Karl Liebknecht described the Reichstag as a “fig leaf covering the nakedness of absolutism” how far do you agree?
I agree to a great extent that the Reichstag was indeed a jejune body with the Kaiser maintaining a dominating Diktat over all aspects of governance, from dissolving the Reichstag and vetoing legislation to personal control of the Army; the constitution, itself undemocratic, afforded Wilhelm the power he so loved and shared with the Prussian elites who made up the administration of the Reich. Therefore, the premise cannot be entirely true as the absolutism was not latent in nature and was infact enshrined in the constitution. However, a nascent democracy is to be argued present by the very existence of a representative body elected by universal –male- suffrage more than can be said about most of the contemporary first world nations. Firstly, I would argue as would Rohl that the power was always in the hands of the Kaiser. This Absolutism is epitomised by his controlling foreign policy and the armed forces in his own right, plus being able to appoint and dismiss chancellors, who, answerable only to himself, could be dismissed when failed to meet his demands. For instance, Von Bulow in the wake of the 1908 ‘Daily Telegraph Affair’, having failed to protect the Kaiser from his own mistakes. Yet, perhaps more significantly, he was arguably in total control of the Reichstag. This can be seen in his ability to dismiss the Reichstag to serve his political interests, as he did in calling the Hottentot Election of January 1907, which resulted in loses for the SPD, thanks to a concentrated nationalist propaganda campaign, and the formation of the Bulow Bloc, perfectly happy to accept his rule on foreign Policy. Showing perhaps the arguably mere aesthetic nature of the Reichstag. Likewise, a further prime example of this ‘Personal Rule’ would be ‘The Zabern