151.185 | 94.2% | 142,309 | ||
| Political party | be right | percent | Mandates | ||
| SED | 55.166 | 38.8% | 2 | ||
| LDP | 37,879 | 26.6% | 1 | ||
| CDU | 43,429 | 30.5% | 1 | ||
| VdgB | 5,835 | 4.1% | 0 | ||
| 7th | Eligible voters | Voters | voter turnout | valid votes | |
| 261.041 | 243,628 | 93.3% | 226.204 | ||
| Political party | be right | percent | Mandates | ||
| SED | 97.134 | 42.9% | 4th | ||
| LDP | 60,854 | 26.9% | 2 | ||
| CDU | 60,837 | 26.9% | 2 | ||
| VdgB | 7,379 | 3.3% | 0 | ||
| 8th | Eligible voters | Voters | voter turnout | valid votes | |
| 553.853 | 511.001 | 92.3% | 484.697 | ||
| Political party | be right | percent | Mandates | ||
| SED | 225,654 | 46.5% | 10 | ||
| LDP | 150,559 | 31.1% | 7th | ||
| CDU | 101.502 | 21% | 4th | ||
| VdgB | 6,942 | 1.4% | 0 | ||
| 9 | Eligible voters | Voters | voter turnout | valid votes | |
| 313,946 | 293.141 | 93.4% | 275,567 | ||
| Political party | be right | percent | Mandates | ||
| SED | 123.175 | 44.7% | 6th | ||
| LDP | 97,320 | 35.3% | 4th | ||
| CDU | 46,302 | 16.8% | 2 | ||
| VdgB | 8,770 | 3.2% | 0 | ||
A curiosity was the fact that the CDU politician Otto Nuschke had been elected to both the state parliament of the province of Saxony and the state parliament of the neighboring province of Brandenburg .
The evaluation of the elections showed that the voting behavior of women and men differed considerably in some cases. Women chose the LDP and CDU significantly more, men more SED. The SED proved to be stronger in rural regions than in the cities. The result in Halle was particularly serious for the SED, where it only came second behind the LDP. It was noticeable that the SED performed rather poorly in old KPD strongholds, while it did rather well in areas that had strong SPD shares during the Weimar Republic, for example the Magdeburg Börde . It is possible that a considerable part of the SED electorate there orientated itself to the SPD part of the party. In Eisleben , the LDP even achieved an absolute majority. In the districts, apart from the Eckartsberga district , it became the strongest party.
The strongholds of the LDP were in the south of the country, in the Harz and in the Altmark in the north. The CDU did particularly well in Wittenberg and Naumburg. It also achieved high results in the Altmark, the Jerichower Land and the Liebenwerda district . In the demarcation between LDP and CDU, the LDP performed more strongly in the urban environment, while the CDU was more in the rural area than the LDP.
Evaluation within the SED
Although the SED had become by far the strongest party, it surprisingly saw itself as the loser in the election because it lacked an absolute majority. Internally, the result was seen as a serious defeat and the reasons were sought. The SED provincial chairman Bruno Böttge analyzed the election result in an internal circle. He saw as the cause a buried class consciousness of the working class. In addition, however, he also saw the cause that the public had the impression that the SED was striving for a dictatorship. The appearance as a party that unreservedly supports the Soviet occupying power is also harmful. Böttge called for a positive change in the reparation deliveries. Böttge also stated that the internal unity of the party between SPD and KPD had not yet been achieved. He complained that former SPD members were being pushed back. Böttge criticized the impossible SED election promises regarding the food situation. Walter Ulbricht drew completely different conclusions from the result. He criticized the strategic mistakes of the SED provincial organization and complained that the CDU and LDP were not fought hard enough. Large parts of the population, especially farmers, youth, the intelligentsia and the middle class were not sufficiently reached. He did not respond to the demands for more internal party democracy and a different occupation policy. Ulbricht advocated a concept of dominance by the SED, which had to take a leading role within a solid block of parties and mass organizations. This position of Ulbricht then also formed the official evaluation of the SED provincial leadership and ultimately the further SED policy as a whole. Bruno Böttge became president of the newly elected state parliament and thus ousted from the SED leadership.
Until 1990 there was no other election in the Soviet occupation zone or the GDR that would have met democratic criteria. The elections promised by the SED for 1949 did not take place. The state election in Saxony-Anhalt in 1950 took place with unit lists and was a sham election .
literature
- Mathias Tullner : Between Democracy and Dictatorship, The local elections and the elections for the Provincial Parliament in Saxony-Anhalt in 1946. State Center for Civic Education Saxony-Anhalt, Magdeburg 1997.
- Kurt Schwarze : Handbook of the State Parliament of Saxony-Anhalt 1947.
Individual evidence
- ^ Mathias Tullner: Between Democracy and Dictatorship, The municipal elections and the elections for the provincial parliament in Saxony-Anhalt in 1946. State Center for Civic Education Saxony-Anhalt , Magdeburg 1997, p. 50.
- ^ Mathias Tullner: Between Democracy and Dictatorship, The municipal elections and the elections for the provincial parliament in Saxony-Anhalt in 1946. State Center for Civic Education Saxony-Anhalt, Magdeburg 1997, p. 46.
- ^ Mathias Tullner: Between Democracy and Dictatorship, The municipal elections and the elections to the provincial parliament in Saxony-Anhalt in 1946. State Center for Civic Education Saxony-Anhalt, Magdeburg 1997, p. 51.
- ^ Mathias Tullner: Between Democracy and Dictatorship, The municipal elections and the elections to the provincial parliament in Saxony-Anhalt in 1946. State Center for Civic Education Saxony-Anhalt, Magdeburg 1997, p. 55.
- ^ Mathias Tullner: Between Democracy and Dictatorship, The municipal elections and the elections for the provincial parliament in Saxony-Anhalt in 1946. State Center for Civic Education Saxony-Anhalt, Magdeburg 1997, p. 59.
