No source, born digital.
Contributions to Contemporary History is one of the central Slovenian scientific historiographic journals, dedicated to publishing articles from the field of contemporary history (the 19th and 20th century).
The journal is published three times per year in Slovenian and in the following foreign languages: English, German, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Italian, Slovak and Czech. The articles are all published with abstracts in English and Slovenian as well as summaries in English.
Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino je ena osrednjih slovenskih znanstvenih zgodovinopisnih revij, ki objavlja teme s področja novejše zgodovine (19. in 20. stoletje).
Revija izide trikrat letno v slovenskem jeziku in v naslednjih tujih jezikih: angleščina, nemščina, srbščina, hrvaščina, bosanščina, italijanščina, slovaščina in češčina. Članki izhajajo z izvlečki v angleščini in slovenščini ter povzetki v angleščini.
Although important historical ideas can be implemented in a number of different ways,
each is accompanied by criticism. The challenges may have a number of structural
starting points; however, their goal is always the same: to provoke distrust in the
new values or to materially impede the life force of the idea and the social and
political practices based on it. One of the fundamental European historical
developments – rule by elected representatives – proves this in a number of ways.
The topic, which remains relevant even today, has been the subject of the 5th conference of the European Information and Research
Network on Parliamentary History hosted on 7th and 8th May 2015 in Berlin. The conference, titled Criticism of Parliamentarism and Anti-parliamentarism in
Europe, was organized by the Commission of Parliamentary History and
History of Parliamentarian Parties operating under the German Bundestag. The
conference was held at the Representation of Land Rheinland-Pfalz.
The discussion was divided into three general topics. The objective of the first
topic – Arguments and Pictures – was to analyse discrepancies
between an ideal parliament and the actual parliamentary practice. As pointed out by
Marie-Luise Recker (Frankfurt am Main), Chairwoman of the Council of the Commission
of Parliamentary History and History of Parliamentarian Parties, in her introductory
speech to the conference, these discrepancies are best demonstrated by the endurance
and harmonious nature of the anti-parliamentary discourse in Europe. This was the
subject of the main reflection on the conference (Criticism of Parliamentarism &
Anti-parliamentarism in Europe) given by Jean Garrigues (Orléans) prior to the
opening of the first topic. Anti-parliamentarism began with the French Revolution
and developed as theocratic opposition to democracy and the republican idea, by
refuting the legitimacy of parliamentary representation, building public distrust of
the new social and political elites, and was expressed as distrust and disregard for
elections and their results by the press, caricature, and various pamphlets.
Garrigues focused on French examples, presenting the Bonapartist, Pétainist and
Gaulliest regimes as well as the Boulangist and Poujadist movements that turned
their backs on the parliamentary system. Their actions questioned the principle of
representation, which the European anti-parliamentarists saw as an imperfect
institutional practice of democracy: they believed the parliamentarism as a form of
popular sovereignty merely substituted the lost Sovereign. This was also the
interpretation of the anti-parliamentary attitudes of the critics of the French
revolutionary National Assembly presented in the first paper of the Arguments and Pictures general topic, authored by Paul
Friedland (New York) (The Assembly that Pretends to be National. Anti-Theatricality
and Anti-Parliamentarism in Revolutionary France). Friedland stressed that the
Assembly was seen as a group of political players imagining they were something that
they actually were not.
The issue of anti-parliamentarism in France was also tackled by Nicolas Roussellier
(Paris) (The impact of a repertoire anti-parliamentarian attitudes in the French
Republican experience). Roussellier pointed out that the anti-parliamentarian
attitudes in France are as old as the French republican experience. In the Second
Republic, from 1848 to 1851, such attitudes were expressed both by right- and
left-wing political groups. Anti-parliamentarism has been present in the Third
Republic from its beginning as well. Despite its legislative successes (voting to
institute the national education system in the 1880s, secularization in the early
20th century, and social insurance in the 1920s),
the parliament was target of frequent criticism. The objections were twofold. On the
one hand, they stemmed from the general anti-parliamentary repertoire of the early
19th century, and on the other hand they developed –
in a more subtle but much more damaging way – within the framework of the existing
administration ("a public servant who dedicates his life to the country is worth
more than a politician"). The encounter of both anti-parliamentary stances in the
1930s resulted in the collapse of French republicanism at the time.
Within the Arguments and Pictures topic, Adéla Gjuríčova
(Prague) presented the issue of anti-parliamentarism in Eastern Europe. Her
presentation (Anti-politics and anti-parliamentarism. Václav Havel and the
Czechoslovak parliament in the 1990s) enriched the conference with an overview of
the political dynamics in Eastern Europe following the historical changes that
occurred in the late 1980s and early 90s. In the Czechoslovak socialist period,
Havel based his political stance on the so-called anti-political politics, i.e. the
expression of political views in a non-political manner. For the dissident movements
of the eastern Central Europe, the latter was essential for social activism as well
as for individual spiritual survival in the systems of political restrictions.
However, the "anti-political" efforts to change the regime were marked by a
conspicuous lack of the parliamentary idea. This lack was also characteristic of
Havel's presidency in the post-Communist Czechoslovakia. Havel systematically
criticized the parliament for being too slow and hesitant, and for mostly upholding
the interests of individual political parties instead of the will of the people.
Havel's anti-parliamentarism was reflected in his mobilization of the public against
the federal parliament and by his attempts to pressure the representatives on how to
vote on various issues. Furthermore, he worked systematically to increase the
presidential powers at the expense of the parliament's. The author pointed out that
Havel's contemporaries, as well as researchers investigating his political career,
tended to overlook the mentioned characteristics of his presidency.
The presentation of the driving forces, self-perception and forms of
anti-parliamentarism in Europe was followed by the discussion of the sphere of its
manifestation. Within the Media and Arenas general topic, the
subject was discussed by Theo Jung (Freiburg), Thomas Lindenberger (Potsdam) and
Barbara Wolbring (Frankfurt am Main). Theo Jung (Parliament as a stage of criticism.
Vox populi, vox bovis – Anti-Parliamentarism in the Reichtag) shed some light on the
anti-parliamentary nature of the Reichstag of the German Empire. Jung's presentation
was tied to the current shift in the research of the Reichstag's role in the German
political system at the time. While research used to focus on the constitutional
aspects of its operation, today's studies are mostly concerned with the aspects
associated with cultural history. These studies are concerned both with the public
perception of the Reichstag and the extent to which the representatives have crossed
party boundaries to develop an esprit de corps that would
allow them to cooperate with other political institutions.
Jung was interested in the extent to which the extraparliamentary criticism of
parliamentarism had penetrated the Reichstag itself. Such criticism presented a
paradox, as many representatives – social democrats, conservatives and national
minority delegates – doubted the Reichstag's legitimacy. They expressed their doubts
by demanding true parliamentarism, i.e. an improved version
of it (with rules of procedure, and a system of warnings and punishments). Other
than that, the representatives expressed unreserved support for parliamentarism. The
anti-parliamentarism, widespread among the political public and politicians
themselves, was overlooked in the parliament. The representatives in the Reichstag
followed the parliament's internal logic and self-perception that underestimated the
extent of the "anti-parliamentarism" targeted at the proverbial "weakness" of the
German Reichstag.
The antipode of parliamentary discourse – the politics of the street – was addressed
by Thomas Lindenberger. In his presentation (The street as an arena of politics in
the long 20th centrury), Linderberger pointed out that
the street or public spaces have been used for political purposes since the French
Revolution. The street is a mass medium supported by its own physical presence,
which enables people to demonstrate their political goals and identities. However,
the street is also the place where conflicts unfold between different groups
regarding their acknowledgement by the society and their collaboration with the
public – the conflicts that may have political and cultural consequences based on
their adherence to law and order. The concept of "street politics" connects various
dimensions of everything political expressed on and by the street, with the street
thus becoming a separate political arena alongside the parliament, the government,
the press, etc. In Germany, modern street protests began in the late empire, and
Linderberger outlined their diverse development until the German re-unification.
Barbara Wolbring spoke about the space of extraparliamentary discourse between the street and the building of the parliament. Her critical discussion (The mass media as stage and tribunal. Parliament in the “media democracy”) describes today's Bundestag as follows: Empty benches in the plenary chamber. Prefabricated and predictable atatements by both the opposition and the governing parties instead of controversy and struggle for optimal solutions. It has become widely popular to say that in parliaments like the German Bundestag political decisions nowadays are merely announced. Whereas discussion and decision-making takes place behind closed doors in committees, parliamentary group meetings or informal consultations.
Barbara Wolbring determined that the political debate that had vanished from the parliament moved to TV talk shows. We are living in the age of media democracy and mass media, which had, by refusing to exclude the public, become the place of political action. Since 1998, when Sabina Christiansen created the Sonntagabend show, politicians, journalists, representatives of various interests, and scientists have been discussing public matters in a number of talk shows; however, it is uncertain what this means for the parliamentary culture and for the recognition of representative democracy. We can understand the spatial transition of the parliamentary debate and its duration as a categorical political shift, i.e. the adaptation of politics to popular tastes, which only accept TV-ready political slogans rather than reasoned arguments appropriate to the complexity of the political subjects they address.
The third topic – Actors and Practicians of
Anti-Parliamentarism – focused on the manifestation of anti-parliamentary
attitudes. The first paper on this issue (The Non-Voter. Rethinking the Category)
was presented by James Retallack (Toronto). He pointed out that the findings on the
non-voter category in relevant literature are not static as they are the result of
the variable development of intellectual and political environments. New
possibilities of action in the civil society offered by technology and the mass
culture – e.g. online voting, spontaneous mass protests organized through Twitter –
have forced researchers to take into account the largest possible set of
institutions as well as individual and psychological reasons associated with the
"performance of the individual's duty" of voting. Citizens' activity is present
behind political curtains, in legislative bodies, study halls, in media and in the
streets.
Faced with the remarkable variation and inconsistency of interpretations trying to explain where and why non-voters can be found, James Retallack focused on the historical example of German non-voters from 1867 to 1918. He stressed that the category of non-voters must be evaluated in a new, broad perspective, based on historical documents, not on political theories or moral imperatives, and not even necessarily on international comparisons. Retallack's evaluation was not concerned with non-voters who voluntarily practise their "democratic abstention" (like a responsible drinker who takes a turn to avoid the pub), but rather with the exclusion practised by the authoritarian state. In Germany, the latter used voter censuses and indirect elections to limit the electoral weight of millions of citizens. The metaphor of "democratic abstention" is thus turned on its head. After 1900, mass politics and its implications spurred the desire of the common people to gain a voice in the society through full participation in the elections. However, the "cup of democracy" was in other hands. It was held by anti-Semites who strived for indirect elections in the name of the blocked middle class, as well as reactionaries who claimed that the social democrats would suffer a defeat should all bourgeois voters actually go to the polling stations. As the defeated right termed the "red" election of 1912 as "Judenwahlen", this delusion took a sinister turn. The "national habit" of voting representatives into the Reichstag thus did not mean that the Germans actually practised democracy – at least not in a manner that would prepare them for the opportunity represented by the Weimar Republic.
Political caricature may be seen as another tool for expressing anti-parliamentarist
attitudes. It was studied by Andreas Biefang (Berlin), whose paper ("Kiss my rump".
An indecent imagery as a means of criticism of parliament?) dealt with the motif of
the – sometimes naked – backside as the depiction of the politician's main
characteristic. The motif of the backside is deeply rooted in the European history.
It was first used in Great Britain in the 18th century
and was taken up by the French and the Germans by the 1830s to express critical
attitude towards the parliament. In contrast to the theoretical critique of
parliamentarism, political caricature stems from the ideological opposition to
it.
Obstructionism often goes side by side with anti-parliamentarism. It was addressed by Benjamin Conrad (Mainz). In his presentation (Opposition by obstruction. The strategies of fundamental oppositional parliamentarian of national minority in Eastern Europe during the interwar period), Conrad analysed the conduct of the national minority representatives in Eastern-European countries that were established or expanded after the First World War – Latvia, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Conrad focused on the representatives who defied the country of the majority. Their parliamentary strategies and methods often opposed parliamentarism and included boycotting the parliamentary procedure and interrupting sessions with songs or speeches in their language, especially if only the language of the national majority was permitted in the parliament. With regard to obstructionist practices, Conrad pointed out the behaviour of nationally diverse parties that were opposed to the political system of rival parties (Communist Party of Czechoslovakia) and of representatives belonging to the national majority that were opposed to the system as well.
Pasi Ihalainen (Jyväskylä) focused on an international comparison of anti-parliamentary attitudes. In his paper (Royalists, republicans, revolutionaries. Criticism of parliamentarism in Swedish and Finnish debates and practices in comparison with Britain, Germany and Russia, 1917–1919), Ihalainen examined the constitutional unrest that gripped Finland and Sweden after the Russian revolution, in 1917–1919. In both countries, left- and right-wing political camps of the time were critical of their parliamentary systems in comparison with the Western (British and French) systems as well as with German and Bolshevik anti-parliamentarism. Leading Finnish and Swedish parliamentary representatives openly opposed (unlimited) parliamentarism, and some even renounced parliamentary principles altogether (or were alleged to have done so by their political rivals). In Finland, both leftist and rightist critics of parliamentarism based their attitudes on the obvious discrepancy between the expectations and the reality of parliamentarism following the radical parliamentary reform of 1906 that was supposed to establish the "most democratic popular representation in the world"). In Sweden, left-wing critique was prompted by the shortcomings of the existing parliamentary system that the right wanted to preserve.
Both the Finnish and the Swedish left were influenced by the German leftist interpretation of parliamentarism. In 1917–1919, various levels of critique and rejection of the "bourgeois" parliamentarism existed among Finnish social democrats, ranging from the willingness to break parliamentary rules in the parliament wherein they had the majority, through challenging the legitimacy of the parliament with a bourgeois majority, to an armed uprising inspired by the Russian revolutionary anti-parliamentary practice. The Finnish civil war of 1918 that reflected the concepts of the German left was accompanied by a consistently pro-parliamentary attitude of the Swedish social-democratic workers' party. After 1918, the "Western" or "bourgeois" parliamentarism was rejected in both countries only by the extreme left.
The Finnish and Swedish right with their royalist and anti-parliamentary sentiments, the admiration of the "constitutional monarchy" and their criticism of the weakness of the "Western" parliamentarism did not differ much from the Prussian right. However, they respected the parliament and, unlike the German right, did not threaten to resist the existing order. Some Finnish right-wing supporters were already defending parliamentarism by 1917, while their Swedish colleagues began accepting the parliamentary reality in 1919. Both countries' governments were parliamentary, although they implemented limitations reminiscent of the Weimar Constitution. Their adjustment to parliamentarism was successful thanks to a long-standing common tradition of popular representation that also included the peasantry. In Sweden, parliamentarism was most consistently supported by the liberals, while the main Finnish political force defending parliamentarism from left- and right-wing extremes was the agrarian centre.
Ihalainen's paper wrapped up the discussion of the conference's topics. The conference itself was concluded by Andreas Schulz, Secretary-General of the Commission of Parliamentary History and History of Parliamentarian Parties. In his concluding speech (Balance and Perspectives), Schulz summarized its findings, stating that the critiques of parliamentarism and anti-parliamentarism constitute a discussion complex that is intertwined with parliamentary practice. The arguments presented by the critics of parliamentarism remain more or less unchanged and are compatible with extremely diverse political tendencies. Since the line between the critique of parliamentarism and parliamentary practice is blurred, the presenters at the conference treated the main factors and arguments of anti-parliamentarism in a common context.
Schulz pointed out that European critique of parliamentarism was generally affirmative in its intentions. Critics demanded "true" democracy and were rarely destructive, a fact also true of the practice of the obstructionist parties. On the other hand, even extremist factions and parties protected against criminal sanctions by virtue of being in the parliament were exposed to the integrational absorption of parliamentarism, despite their radical critique of the system and their anti-democratic rhetoric.
The same is true for the streets as a place for expressing the critique of
parliamentarism, although activism by the masses actually eliminates the principle
of representation. As pointed out by Schulz, the public space is rarely the scene of
a civil war and usually functions as a symbol and an arena
for the manifestation of the democratic public, as in 1989. In their protests
against the government and parliament, the democratic elements of the street also
agitate for the implementation of the "true" will of the people. Their credibility
and influence is determined by their ability to draw crowds that represent the
significance of the manifested democratic demands. In this sense, democracy of the
street and parliamentarism are interacting with each other.
According to Schulz, the conference posited abstention from voting as the "normal
example" and "normal" critique of parliamentarism. However, we should take note of
his emphasis that the category of non-voters, a flexible class posited by the
democratic interpretation of politics, has parliamentary potential nonetheless. That
is, the democratic legitimacy of the elected parliament is by
definition dependent on the voter turnout. We should thus differentiate
between temporary "democratic abstention", i.e. the disinterest for fundamental
political issues, and the principled refusal of voting as a silent
anti-parliamentary protest.
Schulz then discussed anti-parliamentary attitudes of the executive branch of the
government and tied it to the institutional reservations manifested at the executive
level in an ideological assessment of the social importance of political parties.
Their importance is lessened by authoritarian constitutional revisions or periods of
a state of emergency. In the recent populist atmosphere, the anti-parliamentary
interventions of the executive branch and the critique of parliamentarism and
political parties share a common political frequency if they had been imbued by the
authority of the eliminated constitutional institution. There is no pouvoir neutre in this case, as the fake authoritarian power
holder and his presidential diction do not represent it, even if they act in place
of the "lost sovereign" in agreement with the general critical attitude towards
parliamentarism. The opinions of the executive branch of the government regarding
the institutional arrangement certainly represent a challenge for the parliamentary
system.
Nowadays, political activities typical for the parliament have shifted to the arena of the visual media. Because representatives and their voters rarely communicate directly, the interpretation of parliamentarism was taken over by the media. According to Shulz, professional players in the media have established new rules of political conduct, which have, in the markedly focused environment of the media public, dramatically increased the pressure on the elected representatives of the people to communicate well and in a credible manner. An impression is forming of an extraparliamentary democracy, in which the "voice of the people" is represented by the media players, politicians and the virtual public. The illusion of a media-based popular representation is gradually taking place of the actual parliamentary sovereign.
Schulz concluded his closing speech for the conference by noting that the history of
anti-parliamentarism in Europe is a complementary part of the history of European
parliamentarism. For Europe, as had been previously pointed out by Marie-Luise
Recker, has developed within the broad and unified context of anti-parliamentary
criticism ever since the introduction of parliamentarism itself. The conference was
an explicit display of the interconnectedness and complexity of the creative
democratic social process, the dialectic of its rejection, and of the triumphant
will to ensure individual and societal freedom that persists in spite of all
obstacles placed in front of it by history. This desire can exist in various
ideological and political forms, but the realization of the philosophical good has always cut short the reign of evil. In this regard, we would have perhaps wished for a more pointed
warning against the (anti)parliamentary attitudes of the totalitarian systems of
today; however, the main point of the conference was explicit enough. This message
was also expanded upon by Norbert Lammert, President of the German Bundestag, who
was a guest at the end of the first day of the conference. With the eloquence of a
master of social sciences and an experienced politician, Lammert spoke about German
and European politics and answered a number of questions. It was a pleasure to
listen to the deeply confident parliamentarian and his entertaining comments. Let us
conclude with one of them, which Lammert used to answer a question regarding
non-voters and the general level of interest in politics: "ADAC (Allgemeiner
Deutscher Automobil-Club – General German Automobile-Club, comment J. P.) has more
members than all of the German political parties."