Part 1 Fundamental Elements of a successful democracy---Constitution, Judicary and Military. Why Stability?

1st Part (The idea of a constitution and context)---This section will explore how circumstances change thereby prioritizing democracy and the necessity of a strong and effective Constitution in any Democratic State today.

Before moving on my main point of the necessity of a strong and effective Constitution, I shall first reiterate my previous post, I once again stress that democratization starts only with the end of WW2, before that the notion of democratization was something relatively unheard of. The 20th century and the advent of the 21st century saw the dominance of the Western World in World Politics, resulting in the rapid downfall of communism by the end of the 20th century, as well as the rapid rise of democracy, of which found its way to even the 3rd World Countries.

The idea of Hitler manipulating democracy to serve his own course had been discussed in my first post where I did comment on the pitfalls of democracy where its lack of a clear definition had led to the exploitation of democracy, however it should be noted that democracy in Germany then was a very weak one and the fundamental reason why Hitler could easily dominate the political arena was because of the fact that Germany was in tatters then, weakened by economic sanctions by the West, the costs of WW1, the low morale of people such that Hitler, through his charisma, appealed to the majority who thought him as Germany's only hope etc. This was also crucial for Hitler's rise through the ranks and finally emerged as the Chancellor of Germany. Here, I do agree with you that those in power could easily change the country's political system such that a once fully democratic country could be converted to a fascist state under Nazi control, but that was the past and circumstances as well as context as changed. Back then, the context was in favour of Hitler where there was no constitutional law and the military as well as other independent organizations were already in tatter-hoods because of WW1, or in other words, Hitler manipulated and exploited "democracy" in times of turbulence and chaos in that there was no one then that could expose him.

However, this could hardly happen now as countries that are democratic are governed by a strong constitution, the people and the judiciary, as opposed to Hitler's "flawed democracy" where he had power over the "Secret Police", as well as the "Enabling Act" where he could change the constitution at well without requiring a supra-majority. Hitler's sporadic rise in power was a result of the absence of an independent opposition against him as well as his strong political backings. Hitler's rise was not attributed to the flaws of democracy, but rather to the circumstances and context.

As of now, a strong constitution is a fundamental element in any true democratic system where a supra-majority of usually 2/3 or 3/4 majority is needed in order to change a particular law/charter. However, we see that any change in the charter is unlikely as this would require almost everyone in the parliament to support the motion, including the Opposition Parties, which are present in any truly democratic nation. This could be seen from USA where after 3 centuries since the Pennsylvania Constitution was enacted, only 26 amendments had been made, reflecting on how well the status quo of political stability is preserved in a democratic country. Here, it is evident that the political status quo as well as social order will be prevalent in any democratic society as in today's democracy, it is perhaps an undeniable fact that democracy comes with a strong constitution, safeguarding the political and social status quo as well. This is the first major element of a successful democracy where when a constitution is in place, it sort of prevents the ruling government to radically alter the country's social-political and economic status quo and to limit extremism, a sad tragedy of Nazi Germany. This of course, was something not present in Hitler's Germany, where he could dictate and change the constitution at will, going against the true spirit of democracy.

At the same time, we need to see that the end of WW2, and the eventual downfall of Communist Bloc Soviet Union, it heralded the age of internationalization and democratization where countries turn legitimately democratic, adopting the usage of a powerful and strong constitution. The context of the later part of the 20th century and the advent of the 21st century had clearly crafted out a wonderful context and circumstance for democratization to take place, resulting in countries (including present day Germany) to adopt the usage of a constitution and practice democracy. It is thereby clearly evident that the tragic fate of Nazi Germany will not be repeated in history again given the rapid democratization progress in the whole world. The circumstances had clearly favoured democracy, and by bringing out a famous quote by renowned political theorist Wiliam J. Bennett "America's support for human rights and democracy is our noblest export to the world", the circumstances now is definitely favouring democracy, and perhaps, this is the reason why Democracy then and Now are diametrically opposed such that democracy is still, to date, the most successful and the most stable political system one could employ in the political arena.

Indeed, I do agree with your point, that democracy can allow the government to yield absolute power since they are vested with the mandate of the people, and exploit this power to shift the politics of the country in their own favour, but this assertion stays valid only in the past where the circumstances and context were totally different and the constitution then was very weak and unestablished too (Hitler was able to change the constitution at hand with the enabling act authorized in 1933), resulting in the case where the government makes a paradigm shift in the political arena, changing it into another political system. Ultimately though, this does not stand in today's context where the idea of having a constitution is deep-rooted and strong as well as the difficulty in changing the constitution (requiring an almost consensus between the ruling party and the opposition party) ensures the political and social stability and it is with this where I dare say that democracy in today's terms, is certainly going to ensure social and political order where the political status quo will not go radical for a long time.

Cx