A parliamentary democracy is a system in which the government is decided by the electorate who vote for who they want to represent them and their interest. With this definition in mind, Germany, arguable, had the features of a parliamentary democracy due to suffrage for all males over the age of 25, as well as a large and active trade union movement when compared to that of other European countries at the time. Additionally, the constitution did grant powers (although limited) to the legislative body of the Reichstag and Bundesrat which satisfies the basic expectations of a parliamentary democracy. However, although the constitution of the day had democratic elements, Bismarck was cautious in preserving the power of the elite. As a result, the constitutional powers of the Kaiser meant that he maintained sovereignty and in fact, Germany could arguably have been an entrenched autocracy during the years of 1900-1914.
Without doubt, the system of universal suffrage is significant support for parliamentary democracy in Germany during these years. The access to voting for all men over 25 regardless of their social class was a big development and certainly democratic when compared to the limited suffrage of other nations at the time. Evidently, political parties were encouraged to appeal to wider groups in society rather than just the wealthy; The Social Democratic Party, who represented the working class, was able to win majority seats in the Reichstag in the 1912 election. This shows that democracy and representation of the people was present to some extent.

Additionally, one could contradict the theory of Germany being an autocracy by outlining the influence of others, besides Kaiser, on German policy. Von Tirpitz, a military figure, was able to push Navy Laws through the Reichstag on 3 separate occasions, and Junkers, who were among the elite, led a number of pressure groups like the Agrarian League. It could be argued that an elite-led pressure group is not representative and is likely to just defend interests of the elite; however by 1914 the group had over 300,000 members from all classes including the peasantry, implying that all citizens, regardless of class, were able to be politically engaged and feel that their public stance on an issue could yield change – suggesting a democratic society. The Chancellors during this time also sought reforms that correlated with the needs of the public. Bulow introduced a series of reforms including a law in 1908 restricting the hours of factory work carried out by the youth and Bethmann-Hollweg also attempted to reform the Prussian voting system in 1910 as it used a ‘three class franchise’ which was so undemocratic and unrepresentative of the mass opinion in society. Although the latter was unsuccessful, this shows an effort by the German government to be democratic.

It is clear, however, that the constitution allowed autocratic powers to the Kaiser that would make a genuine parliamentary democracy in Germany difficult to achieve. Wilhelm II did not have to answer to anyone and certainly could not be controlled by the Reichstag. The 1913 Zabern Affair highlighted this, along with the little power the Reichstag actually had. After controversy over a dispute between the locals of an Alsatian town and a German army officer stationed there, the Kaiser failed to acknowledge the Reichstag’s concerns regarding the issue and ignored their vote of no confidence towards the Chancellor. In actuality, the Kaiser remained on a hunting trip throughout the affair despite being requested by the Governor of Alsace-Lorraine to resolve the issue properly. This significant point clearly opposes the view of parliamentary democracy existing in Germany during these years as the Kaiser – and whoever he authorised – could not be held accountable under any rule of law and could do as they pleased.

Furthermore, the Army at the time could be seen as a ‘state within a state’ as they only answered to the Kaiser, took control of their own regimen internally and lacked any form of parliamentary accountability. The clearest example of this is the Herero Uprising. Despite the Reichstag being granted the power to regulate military budget, they were unaware of the genocide which was taking place in the German colony of South West Africa of the Herero people in 1906 following their revolt. This would cost over 450 million marks – an expense that was equivalent to the building of 12 huge battle-ships – but most importantly, the Reichstag did not authorise any such action yet the Army proceeded to execute those locals nonetheless. This reiterates the lack of parliamentary democracy and the absence of constitutional authority for the Reichstag to overcome its limited powers.

In conclusion, it would be incorrect to claim Germany as a parliamentary democracy in the years 1900-14 due to the unbalanced constitutional powers distributed amongst the government and the monarch. The constitution can be said to promote an autocracy in disguise. However because the Kaiser of the day, Wilhelm II, only exercised his powers on occasion; frequently engaged in leisurely activities; and was rarely in Berlin to be known as an active dictator, it was not so obvious at the time the extent to which his power could have gone. Regardless, he did as he pleased which was evident in the Daily Telegraph affair where he made comments on Britain without consulting the Reichstag. Additionally, the arguments in favour of a democratic Germany are superficial because although other figures – i.e. the elite, pressure groups, and Chancellors – had influence on German policy to an extent, the Kaiser could oppose and dismiss that influence if he wanted to without a second thought or any consequence; a power he exercised by freely replacing the Chancellors during these years.
So to answer the question, to no true extent was Germany a parliamentary democracy in the years 1900-14.