Very democratic to ban political parties as they rise in the polls. You have to ban AfD, because they seem like the types that would try to ban opposition parties; paradox of tolerance and all that.
There’s also never been a blowback to this. /s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire#Political_conse...
(I've slightly lost the thread here, so I'm not 100% certain you're disagreeing.)
"We have to disenfranchise you to protect democracy" is a self defeating idea.
I'm curious what checks there are on Article 21 then. It seems like a no brainer that an unfriendly government count just declare all their opposition enemies of democracy. How is that power limited?
One of the core tenets of democracy is that the people get a choice in their government. If the current government is able to rip that choice away if it's unpalatable, then that's anti-democratic in and of itself.
If we all vote to ban the party some dude started to advocate for killing all left-handed people, we’re not being anti-democratic - we’re being serious people. If you think this party poses no threat, then that’s a real argument. “But it’s not fair that I can’t vote for the cannibals/Nazis/anti-democracy advocates” is unequivocally not (and it’s not more so just because you don’t think they’re actually Nazis or whatever).
Outlawing an action is fine. Outlawing a party who says the action should be okay is anti-democratic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_German_presidential_ele...
>Hindenburg's reelection failed to prevent the NSDAP from assuming power. Two successive federal elections later that year left it as the largest party in the Reichstag and anti-republic parties in the majority. Under this political climate, Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933. Upon Hindenburg's death in 1934 Hitler de facto assumed the presidency, which he combined with the chancellorship to become the Führer und Reichskanzler.
>The NSDAP emerged from the Reichstag elections in July as the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag and having over a third of the vote, while Papen's position was undermined. Papen dissolved the Reichstag again with elections in November, in which the Nazis lost seats but remained the largest party.
> Upon Hindenburg's death in 1934 Hitler de facto assumed the presidency, which he combined with the chancellorship to become the Führer und Reichskanzler.
Hitler was appointed not elected. And assumed the presidency after Hindenburg's death, not by winning an election.
> The NSDAP emerged from the Reichstag elections in July as the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag and having over a third of the vote
"Over a third" is nowhere near the majority. Remember Hindenburg ran as an independent and won over 50% of the vote. "Largest party" in a system with more than two parties and.
And again, after February 1933 the Nazis had severely suppressed opposition parties. Subsequent elections are not fair elections, this is like saying Kim Jeong Un was democratically elected. Technically he was, with the little detail that there was just one party and one candidate to vote far.
Sure, yes, but that does not contradict the fact that in '32, the Nazis did so well in an election that they became (repeating myself) "the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag". Then they won another election in '32, (but by a slimmer margin) where here "won" means that they ended up with more seats than any other party.
>Hitler was appointed not elected.
Yes, but he was appointed mostly because the party he controlled became "the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag and having over a third of the vote".
>"Over a third" is nowhere near the majority. Remember Hindenburg ran as an independent and won over 50% of the vote.
Here you are comparing elections for the Reichstag (a legislative body) with an election for the office of president. In the former, East Prussia votes for a legislator, Pomerania votes for a legislator, North Westphalia votes for one. I.e. they are not national elections, but rather regional ones similar to US elections for senators. That matters because it makes it practical for candidates without national name-recognition to run and to win. In contrast, doing well the election for the president requires strong national name-recognition. So, one possible explanation for Hindenberg's being able to get over 50% of the vote is the fact that there were fewer viable candidates for that office than there were viable parties contesting over seats in the Reichstag.
This table lists 62 parties: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1932_German_federal_ele...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_German_federal_election#:...
If not, what is the difference that makes them different for you?
By comparison the Nazis did not form such a ruling coalition, and seized power by force later - not democratically. My whole point, from beginning of this comment chain, is that the Nazis did not achieve rule democratically. They won parliamentary seats, but failed for form a coalition (at least not until they took power by force and effectively rigged elections).
Why bring the US into the conversation? ;)