An original essay with the thesis: Democratic values began to vanish shortly after the rise in radical political thoughts, polarization swept across Europe, the risk of civil war rose in many European countries.
An original essay with the thesis: Democratic values began to vanish shortly after the rise in radical political thoughts, polarization swept across Europe, the risk of civil war rose in many European countries.
An original essay with the thesis: Democratic values began to vanish shortly after the rise in radical political thoughts, polarization swept across Europe, the risk of civil war rose in many European countries.
As a result of World War I and the time in between the first Great War and the Second brought forth many radical changes, In that moment of bourgeois triumph, the ancien rgime was finally toppled-sultans, pashas, emperors and dukes reduced to impotence (Mazower, 3). The tables had turned and monarchal rule was no longer necessary or wanted by the subjects that resided post World War I. The system changed dramatically, for example, an increase from just three republic prior to World War I to thirteen by the end of the war, people made their decision and saw what they thought were flaws of a monarchal system and looking to the benefits of a democratic system but overlooking the flaws which foreshadows the collapse and overthrow of many democratic, constitutional, and liberal systems prior to World War II (4). The challenges of modernity were satisfied by new alternatives, authoritarian regimes seemed more appealing than the hope for democracy, which was considered by many to be fueled by too ambitious and utopian to bring forth success (5). Democratic values began to vanish shortly after the rise in radical political thoughts, polarization swept across Europe, the risk of civil war rose in many European countries. The new democracies in Europe stemmed from the past stable-systems of parliamentary governments and renovated by modernity, a forward-looking optimism (9) that aimed to combat the current problems of the 20 th century. Middle-class lawyers and politicians, who were influenced by the entirety of the middle class, spearheaded political reform. The demand swept throughout Europe, inspiration was taken from countries that had democracy already rooted deeply in its system countries like: the Gurgen
United States, England and Switzerland (7). These new governments were held to the highest demands of modernity. Countries hoped to rationalize politics into law, causing most new constitutions to focus on their national identity, focusing on what the countries now stood for, the people, or that this country is a democratic republic (8). Since the new constitutions had to meet all the demands of modernity, the new constitutions focused on the principles that were similar to the demands the United States focused on, a system of federalism and checks that would be sufficient enough to prevent too much power in executive authority. However, much of the power was concentrated in the legislature because of the uncertainty of having a strong executive the fear of repeating the events that occurred in World War I was at the root of the uncertainty. Democracy became preferable with the middle and lower class; these classes preferred democracy because it would allow them to disperse wealth and land that was once the domain of the aristocracy (13). However the nature of the rich and elite class did not allow them to see democracy with the same esteem the middle and lower class citizenry did, instead, it created a rift dividing the rich and the poor, the landowners and those who wanted the land. Soon after, civil war would ensue in some of the European countries. The fear of agrarian reform was to play a large part in fomenting civil war (14) and the increasing tensions would foster the political instability that would push countries, such as Italy, into war. The continuation of the fight for land reform would continue to push other countries into a state of mind that would begin to question and challenge the success of democracy and liberalism in Europe (17). The move away from the new liberal and parliamentary system was an attack on liberal individualism (16) especially in Italy. Gurgen
The transition from a liberal government to a fascist government in Italy was a direct result of increased political instability. Italys move away from democracy did not receive negative reaction from the surrounding counties, instead positive reactions reaffirmed the doubt that was sweeping the European continent When one looked more closely at how parliaments actually functioned in the 1920s, the question remained: why bother with them at all (17)? However in Italy, we did not see a devastating collapse of liberal beliefs, moreover, it was a conglomeration of liberal, socialist, and fascist ideals, it was even considered a parliamentary Fascism (15) because of the fact that Mussolini compromised a true Fascist system to a mixture of three different systems. Furthermore, as Italy began to grow some of the key features of Fascism could now be seen more clearly, it was a process of severing individualist ideals and refocusing them on to a more authoritarian state. The question that needed to be answered in order to protect or to allow democracy to survive in Europe was, under what circumstances should federal power be able to extend and to what degree it should be allowed to grow. This question became clearer and many countries, such as Poland and Lithuania chose to increase the executive powers in order to get laws and legislation passed (20). It is also true that proportional representation led to a system of legislation that caused a situation that is similar to a Tyranny of the Majority, which resulted in the dilution of a welter of class, ethnic or religious differences (17). Proportional representation could also be considered the root cause of the decline of parliamentary government in many European countries. It is argued by Mazower that proportional representation did not reflect the needs of the country as a whole (18) instead it represented the ideals and goals of the political Gurgen
parties, since they were highly structured, organized and frequently had their own educational, cultural, welfare and paramilitary services (18) and failed to serve everyone in the country. It can also be accepted that the polarization of political parties, that once reigned supreme prior to the transition to democracy, relapsed into the downfall of democracy and led to a divide between radical parties, in which these parties nearly became institutions alone. Mazower closes a paragraph in an ironic manner, democracy was supposed to have unified the nation; instead it seemed to have divided it (19) the reoccurrence of polarization and problems arising in the balance of power allowed Nazism to become more prevalent post World War I. We see this to be true during the election of 1930 in Weimar Germany, in which, the Nazis and Communists emerged as the second and third largest parties, which would later allow Hitler to democratically get rid of liberalism and democracy and make room for Nazism. The Nazis clamed that they were not a lawless state, in fact they argued that law and order was needed to be used to prevent political instability from occurring, like the event that was occurring around Germany. The Nazis also believed that the state superseded the individual, and used this basis of understanding to defend a system that did not allow for public opinion (33). Advocates against Nazism argued, a rational legal system was necessary for the smooth functioning of a capitalistic economy (34), however the Nazis argued against this claim and defended Nazism by illustrating that a rational legal system and Nazism were not mutually exclusive, and in fact, could coexist better under a strong Socialist system (34). The Nazis constant addition of laws led to the masking of the previous liberal laws, and no one could disagree since the people lacked a voice in government. Gurgen
Communism was also not a radical shift the previous system. Since Russia was in a state of instability that could not be rescued by democracy, it is believed that, many peasants were to accept the ideology of communism, as it was about social equality not the protection of the political elite (10). Democracy focused on individualistic roots, which allowed the elite to continue to grow, and also caused the poor to get poorer. Democracies fall was at the cause of its own success, since many of the European countries could not find a balance of power between the branches in government, inherently caused the collapse of democracy. After the collapse, countries look to an alternative, and Fascism, Communism, and Nazism became the leading systems of governments.