Hi there!

Maybe the other German ußers can help me here. Between the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the first free elections in the GDR in 1990, several new parties formed, among other the Alliance 90 (an alliance of the former opposition groups in the GDR).

In the elections they received 2.9% of the citizens' votes. But here's my question: During the protests in the GDR in 1989, many citizens supported the oppositions against the SED. So why did they perfom so poorly in the general elections?
 
I'm not an expert on the history of the GDR, but there are several aspects which could explain the result:
The GDR "Volkskammerwahl" in 1990 is special, since it was the first free election since the Weimar Republic in most parts of the GDR.
The former SED (now at this election PDS) and the parties with "sister parties" in Western Germany (here mainly CDU and SPD and after them FDP and the Greens) could have used their organizations.
In contrast to these powerful parties, the opposition groups could have lacked either the organization or the experience for an successful election campaign.
Helmuth Kohl as the current western chancellor was one of the stronger proponents for unification, which could have helped the "Alliance for Germany" (the CDU and some minor allies in that election) to become the strongest party.
We could also explain the low result of the smaller opposition groups, perhaps they represented more the peace and environment movement (which was connected to the churches) and therefore only a small part of the population. They focused more on freedom, peace and the environment. Later more and more people from other parts of the society joined the demonstrations. In this process more and more people demanded also the reunification. So, as far as I understand it, the majority of the population supported the opposition groups, and therefore joined their protests but was in some points different.
Maybe the largest part of the population wanted the unification and the improvement of the economic situation. It is therefore understandable that 40% elected the same party into power, which had at the same time the power in the BRD.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
I'm not an expert on the history of the GDR, but there are several aspects which could explain the result:
The GDR "Volkskammerwahl" in 1990 is special, since it was the first free election since the Weimar Republic in most parts of the GDR.
Generally speaking, this should have served the 'new' parties better than the 'old' coupled to their western counterparts, as they were known as "Block-Paties" or "Block-Pipes", whistleing after the melody of the SED.
The former SED (now at this election PDS) and the parties with "sister parties" in Western Germany (here mainly CDU and SPD and after them FDP and the Greens) could have used their organizations.
Oh, yes. The "block parties" tied to the SED in times of the GDR almost immediatly flocked to their alleged western counterparts, CDU to CDU, LDPD to FDP to name the prominent. slipping under their coats for getting their support (money) as well as absolution from playing pipe with the SED in foremr times.
Curiosly only the eastern SPD, finally 'freed' from KPD/SED suppression kept itself apart from its western sister. With consequences I will show below.
In contrast to these powerful parties, the opposition groups could have lacked either the organization or the experience for an successful election campaign.
True, the money and the expeience of campaigning laid with the westernly accompanied parties - heavily. Of which this ...
Helmuth Kohl as the current western chancellor was one of the stronger proponents for unification, which could have helped the "Alliance for Germany" (the CDU and some minor allies in that election) to become the strongest party.
... was one of the results.
We could also explain the low result of the smaller opposition groups, perhaps they represented more the peace and environment movement (which was connected to the churches) and therefore only a small part of the population.
No, they represented the bigger part of the population even with their more ... westernly seeming agenda. They were heavily supported on the low levels of politics, the "round tables" all over the former GDR.
But, as said, they lacked organisation for a big election.
And later on, with the discussions about how the reunification should take place - the bigger part of all parties as well as the population knew this had to come - most of the 'normal' citizen refraind to ...
... the improvement of the economic situation. It is therefore understandable that 40% elected the same party into power, which had at the same time the power in the BRD.
... on which ofc Helmuth Kohl could and did "promise" the most to gain in the shortest of time.


But there is a point, taht needs to be mentioned, that played a major, the outcome heavily influencing part in these elections :
the publication of "Stasi-Akten", the records the Stasi held about almost every ever only slightly prominent citizen, even if only on a regional or local level. And especially, if there was mentioned even the possibility of this person being an "IM" (Informeller Mitarbeiter = informal (and informing) employee).
Perhaps the most prominent politicians 'suffering' these publications 'just in time' :
Wolfgang Schnur, a conservative, but an opponent to Helmuth Kohl. After these publications his partys record was almost annihilated.
Ibrahim Böhme, prominent leader of the SPD of the GDR.

Couriosly, these puiblications were medially covered mainly on the Kohl-position opposing persons .......



IMHO the 'poor' performance of other than the big, western allied parties were in essence due to
  • - lack of organisation and funding (the "Block-parties" had)
  • - lack of experience in campaigning (turning on the 'lower instincts' of the voters, the western ally-parties had/have)
and
  • - blackmailing
 
Last edited:
Most points have been outlined by NoMommsen and Zurirach Adankar, it's got mostly to do with the lack of organisation, the funding and the preparedness of the former Bloc parties with West German support. Maybe you could compare it to Egypt in 2011/12: the original opposition against Mubarak wasn't organised as such. So at the time when the elections came, it was obvious that the Muslim Brotherhood - who weren't really much part of the protests, but had been active in various activities and organisations for decades - had a better grounding. and the forces closer to the old regime had clear advantages.

Here's one thing I'd like to add. The New Forum (the first major civil rights movement turned into a party, which later became part of the Alliance '90) was at its peak of popularity during the heydays of the 'Monday demonstrations' in the autumn of 1989. Back then, the people were shouting "Wir sind das Volk" (We are the people). Elections in late 1989 might have actually led to a solid New Forum electoral performance: they had the civil rights credibility, they were against the system and they were associated with setting up the first demonstrations. However, with a reunification on the horizon, the mood changed. More and more East Germans were fleeing to West Germany, and Helmut Kohl stepped in to promise quick reunification, which a majority of East Germans also preferred. The New Forum, on the other hand, wanted to preserve an independent, non-aligned, non-Communist state for the time being, with reunification coming much, much later. There were also ideas about setting up a new pan-German constitution according to Article 146 in the Basic Law, instead of the new states joining as soon as possible. These were all issues which were fought on in the March 1990 election. By that time, the people on the streets were already saying "Wir sind ein Volk" (We are one people), which made the New Forum seem a bit out of touch with the majority. Thus, they even had to enter an alliance with other groups in order to gain seats in the Volkskammer at all. Some people also say that the majority of East Germans distrusted the people involved in the civil rights' movement, as most of them were artists, playwrights, actors, painters, etc.

I think a similar thing - though not as extreme - happened in Hungary with the liberal SzDSz: they were the first and strongest anti-Communist force in 1988/89, they they quickly lost their popularity within a few years.
 
Last edited:
But there is a point, taht needs to be mentioned, that played a major, the outcome heavily influencing part in these elections :
the publication of "Stasi-Akten", the records the Stasi held about almost every ever only slightly prominent citizen, even if only on a regional or local level. And especially, if there was mentioned even the possibility of this person being an "IM" (Informeller Mitarbeiter = informal (and informing) employee).
Perhaps the most prominent politicians 'suffering' these publications 'just in time' :
Wolfgang Schnur, a conservative, but an opponent to Helmuth Kohl. After these publications his partys record was almost annihilated.
Ibrahim Böhme, prominent leader of the SPD of the GDR.

Couriosly, these puiblications were medially covered mainly on the Kohl-position opposing persons .......



IMHO the 'poor' performance of other than the big, western allied parties were in essence due to
  • - lack of organisation and funding (the "Block-parties" had)
  • - lack of experience in campaigning (turning on the 'lower instincts' of the voters, the western ally-parties had/have)
and
  • - blackmailing

BS and conspiration theory. Schnur was no opponent of Kohl. His Demokratischer Aufbruch (DA) was part of Kohls Alliance for Germany. It gained a lot of support by the West-CDU and there was even talk, that the DA should get the main support instead of the old East-CDU. As Schnur was outed before the election, verybody expected it would hurt all of the Alliance.
Böhme was outed after the election. If somebody wanted to influence the election, then they wanted to hurt Kohls Alliance.
 
No, they represented the bigger part of the population even with their more ... westernly seeming agenda. They were heavily supported on the low levels of politics, the "round tables" all over the former GDR.
But, as said, they lacked organisation for a big election.
And later on, with the discussions about how the reunification should take place - the bigger part of all parties as well as the population knew this had to come - most of the 'normal' citizen refraind to ...

So maybe the Alliance 90 should have opposed general elections and advocated for another form of elections together with the SED?
 
Hi there!

Maybe the other German ußers can help me here. Between the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the first free elections in the GDR in 1990, several new parties formed, among other the Alliance 90 (an alliance of the former opposition groups in the GDR).

In the elections they received 2.9% of the citizens' votes. But here's my question: During the protests in the GDR in 1989, many citizens supported the oppositions against the SED. So why did they perfom so poorly in the general elections?

The economic collapse created strong sentiment for quick reunification with the West, which the Christian Democrats favored. "We are the people" became "we are one people." Alliance 90's skepticism of quick reunification had become obsolete.
 
Top