Discrepancies Between Principles and Practice. Despite being named the German Democratic Republic, the GDR was far from what is generally defined as a democracy. For the purpose of this project it is unnecessary to go into a deep discussion of what exactly the GDR was or was not, especially with respect to political classifications such as dictatorship or totalitarianism regime. For this project it is only necessary to classify the GDR as a socialist state. The GDR defined itself in its constitution by simply outlining its goals: “All power serves the wealth of the people. It assures peaceful life, protects socialist society and guarantees the rise of the living standard, the free development of man, preserves his dignity and guarantees the rights granted by this constitution” (Xxxxx, 1969, p. 276). These goals were reiterated in the SED’s, or the GDR’s controlling party’s, slogan, “’Alles zum Wohle des Volkes (Everything for the Benefit of the People)’’ (Fulbrook, 1995, p. 29). Essentially, the goal of the GDR was to move towards a complete socialist state in which all citizens would prosper from the elimination of the class system. More specifically with regard to due process, the GDR’s constitution guaranteed “a limitation on pre-trial detention, a right to be judged by a lawfully constituted tribunal, a right to a hearing and the right of defense, and a right of petition” (Xxxxx, 1969, p. 286) as well as personal liberties such as “the inviolability of personal freedom, the privacy of mail and communications, [and] the freedom of movement….” (p. 285). During the course of the GDR’s history and the development of the Stasi many of these rights were explicitly violated. Besides the constitution, the GDR’s criminal code also outlined the principles that the system intended to maintain in order to further the socialist agenda. In the criminal code’s preamble the purpose is stated as being to “‘safeguard the dignity of humankind, its freedom and rights under the aegis of criminal code of the socialist state’ and that ‘a person can be prosecuted under the criminal code only in the strictest concurrence with the law’” (Xxxxxxx, 1999, p. 18). Xxxxxxx (1999) emphasizes that “certain sections of the code, such as those on ‘Treasonable Relaying of Information’ and ‘Treasonable Agent Activity’ were perversely applied, landing countless East Germans in maximum security penitentiaries” (p. 18). Furthermore, he goes on to show how the principles of the socialist state were manipulated through changes to the law: ...
