‘The Second Reich remained an entrenched autocracy until 1914.’
How far do you agree with this statement?
The Second Reich under the Kaiser followed strict rules and ideologies, with the Kaiser exerting his power wherever he felt necessary in order to maintain control. Despite this, there were certain moments throughout Germany’s development that were not entirely autocratic. Key events such as the elections where power is createdthrough reform and the Kaiser goes against his power to dissolve opposition groups, the work of the army and navy including further attempts at reform and also events such as the Zabern affair in 1913. This combined with the way the Kaiser and his chancellors handle both domestic and foreign policy show attempts to improve the lives of the people all the while increasing the power of the Kaiser. Each of these providing examples for both an autocratic and democratic nation.

Whether the Second Reich remained an entrenched autocracy is questioned through the elections of the 1900s. In 1903 the first of three major elections took place. In response to the 1902 tariff law there was a shift towards the Social Democrats and a decline in the power of the conservatives. Therefore any attempts that Bulow had made to increase the power of the conservatives was destroyed and also identifies a sense of discontent from the German people. This could be a sign of democracy as it was within the Kaiser’s rights to dissolve the Social Democrats, however the fact that he didn’t suggests that he wasn’t a truly autocratic leader. The second election in 1907 was different in the sense that Bulow was able to reassert the Kaiser’s power by promoting nationalism against the Social Democrats. He did this by threatening the German citizens with what would happen if the Social Democrats came back into power, this could be easily considered a fear tactic. Therefore this election follows much more autocratic methods at retaining the Kaiser’s power. Yet the third one, like the first, sees the SPD return to being the largest party in power and once again the Kaiser allows them to continue. This is quite a surprise considering that this election takes place after the Herrero uprising in 1906 where the Social Democrats went against the Kaiser, this shows that he is willing to let them govern knowing full well that they previously openly opposed him, indicating that he again is not ruling as an autocratic emperor. It wasn’t only the elections however that define Germany’s autocracy or democracy, in 1910 there was an attempt to reform the Prussian voting system. The system introduced however showed no signs of democracy as it was based on the amount of tax people pay, the more tax you pay the more your vote was worth. The outcome here being that the votes of the wealthy conservatives were worth a lot more than those of the workers or agricultural labourers and therefore there were extreme irregularities. In 1908 for example, Conservatives won 16% of the vote and had 212 seats and the SPD won 23% of the vote and only won 7 seats. This makes the votes of the poorer community almost irrelevant and therefore indicates that Germany was becoming a truly autocratic nation.
Looking at all the aspects involved in the elections at this time it’s clear to see that Germany was developing into a much more autocratic nation than it had been previously. Especially considering that Germany had been ahead of other countries in terms of universal suffrage, with Germany achieving this in 1871 and Britain in 1918. Certain autocratic features however could be considered to have democratic elements or intentions, for example the fact that they attempted to reform the voting system suggests that they were beginning to show signs of a democratic mentality.
The way that Germany and the Kaiser approaches its army and navy in terms of reform and key events supports the idea of an entrenched autocracy. It’s important to consider that this is the area in Germany that the Kaiser ultimately needs to control so it may be necessary for him to introduce harsh rules and reforms in order to help improve this. One of the first attempts to reform this area comes in the form of the 1905 Tax Reforms which were designed to pay for the 1906 Naval Laws, however they were an increase on indirect tax on the landed classes who made up key groups such as the Reichstag. Therefore they stood up against this and rejected the tax reform. This goes against the aims of the Kaiser who needs to improve his navy and therefore indicates democracy as they took power into their own hands and willingly went against an action that would improve the nationalistic navy of Germany. However this quickly changed and in 1909 Bulow proposed further tax reforms, however these broke up the conservative alliance that Bulow had worked to form after the Hottentot election in 1907, the conservatives then sided with the centre party to insure this reform didn’t happen. Although this is similar to the 1905 tax reforms in terms of the conservatives standing up against the reform, the Kaiser himself gets involved and uses this event to dismiss Bulow as chancellor. This shows that ultimately the Kaiser can dismiss whoever he wants, whenever he wants and shows a strong sense of autocracy in terms of those who fail him. In 1913 the government introduced the Army Bill which aimed to increase the size of the army by 136,000 and would cost 1 billion marks. Although the SPD would previously have gone against this reform they knew from 1906/1907 that if they went against the Kaiser again then they would surely be dissolved. Therefore they were willing to go against their democratic principles and sign the reform. This shows again that Germany was becoming autocratic as those who had previously been democratic adapted their views to fit in with those of the Kaiser and the conservatives. Another key event was the Zabern affair in 1913 where a German officer made rude remarks that offended the locals and the commanding officer refused to transfer him which ultimately led disturbances where some locals were arrested. The Kaiser himself got involved and sent reinforcements, he forbade Bethmann-Hollwegg to inform the Reichstag and when Bethmann-Hollwegg couldn’t answer the questions from the Reichstag, they passed a vote of no confidence in him. This could both symbolise autocracy as the Kaiser completely ignored the vote of no confidence and also democracy because the Reichstag took power and passed the vote in the first place.
The Kaiser also made a lot of developments in terms of foreign and domestic policy. Foreign policy for example includes the 1906 Herrero uprising which took place in South West Africa and the 1908 Daily Telegraph affair which involved communications with Great Britain. The Herrero uprising took place when the Herero people rose in revolt as most of their territory had been seized by European powers. The result of this however was that they were subjected to genocide through execution. Groups such as the SPD and centre party were outraged by this so voted for a new railway in South Africa as compensation. As this was going against the Kaiser, he exerted his ultimate power and dissolved the two opposition groups. This shows autocracy in its greatest form as he shows that ultimately he has the power to do whatever he feels necessary to assure his own power and control. The Daily Telegraph affair goes against this idea however as during an interview with the British the Kaiser implies that he would like an alliance with them but the German people went against it. This upset the Reichstag as they were not consulted. The fact that the Reichstag again directly confronted the Kaiser, especially in this case when it was about the fact that the Kaiser did not share his own personal ideas with him, suggests again that he wasn't the only one in power. This is supported the by the fact that the Kaiser then blamed Bulow for not proof checking the article, the fact that the Kaiser needed a scapegoat suggests that he is not in a confident place with his own strength and power.
This argument continues going into Germany's domestic policies, for example reforms such as the 1900 Accident and Invalidity Law, 1903 Sickness Insurance Law and the 1908 Working Hours Law were all introduced with the aim of distracting the working classes from the bad conditions that they were facing in the work place. Which could be considered autocratic as the Reichstag and the Kaiser were doing everything they could to insure their power was secure from revolution. However events such as the New Constitution for Alsace-Lorraine in 1911 where Alsace-Lorraine was given some regional autonomy, its own flag and national anthem. This is evidence of the Kaiser giving away power and therefore suggests that he isn’t completely autocratic if he's willing to do that.
In conclusion I believe that the Second Reich did remain an entrenched autocracy until 1914 because the Kaiser ultimately had complete control. He had the power to do whatever he wished, therefore any choices he did make were made under his power even if they appeared to be democratic. An example of this was the fact that he allowed the SPD party to continue up until they went against his own principles and then he exerted his power and dissolved them.