Lecture 4: Europe between the wars and the first major crisis of liberal democracy – Fascism in Italy and Germany Flashcards
What are states, and why do they fail?
The interwar period of the 20th C in Europe witnesses state failure in several liberal democracies
Three main questions arise in this context:
1) To what extent were these states really liberal democratic?
2) Why did they evolve in an authoritarian way in the 1920s and 1930s?
3) Could this happen today, that is, could liberal democracy give way to authoritarian government in Europe today? What might be the likely causes of this kind of regression?
State:
Distinct from government
Distinct from parties
First fascist regime =
Italy (1922)
What are states?
Aristotle (384-322) says that most states in human history tend to be monarchies, aristocracies, or democracies
Montesquieu (1689-1755) modifies this schema slightly by arguing that most states tend to be republics (democratic or aristocratic), monarchies or tyrannies
Both thinkers agree that states with mixed contributions are usually the most stable, and the most conducive to human flourishing
Machiavelli (1469-1527) adds that stable states generally combine good laws and good arms. What does ‘good’ mean, in this context?
Why do constitutions matter in the history of states?
Aristotle and Montesquieu discuss mixed constitutions in relation to political stability and human flourishing. What they mean is that humans experience freedom in political communities in which democratic, aristocratic, monarchy and other dynamic elements to coexist and are mediated. A concrete example is offered by the different principles animating the House of Lords and House of Commons
What distinguishes modern political communities from pre-modern ones?
Modern political communities, constituted as states, rather than as extended families, are in principle distinct from other political communities. In modern states democratic law and egalitarian citizenship replace custom tradition, hereditary privilege and crucially command. In this regard the transition from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy raises key issues.
When does democratic law revert to authoritarian command?
Interwar period of the 20th C Europe witnesses state failure in several liberal democracies
Most prominent examples probably Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal = right wing alternatives to liberal democracy
Russia = left wing alternative
Why do constitutions matter in the history of states?
One of the hallmarks of the liberal democratic state form is the constitutional separation of legislative, executive and judicial functions
Italy (1922-45)
Mussolini (1883-45) lead the famous ‘March on Rome’ in 1922 that initiated the fascist interlude in Italy
Unified in 1861
Germany (1933-45)
Hitler (1889-45) was appointed as the last chancellor of the Weimar Republic in 1933, which he and his colleagues in the NSDAP helped destroy shortly thereafter, yet the parallels in Italian and German history go deeper with implications for Europe in the 20th C.
Unified in 1871
Italy (1922-45) and Germany (1933-45)
Italy (1861) and Germany (1871) both unify late, and they do so on a very precarious basis.
Both were committed to fighting together during WW1 (Italy jumped sides in 1915), both experienced fascism, post WW2 economic miracles and terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s
A working hypothesis can be tentatively developed if one relates the point about the precarious bases of the post-unification Italian and German states, on the one hand, and the legislative-executive-judicial dynamics that are meant to obtain in liberal democracies, on the other.
Why do constitutions matter in the history of states?
If try to create a strong state by unifying, too diverse to work
In most examples of right wing alternatives to liberal democracy, the legislative functions of the state are usurped by the state executive, and, in a parallel step, the independence of the judiciary is severely compromised by executive manipulation.
Under what conditions does democratic law revert to authoritarian command? Law and the legislative function link the state with the democratic element of what Aristotle, Montesquieu and others refer to as a mixed constitution. If a mixed constitution evolves toward a more homogeneous, monolithic constitution, authoritarianism is likely to ensue. This is precisely what one sees in the interwar period in a number of European states formed on precarious bases.
What conclusions can be drawn?
Italian and German interwar history suggest that executive colonisation of the legislative and neutralisation of the judiciary are often the result of acute socio-economic crisis, that is, they tend to be the result of episodes such as widespread labour unrest (Italy in 1919-20), the Wall Street Crash (1929), or looking beyond the interwar context to more recent events, the financial crisis of 2007-2008
Does Brexit suggest that liberal democracy is in crisis?
Constitutional crisis, state failure, institutional transitions and political possibility.
