Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. In My Learning the same topic also comes with:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
The big idea: Every democracy runs on a set of rules — a constitution — that decides who holds power and how they are checked.
The USA and Germany built very different machines. Comparing their institutions and parties shows why one democracy stayed remarkably stable while the other first collapsed, then rebuilt itself.
The USA's constitution (1787) was designed to stop any one person becoming a tyrant. So it splits power three ways and makes each part watch the others.
Germany's story is the opposite: the Weimar constitution of 1919 was democratic but fragile, and after 1945 the Federal Republic was carefully redesigned to fix Weimar's weaknesses.
- Separation of powers — the job of government is divided between a legislature, an executive and the courts.
- Checks and balances — no branch can act completely alone; each can restrain the rest.
- Federalism — power is shared between a national government and regional states or Länder.
- Judicial review — courts can rule that a law breaks the constitution and cancel it.
Why the design matters: These are not dry technical details — they decide who really governs.
A constitution that spreads power widely (like the USA's) makes sudden dictatorship hard but big reforms slow. One with a weak centre and too many parties (like Weimar) can produce paralysis — and open the door to extremists.
Spot it: two words to memorise: Structure shapes behaviour. Whenever an essay asks why a democracy behaved a certain way, look first at how its institutions and electoral system were built.
Let's put the two systems side by side. The best essays don't describe each country in turn — they compare them theme by theme.
US presidency
The president is head of state and government, elected separately from Congress. Powerful, but cannot pass laws alone — Congress controls money and can block appointments.
US Congress
The law-making branch, split into two houses: the Senate (two per state, so small states have equal weight) and the House of Representatives (seats by population). Both must agree to pass a law.
US Supreme Court
The top court. Through judicial review — established in Marbury v Madison (1803) — it can strike down laws it judges unconstitutional. A genuine third branch, not just a courtroom.
USA = President · Congress (Senate + House) · Supreme Court — three branches watching each other.
Germany was rebuilt around a different idea: keep the courts strong, but make government stable rather than deadlocked.
After Weimar's collapse and the Nazi dictatorship, the 1949 Basic Law put a chancellor in charge and made it hard to remove them.
Weimar Germany (1919–1933)
- Reichstag elected by pure proportional representation — tiny parties won seats easily
- Many parties, so no stable majority — governments rose and fell constantly
- A directly elected president with emergency powers (Article 48) that bypassed parliament
- Result: instability that extremists like the Nazis exploited
Federal Republic (1949–)
- Bundestag still uses PR — but with a 5% threshold to keep out tiny extremist parties
- A chancellor-centred government that parliament can only remove by choosing a replacement (constructive vote of no confidence)
- A president reduced to a mostly ceremonial figure
- Result: stable coalitions and durable governments
The 5% threshold in action: Under Weimar's rules a party with just 2–3% of the vote could sit in the Reichstag, so the chamber was crammed with rival splinter groups.
The Federal Republic's 5% threshold means a party must win at least 5% nationally to take seats. This deliberately shut out the extremist fringe that had helped destroy Weimar — a direct lesson learned from history.
| Feature | USA | Weimar Germany | Federal Republic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Head of government | President (elected) | Chancellor (weak) | Chancellor (strong) |
| Legislature | Congress: Senate + House | Reichstag (pure PR) | Bundestag (PR + 5% rule) |
| Electoral system | First-past-the-post | Proportional representation | PR with 5% threshold |
| Top court's power | Judicial review | Limited | Strong constitutional court |
| Typical result | Two big parties, stable | Many parties, unstable | Few parties, stable |
Get feedback like a real examiner
Submit your answers and get instant feedback — what you did well, what's missing, and exactly what to write to score full marks.
Institutions set the stage, but parties are the actors. As voting spread to almost everyone, parties became the machines that organised millions of voters — the vehicles of mass democracy.
- SPD (Germany) — the Social Democratic Party grew from the 1870s into Europe's largest workers' party, with newspapers, unions and clubs. It became a model of a modern mass party.
- Democrats & Republicans (USA) — two broad, long-lasting parties that each gather many groups under one tent, taking turns to govern.
- Mass party — a party built on a large, organised, dues-paying membership rather than a small circle of notables.
Electoral systems shape party systems: The way you count votes decides how many parties survive.
First-past-the-post rewards big parties and squeezes out small ones — so the USA has two dominant parties. Proportional representation rewards small parties too — so Germany has several, governing through coalitions.
Why does the USA have only two big parties?
First-past-the-post means only the single winner in each district gets in. Voters avoid 'wasting' a vote on a third party, so support concentrates on two — the Democrats and Republicans.
Why did Weimar have so many?
Pure PR gave seats to almost any party with a slice of the vote. That fragmented the Reichstag and made stable majorities nearly impossible.
How did the Federal Republic get the best of both?
It kept PR (which is fair and representative) but added the 5% threshold, trimming the tiny extremist parties and producing manageable coalitions.
Two outside forces reshaped who voted and how they thought. Immigration changed the electorate, and the media changed how parties reached it.
Immigration
In the USA, waves of immigrants became voters that parties competed to win — big-city Democratic machines organised newcomers into loyal blocs. Immigration steadily reshaped who the electorate was.
The media
Party newspapers (like the SPD's) built early mass loyalties. Later, radio and television let leaders speak directly to millions — increasing the reach of both democratic and, tragically in Weimar, anti-democratic messages.
Immigration changed WHO voted; the media changed HOW they were reached.
Don't oversimplify: The media and immigration are supporting factors, not the whole story. In an essay, use them to add depth — but always tie them back to the institutions and electoral rules that structured political life.