One of the cultural experiences I encountered in my life was that, around the age of fourteen, I became fascinated by the figure of the German Nazi leader Adolf Hitler. At that stage, I saw him as a great man, an inspiring leader who had been wronged.
However, within a few years, I realized that I had been looking at nothing more than a classic dictator, a man who wasted years of his nation’s time, squandered the resources of a major state that could have been invested in development and prosperity, and ultimately caused the deaths of tens of millions of people worldwide, changing the course of history for the worse.
Adolf Hitler stands as a grim example of a figure that nations must work hard to prevent from ever rising to power again. Recently, I asked myself: How did Germany itself manage to prevent the recurrence of such a figure? The answer lies in one crucial concept: decentralization.
In the aftermath of World War II, Germany faced two distinct choices: either slide back into the grip of authoritarianism or build a political system that would ensure the tragic dictatorship of Hitler would never be repeated. It wasn’t merely about superficial reforms or minor legal adjustments; it was a comprehensive response to one of the darkest periods in human history. Consequently, Germany established a complex and intertwined political model, with its primary goal being to ensure that no single individual or entity could monopolize power.
In my view, Hitler’s rise to power was not merely a historical accident. Rather, it resulted from a fragile political system that allowed one man to consolidate power with few restrictions. Hitler exploited the political chaos that followed World War I, manipulated democratic mechanisms to ascend to power, and then used his position to dismantle that very democracy from within.
For this reason, when Germany was re-established after World War II, the lesson was clear: Power must never be concentrated in the hands of one individual, no matter how competent or popular they may appear. As a result, Germany built a political system designed to achieve a delicate balance of power, ensuring that no individual, not even the Chancellor, could hold absolute authority.
This balance is reflected in several well-structured mechanisms. Although the Chancellor is the primary executive decision-maker, the power to appoint or remove the Chancellor rests with the Bundestag, the parliament directly elected by the people. Even after election, the Chancellor cannot make significant decisions without the approval of the Federal Cabinet, which shares political responsibility. Meanwhile, the Federal President serves as the head of state, yet his role is largely ceremonial to ensure that this position does not become a tool for political dominance.
Germany’s parliamentary system also includes the Bundesrat, which represents the governments of the sixteen federal states. Any significant law must pass through both the Bundestag and the Bundesrat, ensuring that no single authority can push through crucial decisions without broader consensus.
The German states (Länder) also hold extensive powers in their internal affairs, and the federal government cannot override them in certain areas. This distribution of authority prevents excessive power concentration in the central government and offers a balancing mechanism that blocks the rise of authoritarian policies on a wide scale.
Germany also established a Federal Constitutional Court with extensive powers to monitor the constitutionality of laws. This court can strike down any legislation that violates democratic principles, serving as the ultimate guardian of German democracy. It stands above all political authorities, ensuring impartiality and independence in defending democracy.
Even the electoral system is designed with complexity to prevent power monopolization. During my studies at the Hertie School in Berlin, one of my professors once told me that some German citizens themselves struggle to understand their country’s electoral system because of its intricate design. This hybrid model combines proportional representation with individual voting, ensuring that no single party can dominate parliament outright. This system encourages coalition-building, which effectively distributes power among multiple parties rather than concentrating it in the hands of one group or individual.
The German model holds significant lessons for developing nations. Many of these countries face recurring failures in democracy, often starting when too much power is handed to one individual without sufficient checks and balances. The German system succeeded in achieving political stability while preventing the emergence of another dictator. Although this system may seem bureaucratic or complicated, its complexity is precisely what protects individual freedoms and sustains democracy.
The German model is a powerful reminder to all nations striving to build stable political systems: Never place too much power in the hands of one person, and never allow any individual to become greater than the state itself. The lesson Germany learned, through the tragic cost of millions of lives, is one that every developing nation must take to heart. Authoritarianism thrives in weak systems, and when that happens, the price is often unimaginably high.
Ramy Galal is an Egyptian senator, writer, and academic specializing in public management and cultural policies. He has authored studies on cultural diplomacy, the orange economy, and restructuring Egypt’s cultural institutions.
Galal holds a PHD degree from Alexandria University, a master’s degree from the University of London, and Diplomafrom the University of Chile.
He studied advanced programs in governance and leadership from King’s College London, Hertie School of Berlin, and Missouri State University, USA.
A former adviser and spokesperson for Egypt’s Ministry of Planning. He was also the spokesperson for the Egyptian Opposition Coalition. He represents Egypt at international forums and contributes to leading publications.
