Democracy in Postwar Western Europe Flashcards
What was the most striking feature of postwar western Europe?
Uniformity of its political structures (parliamentary democracy) - not since the ancien regimes of the 18th century
What is the view of someone looking from the end of the 20th century?
The political landscape of the 1940s to the socio-political changes of the 1960s appear neat and controlled - stark contrast to ideological battles of before
Who ruled western Europe in the 1950s?
Not extremists e.g. communists
Not disruptive figures e.g. de Gaulle
Middle class men
What were the key reforms of the era?
Anticlerical disputes about financing education
Reform to welfare policies
Gradual process of european integration
Undramatic compared to past
Was was the main political culture of Western Europe?
Ideological conflict not so passionate
Centre of political gravity in the middle
Culture of power sharing and compromise
What are the key questions to historians of this period?
Why did democracy acquire a durable dominance?
Why did the democracy that formed take the strange form it did?
What are the three simple answers to why democracy was so dominant?
Authoritarian alternatives discredited due to violence of WW2
Influence of free market capitalism which emerged out of economic reconstruction
Informal influence of the USA
Why were the future of the post communist states after 1989 different to that of Western Europe after 1945?
In 1989 influential institutions already existed which provided a model for reconstruction
What makes the success of parliamentary democracy following WW2 even more significant?
Seemed to have failed before WW2 e.g. couldn’t stop economic depression of 1930s or respond effectively to Nazism
Did the events of WW2 seem to set out a ‘path to democracy’?
No - there was a cult of newness, nostalgia wasn’t a key component of wartime european culture and oppression didn’t seem to rehabilitate the political orders of the past
Which political movement done the best after WW2?
Ones that could differentiate themselves from wartime and postwar rulers e.g. communism or Christian democracy
What was one of the most significant consequence of the events of WW2?
Culture of localism flourished - needs of the community took precedence over those of the more abstract ‘nation’ - result of local resistance movements on southern France
What is a key paradox regarding democracy post war?
The spirit of localism and direct democracy which flourished in the immediate aftermath of WW2 were the antithesis of the hierarchal, national and representative structures which would succeed later
Is the view that the post 1945 Western European governments were the culmination of a process of progressive democratisation beginning in the 19th century a legitimate one?
No - fails to take into account the extent to which the course of european political history had been flowing in very different directions for the previous 30 years
What else proves that postwar governments weren’t the result of a 19th century process of democratisation?
The constitutions of France and Italy got their legitimacy not form reference to history but on their modernity and fitness or meet the challenges of the future
Should we believe the political rhetoric of the postwar years that new governments were staffed by new men with new ideals?
No - appeal to the future often a way to distract from their previous actions
Austria and Italy relied on structures and personnel inherited from their authoritarian predecessors
Does Martin Conway believe democracy was achieved after WW2?
No - inability to purge those tainted by fascism
Symbolic/superficial enfranchisement of women
Arbitrary use of state power to undermine communists
What does Martin Conway instead believe was achieved after WW2?
A relative form of democracy - shouldn’t be considered in reference of the ideal standard but in the context of the history of the era
What debate is redundant in this area?
Whether Western Europeans were more free in the 1950s to prewar years or their eastern counterparts (of course they were and not as important as analysing the character of the democratic movements that did emerge)
What did Europe witness after 1945 according to Alan who?
Alan Milward
The rescue of the nation state
How does Alan Milwards argument work?
The process of European integration e.g. economic decision making in the European Steal and Coal Community privileged the nation state at the expense of regional units
Where most Western European countries centralised?
Yes - a single National Assembly as the exclusive repository of democratic authority
Only exception being the FRG
Why did powering the nation state become popular?
An omnipotent National Assembly could be the only way to prevent the disruptive consequences of democratic participation
How many key elements are there of post war democracy?
5
What was the second central element of postwar democracy?
Supremacy of parliaments - presidents and judges not seen as defenders of democratic freedoms after WW2
What increases the significance of parliaments?
Held up by Western Europe of communist Eastern Europe and colonial populations as the indispensable institutions of a democratic system
Why was the emphasis of parliaments on control rather than mass participation?
Electoral rise of anti-democratic movements e.g. Nazism and potential ply communism - instead sought to respect diversity of societal opinions
How did parliaments learn form the lessons of the past?
Implemented proportional representation - gave space for several political movements whilst guarding against single party rule
Coalition governments imposed a logic of compromise where everyone could benefit form political power
What is the third feature of postwar democracy?
Governed democracy - legitimacy was derived from the will of the but not exercised by the people
What was the character of governed democracies?
Top down decision making remote from the people
Emphasis on the complexity of government - legislation prepared by bureaucracies, assisted by advisory committees (few of which claim a democratic mandate)
What kind of voice did minsters and parliamentary deputies have in governed democracies?
Limited - government a matter for experts around which lobbyists would ensure their interests were represented
What was the fourth feature of postwar democracy?
Based on limited and controlled structures of popular participation
Were post 1945 regimes participatory?
Yes - can be argued with the enfranchisement of women it was the first time electoral democracy was established over most of Western Europe
Was there debate surrounding the enfranchisement of women?
No - not due to a sea change in gender relations but the do,I ant ethos of postwar politics that governments aimed legitimacy on the votes of the equal participation of all adults
Did total enfranchisement lead to a culture of citizenship?
Limited - democracy accountability and mass petitioning weren’t emphasised and citizens expected to retreat from the democratic process following an election
What was the fifth characteristic of postwar democracy?
Reliance on individualist and negative definitions of freedom developed by anti-communist liberals e.g. Isiah Berlin
What was the freedom which postwar democracy relied on?
Freedom to live and think in a personnel sphere independent of the state - most people less inclined to influence the actions of the state than to ensure that the state didn’t invade their lives
What was the limited conception of democracy accompanied by?
Material freedoms brought by enhanced structures of social welfare introduced in many Western European countries after WW2
What was the condition of welfare reform postwar?
Partial and often dependent on prewar precedents - often took place in established insurance structures as opposed to by the state
What is the ‘western interpretation’ as towhy democracy formed in the way it did?
WW2 wasn’t an ideological war but a political one which would lead, following the success of the allies, to the foundations of regimes that emulated the values of the victors
Atlantic charter provided legitimacy to the loss of life and he championing of a new world in which Nazism wasn’t possible
What is the ‘southern interpretation’ of why democracy form in the way it did?
Seen postwar democracy as as a product , not of WW2, but the subsequent Cold War
What so the basis of the southern interpretation?
States such as Greece and Italy being intergrated into the political/security institutions of US/Western Europe - imposing a model of bourgeoise parliamentary democracy on reluctant societies
What was ‘American Europe’ according to Richard Vinen?
The control the USA had over the military and political structures of postwar Western Europe as well as their significant cultural and economic influence
What does an emphasis on US power also imply?
The existence of a ‘failed revolution’ in the postwar years - stifled by USA enacted political influence over countries like Italy and Greece through collaboration with post facist elements and intervention
What is the ‘eastern interpretation’ as to why postwar democracy formed in the way it did?
Focuses on postwar Germany - uprooted and exhausted European population accepted the structures of parliamentary democracy because they embodied political stability and economic prosperity
Does the eastern interpretation see the success of parliamentary democracy as positive or negative?
Negative - rise in living standards associated with Marshall plan created an association between parliamentary democracy and economic prosperity (consumer products rather than votes legitimised democracy)
What are the shortcomings of all 3 interpretations of why postwar democracy formed in the way it did?
Prioritise the moment of creation as opposed of the durability of parliamentary democracy
By highlighting particular forces they imply that had postwar events went differently the political outcome would have been different - Conway believes that eventually parliamentary democracy would’ve always triumphed
Why does Conway believe that the events of WW2 would’ve always paved the way for parliamentary democracy?
WW2 swept away many of the institutional obstacles and serves to accelerate trends evident in the interwar years e.g. free Weimar Germany
What is the first theme that helped determine the character of postwar democracy?
The way WW2 events contributed to a change in the relationship between the individual and the political processes
How is the theme of the relationship between the individual and political processes constructed?
WW2 had the impact of suspended national political life e.g. political elites were marginalised through imprisonment and three into turmoil political parties and elections - therefore narrowing political horizons
What was the effect of the suspension of political processes and institutions?
The local area, rather then the abstract nation, became the centre of activity and focus of loyalty - people worked together within networks of solidarity rather than vertical structures that tended to characterise european citizenship
What else helped to strengthen local as opposed to national loyalties?
The welfare of ones own family became the key priority for many Europeans in the face of destruction - foreign occupation provided a forced lesson in unofficial and illegal ways of behaving (relying on family ties, the black market and fraud to make ends meet or stay alive)
What were the social consequences of the destructive experience many Europeans faced?
Materials and selfishness surged after WW2 - resulting in a less conformist society with higher levels of crime (especially amongst young people who had their education disrupted and lives traumatised)
Where did the cultures of consumerism, popular magazine and American style advertising have its roots?
In the interwar social trends towards smaller families, greater concern with personal appearance and the development of new definitions of female identity
What are the connections between the materialism of the postwar years and the individualist political culture of the period?
Politics made fewer demands on people
Movements sought to moralise people by appealing to them as individuals e.g. mass meetings declined in popularity
Why did political movement have to appeal to voters individually?
Could no longer depend on their loyalty due to their societal background
Voters expected personal reward in return for their support e.g. tax levels and welfare benefits
What is the second theme that helped determine the character of post war democracy?
Reconfiguration in the structure and attitudes of social elites - parliamentary democracy was the system elites viewed as the best to defend their economic and social influence
What is the crux of the elites argument?
The war decimated pre-industrial elites that benefitted from mass politics of the past e.g. Junkers in Germany
Trend of localisation meant many people of wealth e.g. lawyers regained their role as local ‘notables’ and acted as intermediaries between the local communist and external authorities
What organisation benefitted from the resurgence of elites in the post war years?
The Catholic Church - structural reorganisation before the war and the expansion of affiliated social organisation e.g. Catholic Action meant they could exploit the opportunities of postwar Europe
What effect did the events of WW2 have on religion?
Rise in religious practise and an increase demand for its social and charitable role - in lack of any secular governmental institutions they becomes the local government
Who were the new figure who appeared after 1945?
Often bourgeoise figures who can to prominence on a local level in the past decade
Who were the new elite who were integrated in the postwar years?
State bureaucracy - professional/qualified eager to implement policies of modernisation
What was the history of state bureaucrats?
1930s - frosted by the immobilism and corruption of parliamentary regimes (attracted to authoritarian projects)
Postwar years - found new home in state structures of Western Europe where the dominant ethos was expert government and incremental reform
How did lobbyist groups flourish in the postwar years?
Growing influence of non-elected advisory committees (removing government from mass politics and providing opportunities to influence)
What is a third theme of the success of postwar democracy?
The class coalition between middle class, rural and non-communist working class populations - based on the shift of power away form the working class
What three successive crises finished the ‘forward march’ of the working class?
Economic depression of 1930s
Rise in authoritarian regimes (used state power to destroy autonomous institutions of working class organisation)
WW2 itself - killed on battlefield or by aerial bombs
What was the effect of the destruction of the political influence of the working class?
Invisible in European political life - new working class was less articulate and less internally structured to achieve any political goals - more likely for individuals to try external techniques e.g. strike or subscribe to counterculture movements e.g. communism
What was the history of commercial farmers?
Prewar = increased tax and cheap imports left their incomes volatile - attracted to anti-establishment movements on far right Postwar = conditions e.g. food shortages beneficial to them as they could evade state regulation and make a profit on the black market
What was the fact of the rising incomes of commercial farmers?
Wealth shifted from towns to countryside and with it came political influence - political systems sensitive to rural interests
What impact did commercial farmers had?
They effectively ran Western Europe due to Christin democrat parties reliance on their votes and the influence of agricultural lobbyist groups - cons tributes to political stability as by keeping them happy they wouldn’t flirt with the far right
What other group grew in political importance in the postwar years?
Middle class - roots in trends beginning in the 1920s of the diversification of the industrial economy (needed more professional technicians) and the enhanced importance of educational qualifications
What was different about the middle class of the post war years?
More bale to unite around the institutions of parliamentary democracy to champion their common interests (less stratified than before)
Was there a ‘year zero’ in Europe after 1945?
No - the regimes that emerged were both a development and a break from the legacies of the past (culmination of many different developing factors)
What happened by the later 1950s?
All factors mentioned in this article wanted to allow fro presidential sources in France and socio-political in the 1960s and 1970s
What were the criticisms of the postwar governments of the 1950s in the 1960s?
Centrist character
Gendered nature
Lack of active citizenship
