The Weimar Republic of 1919 characterised the struggle – and failure – to establish democracy in Germany following World War One. Despite possessing near-identical elements required to govern as successfully as the Federal Republic of 1945, the government was fragile and short-lived (Smith, 1991). Those in authority neglected to increase the power of the parliament or commit fully to the system, choosing instead to stumble along forming weak coalitions that did not stand the test of time (Conradt, 2009). Weimar’s constitutional weaknesses allowed Hitler to come to power and the dark reign of the Third Reich began in 1933. By contrast, post-WWII democracy was successfully implemented and maintained because the policy makers of the Basic Law ensured a politics of consensus dominated (Slagter and Loewenberg, 2009). Roberts (2009) further believes they were influenced by the material, political, and ethical legacy of the two world wars Germany was a part of. Germany was divided into the democratic West and the communist East, before achieving unification in 1990. Despite the brief history given here, it is easily recognised that Germany’s political history is a complex story of a country struggling to achieve a stable democracy in an unconventional way. The Federal Republic of 1949 distinguished itself from Weimar through its constitution and electoral/party system, which are key factors when explaining democracy’s success. This essay will specifically contrast the constitutions and electoral/party systems of Weimar and Bonn, as well as other factors such as the economy briefly, to explain why democracy succeeded after 1949. The Federal Republic demonstrated clear changes from Weimar, but also contained elements of continuity from the past both in its constitution and party system (Roberts, 2000). Both federal systems had similar institutions in place, such as the Constitutional Courts to resolve disputes, and the representation of 16 Länder (federal states) at a national level through the Bundesrat (federal Council). Their constitutions were quite advanced, with a Bill of Rights guaranteeing every German citizen the freedom of speech, religion and equality. Both governed through coalition parties; no party has been able to govern alone in Germany’s history save one (Gordon, 1991). This demonstrates that permanently built into the system is the need for different political groups to reach out across the political chasm and co-operate in a politics of consensus. With such similarities, why did the Weimar government collapse a few years later? Pulzer (1994) believes that “if it had been dealt a better deck of cards, [the Weimar Republic] might have survived longer” (1994, p. 4). The answer is also that it is institutions and everyday practices that promote stability in the system, and in Weimar, neither was stable. The Federal Republic distinguished itself from Weimar through the governing framework of its constitution. The Basic Law bolstered the parliamentary system “by downgrading the president, who became a largely representative, indirectly elected head of state, and by enhancing the stature of the chancellor” (Smith, 1991, p.48). This was a clear reaction to the dual executive in Weimar’s constitution which authorized the president to act autonomously of the Reichstag (Conradt, 2009). Although the president of the Weimar Republic was given more power to avoid political paralysis in the Reichstag, Article 48 allowed Hitler to come to power in the end. Hence the Basic Law made the presidential role more ceremonial than anything else. By using the failings of Weimar to measure the effectiveness of the present democracy, the policy makers of Bonn achieved to still fears of a second Hitler (Paterson, 2000). The constitution of 1949 also helped democracy by dispersing power from the centre of German authority. The Basic Law worked against centralised power, guaranteeing autonomy of responsibility to Germany’s different regions, and thus preventing the rise of authoritarian rule (Paterson, 2000). “In the Bonn Republic power was diffused to institutions, not the general population, despite the frequent invocation of the phrase ‘Die Staatsgewalt geht vom Volke aus’, [the government authority emanates from the people] the famous Article 1 of the Weimar constitution” (Paterson, 2000, p.25). This diffusion of power ensures institutions must operate together during the decision-making process, thus promoting a democratic atmosphere. The Constitutional Court, for instance, exemplifies the separation of powers by upholding the Basic Law and defending civil liberties, in contrast to Weimar, whose court was easily subverted and unstable. It can be argued that such diffusion of power might negatively affect governing by creating too many agencies and actors. Alternatively, if one institution decides to create paralysis in the system, fragmentation could occur. However, the systems’ stability has not been greatly threatened. This is testament to Germany’s constitutional strength and determination to uphold democratic rule (Paterson, 2000). The reforms to the party system after 1949 also aided in democracy’s success. Consensus among the political parties in the Bundestag (Federal Diet) ensured institutional stability after 1949 (Slagter and Loewenberg, 2009). In contrast, stable majorities could not be formed in Weimar’s’ Reichstag (parliament) due to the existence of ‘proportional representation’ (Conradt, 2009). The republic was therefore a polarised pluralist system of numerous small parties, with no consensual decision-making taking place. The hyperinflation of 1923, for example, “fuelled new political parties which the Reichstag was unable to socialise to its norms” (Slagter and Loewenberg, 2009, p.470). Orderly parliamentary procedure disintegrated once the centre parties came under the assault of the radical extremists. By contrast, the success of post-WWII democracy can be explained through consensus promoting institutional stability, because this was absent in the Reichstag. After 1945, there was co-operative federalism and consensual decision making among the political parties, especially with the issue of comparable living standards in all regions. Democracy also succeeded because of the modifications made to Germany’s political/electoral system after 1949. In the Reichstag, consensus was neglected because radical groups pursued electoral votes, “not caring that it lost them all effectiveness within the chamber as they contributed to its paralysis” (Slagter and Loewenberg, 2009, p.471). After 1949, however, parliament developed into a moderate pluralist system. Parties could only enter with more than 5% of the national vote or 3 constituency seats without. New parties which entered the Bundestag were therefore socialised to the parliamentary customs (Slagter and Loewenberg, 2009).Through this measure, consensus dominated because it encouraged stable, moderate politics while discouraging extreme politics. This helped democracy succeed, because fewer parties meant more stability, the establishment of a co-operative opposition and prevention of anti-system parties (Paterson, 2000). Therefore, the electoral system, as with all other aspects of the system, encourages moderation and consensus. Other factors such as economic conditions after 1949 might also explain why democracy succeeded. With democracy stabilising around the 1950s, Germany also experienced full employment. This is vastly different to the economic and democratic situation in 1919, because the existence of a weak government with limited policy making skills meant there was no active labour policy and millions were unemployed (Schmidt, 1992). However, with Marshall Aid speeding Germany’s economic recovery, the 1950s showed rapid progress both in terms of the economy and democratic governing. The ‘German Model’ further developed the state after 1945, in contrast to poorly-developed welfare state of Weimar (Schmidt, 1992). ‘Modell Deutschland’, with the concept of the managed firm and co-determination, became renowned throughout the world (Smith, 2005). Products ‘made in Germany’ demonstrated that it had become an economic force to be reckoned with, especially with its car industry. It can therefore be argued that unprecedented economic stability after WWII also helped ensure democracy’s popularity. Another factor explaining democracy’s success after WWII emanates from the national and foreign policies Germany has implemented. This country presents a complex and layered picture which is revealed through the challenges it has dealt with in the past. Germany promoted itself as a responsible power and avoided an aggressive foreign policy so reminiscent of Hitler, choosing instead to join NATO and promote pro-European policies at the height of the Cold War (Glees, 1996). Chancellor Brandts’ policy of ‘ostpolitik’ (Change through Rapprochement) exposed the conflict surrounding national identity following unification, where East Germans continued to feel like second class citizens in their own country (Wiesenthal, 1998). The 1970s saw the upsurge of the extreme Left, but despite these negative impacts, the structures of the German political and social systems remain strong. Therefore, Germany’s promotion of European integration and the political culture of the time ensured democratic rule succeeded. In conclusion, it is clear that despite what some may see as an abnormal path taken by Germany towards normalisation, it seems to have worked (Smith, 2005). It is argued that the country’s first attempt at democracy failed due to a “specific set of circumstances facing interwar Germany, coupled with defects in the Weimar constitution […]” (Conradt, 2009, p.7). It can certainly be agreed on that important evolutions in the system – to the constitution and party/electoral system, coupled with better economic and social conditions – were vital in sustaining democracy after WWII (Smith, 1991). The Basic Law remains largely the same as in 1949, which is a testament to its success in founding and maintaining a democratic Germany. In addition, Germany also recognised a politics of consensus is a pre-requisite for federalism to work. Its decision to take this unconventional path and follow the federal political system with a consensus democracy demonstrates that sovereignty may not always be the answer; homogenising such a large country with different regions and practices would be impossible. It is institutional stability and every day practices, coupled with the politics of consensus, which established democracy successfully in Germany. Bibliography: Conradt, D. (2009). The German Polity. 9th ed. USA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company Glees, A. (1996) Reinventing Germany: German political development since 1945. UK: Berg Paterson, W. E. (2000). From the Bonn to the Berlin republic. German Politics, 9(1), 23-40. Pulzer, P. (1994). Unified Germany: a normal state? German Politics, 3(1), 1-17. Roberts, G.K. (2009). German Politics Today. 2nd ed. UK: Manchester University Press. Slagter, T.H and Loewenberg, G. (2009). Path Dependence as an explanation of the institutional stability of the German Parliament. German Politics, 18(4), 469- 484. Schmidt, M. G. (1992). Political consequences of German unification. West European Politics, (15)4, 1-15. Smith, G. (1991). The resources of a German chancellor. West European Politics, 14(2), 48-61. Smith, M. P. (2005). Introduction – From Modell Deutschland to Model Europa: Europe in Germany and Germany in Europe. German Politics, (14)3, 275-282. Wiesenthal, H. (1998). Post-unification dissatisfaction, or why are so many East Germans unhappy with the new political system? German Politics, 7(2), 1-30.
Conflict between you and your chosen friend.
Journal 2: Conflict – describe a specific conflict between you and your chosen friend/family member/ romantic partner. Two theories or concepts for analysis**1 1/2 single spaced pages in lengthThe description section should be no more than 1/2 page in lengthUse only concepts/theories from Chapter 8 for this entryAttribution TheoryCausal attribution theorystand point theorycultureJournal Guidelines USE Sample Entry Link at bottom of page for formatDescriptionContext: Type the context at the top of this section (you will write the context of the interaction – where and when it occurred.) If you are unsure of what we mean by context of interpersonal interactions, read about it online and in the text. Remember, we use theory to explain, not general terms. For the Challenges Entry, your incident will focus on just one challenge from the following: jealousy, termination of a relationship, the impact of distance on a relationship, or deception. See the textbook and online lessons for information about how theories and concepts help us understand challenges in important relationships.Interaction: Here, write the actual event, giving enough detail of what occurred so the analysis will be easily understood. Most people find it easier to write in a narrative form rather than a dialogue form, but it is your choice. The “Description” portion is about ½ page in length.AnalysisConcept/Theory: Begin by writing the name of the theory or concept (USE CAPS AND bold face so it is obvious to me) and write a 1 or 2 sentence explanation of the theory or concept, so it is clear you know what the theory or concept means. The theory or concept you choose should come directly from the chapter applying to the lesson. So, for the conflict journal, the theories and concepts you use to analyze your experience should come from the chapter dealing with conflict.Application: Now, APPLY the theory or concept to the event you have described above. In this area you will explain why this theory or concept helps us to understand the interaction YOU PROVIDED IN THE “Description.”NOTE: Short entries will lose points***NO FLUFF – I want theory application.The bulk of your writing will be in the Analysis portion, not the Description portion. Read and understand the theory or concept, show me you know why and how the theory or concept explains the event you describe. Read the sample provided.As with all assignments, writing errors will damage your grade. Edit your work carefully; this is a college level course and college level writing is expected. All assignments are accessed through the lessons and submitted there. You submit each entry as one document through the link located within the lessons. There is no credit for partial work – you must have both parts (description and analysis) organized just as you see here, to receive credit. Please view the sample entry for further guidance.
Conflict between you and your chosen friend
Discussion: Would You Invest in a Socially Responsible Mutual Fund
Discussion: Would You Invest in a Socially Responsible Mutual Fund. I don’t know how to handle this Business question and need guidance.
Everyone wants to do some good in the world. But when we invest our hard-earned money, we want it to perform well for us. That’s where the idea of socially responsible investing (SRI) comes in. This type of investing reflects your own social values and ethical standards.
Is the creation of socially responsible funds actually in investors’ best interest? Would you invest? Do you believe that people’s investments should reflect their values and their overall worldview? Why or why not? How do you balance your personal beliefs with your desire to make money? Should you worry about this at all?
(in 175 words).
Discussion: Would You Invest in a Socially Responsible Mutual Fund
WU Project Management Process & Risk Mitigation Strategies Presentation
i need help writing an essay WU Project Management Process & Risk Mitigation Strategies Presentation.
I’m working on a management question and need an explanation to help me learn.
Subject: project management process Required power points slide only for this Mayor Jean Drapeau has given your group a fixed non-negotiable budget of $20 billion to build just the stadium at the same site (without the velodrom, village or the viaduct), and the stadium construction project must be completed within 2 years (i.e. August 2022).Project deliverables – Your project should produce an improved WBS, network diagram, Gantt chart, budget, risk register with its corresponding mitigating strategies. Make additional assumptions as needed, such as outsourcing, etc. as well as consideration for current events such as the pandemic. Since the project is already approved, no pre-selection calculations such as NPV, IRR, etc. are required.”narrative PowerPoint slide” required 7 PPT Slides required with brief description for risk mitigation strategies
WU Project Management Process & Risk Mitigation Strategies Presentation
HCM 674 Larkin School of Nursing Kindgdom Model of Policy Making Reflection Paper
HCM 674 Larkin School of Nursing Kindgdom Model of Policy Making Reflection Paper.
I could not think of a more opportune time to introduce each of you to the Kindgdom Model of Policy Making. The added knowledge you will gain form this reading during these unprecented times could not be better planned.As you write your individual paper reflect on the following using a minimum of 1000 words.1. How does the Kingdom Model compare to the public policymaking process in the US discussed during the second week of the course. 2. Reflect on the US current state and the many event that have led to windows of opportunity in policy making. Please consider the Political and Policy stream3. Lastly, how to interest groups and The bureaucratic system influence how Policy comes to be enacted. This is an individual paper and however you are each reading one assigned document each of your points of views on the posed reflections should be personal. Please use appropriate grammar and reference all ideas that are not your own.
HCM 674 Larkin School of Nursing Kindgdom Model of Policy Making Reflection Paper
Accommodating Workforce Diversity Essay
Table of Contents Introduction Advantages of Workforce Diversity Conclusion References Introduction Diversity is an inherent characteristic that is found in virtually every aspect of human life. Diversity in the workforce goes beyond the issues of race, gender, and ethnicity to include differences in experience, variations in educational background and discrepancies in perceptions. Diversity is a result of differences in religious backgrounds, racial differences, and differences in cultural orientation, among other factors. People will always have different qualities and priorities because human beings are unique by nature. Workforce diversity has several benefits to organizations, which coupled with the impossibility to avoid it, makes its accommodation a must-do task. However, there are people who wonder whether “accommodating workforce diversity is a necessity or a luxury” (DuBrin, 2011). Advantages of Workforce Diversity By accommodating workforce diversity, an organization attracts employees with different talents to its workforce. This is because people feel free to show and use their talents. As a result, the employees can highly contribute to organizational growth by using their skills to increase efficiency in production. On the same note, employees feel more comfortable when their diversity is accommodated (DuBrin, 2011). Moreover, employees will easily quit a firm where their diversity is not well managed because of the conflicts that are likely to prevail there. Therefore, accommodating workforce diversity ensures that a firm is able to retain employees, thus, reducing the cost of recruiting and training new employees. In addition, accommodating workforce diversity helps in eliminating unnecessary tension between employees and management, as well as among employees (Barak, 2010). As a result, the workplace becomes friendly, and, as such, encouraging employees to work hard. Similarly, employee confidence in a firm is enhanced when diversity is accommodated. Research shows that employees are highly motivated to work when their contributions are valued (DuBrin, 2011). In this regard, accommodating employee diversity translates into a positive attitude of employees towards work, thus, increasing output (Jackson, 1992). Furthermore, an organization where workforce diversity is properly managed gains public recognition as an employer of choice. Accordingly, many people will be willing to work for the firm, hence, enabling the firm to take advantage of the best talents in the market. Additionally, accommodating diversity in workforce enables employees to put their skills into meaningful use, and become more creative and innovative. As a result, employees feel motivated to try their skills in coming up with new techniques for executing their duties (Barak, 2010). Consequently, employees can come up with more efficient ways of performance, which reduce the cost of operation. Moreover, employees are known to be more flexible and responsive when workforce diversity is accommodated than when they are restricted to a specific line of operation. In this regard, decision making and problem solving become easy due to diversified views. Notably, workforce diversity is critical in continuous self-development and in enhancing self-awareness; the two are vital in improving the output of human capital (DuBrin, 2011). Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More Conclusion It is a big fallacy for anybody to start imagining that a firm can operate without workforce diversity. People are socialized and trained in different ways. Consequently, there will always be diversity in the way people behave, and how they approach various issues. Though there are some shortcomings as far as workforce diversity is concerned, they are peripheral and are overshadowed by the benefits. Therefore, firms are left with no choice but to accommodate workforce diversity for their benefit. References Barak, M. E. (2010). Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace. New Delhi: SAGE Publishers. DuBrin, A. J. (2011). Essentials of Management. Stanford: Cengage Learning. Jackson, S. E. (1992). Diversity in the Workplace: Human Resources Initiatives. New York: Guilford Press.