Jessen & Richter (Eds.) (30 page)

20 “eine der schwersten und bedrückendsten Gewissensentscheidungen”, Evangelischer Bischof der Kirchenprovinz Sachsen, D. Müller, an Brüder im Amt, Reformationstag 1950, SAPMO-Bundesarchiv DY 30/ IV 2/14/16; cf. SED-Informationsbericht Kreis

Löbau, May 13, 1957, HStA Drd. 11864, No. IV/4/09.086; Leidholdt, CDU-

Vorsitzender, OV Lobenstein an KV Schleiz, August 5, 1950, ACDP II–209, 004/6.

21 SED report, District of Löbau, June 12, 1956, HStA Drd. 11864, No. IV/4/09.086.

22 e.g. Report SED-KL to SED-BL, May 13, 1957, HStA Drd. 11864, Nr IV/4/09.086.

23 Report “After the plebiscite of June 3rd, 1951” Strictly confidential, anon., archive ÖRK

213.13.155/1.

114

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

The Functions of State-socialist Elections

How could this election practice, which officially maintained liberal-

democratic regulations including competition, multiple party system or

ballot boxes, be explained? Obviously, the communists attributed totally

different functions to the elections than was the case in the Western de-

mocracies. Thereby, the propagated official functions of elections can be

distinguished from the informal ones.

Official Functions

In the GDR, as in most of the state-socialist regimes, three official func-

tions of the elections can be identified throughout all changes. The first

function, which comes as no surprise, serves the
legitimization of power
. Constitutions are, as “symbolic orders” (Vorländer 2006; cf. Rohe 1990, 329;

Häberle 1982) invariably also a form of public presentation. The concept

of elections in the GDR constitution was, not least because of this, aimed

at the Western democratic hemisphere, in order to legitimize itself in the

face of West Germany and abroad (Hahn 1988, 435).24 In practice, of

course, the state-socialist particularities had to be taken into consideration.

Legitimization could not mean winning over the majority in competition

with other ideas because of the monolithic ideology. Instead, a collective

endorsement of the Marxist-Leninist truth was sought after, in a kind of

acclamation of the ruling body. According to the argumentation of leading

communist thinkers, socialist countries did not need the incentive of com-

petitive elections, unlike capitalist countries, as the communist basis of the

society was generally approved; an East German social scientist explained:

“State and people are one in Socialism” (Eckler et al. 1975, 73). This key

phrase of the ideology should be confirmed in socialist elections. The au-

thorities could not offer up a doctrine of salvation for the people that

could be rejected by the people. Because of this, the regime could not do

without the high turnout and the high numbers of votes in favor.

The fundamental tension between the official election procedure and

dictatorial practice led to a kind of performative self-contradiction, as it

was the individual who voted, despite the function of collective acclama-

——————

24 Cf. HStA Drd. 11430, No. 10849, 10872 etc.

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

115

tion. This disparity impeded the degree to which the election generated

legitimacy. For many voters, the use of Western election techniques kept

the demands of an individual vote alive. In the discussions about elections,

the electorate indicated time and again that the Western model was an

obvious point of reference. Even for the state officials, the Federal Repub-

lic of Germany served as a model of comparison, as they constantly felt the

need to dismiss the West German electoral practice. A certain kind of

indifference, and often disgruntlement pervaded the population, even in

the decades in which the elections ran smoothly, as the individual act of

voting seemed pointless to many (Richter 2009a, 284). The flagrantly high

election results also did little to achieve the desired recognition from

abroad.25 In particular, the permanent comparison to Western standards

and the use of Western procedures meant that the potential for delegitimi-

zation was massive both at home and abroad (Ammer 1977).

The second official function of the elections was
mobilization
, which,

above all, manifested itself during the prolonged election campaigns men-

tioned above. The people were supposed to realize the advantages of the

system in which they lived and show their eagerness to put themselves out

for society. As an East German social scientist maintained, “the individuals

should commit themselves to the political and societal aims, as decided by

the Party” (Poppe 1959). Western political scientists describe this as a “so-

cial economic function” to increase production (Vogel et al. 1969, 16). In

the months leading up to the election, repair work, painting and other jobs

were carried out, everywhere. A GDR citizen described how, surprised by

the freshly painted door of the institute where she was working, she intui-

tively assumed that there must be elections coming up (Richter 2009a,

183–296).

A third official function was closely connected with the function of

mobilization in state-socialism: elections served the
relaying of utopia.
They were supposed to bring the ultimate goal of the communist ideal society

closer to the people. For that reason, it was necessary, during election time

in particular, to strengthen the unity of state and citizens and to make more

apparent the aims of communist politics (Feddersen 1965, 46). In this

respect, it is understandable why the state-socialists staged the elections as

a festive event. According to Jan Assmann the festival lights up “the back-

ground of our being, faded in the everyday”. During festivities, the collec-

——————

25 HStA Drd. 11430, No. 10849 and 10872.

116

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

tive identity, which needs celebration and a break from everyday life, can

be assured (Assman 2005, 53 and 57). The festival was supposed to repre-

sent the societal canon of values. Thus, the elections under state-socialism

had to be a festival of consensus and uniformity; they drew the individual

into line with the collective. The Czech social scientist Jiří Hronek ex-

plained in 1954 that the election campaigns revealed the deeper meaning of

the socialist concept of society. The point was “to create a sustainable

relationship” between governed and governing and to mobilize the citizens

through discussions and self-commitment (Hronek 1954). The exceptional

importance of election campaigns in many dictatorships and thereby the

relativization of the voting act in relation to this refers to a fundamentally

different understanding of elections: elections, not as an individual act of

sovereignty and decision, but rather a festive period to represent unity—

the deeper sense of society, in which the collective sought to reach the

ultimate communist goal.

However, the performance failed. Although the majority of people

voted, hardly any GDR citizen felt in high spirits. Election day turned out

to be both a perverse celebration and day-to-day life; with its absurd collec-

tivist rhetoric, the forced disregard of the individual and the demands to

pay lip service it smothered the claimed celebratory atmosphere, despite all

festivities. The performative self-contradiction—the insistence on the

individual vote whilst adhering to the function of acclamation—delegiti-

mized the elections all too clearly. It was totally different to the National

Socialist elections, in which a majority of the population actually voted in a

celebratory manner and gave the “Führer” their “yes” vote (Urban 2011, in

this volume).

Unofficial Electoral Functions

The individual act of voting, however, offered the state an opportunity,

which it knew how to exploit strategically. The almost one hundred per

cent participation in the election ritual served as a powerful symbol: each

person had to submit. The first unofficial function, then, is the
subjugation
of the citizens of the GDR. Even people who were critical of the regime

explained in hindsight that they went to vote because they did not want to

separate themselves or stand apart from society (Richter 2009a, 283–295).

The historian and sociologist, Jan T. Gross, interprets the elections in East

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

117

Poland, described at the beginning of this text, as an attunement to the

communist dictatorship, as a humiliation of the population and as a con-

struction of a kind of complicity with the regime (Gross 1986, 29; cf. also

the contribution by Merl in this volume). By means of the individual vote,

the elections made it possible to separate the disciplined supporters of the

collective from those dissenters who deviated from the norm, to reward

the former and to punish the latter.26 The anthropologist Alexei Yurchak

wrote about the seemingly senseless collective acts in communism such as

elections: “Participating in these acts reproduced oneself as a ‘normal’ So-

viet person” (Yurchak 2006, 25). Non-participation meant the refusal to

submit to the collective and in doing so one became “unacceptable”. The

voting procedure created realities, because the performative act made visi-

ble consent and submission, particularly as in the GDR, as in most other

state-socialist countries, voting was not officially compulsory. The willing-

ness to obey, essential for every form of domination, grounded in the be-

lief in legitimism of which Max Weber has spoken, found its expression