Japan's Meiji Constitution, which was drafted in the 1880s and adopted in 1890, was quite deliberately modeled on the Prussian Constitution of 1850. (The main foreign advisor to the constitutional drafters was a Prussian legal academic, Dr. Herman Roesler.)
The Prussian Constitution was very deliberately drafted, in the aftermath of the 1848 revolutions, to provide a veneer of liberal democracy while dividing real power among the monarchy, wealthy landowners, and the military. It was very much a “keep the peasants down and the liberals out” design. For various reasons this was attractive to the Meiji oligarchs -- they were a mixture of military men and wealthy landowners themselves.
Arguably it wasn’t a bad design for a 19th century monarchy entering a period of very rapid modernization, like Germany after 1850 and Japan after 1890. In both cases, the constitution worked pretty well for a generation or two. But by 1914 in Germany, or the early 1930s in Japan, the internal political structure was visibly cracking under the stresses of modernity. In the case of Japan, the election of a series of more or less liberal governments caused the military to become increasingly radicalized and disloyal, while the deeply conservative judiciary, police and security services winked at radical nationalist groups. By the mid-1930s the system had more or less collapsed; the liberals had been demoralized and muted, and Japan was sliding into ever more aggressive military adventures abroad and de facto military rule at home.
So: it's a common speculation that, if there’d been no Great War, Imperial Germany would have naturally evolved into a social democracy. The Socialist party was within an election or two of taking power, and probably would have been able to form a government. The prewar Socialists had a broad tent, but they were mostly pretty liberal and pacifist, so they’d have led Germany towards the light.
Japan’s experience suggests an alternative: a system hardwired for conservative rule would have thrown up an intense autoimmune reaction, with destabilizing and probably violent results.
Thoughts?
Doug M.
The Prussian Constitution was very deliberately drafted, in the aftermath of the 1848 revolutions, to provide a veneer of liberal democracy while dividing real power among the monarchy, wealthy landowners, and the military. It was very much a “keep the peasants down and the liberals out” design. For various reasons this was attractive to the Meiji oligarchs -- they were a mixture of military men and wealthy landowners themselves.
Arguably it wasn’t a bad design for a 19th century monarchy entering a period of very rapid modernization, like Germany after 1850 and Japan after 1890. In both cases, the constitution worked pretty well for a generation or two. But by 1914 in Germany, or the early 1930s in Japan, the internal political structure was visibly cracking under the stresses of modernity. In the case of Japan, the election of a series of more or less liberal governments caused the military to become increasingly radicalized and disloyal, while the deeply conservative judiciary, police and security services winked at radical nationalist groups. By the mid-1930s the system had more or less collapsed; the liberals had been demoralized and muted, and Japan was sliding into ever more aggressive military adventures abroad and de facto military rule at home.
So: it's a common speculation that, if there’d been no Great War, Imperial Germany would have naturally evolved into a social democracy. The Socialist party was within an election or two of taking power, and probably would have been able to form a government. The prewar Socialists had a broad tent, but they were mostly pretty liberal and pacifist, so they’d have led Germany towards the light.
Japan’s experience suggests an alternative: a system hardwired for conservative rule would have thrown up an intense autoimmune reaction, with destabilizing and probably violent results.
Thoughts?
Doug M.