Jessen & Richter (Eds.) (28 page)

106

H E D W I G R I C H T E R

understanding of state-socialist elections and therefore should remain a

focus.

Election Campaigns

Great importance was placed on the election campaigns in the GDR,

which were also described as “an election movement”. The functionaries

wanted to use the campaigns to reach as many of the electorate as possible

and to ensure their participation in the election. Because of this they went

to great lengths.2 Election events, which were ordered from above, took

place all over the country: in the villages and towns, in factories or in

housing associations, for particular groups such as women, priests or for

young voters. In the meetings, Party functionaries and candidates gave

speeches on topics that had been specified by the
Sozialistische Einheitspartei
Deutschlands
(SED—Socialist Unity Party of Germany). In 1961, for example, the election slogan was “With the freedom pact for the freedom and

unity of the nation, with socialism for the happiness of the people”.3 The

speakers explained the socialist policy and asked the electorate to increase

their commitment to the state. In return, the electorate had to declare “vol-

untary commitments” (“
Selbstverpflichtungen
”)
.
In a coalmine, for example, the workers agreed to increase the production of briquettes by ten thousand tons above the planned target during an election meeting in 1958.4

The talks held at the end of the event were of interest for the voters. At

this point, they were able to state their problems. It was possible to give

“electors’ remits” (“
Wähleraufträge
”)to the candidates, to lobby the building of a road or to improve nursery care, for example. However, the candidates had instructions from their superiors to only accept the election pleas

that were feasible “within the framework of our plans”.5 In 1958, for

example, the farmers who did not yet belong to an agricultural cooperative

by that time demanded a reduced workload in exchange for their votes.

——————

2 Files in Bundesarchiv DO 1 / 8705, 11872, 11905, 11909, 11910; HStA Drd. 11430, No.

10847.

3 “Mit dem Friedensvertrag zu Frieden und Einheit der Nation, mit dem Sozialismus zum Glück des Volkes”, Speech by the deputy election leader from the election of 17.9.1961, Bundesarchiv DO 1 / 11872.

4 Bundesarchiv DO 1 / 11909.

5 “Im Rahmen unserer Pläne realisierbar”, Bundesarchiv DO 1 / 11872, especially speech held at the parliamentary meeting in 1961; compare to Merl’s essay in this volume.

M A S S O B E D I E N C E

107

This was not part of the “plan”. Subsequently, individual talks were held

with the farmers to negotiate a “price” for their votes that was acceptable

for both sides.6 The bargaining over votes and the fight for every single

citizen greatly characterized the election movement, as will be shown

below.

Election Day and Polling

The Election Day itself was celebrated as a festival. First time voters re-

ceived flowers, bands played and funfairs and dancing created a bustling

atmosphere. The official iconography presented the event as a family cele-

bration, showing dynamic voters in their Sunday best, often hand in hand

with their children (Hronek 1954; Merl 2007, 527). Early turnout at the

ballot box was seen as a sign of great loyalty. In a surveillance report, it was noted: “A great political receptiveness is displayed by, amongst other

things, the fact that in 12 constituencies 100 per cent of eligible voters had

cast their vote by 7am”.7 The high turnout was an integral feature, and in

actual fact, since about the end of the fifties only very few citizens stayed

away from the polling stations.

There was no possibility to mark the ballot card with a cross. There was

just the “Einheitsliste” printed on it, a single list of candidates, who had

been preselected under the instructions of the SED. The voters were ex-

pected to simply fold the piece of paper and place it in the ballot box, and

thereby give their consent to the compulsory list of candidates. Officially, it

was possible for citizens to express their disagreement by way of the ballot.

However, hardly anyone knew how this could be put into practice: were

you supposed to mark individual candidates, or was it enough to draw a

line through the ballot paper or did you have to cross out each candidate,

as civil rights campaigners later claimed? When the vote was counted, the

election helpers tended to add the few ballots that were crossed through to

the votes in favor (Jessen 1998, 67).

——————

6 Central Election Office. GDR government, the Home Office; analysis on the lead up to the elections in the People’s Parliament and district council, 23.12.1958, Bundesarchiv DO 1 / 11909.

7 “Die große politische Aufgeschlossenheit der Bürger findet seinen [sic] Ausdruck u. a.

darin, dass bis 7 Uhr schon in 12 Gemeinden 100% der wahlberechtigten Bürger ihre Stimme abgaben”, short report on the constituency of Gera, not dated, BL of the SED

Gera IV A–2/13/691.

108

H E D W I G R I C H T E R

The polling area corresponded to the need for absolute results: the

election helpers handed out the ballot paper at tables that were positioned

right next to the ballot box. The polling booth, required by law, was placed

far from the table and the ballot box. One voter, who went against the

protocol later reported: “The walk to the polling booth took forever. It

was a terrible moment. Every step resounded loudly. I felt as if all eyes

were upon me. And then the walk back to the ballot box—it was awful.”

Others said that the scratching sound of the pencil was audible as they

crossed out the candidates’ names on the ballot. Whoever deviated from

the norm had to demonstratively put themselves bodily and spatially

outside of society.8

Monitoring

In order to circumvent the standards for a secret ballot, stringent supervi-

sion was inevitable. It was easy to identify who had marked the ballot pa-

per, as it was very rare that someone would use the polling booth—the

majority of voters simply folded the ballot. In the GDR, there were count-

less institutions that served as a surveillance authority: the state and the

SED authorities, the bloc parties, the State Security and the electoral com-

mittees, which were made up of Party members and state staff.9 On the

day of the election, working independently, they had to pass on informa-

tion to the next highest authority and afterwards write concluding re-

ports.10 By the early hours of the morning, the first telegrams containing

election information had already reached Berlin. Over the course of the

day the reports were continuously updated.11 The observers not only re-

ported on participation or non-participation, but also on the use of polling

——————

8 Interviews with East Germans, Berlin, Dresden, Juni – September 2008, files H. Richter.

9 E.g. Election report in ACDP (Archiv für Christlich-Demokratische Politik) 111–50–

002/1 and 11–209–030/1; Papers from Thüringen StA Rudolstadt, district head of the SED Gera IV / A–2 / 14 / 696 and IV 2 / 14/ 1195.

10 Official Instructions “The following to report up until 21:00”, addressed to the district leader, n.d., ACDP II–209, 044/10.

11 Bericht Beteiligung der Pfarrer an den Wahlen, RdK (Rat des Kreises) Löbau an RdB

Drd. (Rat des Bezirkes Dresden), December 10, 1965, HStA Drd. (Hauptstaatsarchiv Dresden) 11430, No. 10849; SED-Informationsbericht Kreis Löbau, October, 18, 1954, HStA Drd. 11864, No. IV/4/09.085; Protokoll Sitzung des RdS Herrnhut, October 21, 1954, Stadtarchiv Herrnhut; files in Thüringisches StA Rudolstadt, Bezirksleitung der SED Gera IV / A–2 / 14 / 696.

M A S S O B E D I E N C E

109

booths, often giving the names of the respective persons. Reports men-

tioned markings on the ballot paper or the behavior of the spouse.12

But citizens also watched themselves. A non-voter brought the anger of

the collectives in the workplace and the housing community upon herself,

because everyone could be punished for her misconduct, for example, the

withdrawal of the usual bonuses for their work. In the evening, function-

aries from the SED and other parties and “mass organizations” went from

door to door with the “flying ballot box” to collect votes from stubborn

members of the community. This proved to be embarrassing for both the

officials controlling and those being policed if there was an encounter

between colleagues or friends, for example. By the 1960s, at the latest, even

in relatively isolated villages where the SED had little influence, the elec-

tions worked liked clockwork. Most of the electorate had the feeling that

they didn’t have much to do with the elections, but nearly everyone con-

tributed to their success (Richter 2009a, 283–295).

Those able to withstand the pressure from the authorities and the social

control from others, and avoid being a cog in the wheel had to display

extraordinary civil courage. The clergy, in particular, stand out in the

sources documenting the practices of voting in East Germany. In the

1970s as well as in the two previous decades, the election turnout by the

clergy was sometimes less than fifteen per cent in Dresden, the most

resistant constituency. During the 1950s and 1960s the electoral turnout

was around 50 per cent on average for Catholic and Protestant churchmen

in the GDR, rising to ca. 80 per cent in the 1970s and 1980s, and therefore

lay far below the average of the total population.13

——————

12 SAPMO (Stiftung Archiv der Parteien und Massenorganisationen der DDR) DY 30/ IV

2 /14/16–17, 21 and in the district archive of Löbau-Zittau, RdK Löbau 230.

13 Übersicht Wahlbeteiligung von Pfarrern, July 7, 1967, ACDP III–045–125/3; vorläufige Zusammenfassung der Wahlbeteiligung kirchlicher Amtsträger, RdB Drd., Sektor

Staatspolitik und Kirchenfragen, October 17, 1976, HStA Drd. 11857, No. IV C–2/14/

675; cf. HStA Drd. 11430, No. 11028 u. 10994; Bericht Entwicklung des Anteils der konfessionell gebundenen Bürger, RdB Drd, September 7, 1970, 3; Gesamtergebnis der Wahlbeteiligung, Kirchenbereich, Bundesarchiv DY 30 IV B 2/14/70; files in

Bundesarchiv DY 30 IV A2/14/4 u. DY 30 IV 2/14/21; Wahlbeteiligung der

Amtsträger, November 14, 1971, HStA Drd. 11430, No. 10994; files in SAPMO DY 30

/ IV A 2/14/4; information by Heidrun Küchler, Dresden, 12.7.2007, files H. Richter.