The Nature of the Weimar Constitution Was Flawed

The nature of the Weimar Constitution was flawed.

To what extent is this view accurate?

Great/partial or less extent.

After Germany lost the First World War, the Kaiser fled and a new democratic government of Germany was declared in February 1919 at the small town of Weimar. It was too dangerous to make a declaration in Berlin where there had just been a revolt by a Communist group called the Spartacists. The Weimar Republic was a genuine attempt to create a perfect democratic country. The constitution was flawed to a great, partial and less extent.

The nature of the Weimar constitution was flawed to a less extent. For example, A Bill of Rights guaranteed every German citizen freedom of speech and religion, and equality under the law. All men and women over the age of 20 were given the vote. This was even better than Britain where only women over 30 could vote. There was an elected president and an elected Reichstag and finally the Reichstag made the laws and appointed the government, which had to do what the Reichstag wanted. Evidently there were many positive aspects of the Weimar constitution which shows how the nature of the constitution was flawed to a less extent.

Although the Weimar republic was the first democratic constitution to rise from the ashes of authoritarianism, instigating universal suffrage, giving Liberal freedoms to the people and concessions to the workers, it faced huge unpopularity from the German population. After facing attacks from the left and the right, many questioned whether the Weimar Republic was just a democratic experiment, weakened by being born at such a tumultuous time. The instability suffered by the Weimar Republic could have been partially the fault of the constitution itself. Therefore the nature of the Weimar constitution was flawed to a partial extent.

However, hidden in the detail there were two flaws that eventually destroyed the republic. Firstly, instead of voting for an MP, like we do in Britain, Weimar...