Suffrage in the pre-march and in the March revolution

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Caricature in No. 10/1849 of the Münchener Fliegende Blätter on the Bavarian state election in July 1849. Two farmers who are unfamiliar with the letter ask a gentleman to fill out their ballot paper.

The right to vote in the March and March revolutions was based on the right to vote of the first German states that had adopted constitutions with a certain representative character after 1800. Sometimes the Napoleonic model states are mentioned , but above all the southern German states that were enlarged at the time. The history of elections is closely linked to the history of the constitution, because it was only in the constitutional system that members of parliament were elected by citizens. The number of individual German states with such a representative constitution grew in the course of Vormärz (1815–1848); in the largest states, Austria and Prussia, this did not occur at the state level until the revolutionary year of 1848.

The election to the Frankfurt National Assembly in April and May 1848 was the first nationwide election. She was elected, decided by the Bundestag of the German Confederation in a new federal electoral law, according to the almost universal and equal male suffrage. The Frankfurt constitution also provided for such an electoral law , which was unusually democratic for the conditions at the time. Despite the suppression of the revolution in 1849, the Frankfurt draft remained authoritative for further constitutional and electoral law discussions in Germany. The constituent Reichstag of the North German Confederation was elected in 1867 according to the Frankfurt Reich election law.

Napoleonic period and pre-March until 1848

In the Holy Roman Empire , society was organized according to estates; the rights of the individual depended on what class he belonged to and where he lived. There was no modern right to vote for a representative assembly, neither in the member states nor at the national level. The election of the emperor was a symbolic act, the Reichstag was an assembly of representatives of the members of the empire.

From 1789 onwards, the French Revolution not only changed France, but also had a direct or indirect influence on the administrations and political constitutions of most European countries. This is especially true for the period from 1799, after Napoleon Bonaparte seized power in France. His military dictatorship gave itself a democratic robe with plebiscites and presented itself as a promoter of modern law and modern bureaucracy.

No part of the empire, which was dissolved in 1806, remained unaffected by the effects of the revolution and Napoleon's exercise of power. Areas east of the Rhine and later in north-west Germany were incorporated into France; States such as Bavaria and Baden were considerably enlarged and modernized at the expense of other states. Even the major eastern states of Austria and Prussia introduced reforms in order to survive in modern Europe.

Only very few countries in the world knew about elections for a representative body. Often it was a matter of a corporate electoral law, especially at the municipal level. Only some of these countries even had a modern state constitution, including Great Britain and France with some of its satellites such as Switzerland, the Italian states and the Netherlands.

At that time there was a discussion about who should vote and who should be elected, whether the MPs should be appointed directly or indirectly. Despite exerting influence, the rulers could not completely subordinate the parliaments and assemblies of estates to their will. Napoleon was able to legitimize his coup d'état of 1799 retrospectively with a referendum in France, but when he tried to enforce the Dutch constitution in a similar way in 1805 , the voters stayed at home en masse.

Early constitutionalism after 1800

The epoch in which German individual states received a constitution is called early constitutionalism . Contemporaries tended to use the word for the Constitution as text Constitution , the word Constitution but for the living state institution. Constitutions were either imposed , i.e. set up unilaterally by the ruler, or agreed , namely between the ruler on the one hand and an old-class or newly convened constituent assembly on the other. The first modern constitutions with the right to vote, at least for a small minority of the population, came from the Napoleonic model states and the southern German reform states such as Baden and Bavaria.

The Austrian state thinker Friedrich von Gentz , who came from Prussia , 1825

In 1815, the German princes decided in the federal act that the individual states of the German Confederation should have a “ land-class constitution ” (Art. 13). More precise details were omitted in order not to interfere with the sovereignty of the individual states and princes, but at that time public opinion understood it to be a constitution like that in southern Germany: a parliament with a two-chamber system , one chamber with census suffrage being elected, the other being appointed, plus a right of veto by the Princes. But the princes feared nationalism and revolution and therefore followed the interpretation of the conservative publicist Friedrich von Gentz .

According to Gentz, a country-class constitution was very different from a representative constitution . In the former, corporations that consist of themselves and have naturally grown, such as the nobility, cities, etc., sent representatives to the Landtag. In a representative constitution, on the other hand, the members of the parliament elected by the people imagined that they represented the entire mass of the people on the basis of the “delusional idea” that people had equal rights. According to Gentz, the arbitrariness of the MPs through demagogy (seduction of the people), parliamentary ministerial responsibility , unrestricted freedom of the press, etc. ultimately leads to the downfall of the state.

The Vienna Final Act of 1820 was intended to anchor the “monarchical principle” as a basic principle of the German states. When exercising certain rights, the respective prince was bound to the cooperation of the estates, but the entire state authority had to remain with the prince. The final act therefore rejected popular sovereignty and the separation of powers , although the latter were already provided for by the specific constitutions of Bavaria, Baden and other states, as the liberals emphasized.

The bicameral system was generally endorsed or accepted, including the fact that the first chamber was usually composed in part by royal appointment, birth, or the like. The members of the Second Chamber should be elected and have a free mandate , which was in the spirit of the representative constitution. It was not yet a common requirement that ministers should be accountable to parliament. Instead of this political one, however, a ministerial criminal responsibility was demanded, according to which a minister would have to answer for criminal offenses in court. An actual parliamentary system, with ministers elected by parliament, was not yet in the room.

During the pre-March period, there was a theoretical discussion about elections and their principles, as well as elections in many individual states. In general, there are four electoral principles that make up a democratic election today: universality , equality , secrecy , immediacy (direct election). It is debatable whether the demand for free choice adds anything essential to these four principles. The Federal Constitutional Court said that voting must be free of coercion and external pressure. These four principles can already be found to some extent in the discussion on electoral law in Vormärz.

Universality and equality of choice

An election is general if no significant parts of the population are excluded from voting, i.e. if in principle every citizen is allowed to vote. However, there are also electoral exclusions in modern federal election law : A voter must be of a certain minimum age and must not be incapacitated. Until the 1980s, Germans were also excluded abroad because they did not live in the electoral area. This still applies to state and local elections.

Closely related to the general public is the equality of choice , it means that every voter has the same number of votes that also have the same count . A modern, democratic suffrage must therefore not be a plural suffrage , in which some voters have more votes than others, nor a class suffrage , in which the voters are divided into groups for which a different ratio of the number of voters and the number of elected applies. Equality can also be at risk in modern federal election law if, for example, very different numbers of voters live in constituencies.

Women and young people

Until 1918, women in Germany and almost all other countries in the world were excluded from voting and being elected . However, there was still an exception in the pre-March period: the right to vote in rem, for example in the case of a manor. If a woman owned the manor, in older estates she was allowed to appoint a proxy to vote for her, usually the husband or, in the case of a widow, a son or grandson. Some later constitutions specifically excluded women. The constitutional lawyer and liberal politician Robert von Mohl saw male suffrage as common law in 1840. There was a general perception that women are too emotional and have too little knowledge of politics.

With a few exceptions, the minimum age in most states was 25 years. Often the age was set lower for the nobles than for city and town councilors. In the latter, one received the active right to vote at the age of 25, the passive right at 30. In local elections, the age of majority was valid , as it was determined in the respective civil law. The Frankfurt National Assembly set the age at 25, which was then adopted by a number of individual states in the course of the German Empire.

Possession and education

Around 1830 the liberal Karl von Rotteck wrote that only bourgeois independent men could become “members of society” through possession, the rest of the population being mere citizens. The latter would not be able to exercise their right to vote sensibly. However, the census should not be so high that the majority of men are excluded. In 1845, the liberal David Hansemann said that the nobility used to be interested in a stable government, and now the entrepreneur who provides jobs and bread for many people. Only 2 to 2.5 percent of men over 25 years of age should have the right to vote.

Most publicists believed that census voting was necessary because property and education could best ensure that someone had an interest in the common good . Only the left with Gustav Struve and other radical democrats advocated universal and equal suffrage.

Even in elections, which at that time were viewed as general popular elections, a lack of “independence” was still a common reason for exclusion. It was therefore not allowed to vote who had gone bankrupt or had a private employment relationship. The latter concerned servants and factory workers. Normally, there was no vote who received (public) poor relief. It could also be excluded who lived or worked as a “son” in the father's household.

Other exclusions

In some states, such as Saxony, Bavaria and Württemberg, you had to belong to a Christian denomination in order to vote. This was ultimately directed against the Jews and the oppositional German Catholicism . Such restrictions were abolished in Prussia in 1848 and in the North German Confederation in 1869.

A voter had to be " blameless "; what exactly that meant often led to legal uncertainty. What was meant was that he was not allowed to have a criminal record, sometimes this only included so-called dishonorable crimes.

Civil servants were normally allowed to be elected, but usually the employer had to give his consent. In some cases, an official could not be elected because he was not allowed to be elected in the constituency in which he was active. Corruption, conflicts of interest and a lack of independence were feared. On the other hand, it was argued against the restriction that it impaired the civil rights of the civil servant or that the civil servant status could be degraded. In some states, a member of parliament was not allowed to serve abroad. In Braunschweig , for example , father and son were not allowed to belong to one chamber at the same time; often it was expressly forbidden to be a member of both houses of a parliament.

In addition to the frequent restriction of the right to vote to male citizens residing in the electoral area (or the right to it), there were other requirements for members of the estates in the upper houses of the parliaments, so knights had to own a corresponding manor.

Unequal choice

Even for those citizens who were allowed to vote, the electoral laws brought with them manifold inequalities. It was customary to specify how many members of the Second Chamber were to be elected from the cities, how many from the rural communities, and how many from other electoral bodies (such as universities or churches). This resulted in a different numerical ratio between voters and elected.

More of a phenomenon after 1848 were the various forms of class suffrage and plural suffrage . Best known was the heavily controversial three-class suffrage in Prussia. The voters were divided into three groups, each of which elected an equal number of electors. The first group consisted of the few citizens who pay particularly high taxes, the second of a larger number of wealthy citizens, and the third of the rest of the citizens. The three- tier suffrage was unequal, but general: in Prussia, many men were allowed to vote who had no right to vote in a census suffrage. Saxony introduced three-class suffrage in 1896 and transformed it into plural suffrage in 1909, with additional votes for high income, secondary school leaving certificate or an age over fifty years.

The Democrats in particular were bothered by the existence of a First Chamber. As a rule, not only the second but also the first chamber was necessary for legislation. In the latter, however, sat members who were either appointed by the prince, had a seat by birth, or were appointed or elected by a small group.

Immediate choice

Caricature in the Münchner Leuchtkugeln , 1848: A voter stands in front of candidates who, in the caricaturist's opinion, do not represent a choice between different opinions.

In most German states, as is customary internationally, indirect choices were made in the pre-March period. The voters were called primary voters, they elected one or more electors in their constituency. Only these electors then elected the actual member or members of the Chamber. Often the prerequisites for becoming an elector were even stricter than those for the primary elector's right to stand. a voter, for example, had to earn more than the primary voter.

The indirectness of the election meant that larger sections of the population (if they were allowed to vote at all) could at best be primary voters . In the actual election of the deputies by the electors, the rich were even more among themselves.

Secret election

Nowadays it seems to be taken for granted that a democratic election must be secret, then this cannot necessarily be deduced from the history of politics or ideas. This matter of course belongs to a modern liberal perspective. In ancient Greece, philosophers assumed a public vote (except in court cases) where citizens could see the voting decisions of other citizens. The public fee was considered democratic, the secret one (as in Rome) aristocratic. By the 19th century at the latest, such assignments became more problematic, as the development of the form of government and secret election diverged in the individual countries of Europe and North America. Critics of the secret election were the conservative Otto von Bismarck , the national liberal Rudolf von Gneist and later also Carl Schmitt (and before that Montesquieu ); but many leftists also rejected it, such as the successors of the Jacobins , the English Chartists and the Democrats in the northern states of the USA, as well as the liberal John Stuart Mill .

Some proponents of public voting simply wanted to discriminate against certain voters (such as those of the lower class), others thought of the positive influence of the elites, or the electoral act had to be public for reasons of principle because this was in line with politics. Seen in this way, the right to vote is not a subjective right of the individual, but a public office.

The original constitutional commission before the elections to the Frankfurt National Assembly had the idea that the constituency as such would elect a member, not the individual voter. The election act must therefore also be exposed to public opinion, which would prevent one-sidedness. This can be understandable if a voter is supposed to vote for those who are not eligible to vote, but not in the case of a universal suffrage in which each voter can represent himself. If the committee of the National Assembly was still in favor of the public election, the plenary finally decided with 239 votes against 230 in favor of the secret one. The more radical democratic advocates argued in principle, the more liberal arguments with pragmatic reasons, such as the practical counting of votes.

The Prussian local and provincial elections, however, were secret before 1848. With the ordinance of May 30, 1849, which introduced the right to vote in three classes, public election (for the third class) was added. Farm workers were thus exposed to pressure from the conservative landowners, factory workers from liberal entrepreneurs. The conservative Ernst Ludwig von Gerlach justified this in 1855 with the fact that freedom consists in being exposed to the “right” (and not at all) influences. According to such views of the conservatives, the voter should not be able to present an attitude loyal to the state and secretly vote in a subversive sense. Ernst Rudolf Huber:

“For conservative constitutionalism, the public vote was a means of the protection of the constitution, with the help of which one hoped to force political opponents out of cover or to condemn them to powerlessness. But this consideration does not change the fact that the public of the election in Prussia led to serious electoral abuses. Most obviously the government made use of the principle of publicity for electoral terror in the conflict years 1862-66 , but during this period with remarkable failure. "

This abuse in Prussia then helped argue for the secret election. For example, the Catholic Ludwig Windthorst had pleaded in the North German Reichstag in 1867 for public voting, at least if the right to vote was to be general and direct. In 1873, however, Windthorst demanded that the principles of the Reichstag law be transferred to Prussia. He had come to this change of opinion through his experiences in Prussia. A particularly conspicuous presumed consequence of the public voting in Prussia was the low turnout: if it was below 19 percent in the state elections in the 1880s, it was over 70 percent in the Reichstag elections.

Revolution 1848/1849

In March 1848 there were uprisings in various cities in Germany and demands were made to turn Germany into a federal state governed by parliament . The liberals had contributed to the revolution with their criticism of the conditions in the individual German states, but they wanted reform rather than revolution. They feared social upheaval and tried to end the revolution as they saw fit.

On behalf of the Bundestag of the German Confederation, i.e. the representation of the individual states, a committee of seventeen thought about a corresponding constitution. On April 27, the committee presented a draft constitution. The future Reichstag should have an upper house , which was appointed by the individual states, and a lower house elected by the people . Its members should be elected for six years according to universal suffrage (for men).

The national movement wanted a national assembly to found a German Empire . On March 5th, 51 representatives of the pre-March opposition met in Heidelberg to discuss the next steps. Here it was only stipulated that in the National Assembly the number of MPs per individual state should correspond to the respective population. A committee of seven should work out more detailed proposals for the elections. His March 10th draft, by Carl Theodor Welcker , provided for a Senate for the individual states and a Volkshaus with primary elections, with one member for every 70,000 inhabitants.

Pre-parliament

The members of the so-called pre-parliament move into the Paulskirche in Frankfurt on March 31, 1848

From March 31, 1848, 574 politicians came together in Frankfurt, the so-called pre - parliament . The vast majority, 141, were Prussians, only two Austrians. Above all, they talked about guidelines that they wanted to give to the individual states in organizing the elections to the National Assembly.

A Siebzehnerausschuss the Bundestag presented on April 26 a draft of Friedrich Christoph Dahlmann for the constitution, a representative constitution modeled after the then Western European monarchies. In the upper house of the Reichstag, ruling princes and deputies of the free cities were to take seats, as well as imperial councils, half of which were to be elected by the state governments and state parliaments. In the lower house, there should be one MP for every 100,000 inhabitants, elected by independent nationals who are of legal age. The individual states decided on the precise definition of self-employment and the question of whether the choice is direct or indirect. Religious voting restrictions (which were usually directed against Jews and German Catholics ) were prohibited.

The Bundestag passed a resolution on the election on March 30, 1848, which the pre-parliament contradicted in part. The Bundestag then came up with a correction on April 7th. These two federal resolutions together formed the federal electoral law , which changed the federal constitution.

Election to the National Assembly

The German Confederation from 1815. The Slavic-speaking areas of Austria were not elected in 1848, although they belonged to the federal territory, but the Schleswig-Holstein and German-speakers in the eastern provinces of Prussia did not vote , although they did not belong to the federal territory.

According to the resolutions of the Bundestag, at least one member should be elected per state. For every 50,000 inhabitants there was one MP and an additional one for a surplus of 25,000 inhabitants. The outdated federal registers determined the population of the states, although they were now a third or quarter behind the actual situation. In reality, Prussia had 75,000 inhabitants per member. The total number of MPs was initially 605, but since the Prussian areas outside of the federal territory were added later (East and West Prussia, Posen), this increased and five MPs were added for Schleswig, which belongs to Denmark. On the other hand, around seventy mandates from non-German-speaking areas of Austria were lost. After all, there were around 585 MPs.

Conducting the elections was the task of the individual states. The aim was that the MPs could meet in Frankfurt on May 1st, but in Prussia, for example, the election only took place on that day, in Austria on May 3rd. According to the federal decrees, every male, adult and self-employed citizen should be entitled to vote, and he was only allowed to vote at his place of residence.

At least in the large and central German states, the self-employment clauses have nowhere excluded more than a quarter of adult men from voting. At least eighty percent of all men of legal age in Germany were allowed to participate in the elections. Even if the right to vote was not universal and democratic, it was very widespread in a German and European comparison. The indirectness, however, resulted in a great influence of the local dignitaries. Electors came almost exclusively from the upper class and the middle class. But Saxony, Baden and Hessen-Darmstadt showed that even in those layers the support for classical liberalism was slowly disappearing.

At that time there were no parties in the modern sense, rather political currents. The clubs, especially the democratic ones , distributed leaflets and supported candidates. Mainly well-known public figures such as professors, judges, clergymen, merchants and lawyers were elected. Some lower-class voters may not vote because they were disappointed with the indirect voting system. Apart from the early socialists , however, the highly conservatives were not represented in the Paulskirche either. As far as can be determined, the voter turnout varied greatly from region to region, between forty and seventy-five percent.

States with direct choice

The only disputed question in the pre-parliament was whether the voters should vote directly for the MPs or indirectly as primary voters through electors who then elected the MPs. The democratic left was in favor of direct elections that unadulterated the will of the people. A candidate would then have to publicly advertise himself. In the case of indirect elections, the electors, and thus usually the dignitaries, voted on site. The left was countered by the fact that direct elections were more difficult to organize, especially in backward areas like Mecklenburg. Added to this is the agitation of the demagogues , the seducers. The Assembly ultimately left the decision to the state and only recommended direct elections. In the federal decree of April 7th, the question of directness was completely omitted, and in the Second United State Parliament in Prussia, direct elections were not even discussed. Only in Württemberg, Kurhessen, Schleswig-Holstein, Frankfurt, Hamburg and Bremen were there direct elections to MPs.

According to an ordinance of 11./12. April 1848 were allowed to vote in Württemberg, the adult male innocent independent citizens, whereby the age of majority was 25 years. Because of independence, anyone who received poor relief, was under trustee or paternal authority, received food and wages in a serving ratio was excluded. The constituencies were divided according to the number of inhabitants, each with about 63,000 inhabitants. Whoever received the relative majority of the votes was elected. About 22 percent of the population belonged to the adult men. As far as can be determined, the turnout was around 75 percent of those entitled to vote. Württemberg provided 20 members of the National Assembly.

In Kurhessen , too , according to a draft of the judicial committee, the adult (over 25 years) innocent self-employed nationals were allowed to directly elect their representatives. Bankruptcy, trustee, board and wages from the employer were exclusions from voting rights, but not, at least not expressly, the receipt of poor relief. The voters cast their vote orally in front of the municipal council. In the electoral district (average: 68,600 inhabitants), the city council of the largest town summarized the results of the entire electoral district. The relative majority was enough for the election of a total of eleven members. The government submitted the draft to the state parliament on April 10, and it was passed and announced on the same day. According to historically known figures, 64.5 percent of adults took part in the election, so the rest were either not eligible to vote or did not cast their votes.

Schleswig-Holstein (Twelve Members of the National Assembly) had already known the direct election from the state assemblies of Schleswig and Holstein since 1834. The provisional government of Schleswig-Holstein ordered: Anyone who was 21 years old and received neither poor relief nor was sentenced to prison was allowed to vote was. In the case of oral voting, the relative majority counted. The election took place on May 1st and the results were determined on May 7th. In Holstein, according to estimates at the time, 40 percent of those entitled to vote took part, that is 8.8 percent of the population. In Schleswig it was only 12 percent of adults. The by-elections on May 12th attracted far fewer voters.

Larger states

Political meeting in the Prussian capital Berlin , 1848

Prussia provided about a third of all members of the National Assembly, 202. The liberal ministry (the government) Camphausen-Hansemann presented a bill to the Second United State Parliament on April 2, 1848. A man should be allowed to vote in Prussia if he was at least 24 years old, had lived in the respective community for a year, had civil rights, had his own household and received no poor relief. For every five hundred inhabitants there was one voter who needed an absolute majority of the votes of the primary voters who appeared. The vote was cast in writing, secret according to the implementation regulations.

Anyone over thirty years of age who did not receive poor relief had the right to vote in Prussia. At least one member should be elected from each district and each city that is not a district. From 60,000 inhabitants there were two MPs, from 100,000 three, from 140,000 four, and so on. The absolute majority was again in place. The state parliament also extended the right to vote to servants and servants, since after all the day laborers were also allowed to vote. The residency requirement was reduced from one to six months. On April 11th the ordinance for the elections in Prussia was passed. The primary elections for the national assemblies in Frankfurt and Prussia took place separately on May 1st. The election of the Prussian MPs followed on May 8, that of Frankfurt on May 10 (the constituencies were different). It is estimated that only 5 to 10 percent of adult men were excluded from voting; no other state had adopted such a broad suffrage.

In Bavaria , the chambers received an electoral bill on April 11th. There was one voter for every 400 inhabitants. A Bavarian citizen aged 25 and over who owned property or pensions that was taxed, or held a public office or a taxed business, was eligible to vote and could be elected. The ballot papers had to be signed and one candidate had to receive an absolute majority. Two substitutes were elected for each MP. The Second Chamber, however, changed the draft so that not only citizens but all citizens could vote. The voting age should be adults, that is, those over 21 years of age. Those who did not pay direct state tax or who had been penalized (except for political crimes or misdemeanors) were excluded. The law was passed on April 15th.

Theoretically, even an ordinary worker paid a state tax, but that was not always taken so strictly. For example, students or sons who lived in their parents' house were excluded. Figures for the election are available for Nuremberg : of 50,460 residents, at least 12,500 were men of legal age. There were 6,752 eligible voters. 65.4 percent took part in the primary elections on April 25th, the election of representatives by the electors took place on April 28th. Bavaria had 71 MPs.

In an ordinance of April 14th, Hanover stipulated that adults were allowed to vote, this varied depending on the part of the country. The recipients of poor relief and those who were with others on board and wages or who had received an embarrassing sentence for a dishonorable crime were excluded. The primary voters voted orally or with a ballot, and there was a relative majority. An absolute majority was required for the election of deputies for the electors. If necessary, there were runoff elections in which the weakest vote was eliminated. There was one voter for every 1,000 residents, which was the worst ratio in all of Germany at the time. There are few figures on those entitled to vote. 26 MPs for the National Assembly came from Hanover.

Saxony introduced the new electoral law by ordinances on April 10th, 17th and 20th. Entitled to vote were adults (21 years of age), self-employed, innocent Saxon citizens. Prosecuting meant that one was not charged with a dishonorable crime and not fully acquitted, that one was self-employed meant that one had one's own household and received no poor relief. In case of doubt, independence could be assumed.

The Saxon electors were not elected according to a certain number of inhabitants, but there was one voter for every hundred eligible voters who registered, received a ballot and submitted it personally on election day. A relative majority applied to the election of an elector, but only in the third ballot. Between 62 and 99 electors were elected in each of the 24 electoral districts in Saxony (80 on average). Around forty percent of the 200,000 eligible voters had themselves entered on the electoral roll, others did not vote because they were not self-employed or were not interested. The registered voters did not always vote either. The turnout was around 40 percent.

As early as March 25, the government in Baden ordered electoral elections at the urging of the Second Chamber. The norm was the Baden state election law: the citizen had to be a resident of the constituency or hold a public office and be at least 25 years old. Exceptions were “backers, business assistants, servants, servants, etc.” The voting was oral. In the meantime, the federal decree prescribed the age of majority as the lower voting age, so the municipalities were allowed to repeat elections. The Baden elections for the National Assembly were delayed by the Hecker procession and by-elections (in nine districts, as some MPs were elected in several districts). The elections were not over until mid-June.

Around 20 percent of the adult men in Baden remained without the right to vote. For every 500 inhabitants there was one elector, often the mayor (from the local self-government), or a local council, farmer or innkeeper. Although the electors mostly came from the middle class, which the Liberals saw as their social base, the Democrats celebrated a great victory in the parliamentary elections. This may have been due to the economic crises of 1845–1847. 20 MPs came from Baden.

In Hessen-Darmstadt , an electoral bill went to the cantons on April 12th, the plenum voted for it on April 14th, and the law came into force on April 19th. Citizens from 21 years of age were allowed to vote, with the following exclusion reasons: bankruptcy, incapacitation, obedience, service for food and wages (this concerned servants, but not journeymen and rural servants). One voter was elected for every 250 residents, with a voting slip. In the elections for members of parliament, people voted by acclamation or, if in doubt, with a voting slip. Many Democrats were among the 12 MPs from Hessen-Darmstadt.

Discussion on electoral law in Frankfurt

National Assembly in the Paulskirche in Frankfurt , around June 1848.

An equal or universal suffrage in the National Assembly was not controversial. However, the MPs disagreed on the precise form of the right to vote, namely whether there should be restrictions. There was also the question of whether Parliament should have one or two chambers and what power they could exercise.

The democratic left in the National Assembly called for a unicameral parliament as an expression of the indivisibility of the nation. The other MPs did not see the French Revolution as the model for the Reichstag, as did the Left, but the English bicameral system. The upper house (house of states) of the Reichstag would then have been appointed by the individual states, as the Committee of Seventeen already thought. The right could not hope that the aristocracy and the clergy would automatically be represented in the upper house , but that they would soon take power again in the individual states. For the center, on the other hand, an upper house on a federal basis was supposed to convert the interests of the individual states to a higher imperial interest. The center and the right were in favor of a federal upper house because, in the interests of the separation of powers, they wanted to prevent parliament from acting like an absolutist ruler. The upper house should be elected partly by the governments and partly by the state parliaments of the individual states.

As for the right to vote, the left wanted to see all restrictions lifted. The choice should not only be general and equal, but also secret and direct. The center and right, however, feared that this would make a “despotism of the masses” possible. The Liberals referred to the natural inequality of the individual. The gifted, able, active and successful should therefore have privileges. Possession and education are an indication of higher political judgment. Ernst Rudolf Huber: "The goal of the liberals was not the schematic equality of the undivided society, but a new social hierarchy, developed from freedom, competition and achievement, based on the primacy of civil education and civil property." Despite the election tactical considerations Both sides, left and non-left, were in this dispute about the question of which goal would be more useful to the state.

The Constitutional Committee of the National Assembly finally presented a draft that restricted the right to vote. Economically dependent people such as day laborers , journeymen and servants should not be allowed to vote. The National Assembly rejected this liberal-conservative draft with a large majority after extra-parliamentary groups protested. Then the liberals tried to enforce a census suffrage in which only those who paid more taxes than others could vote. Higher taxes as a sacrifice for the whole would legitimize this privilege. Such motions did not receive a majority either.

The liberal-conservative draft also wanted voters to cast their votes publicly so that they were supposedly forced to outgrow their purely private interests. The National Assembly, however, voted with a narrow majority in favor of secret voting rights, as the left had proposed. She feared that the economically dependent would not be able to vote unaffected, that the public election would document their lack of freedom. When it came to the question of direct elections, the left and the right faced each other. Supporters on the right believed that voting via electors would take the edge off the election campaign, while opponents on the left believed that it would make the primary voters dependent on the electorate. The decisive factor was the idea among the Liberals that an indirect election did not lead to the overall national will.

Towards the end of the deliberations on the right to vote in March and April 1849, the question of Greater German / Little German was already superimposed on the discussions. So it came about that the right center wanted to keep the left in the greater German camp and for tactical reasons supported the left suffrage demands. In the last reading on March 27, 1849, the National Assembly adopted the Reich Election Act with a large majority. On April 12, 1849, the imperial administrator made it out.

Constitution and draft electoral law 1849

According to the Frankfurt Constitution of March 28, 1849, the first chamber of the Reichstag, the House of States, "should be elected half by the government and half by the representative body of the states concerned". There were some special regulations, for example in the event that a state was divided into provinces with its own parliament or only sent a single member to the state house. A member of the state house must be a citizen of the sending state and at least thirty years old. Half of the state house was renewed every three years, so that one member was elected for six years (§§ 88–92).

The second chamber of the Reichstag was called the Volkshaus. For the members of the Volkshaus the constitution provided that they were elected for three years (the first time for four) and that they (in modern terms) enjoyed a free mandate and diet. One was not allowed to be a member of both houses at the same time (§§ 93–97).

The Reich Law on the Elections of Members of the People's House of April 12, 1849 provided for universal suffrage. However, they were excluded

  • all women,
  • all men under 25 years of age,
  • Persons under guardianship , in bankruptcy proceedings, or who received poor relief from public coffers or who received it a year before the election,
  • who was "accused" after losing their civil rights through a final criminal judgment,
  • who has not been a national of a single state for at least three years.

Anyone who held a public office could become a member of the Reichstag without a leave of absence.

When the law made voting public, it meant that anyone could enter the polling station . The voter had to cast his vote personally, with an unsigned voting slip. The choice was also immediate.

For the election, Germany had to be divided into constituencies , each comprising around one hundred thousand inhabitants. A smaller individual state could already form a single constituency with at least 50,000 inhabitants, including (the smaller) Lübeck . Other states belonged to neighboring constituencies (in larger states). One member was elected per constituency. A candidate needed an absolute majority of the votes cast in the constituency to be elected. If necessary, there was a second ballot in which an absolute majority was again required to vote. A possible third ballot was a runoff between the two candidates who received the most votes in the second ballot. Should a member of parliament later no longer be able to exercise his mandate, there was a by-election in the relevant constituency.

Prussian Union plans 1849/1850

Erfurt Union Parliament 1850, in the Augustinian Church

In April 1849, the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm IV refused the imperial crown offered to him by the Frankfurt deputies and had openly fought the revolution since May. Soon afterwards, the northern German kingdoms of Prussia, Hanover and Saxony concluded an alliance of the three kings in order to establish a total German state in their own way. The draft constitution of May 28, 1849 (" Union Constitution ") was similar to the Frankfurt Constitution, but provided, among other things, an absolute veto of the head of the Reich and not a general, but an indirect three-class suffrage based on the Prussian model. The residents of a constituency would have been divided into three classes according to the taxes they paid. In this way, the wealthy (including aristocratic landowners) were given extraordinary advantages.

Understandably, the Left rejected the draft, mainly because of the unjustified three-tier voting rights. The right-wing liberals, on the other hand, welcomed the Union plan at a meeting in Gotha (June 1849), since the goal of German unification seemed more important to them than “rigidly adhering to the form”. The union failed, however, because it would only come into force if all other states with the exception of Austria joined it. Bavaria and a few other states rejected the union or replied evasively.

Nevertheless, Prussia tried to continue the Union policy. Elections were to take place on January 31, 1850; Prussia passed an election law for the Volkshaus of the Erfurt Reichstag by ordinance of November 26, 1849, which had already been agreed on May 26, 1849. Hanover, Saxony, Bavaria and Württemberg again agreed their own draft constitution in the four-king alliance in February 1850 . As a result, the national parliament should be elected indirectly through the parliaments of the individual states.

The elections for the Erfurt Union Parliament and its Volkshaus took place according to the three-class suffrage. Half of the MPs came from Prussia, the rest from the small and medium-sized states that had remained loyal to the Union. The left had not participated and voter turnout was rather low. In the parliament that met on March 20, there was essentially a liberal and a smaller conservative group. However, due to Austro-Russian pressure, Prussia finally had to give up its union policy in the autumn crisis of 1850 , and the German Confederation was restored.

See also

literature

  • Boberach, Heinz: Suffrage issues in the pre-March period. The view of the right to vote in the Rhineland 1815–1849 and the emergence of three-class voting rights . Published by the Commission for the History of Parliamentarism and Political Parties. Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1959.
  • Manfred Botzenhart, Manfred: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850. Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977.
  • Huber, Ernst Rudolf: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom from 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960.
  • Richter, Hedwig: Modern Elections. A history of democracy in Prussia and the USA in the 19th century . Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, 2017.
  • Stockinger, Thomas: Villages and Deputies. The elections to the constituent parliaments of 1848 in Lower Austria and the Paris region , Cologne et al. 2012.

Web links

Commons : Elections in Germany in the 19th century  - Collection of images, videos and audio files

supporting documents

  1. ↑ Edgar Liebmann: The Old Empire and the Napoleonic Rhine Confederation. In: Peter Brandt u. a. (Ed.): Handbook of European constitutional history in the 19th century. Institutions and Legal Practice in a Changing Society. Volume 1: Um 1800. Dietz, Bonn 2006, pp. 640–683, here pp. 656/657.
  2. ↑ Peter Brandt a. a .: Introduction. In: Peter Brandt u. a. (Ed.): Handbook of European constitutional history in the 19th century. Institutions and Legal Practice in a Changing Society. Volume 1: Um 1800. Dietz, Bonn 2006, pp. 7–118, here p. 52.
  3. ↑ Peter Brandt a. a .: Introduction. In: Peter Brandt u. a. (Ed.): Handbook of European constitutional history in the 19th century. Institutions and Legal Practice in a Changing Society. Volume 1: Um 1800. Dietz, Bonn 2006, pp. 7–118, here pp. 54–56.
  4. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789 . Volume I: Reform and Restoration 1789 to 1830. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [ua] 1981, p. 643.
  5. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789 . Volume I: Reform and Restoration 1789 to 1830. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [et al.] 1981, pp. 640–643.
  6. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, pp. 27/28.
  7. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, pp. 41/42.
  8. ↑ Dieter Nohlen: Wahlrecht and Party System , 3rd Edition, Opladen Leske and Budrich 2000, pp. 37–39.
  9. ^ Dieter Nohlen: Suffrage and Party System , 3rd edition, Opladen Leske and Budrich 2000, pp. 37/38.
  10. ^ See Dieter Nohlen: Wahlrecht und Partyensystem , 3rd edition, Opladen Leske and Budrich 2000, pp. 37/38.
  11. ↑ Volker Klügel: Suffrage restrictions and their effects in the Kingdom of Hanover at the time of early constitutionalism . Diss. Göttingen. Göttingen 1988, pp. 144/145.
  12. ↑ Volker Klügel: Suffrage restrictions and their effects in the Kingdom of Hanover at the time of early constitutionalism . Diss. Göttingen. Göttingen 1988, p. 156.
  13. ↑ Volker Klügel: Suffrage restrictions and their effects in the Kingdom of Hanover at the time of early constitutionalism . Diss. Göttingen. Göttingen 1988, p. 152.
  14. ↑ Markus Maria wholesale Bölting: Age limits for the right to vote. Development and systematic importance in German constitutional law . Diss. Cologne 1993, Copy Team, Cologne 1993, pp. 607/608.
  15. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, pp. 35/36.
  16. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, pp. 68/69.
  17. ↑ Volker Klügel: Suffrage restrictions and their effects in the Kingdom of Hanover at the time of early constitutionalism . Diss. Göttingen. Göttingen 1988, p. 113, p. 118.
  18. ↑ Volker Klügel: Suffrage restrictions and their effects in the Kingdom of Hanover at the time of early constitutionalism . Diss. Göttingen. Göttingen 1988, pp. 168/169.
  19. ↑ Volker Klügel: Suffrage restrictions and their effects in the Kingdom of Hanover at the time of early constitutionalism . Diss. Göttingen. Göttingen 1988, p. 155.
  20. ↑ Volker Klügel: Suffrage restrictions and their effects in the Kingdom of Hanover at the time of early constitutionalism . Diss. Göttingen. Göttingen 1988, pp. 162/163.
  21. ↑ Volker Klügel: Suffrage restrictions and their effects in the Kingdom of Hanover at the time of early constitutionalism . Diss. Göttingen. Göttingen 1988, pp. 172-174.
  22. ↑ Volker Klügel: Suffrage restrictions and their effects in the Kingdom of Hanover at the time of early constitutionalism . Diss. Göttingen. Göttingen 1988, p. 176.
  23. ↑ Volker Klügel: Suffrage restrictions and their effects in the Kingdom of Hanover at the time of early constitutionalism . Diss. Göttingen. Göttingen 1988, p. 178.
  24. ↑ Volker Klügel: Suffrage restrictions and their effects in the Kingdom of Hanover at the time of early constitutionalism . Diss. Göttingen. Göttingen 1988, pp. 21-23.
  25. ↑ Volker Klügel: Suffrage restrictions and their effects in the Kingdom of Hanover at the time of early constitutionalism . Diss. Göttingen. Göttingen 1988, pp. 21-23.
  26. ^ Hubertus Buchstein: Public and secret voting. A study on the history of electoral law and the history of ideas. Nomos publishing company. Baden-Baden 2000, pp. 680, 685, 689.
  27. ^ Hubertus Buchstein: Public and secret voting. A study on the history of electoral law and the history of ideas. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2000, pp. 686/687.
  28. ^ Hubertus Buchstein: Public and secret voting. A study on the history of electoral law and the history of ideas. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2000, pp. 688/689.
  29. ↑ Margaret Lavinia Anderson: Apprenticeship Years of Democracy. Elections and Political Culture in the German Empire. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2009, pp. 93/94.
  30. ^ Hubertus Buchstein: Public and secret voting. A study on the history of electoral law and the history of ideas. Nomos publishing company. Baden-Baden 2000, p. 552.
  31. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789 . Volume I: Reform and Restoration 1789 to 1830. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [ua] 1981, pp. 87/88.
  32. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789 . Volume I: Reform and Restoration 1789 to 1830. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [ua] 1981, p. 88.
  33. ^ Hubertus Buchstein: Public and secret voting. A study on the history of electoral law and the history of ideas. Nomos publishing company. Baden-Baden 2000, p. 563.
  34. ^ Hubertus Buchstein: Public and secret voting. A study on the history of electoral law and the history of ideas. Nomos publishing company. Baden-Baden 2000, p. 566, footnote 53.
  35. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, pp. 89/90.
  36. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960, p. 769.
  37. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, pp. 117-119.
  38. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, p. 121, p. 127.
  39. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, p. 125, 130/131.
  40. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960, p. 606.
  41. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960, pp. 606/607.
  42. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960, p. 607.
  43. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, p. 156/157.
  44. ^ Frank Lorenz Müller: The revolution of 1848/49 . 3rd edition, WBG, Darmstadt 2009, p. 87, p. 89.
  45. ^ Thomas Nipperdey: German History 1806-1866. Volume 1: Citizen World and Strong State. Beck, Munich 1983, p. 609.
  46. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, pp. 123-125.
  47. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, p. 139.
  48. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960, p. 608.
  49. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, pp. 149/150.
  50. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, pp. 153/154.
  51. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, pp. 155/156.
  52. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, pp. 136-138.
  53. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, pp. 138-141.
  54. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, p. 144.
  55. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, p. 145.
  56. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, pp. 147/148.
  57. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, pp. 145/156.
  58. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, pp. 145/146.
  59. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, p. 150.
  60. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, p. 151.
  61. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850 . Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, pp. 152/153.
  62. ^ See Ernst Rudolf Huber: German Constitutional History since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960, p. 784.
  63. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960, p. 785.
  64. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960, pp. 787/788.
  65. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960, p. 788.
  66. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960, pp. 788/789.
  67. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960, p. 789.
  68. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960, p. 790.
  69. ↑ Verfassungen.de ( Memento of the original from April 22, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Accessed on June 20, 2012. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / verfassungen.de
  70. ↑ Verfassungen.de ( Memento of the original from April 22, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Accessed on June 20, 2012. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / verfassungen.de
  71. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960, p. 790.
  72. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960, p. 790.
  73. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960, pp. 790/791.
  74. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960, p. 888.
  75. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960, pp. 888-890.
  76. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960, pp. 892-894.
  77. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1960, pp. 894/895.