Gurgen Grigoryan

Professor Zieler
November 21, 2011
A44681865


The Fall of Democracy

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
Gurgen Grigoryan
Professor Zieler
November 21, 2011
A44681865


countries that had democracy already rooted deeply in its system countries like: the
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
Gurgen Grigoryan
Professor Zieler
November 21, 2011
A44681865


the new liberal and parliamentary system was an attack on liberal individualism (16)
especially in Italy.
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
Gurgen Grigoryan
Professor Zieler
November 21, 2011
A44681865


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
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
Gurgen Grigoryan
Professor Zieler
November 21, 2011
A44681865


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.
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.