defence, with a Socialist Minister in its midst, asked, on the eve of the elections, for the prolongation of the legislative periods from four to six years and got it from a Republican majority. But for the Senate, this reactionary measure would have passed into law.
But bourgeois Liberalism does not simply disappear in proportion as Social-Democracy grows, but simultaneously with the increasing influence of Social-Democracy in the different Parliaments, the influence of the Parliaments themselves wanes. These two phenomena proceed together at the same time, but have no direct connection with each other. On the contrary. Parliaments, where there are no Social-Democrats, as for instance, the Saxon or the Prussian Diets, decline in influence and efficiency much more, rapidly than is the case with others.
For this decadence of Parliaments there are various reasons. We cannot, however, regard as the most important among them anything pertaining to the Parliamentary machinery and technique, which could be altered by an alteration in the rules of procedure, or in the sphere of Parliamentary powers; the most essential lie in the character of the classes who through Parliament influence the Government.
If Parliamentarism is to flourish it must have two things. One is a strong united majority, and, second a great social aim, for which this majority is energetically striving, and towards which it also drives the Government. Both were to hand at the heyday of Parliamentarism. So long as capitalism represented the future of the nation, it was supported in its struggle for emancipation by all sections of the population which had any Parliamentary importance; above all, by the mass of the Intellectuals. The majority of the petty bourgeoisie, even the workers, followed, too, the bourgeois lead.
Thus arose Liberalism as a homogeneous party with great aims. The struggle of Liberalism for Parliament and in Parliament lent the latter its importance.
Since then, that development has commenced, which as described already drives the proletariat which acquires a class consciousness of its own, as well as a section of the Intellectuals and of the petty bourgeoisie, and of the smaller peasant proprietors, into the Socialist camp, and makes the remainder of the petty bourgeoisie and the peasants absolutely reactionary, while the most energetic elements of the industrial capital unites with the high finance, which never attached great importance to Parliamentarism although it understands how to use it—as vide Panama.
In this way the Liberal party falls to pieces, without the ruling class being able to form another great Parliamentary party of a homogeneous character capable of taking its place. The more reactionary the propertied classes grow, and the less homogeneous they become, the more they split up into small parties, the harder it becomes to bring together a solid Parliamentary majority. More
