It has now been ten years since the German people elected the National Assembly which gave them the Weimar constitution. A decade of self-government under this liberal and democratic charter has rather definitely established the lines of party cleavage and the general features of the party system, and the time seems ripe for a survey of the system with a view to elucidating its principal characteristics. The present article is concerned only incidentally with party history before the revolution of 1918, and also not primarily with the party programs of today. It has to do, rather, with what Lord Bryce once referred to as “the pathology of party government,” and also with what political scientists have now come to recognize as the heart—one might say the thermostat—of popular government, namely, party organization and machinery. Parteiwesen is the German word, and it refers to the practical operation of the party system.

Why should Germany be the subject of such a study? There are several very good reasons. Since the overthrow of the imperial régime, Germany has been operating under a very progressive constitution. In many respects it is the most advanced constitution in the world. Political parties are required to operate such a system based on popular rule, and the party system developed in the Reich is so unique and interesting, so illustrative of many problems which are now troubling political thinkers the world over, that it warrants close study. Then again, by throwing light on the motive power and the nerves of the government, we will be better able to understand how the government itself operates. In brief, we find in Germany a new government operated by means of a new party system. The experience of an intelligent and powerful people with such a system should be useful to everyone interested in the problem of popular government.

A general election has been aptly compared to an instantaneous photograph of a galloping horse. It is a static representation of a public opinion that is by its very essence perpetually changing, and a newly elected House of Commons has not yet met before it is in a sense out of date and no longer fully representative. Even if a general election photograph had permanent significance, it would be open to the criticism of inaccuracy at the time of taking. Readers of this Review are aware of the misleading character of the British electoral machine—of the fact that whenever more than two candidates contest a constituency, the one elected may very well represent but a fraction over a third of the electorate; so that election statistics show a serious discrepancy between the distribution of votes and the allocation of seats.

On the eve of dissolution, the House of Commons comprised 400 Conservative, 162 Socialist, and 46 Liberal members, with seven Independents. The new House comprises 289 Socialists, 260 Conservatives, 59 Liberals, and seven Independents. This distribution of seats, we have said, does not accurately correspond to that of votes cast, since the Socialists polled 8,370,005 votes, the Conservatives 8,641,170, and the Liberals 5,295,308. The usual explanation of the discrepancy is that the Labor party had all the luck of the three-cornered contests in which a minority candidate was returned. This, however, happens to be false; that luck went to the Conservatives: of 313 successful “minority” candidates, 153 are Conservatives, 122 Socialists, and 38 Liberals; while of 291 seats held by a clear majority, Socialists have 166, Conservatives 105, and Liberals 20.

A salient feature of the Soviet order set up in Russia by the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 is the provision for a single, mobilized political center, striving to organize all social processes to conform with its particular ideology and program. The Communist party is this political center of the Soviet Union, enjoying a monopoly of legality in respect of organization. Only an outline of the methods by which this political machine exercises its leadership is possible within the limits of the present note. The emphasis will be on the structure which the Communists have given to their party, in order more effectively to carry the responsibility of leadership assumed by them. The word “party” is used, but one has here an organization which differs sharply from political parties of parliamentary systems. Also in its relations to the formal governmental bodies the Communist party presents several features which differentiate it from the party systems of other countries.

The special methods of organization adopted and the peculiar position enjoyed by the Communist party in the Soviet Union permit of several theoretical interpretations. One of these is that the Revolution contemplated by the Communists has three distinct stages, of which only the second has as yet been reached. There was the successful seizure of power, finally consolidated after some three years of civil war. Then came the present period of transition, the length of which will depend upon the success of the party in the exercise of its leadership. Only the successful achievement of the present party leadership will bring the final triumph of the Revolution as the third and last period.