With the rise of anti-immigrant right-wing extremist parties, we are
getting comparisons to the 1930’s and comments that depression spawns fascism. This is true, but not the whole
truth. The bigger picture is that two
things seem to bring down governments – any governments – more than any
other. One is losing a war. The other is economic crisis.
There is at least some evidence that democracies survive losing wars
better than non-democratic governments.
The U.S. government remained stable throughout the darkest days of the
Civil War, and the Confederate government (which was democratic so far as white
people went) also help up to the very end.
Napoleon III, by contrast, was overthrown when he lost the
Franco-Prussian War. Russia’s abortive
revolution of 1905 came in response to losing the Russo-Japanese war. WWI brought down the monarchies of Russia,
Germany and Austria, while the democratic governments of France and Belgium
held up even when all seemed lost. The
French Fourth Republic fell when it lost the war in Algeria, but gave way to
the Fifth Republic. Military
dictatorships in Pakistan and Argentina also collapsed when they lost
wars. On the other hand, the dictator
most likely to survive losing a war is the harshest and most brutal one, Saddam
Hussein, for instance. Stalin also held
onto power even when the Germans invaded and all seemed lost. And the Nazi government went down fighting. Why the harshest dictators should survive
best is clear enough. They brutally
crush all opposition. Why democracies
might hold up better is not clear. Maybe
one it is because in a democracy, the people have the option of throwing out
the scoundrels who lost the war without violent revolution. A lost war, after all, is a sunk cost. It is too late to go back and win, and the
newly elected government will not be responsible for losing.
Economic crises are a different matter.
Economic crises can continue for years without improvement. Voting out the scoundrels who started it does
little good if the next government can’t improve things. Sometimes this leads to desperate measures
and revolution. This isn’t altogether
bad. It applies to democratic and
dictatorial governments alike.
Clearly the Great Depression was a disaster for democracy. Hitler was merely the most (in)famous of many right-wing dictators to come to power in its wake. True fascism was limited to Germany and Italy, but Austria established Austrofascism, Hungary trended in that direction, and democracies fell and fascist movements arose across eastern and southern Europe.
The process was reversed in Latin America in
the 1980’s, where one military dictatorship after another gave way to
democratic reformers under the pressure of an economic crisis. Well do I remember those days, and newspapers
that commented that just as an economic crisis undermined democracy in Europe
in the 1930’s, it was undermining dictatorship in Latin America in the 1980’s. The Asian crisis of the 1990’s brought down
the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia.
And now we have come full circle, with yet another economic crisis in
Europe, the rise of right-wing extremists (as well as the far left in
Greece). The rise of extremists in Europe is not just a desperate reaction to declining economic conditions. It is also a response to a general consensus in favor of self-destructive policies -- fiscal austerity, monetary policy set by Germany to German needs, and calls for "internal devaluation." These policies harming Europe, but they are they have the universal support of "respectable" opinion everywhere. Only extremists, especially semi-fascists, are willing to rebel against German-dictated terms and even consider leaving the euro. Let this be a lesson. If "respectable" authorities persist in policies that undermine European economies, people will look elsewhere for a way out.
No comments:
Post a Comment