• IMG_1886
  • IMG_1887
  • IMG_1888
  • IMG_1889
  • IMG_1890

  • IMG_1904
  • IMG_1905
  • IMG_1906
  • IMG_1907

  • IMG_1932
  • IMG_1933
  • IMG_1934
  • IMG_1935

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD Aggregation-FM.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:19

Fascists

Fascists presents a new theory of fascism based on intensive analysis of the men and women who became fascists. It covers the six European countries in which fascism became most dominant: Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Romania, and Spain. It is the most comprehensive analysis of who fascists actually were, what beliefs they held, and what actions they committed. Through this evidence we see that fascism is merely the most extreme form of “nation-statism,” which was the dominant political ideology of the twentieth century. Fascists argued that an “organic nation” and a strong state that was prepared to use violence to “knock heads together” could transcend the conflicts, especially the class conflicts, rending modern society. We also see the fascist core constituencies: social locations that were at the heart of the nation or closely connected to the state, and people who were accustomed to use violence as a means of solving social conflicts and who came from those sections of all social classes that were working outside the front lines of class conflict. The book suggests that fascism was essentially a product of post–World War I conditions in Europe and is unlikely to reappear in its classic garb in the future. Nonetheless, elements of its ideology remain relevant to modern conditions and are now reappearing, though mainly in different parts of the world.

Michael Mann is Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Visiting Research Professor at Queens University, Belfast.

i

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD Aggregation-FM.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:19

Fascists

MICHAEL MANN

University of California, Los Angeles

iii

cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo

Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK

First published in print format

isbn-13 978-0-521-83131-4

isbn-13 978-0-521-53855-8

isbn-13 978-0-511-21651-0

© Cambridge University Press 2004

2004

Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521831314

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

isbn-10 0-511-21651-3

isbn-10 0-521-83131-8

isbn-10 0-521-53855-6

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

www.cambridge.org

hardback

paperback

paperback

eBook (NetLibrary)

eBook (NetLibrary)

hardback

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD Aggregation-FM.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:19

Contents

Preface page vii

1 A Sociology of Fascist Movements 1

2 Explaining the Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 31

3 Italy: Pristine Fascists 93

4 Nazis 139

5 German Sympathizers 177

6 Austro-Fascists, Austrian Nazis 207

7 The Hungarian Family of Authoritarians 237

8 The Romanian Family of Authoritarians 261

9 The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 297

10 Conclusion: Fascists, Dead and Alive 353

Appendix 377

Notes 389

Bibliography 395

Index 417

v

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD Aggregation-FM.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:19

Preface

I originally designed this study of fascism as a single chapter in a general book about the twentieth century, the third volume of my The Sources of Social Power. But my third volume still remains to be written, since fascism grew and grew to absorb my entire attention span over seven years. My “fascist chapter” was to be written first, since I was at that time spending a year in a Madrid institute with a fine library collection on the interwar struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. But then my research on fascism grew to the size of a whole book. I realized with a sinking heart (since this is not a pleasant subject on which to work for years) that it had to grow yet further. Since the deeds of fascists and their fellow- travelers culminated in mass murder, I had to engage with a second large body of literature, on the events centering on “The Final Solution” or “Holocaust.” I soon realized that these two bodies of literature – on fascists and their genocides – had little in common. Fascism and the mass murders committed during World War II have been mostly kept in separate scholarly and popular compartments inhabited by different theories, different data, different methods. These compartments have mostly kept them segregated from other rather similar phenomena of murderous cleansing that have been regularly recurring across the modern period – from seventeenth-century America to the mid-twentieth-century Soviet Union, to Rwanda-Burundi and Yugoslavia at the very end of the twentieth century.

All these three main forms of deeply depressing human behavior – fascism, “the Holocaust,” and ethnic and political cleansing more generally – share a family resemblance. This resemblance has been given by three main in- gredients most openly revealed in fascism: organic nationalism, radical statism, and paramilitarism. Ideally, the entire family should be discussed together. But being of an empiricist bent, I felt I had to discuss them in some detail.

vii

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD Aggregation-FM.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:19

viii Preface

This would have generated a book of near 1,000 pages, which perhaps few would read – and which no publisher would publish.

So I have broken my overall study into two. This volume concerns fascists, centering on their rise to power in interwar Europe. My forthcoming vol- ume, The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing, concerns the whole swath of modern ethnic and political cleansing, from colonial times through Armenia and Nazi genocides to the present day. The weakness of this particular division between the two volumes is that the “careers” of the worst types of fascists, especially Nazis, but also their collaborators, are broken up between two volumes. Their rise is traced in this volume, their final deeds in my other volume. The advantage of this division is that the final deeds of these fascists appear alongside others with whom they share a genuine family resemblance – colonial militias, the Turkish Special Forces of 1915, the Cambodian Angka, the Red Guards, Hutu Interahamwe, Arkan’s Tigers, and so on. Indeed, popular speech, especially among their enemies and victims, recognizes this kinship by denouncing them all as “Fascists!” – a rather imprecise but nonetheless justifiable term of abuse. For these are brutal men and women using murderous paramilitary means to attain, albeit rather crudely voiced, goals of organic nationalism and/or radical statism (all qualities of fascism proper). Scholars tend to reject this broad label of “Fascist!” – preferring to reserve the term (without exclamation mark) for those adhering to a rather more tightly structured doctrine. Since I also have pretensions to scholarship, I suppose I must ultimately share this pref- erence for conceptual precision. But deeds can share commonality as well as doctrine. This volume concerns fascists as scholars understand the term; my other volume concerns perpetrators and “Fascists!” in the more popular, looser sense of the word.

I have greatly benefited from the advice and criticism of colleagues in writing this book. I wish to especially thank Ivan Berend, Ronald Fraser, Bernt Hagtvet, John Hall, Ian Kershaw, Stanley Payne, and Dylan Riley. I thank the Instituto Juan March in Madrid for its hospitality during the first year of research for this book, and the Sociology Department of the University of California at Los Angeles for providing a very congenial home throughout.

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

1

A Sociology of Fascist Movements

taking fascists seriously

This book seeks to explain fascism by understanding fascists – who they were, where they came from, what their motivations were, how they rose to power. I focus here on the rise of fascist movements rather than on es- tablished fascist regimes. I investigate fascists at their flood tide, in their major redoubts in interwar Europe, that is, in Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Romania, and Spain. To understand fascists will require understanding fascist movements. We can understand little of individual fascists and their deeds unless we appreciate that they were joined together into distinctive power organizations. We must also understand them amid their broader twentieth-century context, in relation to general aspirations for more effec- tive states and greater national solidarity. For fascism is neither an oddity nor merely of historical interest. Fascism has been an essential if predominantly undesirable part of modernity. At the beginning of the twenty-first century there are seven reasons still to take fascists very seriously.

(1) Fascism was not a mere sideshow in the development of modern society. Fascism spread through much of the European heartland of moder- nity. Alongside environmentalism, it was the major political doctrine of world-historical significance created during the twentieth century. There is a chance that something quite like it, though almost certainly under another name, will play an important role in the twenty-first century. Fascists have been at the heart of modernity.

(2) Fascism was not a movement set quite apart from other modern move- ments. Fascists only embraced more fervently than anyone else the central political icon of our time, the nation-state, together with its ideologies and pathologies. We are thankful that today much of the world lives un- der rather mild nation-states, with modest, useful powers, embodying only

1

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

2 Fascists

a fairly harmless nationalism. National government bureaucracies annoy us but they do not terrorize us – indeed, they predominantly serve our needs. Nationalism usually also appears in comforting domesticated forms. Though French people often proclaim themselves as culturally superior, Americans assert they are the freest people on Earth, and the Japanese claim a unique racial homogeneity, these highly suspect beliefs comfort themselves, amuse foreigners, and rarely harm anyone else.

Fascism represents a kind of second-level escalation beyond such “mild nation-statism.” The first escalation came in two parallel forms, one con- cerning the nation, the other the state. Regarding the nation, aspirations for democracy became entwined with the notion of the “integral” or “organic” nation. “The people” must rule, but this people was considered as one and indivisible and so might violently exclude from itself minority ethnic groups and political “enemies” (see my forthcoming volume, The Dark- side of Democracy, chap. 1, for more analysis of this). Regarding the state, the early twentieth century saw the rise of a more powerful state, seen as “the bearer of a moral project,” capable of achieving economic, social, and moral development.1 In certain contexts this involved the rise of more authori- tarian states. The combination of modern nationalism and statism was to turn democratic aspirations on their head, into authoritarian regimes seek- ing to “cleanse” minorities and opponents from the nation. Fascism, the second-level escalation, added to this combination mainly a distinctively “bottom-up” and “radical” paramilitary movement. This would overcome all opposition to the organic nation-state with violence from below, at what- ever the cost. Such glorification of actual violence had emerged as a conse- quence of the modern “democratization” of war into one between “citizen armies.” Fascism thus presented a distinctively paramilitary extreme ver- sion of nation-statism (my actual definition of fascism is given below in this chapter). It was only the most extreme version of the dominant political ideology of our era.

(3) Fascist ideology must be taken seriously, in its own terms. It must not be dismissed as crazy, contradictory, or vague. Nowadays, this is quite widely accepted. Zeev Sternhell (1986: x) has remarked that fascism had “a body of doctrine no less solid or logically indefensible than that of any other political movement.” Consequently, said George Mosse (1999: x), “only . . . when we have grasped fascism from the inside out, can we truly judge its appeal and its power.” Since fascists did offer plausible solutions to modern social problems, they got mass electoral support and intense emo- tional commitment from militants. Of course, like most political activists, fascists were diverse and opportunistic. The importance of leadership and

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

A Sociology of Fascist Movements 3

power in fascism enhanced opportunism. Fascist leaders were empowered to do almost anything to seize power, and this could subvert other fascist values. Yet most fascists, leaders or led, believed in certain things. They were not people of peculiar character, sadists or psychopaths, or people with a “rag-bag” of half-understood dogmas and slogans flitting through their heads (or no more so than the rest of us). Fascism was a movement of high ideals, able to persuade a substantial part of two generations of young people (especially the highly educated) that it could bring about a more harmonious social order. To understand fascism, I adopt a methodology of taking fascists’ values seriously. Thus each of my case-study chapters begins by explaining local fascist doctrine, followed, if possible, by an account of what ordinary fascists seem to have believed.

(4) We must take seriously the social constituency of fascist movements and ask what sorts of people were drawn to them. Few fascists were marginals or misfits. Nor were they confined to classes or other interest groups who found in fascism a “cover” for their narrow material interests. Yet there were “core fascist constituencies” among which fascist values most resonated. This is perhaps the most original part of this book, yielding a new view of fascism, and it derives from a methodology of taking fascist values seriously. For the core fascist constituency enjoyed particularly close relations to the sacred icon of fascism, the nation-state. We must reconstruct that nation-state– loving constituency in order to see what kinds of people might be tempted toward fascism.

(5) We must also take seriously fascist movements. They were hierarchical yet comradely, embodying both the leadership principle and a constraining “social cage,” both of which heightened commitment, especially by single young men for whom the movement was almost a “total institution.” We must also appreciate its paramilitarism, since “popular violence” was crucial to its success. Fascist movements also changed as they were tempted by two different prospects. One was to use power in more and more radical and violent ways. The other was to enjoy the fruits of power by compromising under the table with powerful traditional elites. These led toward either a hardening of fascism (as in Germany) or a softening (as in Italy, at least until the late 1930s). Fascists also experienced “careers” in the movement, which might lead them down either path. We must observe fascists in action: committing violence, trimming, pursuing careers.

(6) We must take “hardened” fascists seriously in a far more sinister sense, as the eventual perpetrators of great evil. We must not excuse or relativize this but seek to understand it. The capacity for evil is an essential human attribute, and so is our capacity to commit evil for what we believe to be

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

4 Fascists

moral purposes. Fascists were especially self-deluded. We need to know more of the circumstances in which we humans do this. Though we pre- fer to write history and sociology as a happy, progressive, moral tale, this grotesquely distorts the reality of human experience. The twentieth century saw massive evil, not as an accident or as the resurgence of the primitive in us, but as willed, purposive, and essentially “modern” behavior. To un- derstand fascism is to understand how people of apparently high modern- izing ideals could then act to produce evil that was eventually unmitigated. However, I leave the very worst for my forthcoming book, The Dark Side of Democracy.

(7) We must take seriously the chance that fascists might return. If we understand the conditions that generated fascists, we can better understand whether they might return and how we might avoid this. Some of the con- ditions that generated fascism are still present. Organic nationalism and the adoption of paramilitary forms, committed to ethnic and political cleans- ing, at present moves many thousands of people across the world to commit supposedly “idealistic” yet in reality murderous acts against neighbours and political opponents whom they call “enemies.” This may horrify us, but it is not dismissible as a return to the “primitive” in us. Ethnic and politi- cal cleansing has been one of European civilization’s main contributions to modernity; while violent paramilitarism has been distinctively twentieth- century. We must comprehend these aspects of modernity. It is rather for- tunate nowadays that “statism” (the third main component of fascism after organic nationalism and paramilitarism) is greatly out of fashion, since both its historic carriers, fascism and communism, collapsed disastrously. Current cleansing regimes tend to be paramilitary and authoritarian, but pretend they are democratic; the words “fascist” and “communist” have largely become terms of imprecise abuse. Given time for a supposedly stateless neoliberalism to do similar damage to parts of the world, this rejection of the powerful state will probably fade. Then extreme statist values might be harnessed again to extreme paramilitary nationalism in movements resembling fascism – unless we can learn from the history I record here. I doubt new movements will call themselves fascist, since the word is now so abhorred. Yet some of the substance of fascism lives on.

There are two main schools of thought on fascism. A more idealist “na- tionalist school,” which I discuss first, has focused on fascists’ beliefs and doctrines, while a more materialist “class school,” discussed second, has fo- cused on its class basis and its relationship to capitalism. The debates between them constitute yet another replay of the traditional polemic between ide- alism and materialism in the social sciences. But since the two approaches

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

A Sociology of Fascist Movements 5

often appear to be discussing different levels of phenomena – beliefs versus social base/functions – they frequently talk past each other. Thus we lack an acceptable general theory of fascism. Such a theory would have to build on top of both approaches, taking from each what is useful and adding what both neglect.

I have chosen not to here give the reader a heavy dose of sociological theory. But my own approach to fascism derives from a more general model of human societies that rejects the idealism-versus-materialism dualism. My earlier work identified four primary “sources of social power” in human societies: ideological, economic, military, and political.2 Class theorists of fascism have tended to elevate economic power relations in their expla- nations, while nationalist theorists have emphasized ideology. Yet all four sources of social power are needed to explain most important social and historical outcomes. To attain their goals, social movements wield com- binations of control over ultimate meaning systems (ideological), control over means of production and exchange (economic), control over orga- nized physical violence (military), and control over centralized and terri- torial institutions of regulation (political). All four are necessary to explain fascism. Mass fascism was a response to the post–World War I ideological, economic, military, and political crises. Fascists proposed solutions to all four. Fascist organization also combined substantial ideological innovations (generally called “propaganda”), mass political electoralism, and paramilitary violence. All became highly ritualized so as to intensify emotional commit- ment. In attempting to seize power, fascist leaders also sought to neutralize economic, military, political, and ideological (especially church) elites. Thus any explanation of fascism must rest on the entwining of all four sources of social power, as my empirical case-study chapters demonstrate. My fi- nal chapter presents the pay-off from this model: a general explanation of fascism.

toward a definition of fascism

Obviously, we must define our terms, though this is no easy matter. Some scholars have refused to define fascism at all in any “generic” sense, believing that “true” fascism was found only in Italy, its original home. Along with many others, I disagree. However, I do not initially seek a generic definition that might apply across many times and places. I merely seek one offering heuristic utility across the interwar period in Europe – until my last chapter, when I raise the issue of whether fascist movements have existed in more recent times and in other places.

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

6 Fascists

Let us first get a general sense of fascism through the views of its promi- nent intellectuals, with the commentaries of Sternhell (1976, 1986, 1994) and Mosse (1999), plus Griffin’s compilation of fascist texts (1995), as my main guides. Most of them were initially nonmaterialist leftists who then embraced organic nationalism. In 1898 the Frenchman Barrès called his fu- sion “Socialist Nationalism,” though it was the Italian Corradini’s inversion of these words, as “National Socialism,” which caught on, though by so- cialism he really meant syndicalism: “Syndicalism and nationalism together, these are the doctrines that represent solidarity,” he emphasized. Class and sectoral conflict could be harmonized with the help of syndicalist (labor union) organizations coordinated by a “corporate state.” So national so- cialism would be confined within national boundaries, with class struggle transformed into struggle between nations. “Bourgeois nations” (such as Britain and France) exploited “proletarian nations” (such as Italy). To resist, the proletarian nation must fight, with economic weapons and through “the sacred mission of imperialism.” Except for the last phrase, this resembles the “third world socialism” of recent years. These were not uncommon ideas in the twentieth century.

As leftists but not materialists, these men also lauded “resistance,” “will,” “movement,” “collective action,” “the masses,” and the dialectic of “progress” through “struggle,” “force,” and “violence.” These Nietzschean values made fascism “radical.” Fascists were determined to overcome all opposition ruthlessly, by will, force, whatever was necessary, without com- promise or scruples. This meant in practice forming paramilitaries as well as parties. As collectivists they despised the “amoral individualism” of free market liberalism and “bourgeois democracy,” which neglected the inter- ests of “living communities” and of “the nation as an organic whole.” The nation was essentially one and indivisible, a living and breathing entity, de- fined as either “integral” or “organic.” To be German, Italian, or French, fascists asserted, meant much more than just living in a geographical space; it meant something outsiders could not experience, involving a basic identity and emotion, beyond reason. As Mosse emphasizes, the Germanic version of the nation differed from the Southern European, being racial as well as cultural. It drew more on social Darwinism, anti-Semitism, and other nineteenth-century racialist strands of theory to generate a Volk, a singu- lar ethnic-cultural unity transcending all possible conflicts within it, but erecting higher boundaries against other peoples.

Nonetheless, the nation had both a moral and a rational structure. Build- ing on Rousseau and Durkheim, the theorists said that competitive in- stitutions such as markets, parties, elections, or classes could not generate

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

A Sociology of Fascist Movements 7

morality. This must come from the community, the nation. The Frenchman Berth railed against liberalism: “Society is brought to the point where it is only a market made up of free-trading atoms, in contact with which every- thing dissolves. . . . dustlike particles of individuals, shut up within the nar- row confines of their consciousness and their money boxes.” Panunzio and Bottai followed Durkheim in praising the virtues of “civil society,” believing that voluntary communal associations were the foundations of liberty. Yet they must be integrated into an overall corporate state that would then rep- resent the interests of the nation as a whole. Without this linkage between state and communal associations, they said, the state would be “empty,” with “a deficiency of sociological content,” as was the case in the liberal state (Riley 2002: chap. 1). In contrast, the fascist state would be “corpo- rate” and “sociological,” based on strong bonds of association. Again, this sounds quite modern. Berth and Panunzio might have been targeting the neo-liberalism dominant a hundred years later.

Fascist intellectuals also attacked a left trapped within passive “bourgeois materialism.” Its revolutionary pretensions had been exposed, they argued, by the superior mobilizing power of modern warfare between entire na- tions. Nations, not classes, were the true masses of modernity. Class conflict between capitalists and workers was not the core of the problem, they in- sisted. Instead, the real struggle was between “workers of all classes,” “the productive classes,” ranged against “unproductive” enemies, usually iden- tified as finance or foreign or Jewish capitalists. They would defend the productive workers of all classes. The Frenchman Valois wrote that “na- tionalism + socialism = fascism,” and the Englishman Oswald Mosley said, “If you love our country, you are national, and if you love our people you are socialist.” These were attractive ideas in the early twentieth century, the “age of the masses,” since fascists promised to “transcend” a class struggle then seemingly tearing apart the social fabric. Indeed, milder versions of such claims to transcendence have been adopted by most of the successful political movements of the twentieth century.

The nation should be represented through a corporatist, syndicalist state. It could “transcend” the moral decay and class conflict of bourgeois so- ciety with a “total plan” offering a statist “third way” between capitalism and socialism. The Italian Gentile (a late convert to fascism) claimed that fascism resolved the “paradox of liberty and authority. The authority of the state is absolute.” Mussolini agreed: “[E]verything in the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State.” “Ours will be a totalitarian state in the service of the fatherland’s integrity,” proclaimed the Spaniard José Antonio Primo de Rivera. The Belgian Henri de Man applauded

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

8 Fascists

“authoritarian democracy.” The “fascist revolution” would produce “the total man in the total society, with no clashes, no prostration, no anarchy.” said the Frenchman Déat.

But this was the future. Right now, the nation must struggle against its enemies for self-realization. It would be led by a paramilitary elite. The more radical fascists endorsed “moral murder.” They claimed that paramilitary violence could “cleanse,” “purify,” “regenerate” the elite who committed it, then the nation as a whole. Valois expressed this brutally:

to the bourgeois brandishing his contracts and statistics: – two plus three makes. . . . – Nought, the Barbarian replies, smashing his head in.

For Valois the “barbarian” fascist represented morality since he alone rep- resented the organic community of the nation, from which all moral values flow. Of course, for these intellectuals, inhabiting the same post-Nietzschean world that generated vitalism, surrealism, and Dadaism, much of this was just literary metaphor. Yet rank-and-file fascists were later to use these justifications of their activities.

O’Sullivan (1983: 33–69) notes that fascists hated the “limited” nature of liberal democracy, its imperfect, indirect, and only “representative” (rather than “direct”) form of rule. Liberal democracy tolerates conflicts of interest, “smoke-filled rooms,” “wheeler-dealing,” and “dirty” and “unprincipled” compromises. Acceptance of imperfections and compromise is actually the essence of both liberal democracy and social democracy. This reduces the stature of potential “enemies” into mere “opponents” with whom deals might be struck. Liberal and social democracies recognize no monopoly of virtue, no absolute truth. They are antiheroic. I have learned from writing these two books not to expect our democratic politicians to be too princi- pled. We need their instrumentalism, their dirty deals. But fascists differed. They saw politics as unlimited activism to achieve moral absolutes. In Max Weber’s terms, this was “value rationality,” conduct oriented toward the achievement of absolute values, not merely instrumental interests.

This brought a higher emotional content. Fascism saw itself as a crusade. Fascists did not view evil as a universal tendency of human nature. Fascists, like some Marxists, believed that evil was embedded in particular social institutions and so could be shed. The nation was perfectible if organic and cleansed. As O’Sullivan notes, the Romanian fascist leader Codreanu was an extreme example of this. He saw his “Legion of the Archangel Michael” as a moral force: “All [other] political organizations . . . believe that the country was dying because of lack of good programs; consequently they put together

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

A Sociology of Fascist Movements 9

a perfectly jelled program with which they start to assemble supporters.” In contrast, said Codreanu, “This country is dying of lack of men, not of programs.” “We must have men, new men.” Thus the Legion would free Romania from “the power of evil.” It would contain “heroes,” “[t]he finest souls that our minds can conceive, the proudest, tallest, straightest, strongest, cleverest, bravest and most hardworking that our race can produce.” They must fight against the “enemies” polluting the nation (Codreanu 1990: 219–21). He believed that in defense of good against evil, violence was morally legitimate.

Obviously, however, to understand fascists we must move beyond the intellectuals. How could the ideas quoted above stir millions of Europeans into action? What conditions of real life made such extraordinary senti- ments seem plausible? Sternhell tends to see fascism as complete before World War I, neglecting the war’s conversion of the blustering rhetoric of the few into mass movements. Fascism would have probably amounted only to a historical footnote without the Great War. But to investigate the values and emotions of later subaltern fascists is not easy. Most left little record of their views. If they did, many lied (since at the time they were on trial for their lives). My empirical chapters assemble what evidence I have found.

Sternhell’s account is also somewhat biased toward early Italian, Spanish, and French intellectuals and glaringly omits Germans. Mosse and others say that “fascism” is not the same as “Nazism.” They say that the racist and anti- Semitic Nazis focused more on the people, the Volk, and less on the state and that the Nazis altogether lacked a model of a utopian state. The Nazi move- ment, not the state, represented the nation, just as the Führer personified it. In contrast, few Southern European fascists were racists or anti-Semites, and they developed corporatist, syndicalist blueprints of their desired state. Whereas Nazism was völkisch, fascism was statist (Mosse 1964, 1966, 1999; Bracher 1973: 605–9; and Nolte 1965, among others). And only Nazi racism perpetrated genocide, they say. Thus Nazism was not fascism.

Though there is some truth in this, I join those who believe that Nazis were fascists and that fascism can be treated as a more general phenomenon. Hitler and Mussolini thought they belonged to the same movement. “Fascism” was an Italian term, which Nazis, being German nationalists, did not want to borrow (nor did some Spanish writers whom everyone calls fascists). But, as we see below, the two movements shared similar core values, had similar social bases, and developed similar movements. Nationalism was more emphasized in Nazism, statism in Italian fascism. But these were variations on common themes.

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

10 Fascists

The tendency to dichotomize Nazism and Italian fascism also reveals an obsession with Germany and Italy. Yet fascism spread more broadly, against a backdrop of wider political ferment, especially on the political right. I focus on five cases of mass fascist movements: Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Romania. While each was unique, they all shared some features. They were a family of fascists, differing mainly in their abilities to seize power. Only the first three achieved stable (if short-lived) fascist regimes. This was mainly because the different timing of their forward surges led to different strategies of containment by their political rivals, especially those on the right. In fact, Austria, Hungary, and Romania are all cases in which we can analyze a dialectic between fascism and more conservative forms of authoritarianism, a dialectic that helps us better to understand the nature of fascism more generally. I finally analyze Spain, an example of countries that contained relatively few fascists but many fellow-travelers, and where more conservative nationalists and statists managed to keep firm hold over their fascist allies. My forthcoming book also includes a swath of fascist-leaning nationalist movements – Slovakian, Croatian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, and so on – adapting varying blends of Italian fascism and German Nazism to their own purposes. There was not a dichotomy but a range of fascist doctrines and practices – as there has been in movements such as conservatism, socialism, or liberalism.

But unlike socialism (which has Marxism), fascism contains no systematic theory. The men I have quoted above say a variety of things within only a looser Weltanschauung (“world view”), a number of views that broadly “hang together” and from which different fascist movements made dif- ferent selections. Various scholars have sought to identify this core. Nolte (1965) identified a “fascist minimum” combining three ideological “anti’s” – anti-Marxism, antiliberalism, and anticonservatism – plus two movement characteristics, the leadership principle and the party-army, all oriented to- ward a final goal: “totalitarianism.” This is not very clear on what the fascists wanted positively, while his stress on the anti’s makes him reach the dubious conclusion that fascism was essentially a reactionary form of antimodernism.

Stanley Payne is now the preeminent comparative historian of fascism. He says the fascist core comprises Nolte’s three anti’s, plus a list of other items: nationalism, authoritarian statism, corporatism and syndicalism, im- perialism, idealism, voluntarism, romanticism, mysticism, militarism, and violence. Quite a list! He narrows this down into three categories of style, negations, and programs, though these are more abstract than substantive qualities. And he ends by saying that fascism was “the most revolutionary form of nationalism” and that it centered on philosophical idealism and

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

A Sociology of Fascist Movements 11

moralistic violence (1980: 7; 1995: 7–14). The conclusion does not seem quite focused enough, and when he seeks to categorize subtypes of fas- cism, they turn out to be essentially nationalities (German, Italian, Spanish, Romanian, Hungarian, and a residual “underdeveloped” bunch of others), which seems halfway to denying any theoretical core to fascism.

Juan Linz is the preeminent sociologist of fascism. His definition is even lengthier:

a hypernationalist, often pan-nationalist, anti-parliamentary, anti-liberal, anti- communist, populist and therefore anti-proletarian, partly anti-capitalist and anti- bourgeois, anti-clerical or at least, non-clerical movement, with the aim of national social integration through a single party and corporative representation not always equally emphasized; with a distinctive style and rhetoric, it relied on activist cadres ready for violent action combined with electoral participation to gain power with totalitarian goals by a combination of legal and violent tactics.

He also approvingly quotes Ramiro Ledesma Ramos, a leading Spanish fascist, who defined fascism at only slightly lesser length, in a series of terse sentences:

Deep national idea. Opposition to demo-bourgeois institutions, to the liberal parlia- mentary state. Unmasking of the true feudalistic powers of present society. National economy and people’s economy against the great financial and monopolistic capi- talism. Sense of authority, discipline and violence. Hostility to the anti-national and anti-human solution that proletarian classism appears to solve the obvious problems and injustices of the capitalist system. (Linz 1976: 12–15)

These writers effectively convey the fascist Weltanschauung and suggest that its core is “hyper” nationalism. But a proper generic definition would seem to require more precise yet concise detail.

Recent scholars have attempted to supply this. Roger Eatwell gives a concise definition. Fascism, he says, “strives to forge social rebirth based on a holistic-national radical third way.” He adds that in practice, fascism has tended to stress style, especially action and the charismatic leader, more than detailed program, and to engage in a “manichean demonisation of its enemies” (2001: 33; cf. 1995: 11; and 1996). He then amplifies this by elaborating four key characteristics: nationalism, holism (i.e., collectivism), radicalism, and “the third way.” The third way lies between capital and labor, right and left, drawing from the best of both of them. Since this means that fascism has something practical to offer modern society, he sees fascism not as antimodern but as an alternative vision of modernity. Eatwell’s definition is the closest to my own, given below.

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

12 Fascists

Roger Griffin seeks a generic definition focusing more exclusively on values. In this respect he follows in the footsteps of Sternhell and Mosse. He sees fascism as a “mythic core” of “populist ultra-nationalism” inspired by the idea of a rebirth of the nation, race, or culture and seeking to create a “new man.” Fascism is a “palingenetic myth” of populist ultra-nationalism, seeking a nation rising Phoenix-like from the ashes of an old decadent social order. It is “a genus of modern politics which aspires to bring about a total revolution in the political and social culture of a particular national or ethnic community. . . . [G]eneric fascism draws its internal cohesion and affective driving-force from a core myth that a period of perceived decadence and degeneracy is imminently or eventually to give way to one of rebirth and rejuvenation in a post-liberal new order.” He agrees with Eatwell that fascism is an alternative modernization. He says that his is becoming the “consensus” view of fascism, opposed only by materialists, whom he ridicules. It reveals “the primacy of culture” in fascism. He also describes fascism as a “political religion” (1991: 44; 2001: 48; 2002: 24).

Yet Griffin’s idealism is nothing to be proud of. It is a major defect. How can a “myth” generate “internal cohesion” or “driving force”? A myth cannot be an agent driving or integrating anything, since ideas are not free- floating. Without power organizations, ideas cannot actually do anything. What is lacking here is any sense of power. Indeed, even a sense of practicality seems to be lacking in such a definition. Surely, fascists must have offered something more useful than the mythical rebirth of the nation. Who would vote for this? Though fascism did have an irrationalist side, it was also rather hard-headed, offering both economic programs and political strategies (as Eatwell 2001 also observes). It was also resolutely this-worldly, unconcerned with the sacred, religious side of human experience, though prepared to bend that to its purposes.

But idealism actually seems to lurk in most of these definitions. Primacy is generally given to fascist ideas. Nationalism seems rather disembodied, divorced from its actual main bearer in the real world, the nation-state. All fascists desired both a very cohesive nation and a very strong state, entwined together. Griffin also sanitizes fascism, remaining silent on its distinctively brutal violence and paramilitarism; while even Eatwell says that fascism only “sometimes” wields violence (Linz, Nolte, and Payne did not neglect violence).

The solution to such omissions, however, is not to embrace the tradi- tional “materialist” alternative to idealism, adding fascism’s relationship to capitalism and class. We must define fascism in its own terms, but to its values we must add its programs, actions, and organizations. Fascism was not just a

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

A Sociology of Fascist Movements 13

collection of individuals with certain beliefs. Fascism had a great impact on the world only because of its collective actions and its organizational forms. Fascists became committed to the elitism, hierarchy, comradeship, populism, and violence contained in a rather loose and paramilitary form of “statism.” If fascism had concerned only “palingenetic myths of rebirth,” what would be the harm in that? If fascism had been only extreme nationalism, it would have been only unpleasantly xenophobic. But by embracing paramilitarism, fascists coerced each other into extreme action, they destroyed their oppo- nents, and they convinced many bystanders that they could finally bring “order” to modern society. Their authoritarian state then forced compli- ance from their peoples, quashing opposition and perpetrating mass killings. So our definition of fascism should include both the key values and the key organizational forms of fascism.

a definition of fascism

I define fascism in terms of the key values, actions, and power organizations of fascists. Most concisely, fascism is the pursuit of a transcendent and cleansing nation-statism through paramilitarism. This definition contains five key terms requiring further explanation. Each also contained internal tensions.

(1) Nationalism. As everyone recognizes, fascists had a deep and populist commitment to an “organic” or “integral” nation, and this involved an unusually strong sense of its “enemies,” both abroad and (especially) at home. Fascists had a very low tolerance of ethnic or cultural diversity, since this would subvert the organic, integral unity of the nation. Aggression against enemies supposedly threatening that organic unity is the original source of fascism’s extremism. Racially tinged nationalism proved even more extreme, since race is an ascribed characteristic. We are born with it, and only our death or removal can eliminate it. Thus Nazi racial nationalism proved more obsessed with “purity” and proved more deadly than Italian cultural nationalism, which generally allowed those who showed the right values and conduct to join the nation.

I view the notion of “rebirth,” which Griffin saw as the key characteristic of fascism, as characteristic of nationalism more generally, including much milder nationalisms – as, for example, in Irish, Lithuanian, or Zimbabwean nationalism. Since nations are actually modern (with one or two excep- tions) but nationalists claim that they are ancient, nationalists solve this paradox with a vision of a revival or rebirth of a supposedly ancient na- tion, but one now adapted to modern times.3 In these cases the myth is of continuity back to the former greatness of the High Kings, the Grand

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

14 Fascists

Duchy, and Greater Zimbabwe – but no one supposes they would work today.

(2) Statism. This involved both goal and organizational form. Fascists worshiped state power. The authoritarian corporate state could supposedly solve crises and bring about social, economic, and moral development, as Gregor (1979) emphasizes. Since the state represented a nation that was viewed as being essentially organic, it needed to be authoritarian, em- bodying a singular, cohesive will expressed by a party elite adhering to the “leadership principle.” Scholars used to emphasize the “totalitarian” quality of fascist goals and states; Burleigh (2000) and Gregor (2000) still do. Others agree that the fascist goal was “total transformation” of society, but they emphasize backsliding along the way. They see the desired fas- cist state as vague or contradictory, containing rival party, corporatist, and syndicalist elements, and they often note that fascism in power had a sur- prisingly weak state. They have detailed the factionalism and horse trading of Mussolini’s regime (Lyttleton 1987) and the “polycracy” or even “chaos” of the Nazi regime (Broszat 1981; Kershaw 2000). So they rightly hesitate over the label “totalitarian.” Fascist regimes, like communist ones, con- tained a dialectic between “movement” and “bureaucracy,” between “per- manent revolution” and “totalitarianism” (Mann 1997). We can also detect a tension between a more organized Italian-style syndicalism/corporatism and Nazi preference for a more “polycratic,” fluid dictatorship. And in all regimes tendencies toward a singular, bureaucratic state were undercut by party and paramilitary activism and by deals with rival elites. Fascism was more totalitarian in its transformational aims than in its actual regime form.

(3) Transcendence. Fascists rejected conservative notions that the exist- ing social order is essentially harmonious. They rejected liberal and social democratic notions that the conflict of interest groups is a normal feature of society. And they rejected leftist notions that harmony could be attained only by overthrowing capitalism. Fascists originated from the political right, center, and left alike and drew support from all classes (Weber 1976: 503). They attacked both capital and labor as well as the liberal democratic insti- tutions supposedly exacerbating their strife. Fascist nation-statism would be able to “transcend” social conflict, first repressing those who fomented strife by “knocking both their heads together” and then incorporating classes and other interest groups into state corporatist institutions. The term “third way,” preferred by Eatwell, seems too weak for this goal of revolutionary transformation, too capable of being appropriated by centrist politicians such as Tony Blair. It was definitely not a compromise or a mere drawing

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

A Sociology of Fascist Movements 15

together of the best of both of them (as Eatwell says). For it did involve the supposed creation of a new man.

Fascism was partly a response to the crisis of capitalism (as materialists say), but it offered a revolutionary and supposedly achievable solution. We see below that the “core constituency” of fascist support can be understood only by taking seriously their aspirations to transcendence, for they were perfectly genuine about it. It was also the most ideologically powerful part of their appeal, for it offered a plausible, practicable vision of movement toward a better society. Transcendence was actually the central plank of fascism’s electoral program. In my previous work I have argued that ideologies are at their most powerful when they offer plausible yet transcendent visions of a better world. They combine the rational with the beyond-rational.

Nonetheless, transcendence was the most problematic and the most vari- able of fascism’s five key terms. It was never actually accomplished. In prac- tice most fascist regimes leaned toward the established order and toward capitalism. Fascists lacked a general critique of capitalism (unlike socialists), since they ultimately lacked interest in capitalism and class. Nation and state comprised their center of gravity, not class. This alone brought them into conflict with the left rather than the right since Marxists and anarchists, not conservatives, tended to be committed to internationalism. But fascists, unlike the political left and right, could be rather pragmatic about classes – unless they saw them as enemies of the nation. Thus they attacked not capi- talism per se but only particular types of profit-taking, usually by finance, or foreign or Jewish capitalists. In Romania and Hungary, where these types of capitalist dominated, this gave fascism a distinctly proletarian tone. Elsewhere fascist movements were more procapitalist. When they neared power, they encountered a special problem. Though they hoped to subordinate capital- ists to their own goals, as authoritarians they believed in managerial powers yet recognized that they themselves lacked the technocratic skills to run industry. Thus they compromised with capitalists. Moreover, the German and especially the Italian fascist coups were aided by upper-class support. In power Mussolini never seemed to be correcting this pro–ruling-class bias, though Hitler was different. Had his regime lasted much longer, I doubt the Reich economy could still have been called “capitalist.”

But in the short space of time allowed them, fascists did tend to backtrack from their original project of transcending class conflict. This “betrayal” is stressed by class interpretations of fascism and by others doubting the sincer- ity or consistency of fascist values (e.g., Paxton 1994, 1996). Yet fascists could not simply “settle down” into betrayal. All fascist movements remained riven between “radicals” and “opportunists,” and this imparted an unresolvable

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

16 Fascists

dynamic to the movement. One form of this was especially revealed during the Nazi regime. This dynamic displaced rather than abandoned the goal of transcendence. They would transcend ethnic and class strife, but remove only ethnic enemies – since compromise proved necessary with the capital- ist class enemy. This displacement of transcendent goals actually increased fascist murderousness – eventually in Italy as well as in Germany, as shown in my forthcoming book.

(4) Cleansing. Because opponents were seen as “enemies,” they were to be removed, and the nation cleansed of them. This was fascist aggression in action. It is distressing that we have recently become familiar again with “ethnic cleansing,” though cleansing of political enemies has been less pub- licized in the late twentieth century. Organic nationalists usually consider ethnic enemies the more difficult to cope with, since political identities may be changed more easily. Communists may be repressed, some killed, but if they recant, most can be admitted into the nation. Political cleansing thus often starts murderously, but eases off once the “enemy” gives in and is assimilated into the nation. Ethnic cleansing more often escalates, since the “enemy” may not be permitted to assimilate. Most fascisms entwined both ethnic and political cleansing, though to differing degrees. Even the Nazis’ supposed “enemies” appeared in mixed political-ethnic garb, as in the dreaded “Judeo-Bolshevik.” Movements such as Italian fascism or Spanish Nationalism identified most of their enemies in predominantly political terms. Thus the more ethnic Nazi end of the range was more murderous than the Italian.

(5) Paramilitarism was both a key value and the key organizational form of fascism. It was seen as “popular,” welling up spontaneously from below, but it was also elitist, supposedly representing the vanguard of the nation. Brooker (1991) homes in on the comradeship of fascist movements as their defining characteristic, and they certainly viewed their battle-hardened comradeship as an exemplar of the organic nation and the new man. Violence was the key to the “radicalism” of fascism. They overturned legal forms by killings. Through it, the people would effect class transcendence, “knocking heads together.” Its elitism and hierarchy would then dominate the authoritarian state that it would bring into being. In no case was a fascist movement merely a “party.” Indeed, the Italian fascists were organized only into paramilitaries for many years. Fascism was always uniformed, marching, armed, dangerous, and radically destabilizing of the existing order.

What essentially distinguishes fascists from the many military and monar- chical dictatorships of the world is this “bottom-up” and violent quality of its paramilitarism. It could bring popularity, both electorally and among elites.

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

A Sociology of Fascist Movements 17

Fascists always portrayed their violence as “defensive” yet “successful” – it could roll over enemies who were the real source of violence. Not everyone believed them, but many did, and this increased their popularity, their votes, and their attractiveness to elites. Paramilitarism thus offered them a distinc- tive approach to electoral democracy and existing elites, both of which they actually despised. Paramilitarism must always be viewed as entwined with other two main fascist power resources: in electoral struggle and in the un- dermining of elites. It was paramilitarism – caging the fascists, coercing their opponents, winning the support or respect of bystanders – that enabled fas- cists to do far more than their mere numbers could. Thus paramilitarism was violence, but it was always a great deal more than violence. It certainly did not confer enough effective violence for fascists to stage coups if that meant taking on the state’s army. Paramilitary was not the equivalent of military power. Only if fascists could neutralize military power by appealing to the soldiers themselves could fascist coups occur.

This combination of qualities obviously made fascists “revolutionary,” though not in conventional left-right terms. It would be inexact to call them “revolutionaries of the right,” as some have done. The combination also means that movements can be more or less fascist. We could in principle plot fascist movements (each one obviously unique) amid a five-dimensional space, though I confess that this is beyond my representational skills. It is also beyond my range here to compare fascist with communist movements in these respects, though there are some obvious similarities as well as some differences. They have been alternative, if failed, visions of modernity.

the appeal of fascism: class theory

To whom did these key characteristics appeal? What kinds of people be- came fascists, and what did they want fascism to accomplish? Curiously – since these are movements denying the importance of classes – class theo- rists dominate the answers. They see fascism as the product of class conflict and economic crisis, its main accomplishment being to solve the crisis by repressing the working class. Thus it was supported by other social classes. There have been two variants, one seeing fascism as essentially middle or lower middle class, the other as essentially an ally or tool of the capitalist class. Renton (2000) calls these the “right” and the “left” Marxist theo- ries, respectively. Marxists have understood the significance of violence and paramilitarism in fascism. Otto Bauer said that fascism was “the dictatorship of the armed gang.” But Marxists tend to discount fascist beliefs, reducing them to their supposed socio-economic base. They have no problem in

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

18 Fascists

seeing fascism as a single generic type. Since class and capitalism are univer- sal features of modern societies, fascism is also a universal potentiality. Yet since other social structures were just as universal across the early twentieth century, these might also imprint themselves on a single generic fascism – as I argue was the case with the nation-state and citizen warfare.

Anyone writing about the middle classes has first to cope with the plethora of labels used of those occupying the middle reaches of the class hierarchy. Different language groups cope differently. One includes everyone who is neither proletarian nor upper class in a cognate of the term “petty bour- geoisie.” This is so in Italian and Spanish, while the German Mittelstand (“middle estate”) can be similarly broad. Yet “petty bourgeoisie” is not in everyday English usage. Those who deploy it indicate only a subset of the middle strata – artisans, small shopkeepers, and small traders – small inde- pendent proprietors who may employ family but very little free-wage labor. I call this group “the classic petty bourgeoisie.” Germans often call them, together with state employees, the “old” Mittelstand. Though the classic petty bourgeoisie is often falsely believed to be prone to fascism, its small numbers could not have sustained such a large mass movement. Thus most “middle class” or “petty bourgeois” theories of fascism have been broader- based, seeing fascism as a combined movement of (in English usage) the “lower middle class” and the “middle class.” This combination I here la- bel simply as “the middle class,” in contradistinction to two other broadly labeled “classes”: the working class and the upper class. These terms are ob- viously not precision instruments, but since my empirical chapters explore occupational classifications in considerable detail – and show that classes by any definition make only a limited contribution to understanding fascists – this book does not need more precise class definitions.

As early as 1923 Salvatorelli was arguing that fascism was an independent movement of disgruntled middle-class people (I quote him in Chapter 3) and the Jewish Comintern leader Karl Radek was labeling fascism as “the socialism of the petty bourgeoisie.” Such interpretations strengthened after World War II, as research piled up seeming to confirm that fascists came disproportionately from nonelite, nonproletarian groups – and especially from the lower middle class (e.g., Lipset 1963: chap. 5; Bracher 1973: 145 Kater 1983: 236; Stachura 1983b: 28). The usual explanation offered for this was economic:

a malaise, a maladjustment of capitalist society . . . [affected those who were] . . . uprooted and threatened by social and economic change, whose position in society was being undermined, who had lost their traditional place, and were frightened of

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

A Sociology of Fascist Movements 19

the future. These were, above all, the lower middle classes – or rather certain groups within them: the artisans and independent tradesmen, the small farmers, the lower grade government employees and white-collar workers. (Carsten 1980: 232–3)

These theorists accept that some fascists were anticapitalist but believe that far more were antisocialist. Under fascism, capitalism would be controlled, but socialism destroyed. For – it is said – the middle class feared the threat from below more than that from above.

Middle-class theory has sometimes come in even broader forms. Fascism has been seen as the failure of an entire “middle class society” founded on liberalism and capitalism (Eley 1986: chaps. 9 and 10). It is difficult to see any precise meaning in this. Neither an entire society nor a whole epoch can be defined only in terms of a single class. Nor did liberalism or capital- ism in general fail. Others have stretched the theory by yoking the middle class to other, more marginal groups. Carsten (1976) summarizes a tradition stretching back into the 1920s to Togliatti, Tasca, Fromm, Reich, and Nolte by identifying the backbone of fascism as students, ex-soldiers, “jobless in- tellectuals,” déclassés, and the “lumpen proletariat,” joining together with small shopkeepers, artisans, and white-collar workers. This is a motley crew, perhaps reflecting more the author’s dislike of fascists than any principle of unity among these groups. Carsten suggests that such diverse people became fascists because they shared an experience of economic and status depri- vation. Indeed, some writers emphasize economic deprivation more than middle-class identity. Zetkin, Thalheimer, Löwenthal, Sauer, and Germani saw the deprived, the losers, the marginal, the uprooted as flocking to fascism – “a true community of bankruptcy,” declared Löwenthal. When- ever such writers believe an occupational group (be it soldiers, students, lawyers, or construction workers) was particularly fascist, they tend to at- tribute this to economic deprivation, unemployment, or declining wage levels. Rather curiously, most psychological theories of fascism have also been based on the middle class. The Frankfurt School reinterpreted Freudian theory to view “repression,” “the authoritarian personality,” “status insecu- rity,” and “irrationality” as being distinctively “bourgeois,” resulting espe- cially from the decay of the bourgeois family. None of these psychological theories of fascism is empirically well supported (as Payne 1995: 454, notes). And even if some of these groups were predisposed toward fascism, it may not have been for class reasons. Ex-officers might become fascists more be- cause of their military values, students more because of their age and the ideological climate of universities. People do not simply have a single social identity, conferred by class.

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

20 Fascists

In fact none of these middle-class theories now stand up very well. Like most political movements, fascism began among sections of the middle class. But once fascism became an established political movement, this changed, as Chapters 3 to 8 show. Most fascists in the larger movements were neither economically deprived nor particularly middle-class.4 After 1930 neither Nazis nor Nazi voters were especially bourgeois or petty bourgeois. They drew support from all classes. Italian fascists are still often seen as bourgeois, though the data are poor. Yet the Hungarian and Romanian rank-and-file were more proletarian (as Berend 1998: 342–3, has recently recognized). Payne’s comprehensive review accepts most of this, yet still tries to save something of middle-class theory. He concludes: “[M]iddle class radicalism” remains “one of the most important strands of fascism but is inadequate to provide a general theory” (1995: 445). Though this is a sensible conclusion, it does not take us very far. If persons from all classes became fascists, it seems unlikely that class consciousness or class conflict would directly explain much of fascism.

The second class theory sees fascists as essentially the allies or tools of the capitalist class. In its “imperialist” or “monopolist” or “crisis” phase in the early twentieth-century capitalism needed an authoritarian state in order to preserve itself against the rising proletariat. Though this theory may allow fascists a measure of “Bonapartist” “relative autonomy” from capitalism, they were ultimately accountable to capitalists. Thus Poulantzas actually defined fascism as an “exceptional capitalist state,” functionally necessary amid crisis to protect the capitalist class from the proletariat (1974: 11). Two crises supposedly threatened capitalism: the post-1918 surge in revolutionary socialism (causing the Italian seizure of power) and the mass unemployment and pressure on state budgets produced by the Great Depression (causing the Hitler seizure of power). Some see capitalists embracing fascism early and enthusiastically, but most have see the embrace as tardy, reluctant, and distrustful.

This theory has lost some of its popularity as Marxism has declined more generally. But Hobsbawm has endorsed it, saying that “faced with insoluble economic problems and/or an increasingly revolutionary working class, the bourgeoisie now had to fall back on force and coercion, that is to say, on something like fascism” (1994: 136).

Disregarding the dangerously functionalist expression “had to,” even a casual glance at the five major fascist countries reveals great variation in the extent to which capitalists might plausibly regard the proletariat as a dan- gerous threat. If they feared a nonexistent threat from below, perhaps we should enter into psychological rather than sociological analysis. Though

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

A Sociology of Fascist Movements 21

I do not quite do this, I puzzle over why the propertied classes appeared to overreact to a rather small level of threat from below. My solution is given in the final chapter. Empirically, while the degree of capitalist sup- port for fascist movements remains controversial, it has varied considerably between the different countries. As in middle-class theory, the evidence is sometimes padded out by rather stronger evidence of support from adjacent social groups, in this case from the “old regime” of the preceding period: monarchs, aristocrats, top civil servants, army high commands, churches, and higher professionals. Though these people also tended to be substantial property owners, their motives for supporting fascism might have derived from their military, religious, or old regime needs rather than from capitalist ones. Capitalist class theory is supported by the tendency of fascist leaders to backtrack on their claim to transcend class conflict. If such “sellouts” always occurred and dominated the subsequent trajectory of fascism, then the social background of the fascist rank-and-file would be largely irrelevant: Fascism would be indeed the handmaiden or stooge of capitalism. Sometimes it has been, more often not. In general I show that capitalist class theory – like middle-class theory – explains something, but not all that much, of fascism.

Some have sought to fuse these two class theories. Renton (2000: 101) says that though fascism is in origin “the socialism of the middle class,” it is ultimately reactionary, antiworker, and supportive of capitalism. Kitchen also believes the “social basis” of fascism was middle-class, but its essential “function” was capitalist. He says that “fascist parties were largely organiza- tions of the petit bourgeoisie” who comprised “the overwhelming major- ity.” Yet their role was to operate “in close conjunction with the capitalist elite” (1976: 59, 65). This dual approach can get a handle on some of the dynamics of fascist movements – on the tension between a “radical” petty bourgeois rank-and-file and more conservative and opportunistic leaders. The conflict ranging “radicals” such as Gregor Strasser and the SA rank- and-file against the more conservative-opportunist Hitler and Göring, or between “radical” Ras (local fascist bosses) and Mussolini, are often viewed in this way, with the leaders defeating the radicals. Again, all this has some truth content.

But by centering on “social base” and “objective functions,” most class theorists obviously ignore fascists’ own beliefs. They view fascism “from outside,” from a perspective that made little sense to fascists, who rebutted class theories as they did all “materialism.” Fascists focused elsewhere. At the beginning of Chapter 3 I present a class theory of Italian fascism (derived from Salvatorelli), and then Mussolini’s own account of why he embraced fascism. They appear to be discussing quite different things. Perhaps others

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

22 Fascists

knew better than Mussolini what he was up to, or perhaps he was distort- ing the truth (indeed, he partly was). But the disjunction is disconcerting, especially to a sociologist. Most sociologists subscribe to the maxim: “If people define things as real, they are real in their consequences.” If fascists believed they were pursuing certain goals, this belief had consequences for their actions and cannot be merely dismissed.

There is one final difficulty for a class interest–driven approach to fascism. Fascists were motivated by a highly emotional struggle to cleanse their nation of “enemies,” and so they indulged in reckless aggression and terrible evil. That aggression and evil usually did not benefit them materially. Fascists were too aggressive for their own good – especially in their keenness for war. They were chronically overconfident about what the new man could achieve. And though material interests drove forward some of the atrocities against Jews and other “enemies” (looting was ubiquitous), genocide is another matter. It did only material harm to Germany (and both army generals and SS officers entrusted with economic planning knew it). The fascist combination of morality, aggression, and murder ultimately confounds material interest theories. Fascists were driven by both value and instrumental rationality. Eventually, the former predominated and destroyed them.

The failure of nationalist interpreters of fascism in this regard is a different one. They fail to explore the core constituencies of fascism, unlike class theorists. They focus on the content of its ideology and ignore its social base. Occasionally, they just borrow the class interpretation. Curiously, values such as nationalism, racism, or militarism are said to be essentially “bourgeois” or “petty bourgeois” (Mosse 1964, 1966; Carsten 1980: 232). I am at a loss to understand why these values should be thought distinctively middle- class. Many scholars don’t seem to like the petty bourgeoisie. Maybe it is the class background from which they themselves are trying to escape. Even some nonclass theorists seem obsessed by class. Books with subtitles claiming to be “social profiles” of Nazi members and voters turn out to be 90 percent about occupation and classes (e.g., Kater 1983; Manstein 1988) – as if our social identities were 90 percent conferred by our occupational class!

Payne (1995) provides the most comprehensive review of fascists’ back- grounds. He explores their class backgrounds at great length. He also notes more briefly other relevant social characteristics, such as youthfulness and masculinity, the preponderance of military backgrounds, higher education, religion, and (occasionally) region. But he attempts to relate only the class data to general theories of fascism. The rest is treated as complicating detail and is not theorized. Linz (1976) had provided an excellent earlier analy- sis of fascists’ backgrounds – their occupations, sectors, regions, religions,

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

A Sociology of Fascist Movements 23

age, gender, and so on. But, puzzlingly (since he is a fine sociologist), he failed to find patterns underlying such apparently diverse identities. Though these scholars see fascism as extreme nationalism, they have not attempted to identify “core nationalist constituencies.” There is a gaping hole be- tween ideology and social base. We can fill it by recognizing nation-statist and paramilitary constituencies of support, alongside class constituencies. Class theories do have considerable truth content. Fascism borrowed heav- ily from class ideologies and organizations, was obsessed with the threat of “Bolshevism,” and was sensitive to class interests. Kitchen is correct: We should understand fascism’s social base and functions. Yet “social” should not be equated with “class.” Let us briefly examine the social settings in which fascism resonated.

the social resonance of fascism

Very large numbers of fascists have so far appeared only amid five social settings. I start with the very broadest.

The Macro-Period: Interwar Crises of European Modernity

The interwar period in Europe was the setting that threw up most of the self-avowed fascists and saw them at their high tide. My definition is intended firstly as “European-epochal,” to use Eatwell’s (2001) term (cf. Kallis 2000: 96), applying primarily to that period and place – though perhaps with some resonance elsewhere. The period and the continent contained four major crises: the consequences of a devastating “world,” but in fact largely European, war between mass citizen armies, severe class conflict exacerbated by the Great Depression, a political crisis arising from an attempted rapid transition by many countries toward a democratic nation-state, and a cultural sense of civilizational contradiction and decay. Fascism itself recognized the importance of all four sources of social power by explicitly claiming to offer solutions to all four crises. And all four played a more specific role in weakening the capacity of elites to continue ruling in old ways.

It is nonetheless possible that fascism had different causes in each country – here generated by defeat in war, there by the Great Depression. Yet fascism was strongest where we find distinctive combinations of all four. The prob- lem is one of degree: To what extent did each crisis – economic, military, political, and ideological – contribute to the rise of fascism? The problem is discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 2. These crises seem to have been necessary causes of fascism. Without them, no fascism. But none seems to

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

24 Fascists

have been an individually sufficient cause. Most countries coped with crisis without turning to organic nation-statism, let alone fascism. So this leads to a second level of analysis, and specifically to the question: Which places made these turns?

The Macro-Place: One-Half of Europe

In the interwar period, as Map 2.1 will reveal below, virtually all of Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe embraced a family of rightist authoritarian governments, one of whose members was fascism. Only tiny minorities in the northwest of the continent sought such government. There were also fascist-leaning movements in the more economically developed coun- tries of other continents, especially Japan, South Africa, Bolivia, Brazil, and Argentina. Here fascism had some resonance, though just how much is a matter of debate (Payne 1995: chap 10; Larsen 2001). My general view of these non-European cases is that none combined all the essential values of fascism listed above. Japan, for example, did have a highly developed nation-statism that produced the most sophisticated quasifascist economic theory in the world (Gao 1997: chaps. 2 and 3). Yet it lacked a bottom-up mass movement or paramilitary (see Brooker 1991 for comparisons between Japan and Europe). Militarism, not paramilitarism, dominated what many call Japanese “fascism.” In contrast, Argentina and Brazil generated mass populist and somewhat authoritarian movements with some “radical” and statist tendencies, but these lacked cleansing nationalism. We can find theo- rists all over the interwar world reading Barrès, Mussolini, Hitler, and so on, adapting them to local conditions and then arriving at their own quasifascist doctrines. In India, for example, Golwalkar adapted Hitler’s racial theories to his demand for a pure and organic Hindu theocratic state. Infuse the RSS Hindu paramilitary movement with such theories and the blend is quite close to Nazism ( Jaffrelot 1996). But in the 1930s this movement was tiny, like almost all the other quasifascist militias and parties of the time. Only one continent came anywhere near being dominated by fascism: Europe.

Why did authoritarian nation-statism dominate one-half of Europe, lib- eral democracy the other half ? It cannot have been some general crisis of modern society, such as the Great Depression or the defects of liberalism, for then it would have affected all of Europe, not just half of it. The differ- ence is one that turns crucially on the behavior of political conservatives, “old regimes,” and the property-owning classes. For here class does matter, profoundly, if in a rather peculiar way. Right across one-half of Europe, the upper classes turned toward more repressive regimes, believing these could

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

A Sociology of Fascist Movements 25

protect themselves against the twin threats of social disorder and the political left. But this does not seem to have been very “rational” behavior. For they greatly exaggerated the threats and neglected safer means of avoiding them that were prevalent across the northwest. They overreacted, reaching for the gun too abruptly, too early. Explaining this puzzle – of class behavior that seems somewhat irrational – is one of the principal tasks of this book. Such an explanation is essential to understanding the macro-regional environ- ment of authoritarian nation-statism in which fascism could flourish. But this cannot also explain the specific emergence of fascism, since only a few countries in this zone actually generated mass fascism, and they did not usually do so at the initiative of the upper classes.

Meso-Places: The Five Fascist Countries

Why did Italians, Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, and Romanians embrace fascism in such large numbers when most of their neighbors stopped at milder movements? It is true that quite large quasi-fascist movements later emerged in a few regions of other countries, as in the Sudetenland, Slovakia, the Ukraine, or Croatia. I examine these, but in my forthcoming book. Yet few fascists emerged in other countries and regions. Fascists did not surge only in the more economically advanced countries or in the Greater Powers of the center, east, and south (as is often argued). This argument stems from obsession with Germany and Italy. But Hungary and Romania were rather backward countries and minor powers – and so some writers argue that it is backwardness that generates fascism (e.g., Berend 1998). Yet fascism had sufficiently broad appeal – like socialism – that it could be interpreted in the light of either an advanced or a backward economy. To explain this, we must look for the commonality between these cases – and this can hardly be level of development. But this will not provide a sufficient answer. For even in these countries, only some people (minorities at that) became fascists. Who were they and why did they become fascists?

Meso-Places: Core Fascist Constituencies

Which particular social groups within these countries were most attracted to fascism? I spend many pages over several chapters examining the so- cial backgrounds of fascist leaders, militants, members, fellow-travelers, co- conspirators and voters – compared (wherever possible) with their counter- parts in other political movements. How old were fascists, were they men or women, military or civilian, urban or rural, religious or secular, economic

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

26 Fascists

winners or losers, and from which regions, economic sectors, and social classes did they come? I have gratefully pillaged the work of the scholars of many countries to assemble the broadest collection of data yet presented on fascists. These data suggest three core “fascist constituencies” among which the fascist values and organizations identified earlier resonated most strongly, and which therefore came to organize actual fascist movements. Of course, fascist constituencies did not come ready-made. Fascists had to discover them and then they had to work on them, organizing, persuading, bribing, coercing. Some fascists were more agile than others. Some fascist movements misperceived their constituencies, some stumbled on them al- most by accident (as the Nazis stumbled on German Protestantism). Since not all fascist movements were the same, their constituencies also differed somewhat. Yet amid the variations and the accidents we can perceive the following three broad patterns of mass support. This support came from the millions who voted fascist and the thousands who joined fascist organiza- tions. Both were critical to fascist success, though in very different ways. For the moment, however, I am not distinguishing them

(1) Constituencies Favoring Paramilitarism. The fascist core consisted every- where of two successive generations of young men, coming of age between World War I and the late 1930s. Their youth and idealism meant that fascist values were proclaimed as being distinctively “modern” and “moral.” They were especially transmitted through two institutions socializing young men: secondary and higher education, encouraging notions of moral progress, and the armed forces, encouraging militarism. Since the appeal was mainly to young men, it was also distinctly macho, encouraging an ethos of braggart, semi-disciplined violence, in peacetime encouraging militarism to mutate into paramilitarism. The character of fascism was set by young men so- cialized in institutions favorable to moralizing violence and eventually to murder. Yet the similarity of values between paramilitarism and militarism always gave fascism a capacity to appeal to armed forces themselves, not to the extent of inducing military rebellions but to the extent of generating sympathy there that at its most extreme could immobilize the army.

(2) Constituencies Favoring Transcendence. Fascism was usually neither partic- ularly bourgeois nor particularly petty bourgeois. True, there were some class biases in Italy and perhaps also in Austria. But after 1930 there were none in Germany (if we add the SA and SS paramilitaries to the Nazi Party). These fascist coups also received some support from upper classes. But Romanian and Hungarian fascists were recruited more from proletarian than bour- geois backgrounds and received less upper-class support. Class composition was thus complex and variable. Yet there were more constant tendencies

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

A Sociology of Fascist Movements 27

of economic sector. Fascists tended to come from sectors that were not in the front line of organized struggle between capital and labor. They were less likely to be workers in urban, manufacturing settings (though they were around Budapest and Bucharest because industry there was more part of the “statist” constituency). They were less likely to be small or large business- men or their managers. Yet they were not “marginal” or “rootless.” Their social location was (for the interwar period) relatively secure. But from their slightly removed vantage point they viewed class struggle with distaste, fa- voring a movement claiming to transcend class struggle. Of course, in most cases transcendence was not achieved, and we find tension (noted by many writers) between a more “radical” fascist base and a more “opportunist” leadership faction seeking compromise with elites. Similarly, capitalists and old regimes might also provide a more opportunistic constituency for such flawed transcendence. But if we do take fascists’ beliefs seriously, then it would follow that fascism would appeal to those viewing class struggle from “outside,” declaring “a plague on both your houses!”

(3) Constituencies Favoring Nation-Statism. Fascists’ backgrounds appeared rather heterogeneous. They tended to have had military experience, be highly educated, work in the public or service sectors and come from par- ticular regional and religious backgrounds. For many observers, this has confirmed that fascism was a “ragbag” movement (a particularly prevalent view of the Nazis, as we see in Chapter 4). But there was a principle of unity amid these varied attributes: Fascists were at the heart of either the nation or the state. Some “nation-statist” locations were similar across countries: Sol- diers and veterans above all, but also civil servants, teachers, and public sector manual workers were all disproportionately fascist in almost all the countries of mass fascism. Other characteristics varied by country. Rather distinc- tively, industrial development around the capitals of Hungary and especially Romania was state-assisted, which gave some private-sector workers a more statist orientation. Religion was almost everywhere important, reinforcing organic nation-statism (except in Italy, where the Church was transnational). Evangelicals in Germany between 1925 and 1935, the Orthodox faithful and clergy in Romania, and Catholics in “Austro-Fascism” were drawn toward fascism since these religions were central to the identity of their desired nation-state. Among Germans the role of religion varied as Nazism itself changed: The perpetrators of genocide, unlike earlier Nazi voters, were disproportionately ex-Catholics (I demonstrate and seek to explain this in my forthcoming volume). In some countries fascists came more from re- gions that had been at the heart of the historic state or nation, but more often they came from “threatened” border territories or from refugees from

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

28 Fascists

“lost territories.” We see below that these were all distinctively nation-statist constituencies.

Obviously, not all fascists were from these three core constituencies, nor were all inhabitants of such constituencies fascists. Nor did fascism remain unchanged in its values or characteristics. Nor were vaguely sympathetic persons taking ten minutes to register their votes the same as elites scheming for a year to do a deal with fascists. Neither were these the same as the fascist member or militant devoting enormous time and energy to the movement – perhaps even risking life. Let us consider them.

The Micro-Cage: Fascist Movements

“Fascists” were not fully formed at the moment they entered the move- ment. People may formally sign up for a movement and yet possess only a rudimentary knowledge of it – sympathy for a few slogans, respect for a charismatic Führer or Duce, or simply following friends who have joined. Most recruits joined the movement young, unmarried, unformed, with lit- tle adult civilian experience. On them, fascist parties and paramilitaries were especially powerful socialization agencies. These movements were proudly elitist and authoritarian, enshrining a pronounced hierarchy of rank and an extreme cult of the leader. Orders were to be obeyed, discipline to be imposed. Above all, they imposed a requirement of activism. Thus mili- tants experienced intense emotional comradeship. Where the movement was proscribed, clandestinity tightened it. Many activists lost their jobs or went into prison or exile. Though this deterred many of the more faint- hearted, among those remaining active such constraints further tightened the movement.

So did paramilitarism. In some fascist movements (such as the early Italian or the Romanian) the paramilitary was the movement; in others (such as the Nazi) the paramilitaries existed alongside party institutions. The paramili- taries were time-consuming, enjoining discipline tempered by comradeship in pursuit of small group violence. Members felt strong pressures on them that were simultaneously coercive and pleasurable, since they involved phys- ical hardship and danger, abusive discipline, intense comradeship, and a very active collective social life amounting in some cases to a cage, a virtual “total institution,” in Goffman’s sense of the term. Obviously, some were put off by this and many left. But for those who stayed, paramilitarism provided distinctive fascist socialization. For example, Austrian Nazis were perse- cuted by their government during the years 1934 to 1938. Many fled to Germany, where in the SS and its Austrian Legion they became full-time

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

A Sociology of Fascist Movements 29

revolutionaries, “working” together, drinking together in Nazi bars, sleep- ing together in Nazi barracks.5 It was from such socially caged groups that fascist leaders liked to recruit “reliable,” “toughened” cadres for especially murderous tasks.

They became well prepared for violence. The one adult experience of many of the early young recruits was war. The first, or “front,” generation of fascists had almost all fought in World War I; the second, or “home,” gen- eration had only been schoolboys during the war, though many had been longing to fight and now did so in the many paramilitary border skirmishing campaigns occurring around Europe in the immediate aftermath of the war. The third generation of recruits received only distorted remembrances of war from their elders, but they were plunged into extralegal street violence. By this time the longer-term members might be inured to “peacetime” violence, and they were commanding the new recruits. Moreover, success- ful and unpunished violence may have both a cathartic and a liberating effect on the perpetrators. It can take them beyond conventional morality and into technically illegal behavior, past points of no return, reinforcing their collective sense of being a segregated, hardened elite, beyond con- ventional standards of behaviour. For these young men, this was reinforced by two more conventional qualities of “gangs”: the resonance of violence amid macho assertions of masculinity and the excessive consumption of inhibition-releasing alcohol. It is difficult to think of fascist paramilitaries without barroom violence. All these qualities make violence easier to repeat, once embarked on.

Careers within the fascist movement also brought material and status re- wards. As the movement expanded, so did the promotion prospects and the power, the pickings, and the status. But promotion required character qualities beyond mere opportunism. Fascist elites became staffed dispro- portionately by experienced, “reliable,” “toughened” members. Educated reliables became the “officers” of fascism, less-educated “old fighters” be- came the “NCOs.” At most levels experienced, inured, “toughened” fas- cists provided an order-giving elite, able to discipline and socialize the newcomers into “normal” fascist behavior. Fascist movements had dif- fering trajectories. The smaller movements of Northwestern Europe of- ten rose and then declined quite quickly. When their members got the worse of street fighting, many sensibly decided to quit. But in the five major fascist countries it is impossible to understand the success of only thousands of fascists, amid the opposition/indifference of millions, with- out appreciating the contribution made by their extraordinary and violent activism.

P1: IWV/KAF 0521827094c01.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:20

30 Fascists

overview of the book

The above conceptual framework helps to explain fascists. I examine the social crises and the responses of elites, of the thousands who joined fascist movements, and of the millions who sympathized. The next chapter exam- ines interwar crises, explaining the macro-level: why one half of Europe was receptive, the other half hostile. Since I believe I can answer this question, it is not necessary to examine variations among the hostile cases of North- western Europe. Instead, the following seven chapters deal with the other half of the continent in order to explain why some went more for fascism, others for other types of authoritarian rightist movements. This is the basis of my choice of six case-study countries. In Italy, Germany (which gets two chapters), and Austria, fascism dominated and rose into power unassisted. In two – Hungary and Romania – fascists became almost equal players in a kind of dialectic of death within the authoritarian family. The final country – Spain – was the most riven by struggles between democrats and author- itarians and illuminates those cases where fascism remained a subordinate member of the authoritarian family. My methodology in these case studies is almost entirely secondary analysis of other scholars’ primary research – to whom I therefore owe an enormous debt of gratitude. The case studies then permit me to develop a more general explanation of fascists’ rise, which is presented in my concluding chapter.

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

2

Explaining the Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism

introduction: the rise of strong nation-states

To explain fascism we must place it in its context. For three decades it was just one variant of a broader political ideal: “authoritarian nation-statism.” In turn, this was just one version of the dominant political ideal of modernity, the strong nation-state. But fascism dominated only in Europe, where it was set inside a single large geographical bloc of authoritarian regimes. Since Europe elsewhere remained liberal democratic, there were “two Europes.” The period of fascism’s explosive growth was also rent by economic, military, political, and ideological crises. So this chapter discusses the rise of nation- states across the map of Europe, amid four social crises.

State strength has two dimensions, infrastructural and despotic (see Mann 1988). Infrastructural power indicates the capacity of the state to enforce rules and laws by effective infrastructures covering its territories and peo- ples. An infrastructurally strong state may be democratic or authoritarian. The democratic United States has more infrastructural state power than did the authoritarian Soviet Union. This type of power is power “through” peo- ple, not power “over” them. But despotic power refers to the ability of state elites to take their own decisions “over” their subjects/citizens. Virtually all modern states have come to possess greater infrastructural powers than their historical predecessors, while some have also wielded formidable despotic powers. The combination of a substantial amount of both powers is distinctive to authoritarian states of the twentieth century, which I am here seeking to explain. How did the combination arise? The answer is by exaggerating ordinary modern political ideals.

By the twentieth century, Europe already contained “sovereign nation- states.” That is, each of these states was claiming political sovereignty over certain territories, deriving legitimacy from the “people” or “nation”

31

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

32 Fascists

inhabiting them (many were still multiethnic, of course). Yet nation-states are young. From the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, monarchs were claiming state sovereignty in foreign policy, “upper-class nations” were emerging, and religious wars might produce “nations of the soul.” But the mass of the population became real members of the “nation” more recently. States up to the eighteenth century actually did rather little. They conducted diplomacy and small foreign wars, they wielded the highest level of justice and repression. They formally regulated foreign trade and possessed eco- nomic monopolies normally subcontracted out to others. Some controlled the price of grain in order to avoid rioting near the capital. Only if buttressed by established and pliant churches did states penetrate much of social life outside their capitals and “home counties.” Yet eighteenth-century states did monopolize the function of military violence, and this now surged. Around 1700, states absorbed perhaps 5 percent of GNP in peacetime, 10 percent in wartime. By 1760, the wartime extraction rate had risen to the range 15 to 25 percent. By 1810, they took 25 to 35 percent and conscripted about 5 percent of the population. These rates (calculated in Mann 1993: chap. 11) are similar to those of the world wars of the twentieth century and to the highest rates in the world today, those of Israel and North Korea. Such comparisons enable us to appreciate the scale of the eighteenth century transformation. From being fairly insignificant, states loomed large in the lives of their subjects through tax gatherers and recruiting sergeants. They aroused subjects out of their historic political indifference to demand rep- resentative rights. Thus did membership in the nation, “citizenship,” first become the modern political ideal.

Yet even in the nineteenth century, few saw states as the route to achieve many important social purposes. Freedom was mostly seen as freedom from, not through, the state. Only with the Jacobins during the French Revolu- tion was the notion expressed that a stronger state and a more activist con- ception of citizenship might be socially and morally desirable. Jacobinism was defeated, but state expansion then took a more surreptitious route, fu- eled by the development of industrial capitalism. States sponsored road and canal building and took over poor relief. France continued to favor more state coordination of economic activity than either Britain or the United States did, while in Germany came a challenge to laissez-faire through the protectionist theories of Friedrich List. By the late century some economic theory had become a little more statist, with the state beginning to coor- dinate banking and industrial investment. In the late nineteenth century came further state organization of railroads, mass education, public health, and finally the first stirrings of welfare programs. These were all growths in

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 33

infrastructural power. Since these were all desirable goods, to be paid for by undesirable taxes, more and more of the population became interested in representative government and in citizenship – that is, in reducing despotic powers.

These state activities also had the unintended consequence of consolidat- ing networks of social interaction, “civil societies,” substantially bounded by the territories of each state. This fueled an implicit sense of nationhood – less an ideology of nationalism than a recognition that one actually lived in the same society under the same state as one’s fellow-subjects/citizens. But explicit nationalism also strengthened during the same period. In the north- western countries of Europe and in European colonies in which “rule by the people” had first been secured, “the people” had been limited to propertied males, recognized as having diverse “interests,” as gentlemen, merchants, manufacturers, artisans, and so on. The citizen body was internally stratified and existed above lower classes, who were entitled to some but not all the rights of citizenship. The people or nation was counterposed to reactionary old regimes, yet it was internally diverse, and it was not usually hostile to other nations.

Yet a more aggressive nationalism grew during the nineteenth century (Mommsen 1990). To some extent it grew because aspirations for represen- tative government became dominated by the notion that the whole people must rule, since it shared certain virtues and qualities needed for citizenship. It especially grew across the more easterly regions dominated by “multieth- nic” dynastic Empires – Habsburg, Romanov, and Ottoman. Here conflicts between the imperial rulers and the locals were transformed by demands for democracy into conflicts between supposed ethnic/national communities. Local disprivileged elites claiming representative rights for themselves, faced with pressures from below, sought to mobilize the “whole” people against the imperial ethnicity and its local ethnic clients. This fostered acceptance of Corradini’s notion that “the proletarian nation” might rise up against op- pressors. Croats, Slovenes, and others might resent Turkish or Serb domina- tion; Romanians might resent Hungarians; Slovaks might resent Czechs; and almost everyone might resent the dominant Germans, Russians, and Turks. The imperialist Germans, Russians, and Turks (and later the Hungarians) then responded with their own counternationalisms. Jews suffered because they were cosmopolitan and therefore considered antinational. But anti- Semitism was also entwined with other nationalist conflicts: Czech anti- Semitism was propelled by anti-German sentiment, Slovak by anti-Magyar, while Magyar and Austrian anti-Semitism was propelled by yearnings for imperial revisionism. In all these cases Jews were hated partly because of

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

34 Fascists

their supposed alliance with some other national enemy. Nationalism, at first an idealistic alliance directed internally against “feudal” rulers, turned aggressive inside and out against other “nations.”

Thus emerged the ideal of the organic as opposed to the liberal, stratified nation-state (or “ethnic nationalism,” as opposed to “civic nationalism”). Consider Austria (analyzed by Schmidt-Hartmann 1988, and discussed fur- ther in my forthcoming volume). In 1882 three young Austrian politi- cians propounded the “Linz Program,” which was intended to found a new German People’s Party. The program combined German nationalism, uni- versal suffrage, and progressive social legislation. It denounced equally liber- alism, laissez-faire capitalism, and Marxian socialism. The three men declared that whereas liberals advocated a constitution enshrining the conflict of in- terests, they upheld the “substance” of democracy. Their legitimacy, they said, was grounded in the unity of the people, “the good of all,” “the inter- ests of the people.” The projected party never materialized. The three split and went off to found their own parties. Adler became a leader of the Social Democrats, Lueger founded the Christian Socials, and Schönerer founded what became the Pan-German Party – these were the three mass parties of interwar Austria, generating rather totalizing social movements, and two of them generating fascist movements (to be encountered in Chapter 6).

These young Austrians were endorsing an organic conception of the peo- ple and state. The people, they said, was one and indivisible, united, integral. Thus its state need not be grounded on the institutionalization of conflict between contending interests. One national movement could represent the whole people, ultimately transcending any conflict of interests among social groups within it. Class conflict and sectional interests were to be not com- promised but transcended. This seemed a fine ideal, but it had its dark side (discussed at much greater length in my forthcoming volume). All states actually contained minorities who had their own distinct cultural traits. Some had cultural links to another foreign state, which their own ethnicity dominated and which they considered to be their “homeland.” Organic nationalists looked suspiciously at these people. They were considered to have divided loyalties and so should be excluded from full membership in the nation. So organic nationalists came to believe in (1) an enduring na- tional character, soul, or spirit, distinguishable from that of other nations, (2) their right to a state that would ultimately express this, and (3) their right to exclude minorities with different characters, who would only weaken the nation.

This is the familiar story of “the rise and rise” of nations and modern states – to which I have contributed myself (Mann 1986, 1993: esp. chaps. 10

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 35

and 11). Yet the expansion of these national networks of interaction pro- ceeded alongside expanding “transnational” power relations – industrial cap- italism and attendant ideologies such as liberalism and socialism, plus the broader cultural networks provided by European/Christian/“white” senses of collective identity. Property was everywhere overwhelmingly “private.” No state intervened much in the economy, except to levy tariffs on im- ports for economic protection, to coordinate communications networks (especially railways), and to regulate banking. Around the European semi- periphery arose further notions of state-aided “late development” policies, but these were not very important before 1914. Thus much of social life remained outside the sphere of competence of the nation-state, even during its great period of expansion. Few expected much more from the state.

Nor did most politicians. Before 1914, most leftists were committed to decentralized versions of democracy and were ambivalent about the state. On the far left, residual Jacobinism was outweighed by profound distrust of all existing states and of the nationalism that supported them. Socialist ide- ology recognized only transnational classes (though practices often differed). Marx’s notorious silence on the postrevolutionary state, his glib statements on how the state would “wither away” and on how the working class had no nation, were examples of the left’s indifference toward the emerging nation-state. Marxists hoped to sweep states away, after using them briefly to change property forms. Anarcho-syndicalists felt it was safer for the left to bypass states altogether. True, leftists wanted the state to relieve poverty and to expand free education. Nonetheless, prewar welfare reformism was usually led not by socialists but by “bourgeois” left-liberals who felt more at home in a state that had long enfranchised them. Thus it tended to be German “Socialists of the [Professor’s] Chair,” British “New Liberals,” French Republican Radicals, and Russian liberal zemstvo intelligentsia, more than the Marxian or syndicalist left, who looked to an expanded state to sponsor economic, cultural, and moral development. But they all saw this as helping to bring greater democracy. They wanted a reduction in despotic powers.

Things were a little different on the right, since extreme nationalists had emerged before 1914. They were already urging old regimes to mo- bilize the nation to defeat the corrosive forces of liberalism and socialism. As Sternhell emphasizes, many fascist ideas were already circulating before 1914. But though they excited some intellectuals, they had been harnessed to mass movements, which had been first developed by leftist parties and then copied by just a few nationalist parties. They were held in check by old regimes and churches who still controlled most states and most votes

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

36 Fascists

and who still looked askance at mass mobilization. The nation, the masses, were to be spoken for by elites, not activated. As Eley (1980) emphasizes, rightist nationalist pressure groups were beginning to alarm German con- servatives and destabilize German foreign policy, but their role in domestic policy was much smaller. Austria probably saw the most developed mass movements of nationalism (Schorske 1981: chap 3). Though state functions were widening, most conservatives saw the state as little more than the pre- server of order and the aggrandizer of territory. As on the left, the state was not generally seen as “the bearer of a moral project” (to repeat Perez-Diaz’s resonant phrase). Nationalists were beginning to oppress minorities, while a moderate increase in the “infrastructural power” of the state was considered desirable. But these had definite limits and there was no real drive toward increasing the despotic power of the state. Despotism and authoritarianism were generally seen as characteristics of “old regimes” that would eventually wither away in the face of modernity. In 1914 few could have envisaged a fascist or even a milder authoritarian future.

Had Europe remained at peace, state expansion would doubtless have gradually continued and states would have acquired more infrastructural powers. Industrial capitalism would have continued to require state assis- tance. The enfranchisement of workers and women would have fostered the development of the welfare state. A “moderate nation-statism” would have emerged anyway, amended by state-led “late development” theory on the semi-periphery. But the Great War intervened. It militarized the nation-state and provided an economic model of how state intervention and planning might achieve economic development. It provided a “paramilitary” model of collective social action, weakened traditional conservatism, de- stroyed the multinational empires that were the main rivals to the nation- state, and strengthened aggressive nationalism against the enemy. With the coming to power of Lloyd George, Clemenceau, and Ludendorff in 1916 came the signal that war was now to be “total” – to be conducted not by a gentlemanly old regime but by a nation mobilized for military and economic service. Businessmen, labor leaders, civil servants, generals, and politicians served alongside each other in a single state-coordinated administration. This did not happen as effectively in Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, and this was blamed on the strength of their old regimes (and on the “unpatriotic” stance of their socialists). Even noncombatant states in Northern Europe were compelled by blockade and submarine warfare to intervene in major ways (especially to introduce rationing, a radical extension of state pow- ers). In Europe only neutral Spain and Portugal continued as before, their old regimes and weak states still legitimate. Yet most states had substituted

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 37

effectively for private and market actions in achieving massive collective purposes on behalf of the nation. Modern statism had arrived, alongside modern nationalism.

Though wartime apparatuses of intervention were dismantled afterward, the infrastructurally powerful state was here to stay. The franchise was ex- tended and governments were expected to alleviate postwar unemployment and housing shortages. Social citizenship was added to political citizenship. More ambitious schemes of social reconstruction and economic develop- ment began to circulate among technocrats, including economists. On the left socialists now vanquished their anarcho-syndicalist rivals (except in neu- tral Spain) and began to see revolution and reform alike as accomplished through more state action. Prewar visions of a democracy largely bypassing the state seemed obsolete. In Russia, war and civil war made the Bolsheviks more ardent statists. Elsewhere liberalism mutated into social democracy and moderate statism crept forward.

But most of the drama occurred on the right. Mainly under the banner of increasing statism, it swept into power over one-half of interwar Europe. Its eruption was a surprise, for the peace settlements of 1918 had been dom- inated by liberals. President Woodrow Wilson had proclaimed the coming of the “democratic world revolution.” The Versailles delegates replaced the Austro-Hungarian and parts of the Russian and Ottoman Empires with a dozen putative democracies. Though these tended to enshrine the rule of a single dominant nation, their constitutions guaranteed the rights of minori- ties. Some liberals and socialists even hoped the rest of the world – colonies and dependent states – might soon follow suit. A new world order of mild and democratic nation-states seemed inaugurated.

Indeed, after brief postwar turbulence, Europe did seem headed that way. In late 1920 all but one of its twenty-eight states states had constitutions en- shrining parliamentary elections, competing political parties, and guarantees for minorities. Most suffrages still excluded women (some excluded many men), some executives had powers rivaling legislatures, and political prac- tices were often at odds with constitutional norms. But liberal democracy seemed the coming, modern ideal. The sole deviant case, the Soviet Union, actually claimed to be more genuinely democratic. The omens for tolerant nationalism were not so good. Millions of minority refugees were fleeing back to their national homelands under pressure from their former states (this is dealt with in my forthcoming volume). But, overall, the Great Powers believed the liberal democratic nation-state was the twentieth century.

By the end of the twentieth century, in Europe as in the west as a whole, it was. The northwest of Europe has been firmly liberal or social democratic

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

38 Fascists

Map 2.1. The two interwar Europes.

for many decades, as have been the political institutions (at first for whites only) of their major settler ex-colonies. Southern European authoritarian regimes were gone by 1975. The communist regimes of the east collapsed suddenly in 1989–91. At the end of the millennium, all of Europe’s states were formally committed to multiparty democracy, though some regimes in former communist countries had dubious credentials and ethnic ten- sions surfaced in a few. But Yugoslavia seems an alien exception to most Europeans. Though democracy proves hard to export to other parts of the world, it dominates the west.

But between 1920 and 1945 the liberal democratic nation-state retreated, battered by authoritarians. By 1938, fifteen of Europe’s twenty-seven par- liamentary regimes were rightist dictatorships, most claiming to embody a single organic nation, curtailing minority rights. Map 2.1 specifies the date each had its main coup. In other continents the four white-majority former British colonies – the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand – had democracies for whites only (only New Zealand then al- lowed free representation of most nonwhites; South Africa and Rhodesia

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 39

also had impeccable parliamentary institutions for whites only). But the two major Asian states, Japan and China, had succumbed to authoritarianism; while in Latin America only Uruguay, Colombia, and Costa Rica stayed consistently democratic, with most regimes fluctuating. So the interwar pe- riod saw two fairly evenly matched global and European blocs, one liberal democratic, the other organic-authoritarian. Both sought infrastructurally stronger states; only the latter sought greater despotic powers as well. The pe- riod then culminated in total warfare between the two. How do we explain the rise of interwar authoritarianism over half, but not all, of the relatively advanced part of the world and of Europe? Answering this question is a necessary preliminary to understanding a second question: Why did fascism arise? The map of Europe gives us our first clues.

geography: the two europes

Map 2.1, the political map of interwar Europe, reveals two subcontinents, “two Europes,” one liberal democratic, the other authoritarian. The two Europes were geographically distinct, one occupying the northwest of the continent, the other its center, east, and south. Except for Czechoslovakia (which slightly curtailed the rights of its German and Slovak minorities), liberal democracy comprised a single bloc of eleven countries across the northwest: Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and France. Almost all the other liberal democracies of the world were former British colonies. Thus the liberal democratic bloc comprised three socio-cultural zones – “Nordic,” “Anglo-Saxon,” and “Low Country” – linked through a sea-trading econ- omy and political and ideological similarities. They had embraced consti- tutional rule well before 1900. The Anglo-Saxon world spoke English; the Nordic countries (except for Finland) spoke mutually intelligible dialects of the same language group; and across the whole region, except for France, Belgium, and Czechoslovakia, elites might often converse in English.

Apart from Ireland they also had rather depoliticized religions. Ten of the sixteen were majority Protestant. Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, and Ireland were majority Catholic, while the Netherlands and Switzerland were divided between the two religions. They included all the majority Protestant countries of Europe except for Germany, Estonia, and Latvia. But they included all the Protestant countries where church-state links had weakened significantly over the past century. Dutch and Swiss Catholicism were also independent of the state, while Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and France were rather secular Catholic countries (and the Czech church was in conflict

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

40 Fascists

with the Vatican). The northwest shared a great deal besides just the liberal democratic nation-state, and its geographical cohesion permitted the flow of common ideological messages. As we see below, its cultural solidarity was to matter considerably.

Most of the organic-authoritarian family also formed a single geographic bloc, though it was formed of two rather distinct historic socio-cultural zones: “Latin/Mediterranean” and “Slav/East and Central European.” Their languages were more diverse and they were not a trading bloc. But (apart from most of Germany, Estonia, and Latvia) they had remained with the two early Christian churches: They comprised most of the Catholic countries and all the Eastern Orthodox countries in Europe. And they comprised all the European countries except for Ireland retaining intense church-state links. Again, these cultural solidarities – and the cultural fault lines within this zone – will prove important in the generation of authori- tarianism and fascism.

Around this “continental divide” between the two Europes we can even detect a “frontier zone,” indicated on the map. Most of it was comprised by two large countries, France and Germany. These were the swing countries that might have gone the other way. France might have gone authoritarian and Germany might have remained parliamentary, since both saw prolonged struggle between democratic and authoritarian forces, as they had during the previous period. The main prewar proto-fascist theorists (Maurras, Barrès, Sorel) were French, and France had the largest interwar authoritarian par- ties of both right and left in the northwest. As the power of Nazi Germany rose, the realization of French weakness grew and conservatives began to split over possible solutions. Fascist voices became louder. Had the election due in 1940 been held (and in peacetime), the quasi-fascist PSF might have won over 100 parliamentary seats, suggests Soucy (1991). Later, the Vichy collaborating regime had considerable domestic support. Conversely, the Weimar Republic contained an advanced democracy that might have sur- vived. And the eventual outcome of the struggle in France and Germany might also be explicable in terms of geography, for their political “heart- lands” lay close to the “other” geographic bloc. Paris and the surrounding Ile de France lie in the north, while France’s advanced economic regions were mostly in the northwest. France was as integrated into the northwest- ern British/Low Countries free trade/democratic/Protestant sphere as into the more authoritarian Catholic south. Conversely, the core of the German state was in Berlin and Prussia, in the east of the country. German history is often described as the hijacking by Prussia of its liberal southwest and its free-trading northern ports.

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 41

The “frontier zone” is also represented in this book by the country that saw the most prolonged struggle between democracy and authoritarianism, Spain. Chapter 9 shows just how enduring and closely contested this was. There are also three politically borderline countries – for there were some- what imperfect democracies to be found in Finland, Czechoslovakia, and Austria before 1934. Moreover, authoritarian movements in the northwest thrived only in divided settings inside and adjacent to this frontier zone. In ethnically divided Czechoslovakia, the German Sudeten Party enveloped the German minority to reach 15 percent of the national vote in 1935; in Slovakia a further 10 percent went to the Hlinka Party. In linguistically divided Belgium Christus Rex polled 11.5 percent in 1936 (mostly among French-speakers), while the Flemish VNV achieved 7.1 percent. But when the Rexist leaders embraced fascism, their vote fell in 1939 to 4.4 percent, and when the VNV accepted Nazi subsidies their support ebbed. The Finnish Lapua Movement/IKL could exploit the right’s victory in the civil war and anti-Soviet irredentism to achieve 8.3 percent in 1936, though this fell to 6.6 percent in 1939. In the religiously divided Netherlands, the NSB polled 7.9 percent in 1935, but dropped to insignificance by 1939 as it drew close to Hitler. These authoritarian movements were not nearly as popular as those further to the east and south, but they were of some significance.

Yet authoritarians situated further inside the northwest bloc received few votes. Fascists and fellow-travelers languished, hovering around 2 percent of the vote in Norway, 1.5 percent in Switzerland, and well under 1 percent in Britain, Ireland, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (Lindstrom 1985: 115; Linz 1976: 89–91; Payne 1980: 126–35; 1995: 290–312). Though some intellectuals and elites played with authoritarian and fascist ideas (I quoted some of them in Chapter 1), and though there was intermittent grumbling about the “weakness” and divisions of parliamentary democracy, the decisive factor was that conserva- tives went populist but remained democratic, content to mobilize the masses on mild nationalism, religion, deference, and a claim to greater expertise at managing a capitalist economy (Mann 1993) Conservatives resisted author- itarian rightists, but social democrats also resisted revolutionaries. Thus both were able to process and to compromise their conflicts through democratic institutions, which deepened as a result.

Yet authoritarians prospered in the center, east, and south of the con- tinent. In Austrian, German, and Spanish free elections they reached near 40 percent of the votes. Across the half-free elections of Eastern Europe they won convincingly. Had fascists been freer to organize, they would have gar- nered more votes (as we see in Chapters 7 and 8 in Hungary and Romania).

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

42 Fascists

We cannot say that the authoritarians regimes had majority support, since they manipulated executive powers and some used coercive powers during elections. But they had a much more powerful appeal than in the north- west. There were indeed two Europes, one firmly liberal democratic, the other attracted by organic-authoritarian visions of the nation-state – with a politically divided and oscillating frontier zone between them.

The strength of such geographic blocs makes me doubt three common explanations of authoritarianism and fascism. One treats countries as unique and provides what is in effect a “nationalist” explanation. The power of the nation-state has turned many scholars inward, to study one country, usu- ally their own. They favor explanations in terms of “national peculiarities,” such as the Sonderweg, Germany’s “special path” toward Nazism. Historians of Spain emphasize memories of the glorious Siglo de Oro, followed by imperial decline, resulting in a cankered church, an inflated officer corps, unique regionalisms, a violent south, and so on. If I could read Albanian, I could doubtless learn of unique Albanian predispositions for authoritarian- ism. True, local factors explain the details of each national outcome. Nazism was distinctively German and Francoism was Spanish. I can’t imagine them in any other country. Yet Map 2.1 reveals very powerful macro-regional ef- fects cutting right across national boundaries. These meant that Spain might go authoritarian, Albania was likely to, and Ireland was not. Ireland had a powerful, reactionary Catholic Church and experienced an actual civil war in the 1920s. Yet Ireland was in the northwest, inheriting some democratic British institutions and sharing a language and population exchanges with democratic Britain and the United States. Albanians did not live amid a democratic civilization; the Irish did. Thus the rival armies of the Irish civil war actually turned into two rival electoral parties – and these two still dom- inate Irish elections today. We need local details – and they proliferate in my case-study chapters – but we also need a more macro approach.

A second approach is also implicitly nationalist. It divides the continent into nation-states and treats each as a single case in a multivariate compar- ative analysis. It mobilizes national statistics to test hypotheses suggesting, for example, that fascism emerged in backward countries or in those with rapidly expanding universities. I utilize such statistics later. Yet the method is limited by the brute geography we have just glimpsed. Are all the more back- ward countries or those with expanding universities so clumped together on the map? Almost certainly not. More likely, geography also provides dis- tinct communication networks of contiguity, so that distinct ideologies are diffused to different degrees across different regions of Europe, somewhat independently of level of development or university structure.

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 43

The third approach is therefore a regional one, identifying macro-regional cultures – “the Mediterranean,” “Eastern Europe,” “Central Europe,” and so on – as causally decisive. For example, this approach correctly notes that the kind of organicism that centered on racist anti-Semitism was largely confined to Central and Eastern Europe, failing to much penetrate the south. Yet authoritarianism as a whole was diffused much more broadly than this. It filled half of Europe. It did not reflect “the Special Case of Central Europe,” as Newman proclaims (1970: 29–34), nor “East European late development,” as Janos (1989) and Berend (1998: 201, 343–5) argue, or even “partial or backward development” in general, as Gregor suggests (1969: xii– xiv).1 Though all these macro-regional theories contain some truth, fascism was more general, yet also more spotty, than these regional theories. For the five major fascist movements (in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Romania, and Italy) were scattered right across Europe and its levels of development. We need a more general explanation for authoritarianism and perhaps a more particular explanation for fascism. I first examine the dependent variable of regime type.

types of authoritarianism

Our explanatory problem lies on the political right. Across the whole of “Greater Europe” the Soviet Union was the only leftist authoritarian regime. All other authoritarian regimes were viewed as being of the political right – though we see below that fascism was only ambiguously so. So they had certain common features. All these regimes worshipped order and protected private property; all embraced an authoritarian statism, rejecting federalism, democracy, and their supposed “vices”: disorderly class conflict, political corruption, and moral decline.2 They also came to embrace organic na- tionalism. The nation must be “one and indivisible,” cleansed of subverters of national unity. Thus the regimes repressed socialists and liberals commit- ted to internationalism, and they repressed ethnic, regional, and religious minorities who supposedly had loyalties to other countries. Most authori- tarians relied on the military and police powers of the old regime; fascists preferred their own paramilitaries. But once they had rejected peaceful com- promise of differences, they had all chosen the path of violence – military or paramilitary power – to solve political problems.

Yet the family members were varied (for general surveys, see Polonsky 1975; Payne 1980; Lee 1987 and Berend 1998). Some scholars divide them into two groups: “fascists” and a much larger group labeled either “author- itarian conservatives” or just “authoritarians” (e.g., Linz 1976; Blinkhorn

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

44 Fascists

1990). This is insufficient. First, though it accepts that with fascism comes a change of direction, to a distinctive combination of rightism with radicalism, it does not recognize that this comes as the final stage of a broader problem faced by rightists: the need to cope with organized political pressure from the masses. Modern authoritarianism departed from despotic regimes of the past in trying to absorb the mass pressures from below characterizing all twentieth-century politics. Second, it yields an “authoritarian” group that is too big and diverse. The Franco regime, often blandly labeled “author- itarian conservative,” probably killed over 100,000 people in cold blood. The similarly labeled Metaxas regime in Greece killed perhaps a hundred.3

Third, regimes became nastier through this period. We need more dis- tinctions to cope with variations between countries and through time. I distinguish four ascending degrees of authoritarianism within the family. Of course, since this is a continuum, any boundaries between types are a little arbitrary, and each type includes rather diverse regimes. Remember also that these are regimes, not movements. As Kallis (2000) notes, regimes do not simply express ideologies. They also embody processes that he calls politi- cal consolidation, policy formation, and scope of change sought. These all involve questions of political practicability as well as ideology (cf. Paxton 1998).4

Semi-authoritarian Regimes

These regimes were the mildest and most conservative. They tried to hold on to late nineteenth-century methods of rule. They were essentially “dual states” in which an elected legislature and a nonelected executive both wielded considerable powers – hence the “semi-authoritarian” label. Pres- sure from below was deflected by manipulating elections and parliaments. The executive fixed elections, bought deputies, appointed cabinets, and re- pressed “extremists” under emergency powers. Yet parliaments, law courts, and the press retained some freedoms. Monarchies dominated here, aided by traditional clientelist conservative and liberal parties. “Statism” here meant loyalty to the existing “old regime.” Nationalism was kept on a tight leash, hardly organic. Where political enemies were cleansed, this was more by intimidation and imprisonment than by murder, except during the short postwar period of revolutionary turbulence. Once the regimes felt basically secure, they did not rely on much murder and they restrained tendencies to pogroms against Jews – Jews were too useful. Though some manipulated popular prejudice against minorities, they were usually only discriminatory, not seeking to expel them. Though they had strong militaries, foreign policy

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 45

remained cautious. Fiscal and social policies were also conservative and procapitalist. These were resisting modernity as well as democracy.

Examples are most of the early interwar regimes: Greece up to the Metaxas coup, Romanian regimes of the 1920s and early ’30s, the Spanish regime of Alfonso XIII up to 1923, the Admiral Horthy/Count Bethlen regimes in Hungary in the 1920s, Chancellor Seipel’s Austrian Christian Social government in the late 1920s (covertly subverting freedoms), the pre- fascist Italian governments of Salandra and Sonnino, the pre-Nazi regimes of Brüning, von Schleicher, and von Papen. Fascist ideology had little influ- ence on them, and they were mostly quite mild and pragmatic – compared with what followed. Yet none lasted for long.

Semi-reactionary Authoritarian Regimes

Here the old regime (centered on monarchy, military, and church) coped with popular pressure by upping the level of repression. It overthrew or emasculated the legislature, ending the dualism noted above. Repression alternated with scapegoating discriminatory measures aimed at leftists, mi- norities, or Jews. These regimes still feared the masses. Nonetheless, they were also making limited modernist moves – hence they were only semi- reactionary. They advocated organic nationalism, though they remained wary of mobilizing the people behind it. Fascist ideology had some in- fluence here. Some (e.g., Salazar, Pilsudski, Primo de Rivera) cultivated one-party rule, mostly imitating Mussolini, but the party was controlled from above, its role being to domesticate rather than to excite the masses. Paramilitaries might be organized, but more to parade than to fight, and so the army retained its effective monopoly over the means of military violence. Foreign policy remained cautious, economic policy remained procapitalist and decidedly developmentalist. Primo and Pilsudski even sought social re- form, though their conservative supporters resisted, inducing Primo’s fall (see Chapter 9) and Pilsudski’s move rightward.

This was the most widespread type of interwar regime. Examples are the Hungarian governments of Admiral Horthy and others through most of the 1930s (see Chapter 7), King Carol’s “directed democracy” in Romania in the late 1930s (Chapter 8), General Primo de Rivera in Spain in 1923– 30 (though he also introduced many corporatist elements; see Chapter 9), General Pilsudski in Poland in 1926–35 followed by other officers until 1939, the three army-based Baltic regimes (Smetona in Lithuania in 1926– 39, Ulmanis in Latvia in 1934–9, and Pats in Estonia in 1934–9),5 King Zog in Albania in 1928–39, King Alexander and the Regent Paul in Yugoslavia

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

46 Fascists

during the 1930s, the regime of King Boris in Bulgaria from 1935, Metaxas’s rule in Greece in 1936–8, Dolfuss’s rule in Austria from 1932 to early 1934 (Chapter 6), and the Portuguese military rule of 1928–32.

Corporatist Regimes

About a third of the regimes then drifted further. They sought to increase statism, mobilize organic nationalism, and intensify scapegoating of minori- ties and leftists. Most fundamentally, they began to borrow substantially from fascist organization and ideology, often under pressure from actual fas- cist movements. The borrowings were more of “top-down” statism than “bottom-up” paramilitarism. “Corporatism” conveys this sense of an in- tegrated, hierarchical organization, though it is not a perfect label since it tends to smooth over the tensions often appearing between its two main constituencies, old regime authoritarians and more “radical” nationalists. Though procapitalist, some corporatist regimes developed patriarchal wel- fare policies and intervened in the economy to sponsor growth (though others preferred order and stability to capitalist dynamism). The army re- mained the regime’s bedrock, retaining most of its monopoly of mili- tary power, yielding only a little to paramilitarism. Foreign policy com- bined bellicose nationalist rhetoric with diplomacy that was in reality rather cautious.

Examples are the “hyphenated fascist” regimes, in which fascist ten- dencies are undercut by another tendency: for example, the Metaxas “monarcho-fascism” in Greece after 1938, Dolfuss’s “clerico-fascism” or “Austro-fascism” from 1934 (see Chapter 6), King Carol’s “monarcho- fascism” in Romania from 1938, followed between 1940 and 1944 by General Antonescu’s “military fascism” (Chapter 8). There was also the French Vichy regime, Hungarian “radical rightist” cabinets in World War II (Chapter 7), Salazar’s combination of fascism and deus, patria et familia, and the Franco dictatorship up to the early 1960s. The Metaxas dictatorship was the most moderate: a paramilitary youth movement and corporatist trap- pings, mass arrests but few killings, and little pressure on minorities. He purged monarchists but not the monarch himself, and his foreign policy steered carefully between Germany and Britain (Kofas 1983). Elsewhere, the Japanese Imperial government was of this type after 1931 (though it also contained fascist elements); Chiang Kai-shek aspired to this but lacked the infrastructural power over China to implement it.

Of course, these are ideal types and the real-world distinctions be- tween regimes were often rather blurry. Some parliamentary forms were

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 47

maintained even when the balance of power had shifted firmly to the ex- ecutive – as, for example, in Hungary and Romania in the late 1930s. Indeed, Hungary not only retained a parliament. Until 1944 this actually contained socialist deputies, uniquely among all the Axis countries. The di- vision between reactionary and organic corporatist regimes was also some- times blurred – as it was between the latter and fascism. Primo de Rivera might be considered corporatist rather than reactionary. In the Franco and, to a lesser extent, the Salazar regimes, fascists often did the dirty work; whereas Carol, Antonescu, and Horthy all discovered that parts of their own governments had been captured by fascists. Here was vigorous rivalry between corporatists and fascists.

Fascist Regimes

Fascism provided a discontinuity, reversing the flow of power by adding to corporatism a “bottom-up” mass movement centered on paramilitarism and electoralism, while also increasing coercive powers from the top. Paramili- tarism flourished amid an obvious decay in the loyalty and cohesion of the state’s armed forces. The army became split, with many soldiers’ fascist and paramilitary sympathies eroding discipline, threatening the state’s monopoly of military power. This also created a basic tension between “bottom-up” paramilitarism and electioneering and a “top-down” statism centered on the “leadership principle.” This tension prevented fascist regimes, coming into power with help from old regime elites, from settling down into being simply extreme rightist, giving them their “radical” character. In fact, fascist leaders came from all parts of the political spectrum, many being former socialists (such as Mussolini, Déat, or Mosley). Fascism embraced paramil- itarism at home and militarism abroad. It also intervened massively in the economy, with definite fascist theories of economic development. Yet fas- cists’ relations with conservatives and capitalists remained ambiguous, each seeming to need the other.

We do not have many cases of fascist regimes. The Nazis and the Italian fascists were the only two regimes seizing power and holding on to it for some years. Though Austria had proportionately more fascists than either, they were divided into two opposed movements and could not seize power until 1938, on the backs of Hitler’s troops. Hungarian and Romanian fas- cists were equally well supported, but they were also heavily persecuted. They did succeed in infiltrating the ruling regimes and they came to power briefly in 1944 at the end of the war. We see here (as also in the case of Spain) the importance of relations between fascists and other authoritarian

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

48 Fascists

rightists: fascist coups depended on the balance of power between them. But the influence of fascism was also much broader. Corporatist regimes were stealing fascist ideas in order to be able to repress real fascists, and so sur- vive. Then amid wartime conditions other organic nationalists flirted with fascism and joined the Axis Powers – the Slovakian Hlinkas, the Croatian Ustasha, and nationalists in the Baltic states, Belarus, and the Ukraine. But the Italians and the Nazis were easily the most important. Their successes in- fluenced others. Mussolini’s 1922 March on Rome came so early that all au- thoritarian regimes had Italian models to copy and adapt. Hitler’s geopolitical power carried Nazi influence, though not for long. He brought a world war that destroyed them all. Since fascist regimes never became securely institu- tionalized, we don’t really know what enduring fascism would have looked like. Would it have continued to embody the factionalism and zig-zagging of the Mussolini regime or Hitler’s persistent if slightly chaotic radicalization? Or would stable corporatist/syndicalist structures have emerged? And so in discussing fascism, the most extreme of the authoritarian family, I am dis- cussing less actual regimes than the future regimes envisaged by the larger fascist movements. The fascist problem I seek to explain, therefore, is how these future ideals arose and became powerful, against the backdrop of the authoritarian regimes distinguished above.

My typology generates three basic questions: Why did one-half of Europe continue to move further along this authoritarian scale? Why did only a few movements reach as far as fascism for their ideals? and Why did only two of them succeed in seizing power unaided? Not many writers clearly distinguish these three questions. Most explanations link all three to serious social crises erupting in the early twentieth century: ideological, economic, military, and political. These correspond to the four sources of social power I have analyzed in the two volumes of The Sources of Social Power (1986, 1993). We see below that notions of general crisis do best at explaining the general authoritarian surge, less well at explaining the rise of fascist movements, and least well at explaining fascist coups.

economic power, economic crisis

Economic power relations derive from the human need to extract, transform, distribute, and consume the resources of nature for subsistence. This gen- erates economic institutions and social classes arising out of production and market relations, cooperating yet simultaneously conflicting with one an- other. Those who control the means of production and exchange possess crucial power resources that allow them a measure of more general social

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 49

power. Yet severe class conflict may challenge their power. The time and place discussed here was dominated by the capitalist mode of production in its industrial phase. So I discuss the development and crises of industrial capitalism, its class conflicts, and their degree of responsibility for the rise of authoritarianism and fascism.

Though economic power relations have always been important in hu- man affairs, social theory in our materialist age has often seemed obsessed by them. Economic explanations of fascism have been the most popular ones, and I discuss them at greatest length. Long-term causes of authoritarianism and fascism are traced to capitalist “backwardness” or “late development,” short-term causes to economic recessions and surges in class conflict. All are believed to have helped undermine the legitimacy of existing governments and increased strife to the point where authoritarian solutions seemed plau- sible – especially to those with ready access to the means of coercion. I begin with long-term causes.

(1) Late development theory suggests that economically backward countries were lured into authoritarian politics by statist theories of “late develop- ment.” A variant form of the argument links this to nationalism. Backward countries feel exploited by developed ones, and so nationalists urge their countries to “stand by ourselves alone” with economic policies embodying autarchy and protection – which also increased statism.

These theories require that the authoritarian countries are the economic laggards, and this is indeed so. Scholars have mobilized batteries of socio- economic statistics to show that the higher the GNP, urbanization, literacy, and so on, the more democratic the regime. Correlations between indices of development and liberal democracy usually range between r = .60 and r = .85. By squaring this we find that level of development explains be- tween one-third and two-thirds of the variance found in levels of liberal democracy – quite a robust finding in macro-sociology, where most cross- national statistical comparisons contain considerable error and “noise” (Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens 1992: 13–20; Maravall 1997). Comparisons among interwar European countries come to the same con- clusion ( Janos 1989; Stephens 1989; Gomez-Navarro 1991). Does this ar- gument also hold for the two interwar geographic blocs identified above?

In Table 2.1, I have used four indices of socio-economic development: GNP per capita, proportion of the economically active population in agriculture, forestry, or fisheries, the infant mortality rate, and the per capita number of items sent annually through the mail. GNP per capita measures economic development, while agricultural employment measures lack of it. Neither measure is perfect, since data quality and categorization vary

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

50 Fascists

Table 2.1. Statistics of Authoritarian and Democratic Countries

Agricultural GNP Infant Mailed Severity Peak labor per mortality items of slump unemployment

Country force (%)a capitab ratec per capitad (%)e rate (%)f

1. Democratic Australia 25.4 567 53 161 13.4 19.1 Belgium 17.3 1,098 94 179 7.9 19.0 Canada 36.8 1,203 90 96 30.1 19.3 Czechoslovakia 36.9 586 146 76 18.2 17.4 Denmark 35.3 945 81 78 2.9 31.7 Finland 64.6 590 84 29 6.5 (6.2)g

France 35.6 982 97 153 11.0 15.4 Ireland 52.1 662 68 67 16.7 Netherlands 20.6 1,008 52 137 9.1 11.9 New Zealand 33.4 36 215 (10.2) Norway 35.5 1,033 49 55 8.3 11.3 Sweden 36.0 897 59 88 9.2 23.3 Switzerland 21.3 1,265 54 161 8.0 (4.7) U.K. 6.0 1,038 69 146 8.1 15.6 U.S. 22.0 1,658 67 227 29.5 22.9 Democratic average 31.9 967 73 125 12.8 18.8

2. Authoritarian Austria 29.3 720 120 147 22.5 16.3 Bulgaria 79.8 306 149 8.6 Estonia 59.0 (95) 51 Germany 29.0 770 89 94 16.1 30.1 Greece 53.7 390 94 20 8.2 Hungary 53.0 424 177 41 9.4 30.0h

Italy 46.8 517 120 59 6.1 (15.5) Japan 43.0 (208) 138 60 4.5 (6.8) Latvia 66.2 (115) 47 Lithuania 76.7 (69) Poland 65.9 350 145 32 22.3 16.7 Portugal 55.0 320 142 23 Romania 77.2 331 184 21 6.2 Spain 56.1 445 126 33 20.4 Yugoslavia 78.1 341 147 35 11.9 Authoritarian average 57.9 352 159 48 12.4

a Percent of labor force in agriculture, c. 1930. Czech figure is for 1930 but refers to territory of 1945; Portuguese figure is corrected; Spanish figure is for 1920. b 1929 GNP per capita, expressed in 1960 US$. Source: Bairoch 1976: 297; Mitchell 1993; for Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania from Latvian Economist, 1933, estimates for national income, adjusted upward by 15 percent (these figures still seem rather low). c c. 1928 infant mortality rate per 1,000. Note U.S. mortality for black infants alone was 106. Source: Mitchell 1993, 1998. d No. of items per inhabitant sent through the mail, c. 1930. Source: Mitchell 1993, 1998. e Maximum peak-trough percent fall in GDP during period 1922–35, at constant prices. Source: Mitchell 1993, 1995, 1998; Lethbridge 1985: 538, 571, 592. Polish figure estimated. f Highest annual interwar unemployment rate. Source: Maddison 1982: 206; Newell and Symons 1988: 70; To- niolo and Piva 1988: 230; Garside 1990: 5; Mitchell 1993, 1995, 1998. These figures are notoriously unreliable. More backward national accounting systems typically produce severely understated unemployment figures. Those I consider too low I have placed in parentheses. g Figures in parentheses are probably unreliable and much too low. They have not been included in calculations of averages. h Industrial work force only.

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 51

between countries. Infant mortality is a simpler measure of well-being, collected fairly similarly by governments, though it is very affected by the very poor (who provide most of the mortality).6 Items sent through the mail measures genuine “discursive” literacy, though it is affected by urbanization, since townspeople write more letters. All these indices have their particu- larities. It is their combination that matters. More developed countries have higher GNP per capita and more mail, but lower agricultural employment and infant mortality. Were these also the liberal democratic countries?

The table broadly answers “yes”: The democracies were more developed by a factor of two or three on these indices.7 Most democratic countries do better than most authoritarian ones on all four measures, because the northwest of the continent was much more developed than the south- east. There were a few deviant cases, however. All four German and three Austrian statistics reveal that they were developed countries. Czechoslovakia, Finland, and Ireland were economically marginal cases between the two Europes, and they were also somewhat politically marginal. Overall, with the major Germanic exceptions, this is a strong relationship. Whatever qual- ifications I make later, the rise of authoritarianism was mainly a problem for the less-developed countries of interwar Europe.

Yet the table shows that this cannot be so of fascism. Indeed, some have argued that fascism is not important in very backward countries, since it requires an economy and civil society sufficiently advanced to allow effec- tive mobilization of the masses. The most backward countries, they say, had to rely on old regime organization, such as the monarchy or the mili- tary, and so at most could reach only corporatism (Gomez-Navarro 1991). Riley (2002) argues that fascist mass-mobilization presupposed a denser “civil society” – inverting the usual liberal theory of civil society, which sees such density as a precondition for democracy. These writers suggest that fascism developed best in the more developed countries that con- tained denser networks of markets and voluntary associations. Yet Table 2.1 shows that the largest fascist movements were found at all levels of develop- ment, including advanced Austria and Germany, middling Italy, and back- ward Romania and Hungary. Fascism seems unrelated to level of economic development.

“Modernization” and Marxian schools of theory both say that economic development causes democratization, with modern social classes as its agents. Drawing on a tradition stretching back to Aristotle, modernization theorists such as Lipset (1960) and Huntington (1991: 66–8) argue that economic development expands the size of the middle class, and this favors democracy. One Marxian writer, Barrington Moore (1966), agreed, arguing that the

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

52 Fascists

bourgeoisie (along with a free peasantry) had pressed for liberal constitutions in early modern Europe. Other Marxian writers, especially Rueschemeyer et al. (1992), have questioned this in more recent times. They show that the middle classes have tended to follow rather than lead democratization, being sometimes pro-, sometimes antidemocratic. They say the working class was the main force for democracy, with large agrarian landlords being the main antidemocrats. Capitalist industrialization thus favored democracy by increasing the size of the working class and reducing the power of agrar- ian landlords. Stephens (1989) explains interwar authoritarianism mainly in terms of conflict between a democratic working class and capitalists, espe- cially agrarian ones, eventually resorting to authoritarian repression. There is a banal argument involved here: The larger the social group capable of mobilization, the more likely it is to favor enfranchising large numbers. First the middle class demanded the suffrage, then the working class – and this caused some outweighted middle-class groups to backtrack on democracy, as during the 1848 Revolution.

Let me add one point. The political legacies of former times may modify later class behavior. Consider agrarian landlords. In premodern Europe they were politically decisive (as Barrington Moore says), since they ran society. But only in backward regions such as Hungary or Andalucia did they retain much economic power in the interwar period, after industrialization and land reform took their toll. Agrarian landlords played a lesser economic role in Weimar Germany and even less in Romania. Nonetheless, landlords often retained control of state executives, especially officer corps and ministries of the interior. This was because landowners had long ago entrenched their rule amid a broader “old regime”: kin-connected monarchies, landown- ing nobilities, and the elites of bureaucracies, armed forces, and established churches. Mayer has emphasized that old regimes survived into the interwar period, maintaining entrenched political, military, and ideological power while their economic power was fading. We see below that authoritarian rightism and even fascism were more closely related to the decisions made by old regimes than to narrowly defined propertied classes.

Luebbert (1991) emphasizes two other important legacies from the pre- war period: the degree to which liberal political parties were already pow- erful and the degree to which agricultural laborers were already mobilized. He notes that strong liberal political traditions helped wavering classes to maintain a prodemocratic stance, while their absence pushed them into the authoritarian camp. And if agricultural laborers were not already organized, interwar socialist attempts to organize them alienated small peasant propri- etors and shifted them rightward (as Heberle 1964 showed in his classic

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 53

study of Schleswig-Holstein). I support his first argument and modify his second.

Classes are useful theoretical constructs that we operationalize with em- pirical indicators. In historical research our indicators are often poor. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries we acquire information on organizations such as trade unions and political parties, plus gross vot- ing trends. Until after 1945 we have virtually no opinion or exit polls, nor have any of the authors cited above attempted ecological studies of voting. They present only gross voting patterns and examine organizations that they assume represent classes: Socialist parties or labor unions tell us about the working class, conservative parties or employers’ organizations about the bourgeoisie or landowners, and so on. Yet to equate classes with particular organizations is risky. Few interwar union movements managed to recruit more than a quarter of manual workers, whereas successful conservative parties must often have derived more votes from workers than from any other class (since workers were so numerous). There are many social influ- ences that might cross-cut class – such as economic sector, region, religion, gender, and generation. Through ecological analysis of voting in my case- study chapters, we see that core “proletarian ghettos” – worker families living amid dense worker urban neighbourhoods containing manufactur- ing industry or mining – usually did support leftist visions of democracy. But most interwar workers lived and worked in other kinds of commu- nities and were drawn toward liberal or conservative visions of democracy and also to nondemocratic authoritarian and especially fascist views. Small peasants also espoused varied politics, some pro-, others antidemocratic, according to complex economic circumstances (not just fear of their la- borers, as Luebbert suggests) and tugged also by regional, ethnic, religious, and gender sentiments. In the interwar period capitalist (especially agrarian capitalist) organizations tended to be antidemocratic, while socialist orga- nizations were relatively prodemocratic, but this concerns minorities, not majorities.

Class theory also has difficulty with fascism. Whereas the other forms of authoritarian regime were staffed by conservatives trying to mobilize and control mass movements, fascism was a populist and “radical” movement, with a strong “bottom-up” thrust. Traditional class explanations work bet- ter for the most conservative forms of authoritarianism and less well for fascism. Not that class was irrelevant to fascist support. Fascists received disproportionate support from economic sectors liking the message of class transcendence, people from all classes who were working and living outside the main sites of severe class conflict in modern society.

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

54 Fascists

The interwar period also saw the rise of statism. Authoritarian rule had now acquired plausible claims to sponsor social development – for example, to cure unemployment – that earlier absolutism had not aspired to. This might make it more attractive to workers. Thus the rival attractions of lib- eral democracy or authoritarianism have varied through time, perhaps for sizable groups in all classes, independently of level of development. Interwar Europe distinctively favored authoritarianism, as earlier or later Europe did not. This means that the gross differences that Table 2.1 revealed may have partially reflected the past association of capitalist development with democ- racy. This possibility seems most evident in terms of the changing nature of the middle class, referred to earlier. In the French revolutionary period, capitalism was highly decentralized, its industrial development mainly the work of small entrepreneurs. Its markets were relatively “free” – helping to develop free politics also. By 1918 “organized capitalism” had arrived (to use Hilferding’s contemporary term), and much of the middle class was employed and subordinated within authoritative organizations. Perhaps it might be less attracted by “free politics.”

This is speculation. But the statistics do show that the absolute level of economic development reached in the interwar period cannot explain the rise of authoritarianism. Take the cases of Italy and Spain. Their per capita incomes around 1930 were close to the median level of countries then plunging into authoritarianism. Such an absolute level had been attained only quite recently in the world: by the United States and Britain in the 1850s, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland in the 1860s, France and Norway in the 1880s, Denmark in the 1890s, and Sweden in the 1900s (Bairoch 1976: 286, 297).8 They were the economic equivalents of Italy and Spain in 1930 (though obviously only in gross economic terms). In the late nineteenth century the advance had been toward democracy, not authoritarianism. Yet now Italy and Spain were marching the other way. The same level of economic development accompanied democratization before World War I, but an authoritarian surge after it. The problem remains today, for most countries in the world have reached the level of economic development achieved by Britain in the 1850s or Denmark in the 1890s, yet only a few are genuinely democratic. Through the twentieth century a higher and higher level of per capita income seem “required” in each decade for countries making transitions to democracy (see the statistics presented by Huntington 1991 and Maravall 1997). Other processes of world-historical development must have blocked liberal democracy in the twentieth century. Its economy did not prove particularly favorable to democracy – unlike its wars, which tended to be won by democracies.

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 55

“Late development” theory supplies an economic theory of the twenti- eth century blockage, claiming that the early developers – Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, perhaps France and the United States – had experienced uniquely favorable economic conditions for liberal democ- racy. Their economies had grown gradually, with decentralized markets and weak states. The first “late developers,” especially Germany, nurtured more protectionist and statist models of development. As subsequent economic development became more rapid and dislocating, it generated more class confrontation amid more interventionist states. Peasants dislocated by world markets and laborers flocking into much larger factories and cities were exposed to the new viruses of socialism and anarcho-syndicalism. They confronted a more centralized capitalist class, aided by a more dependent middle class. Class conflict became more destabilizing. Two great “armed camps” confronted one another, in the words of the contemporary writer Carl Schmitt (who is referred to at length below). States now also sought to promote economic growth, seeing themselves as the bearers of a desired de- velopmental project ( Janos 1982; Gomez-Navarro 1991). Pressed by prole- tarians below, bourgeois classes could lean on a stronger state. There was also an international dimension, for the global economy was also more tightly integrated. Latecomers said they were “proletarian nations” exploited by the advanced countries, generating nationalism among the lower and mid- dling classes. Because of these macro-economic tendencies, late economic development might generate extreme nation-statism in an attempt to repress “class enemies” at home and abroad.

This argument appears plausible in the Eastern European periphery. Late development policies figure in Hungarian and Romanian authoritarian- ism, as detailed in Chapters 7 and 8. Yet neither Germany nor Austria were by now “late” developers: Germany had the most advanced econ- omy in Europe, while Austria, though enormously disrupted by the loss of its Empire, had a fairly open economy. So did Spain and Portugal be- fore Salazar and Franco. And though these two near-corporatist dictators brought more autarchic economies, this was for purposes of not economic development but political control. Indeed, both their corporatist economies stagnated badly. Conversely, late development without much state inter- vention characterized the democratic Nordic periphery (Bairoch 1976). Nordic growth and industrialization rates, factory sizes, and socialist strength were now higher than those of almost all authoritarian countries. Yet the Nordic countries were deepening their democracies in the interwar period. Pressures that in the center, south, and east seemed to overwhelm their fragile democracies deepened democracy in the northwest. Late economic

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

56 Fascists

development alone cannot explain authoritarianism, though it figured in some places.

One problem is that this scholarly tradition has been fixated on statism, ignoring nationalism. Yet authoritarian movements – and their economic theorists – were mobilizing nationalism as well as statism. As Berend (1998) has argued, protectionism, import-substitution, covert devaluations, and the like, which were prevalent in Central and Eastern Europe in the interwar period, were not just technical economics. They were also importantly nationalist, presupposing certain nationalist beliefs. Rather similar organic nationalist ideologies and movements were becoming important just about everywhere across the east and south of the continent. This was rarer across the older countries of the northwest, even in the late-developing Nordic countries. But it was ubiquitous across former Habsburg, Romanov, and Ottoman lands. And herein obviously lies the main difference. Most of the democratic countries of the northwest had been independent states for far longer. Whatever sense of “exploitation” they may have had, this could not rest on foreign political domination by Habsburg- or Romanov-type states. Of course, Ireland and Norway differed in this respect. But such differences and exceptions point us to the importance of political and geopolitical power relations, discussed below in the chapter. In contrast to their common po- litical experience the countries of the east and the south experienced far more diverse class conflicts, since these depended far more on the particu- lar economic structure of the country. Moreover, ethnic tensions were also still growing in the early twentieth century, whereas class conflict was older and more institutionalized (though briefly destabilized at the end of World War I). Though both class and national conflict helped generate authoritari- anism, we see below that national conflicts were usually more relevant to the projects of fascists. German and Romanian fascists shared more national than class sentiments, as we also see below. Thus long-term economic develop- ment and its attendant conflicts were indeed significant causes of the major political conflicts of the period, but they were mediated by nationalism. This is why the most self-conscious development strategies were espoused most enthusiastically by fascists, who combined both.

So relative economic backwardness may help more to explain authoritar- ianism, but late development strategies may help more to explain fascism. We have not yet fully explained why.

(2) Economic slump. Authoritarianism might be a response to short-term economic fluctuations, especially recessions. This seems an obvious expla- nation, but the data are equivocal. The last two columns of Table 2.1 detail the maximum peak-trough falls in GNP between any two years during

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 57

1927 to 1935 and the highest recorded unemployment rate. They reveal no overall difference between liberal democratic and authoritarian coun- tries. The most severely affected by recession were democratic Canada and the United States, followed by authoritarian Austria, Poland, and Spain, then by democratic Czechoslovakia and Ireland, then by authoritarian Germany and democratic Australia. Unemployment rates provide less reli- able data. Unfortunately, we cannot calculate real unemployment rates of most of the more backward and authoritarian countries. However, two of the fascist countries, Germany and Austria, did have the highest rates, along with democratic Denmark. But these are hardly convincing evidence of any clear relationship. The problem is that all of the west suffered a slump, but only half of it went authoritarian.

Were authoritarian coups immediately preceded by slumps? Five coups during 1932–34 followed the onset of the Great Depression: in Germany, Austria, Estonia, Latvia, and Bulgaria. It is highly plausible that the De- pression precipitated them. I examine in more detail the cases of Germany and Austria in Chapters 4–6. Yet even if they confirmed the hypothesis, this would still leave ten or eleven countries whose coups were not a re- sponse to the Great Depression, plus the sixteen northwestern countries that did not experience coups at all, yet experienced the Depression. A few coups at other times also directly followed a recession. The Italian re- cession from 1918 was reversed only in 1922, the year of the fascist coup. Spain and Romania experienced two main authoritarian surges. Spain had Primo de Rivera’s coup in 1926 and the military rising of 1936. Yet there had been a modest Spanish boom between 1922 and 1925, a decline in 1932–3, followed by recovery in 1934 and a leveling-off in 1935 – some- what ambiguous results. In Romania, King Carol took full powers in 1938, after six years of mild economic growth. The main fascist surge in Hungary occurred in the same year, amid slightly improving economic conditions. Poland, Portugal, and Lithuania all had their main coups in 1926, follow- ing several years of mild economic growth. Finally, the 1928–9 Yugoslav crisis and the 1935–6 Greek crisis came after several years of economic growth. These are very mixed results, pointing in no single explanatory direction.

There were three distinct surges of authoritarianism, each including at least one fascist coup: in the mid-1920s, during 1932–4, and from the mid- 1930s. Though the second surge was at the tail end of the Great Depression and included the most important fascist coup – in Germany – the first and third surges mostly occurred amid stuttering economic growth. All three affected countries big and small and they were scattered through the

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

58 Fascists

center, east, and south of the continent. There was thus no overall rela- tionship between economic cycles and authoritarian surges in the interwar period.

Nowhere was economic growth very vibrant in the interwar period. In- dustrial economies suffered bankruptcies and mass unemployment, agrarian ones suffered overproduction, falling prices, and indebtedness. Depressed economies generated political crises. Regimes were shaky amid such eco- nomic crisis. But the vital policy question was, how to solve economic crisis? The traditional “solution” had been do little, since free markets will recover spontaneously. Thus few conservative, liberal, or labor parties pos- sessed genuine macro-economic policies. Yet “nation-statist” policies were now stirring. Keynesian policies of demand management proposed mildly nation-statist solutions. More universally, tariffs were imposed against for- eign imports, coupled with currency devaluations to make one’s own exports cheaper. This was economic nationalism. From such policies fascists devel- oped their own autarchic economics. This was not mere technical economics (as if such a beast had ever lived!). Scandinavian economic policy became the most Keynesian yet stayed democratic, while most countries, demo- cratic and authoritarian, slapped on the tariffs. Something more is needed to explain why only some political economies acquired an authoritarian slant. Economic difficulties weakened regimes in all interwar countries. In the northwestern countries cabinets and parties split, coalition governments formed and reformed; in the center, south, and east there were coups, surg- ing authoritarianism, and mass fascism. Why the regional difference? We cannot explain it from the performance of the interwar economy alone. Though economic difficulties caused crises and political coups, they do not seem to have been decisive in producing an authoritarian, still less a fascist outcome, rather than a democratic one.

Of course, this discussion might seem too narrow. Why should we ex- pect last year’s trade or unemployment figures to generate this year’s coup? Political movements take a few years to build up steam. Maybe the general aura of economic crisis in the period is what matters more in weakening regimes and giving authoritarians, including fascists, the chance to air their solutions and get organized. But if the economic crisis and solutions matter most, political elites and voters should say so – another task for my case-study chapters.

(3) Class conflict. Did authoritarianism and fascism result from rising class conflict? The two class theories I discuss say yes. “Middle-class theorists” argue that the middle class was worst affected by the period’s economic crisis and sought violent means to restore the balance. Little hard evidence has

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 59

been presented to support this argument, though periods of inflation tend to hurt the middle class on fixed incomes and salaries more than others. In some countries (e.g., Germany in the late 1920s) this appears to have been a factor in the decline of bourgeois liberalism. Yet it is not clearly connected to the rise of fascism. Nor did many coups occur after periods of rising inflation. No one has empirically demonstrated that labor did relatively better than the middle class in the vital years – though big business did. More detailed future research might accomplish this, though my case studies more often suggest the reverse. And if fascism was not middle-class, then the whole argument would be shot down.

“Capitalist class theorists” say that economic crisis intensified conflict between capital and labor, inducing capital to rely on repression. This is more plausible. Today we suspect from knowledge of the whole twentieth century that the destiny of labor movements was not to destroy capitalism but to reform it. But this was not so clear in the 1920s and 1930s. The Bolshevik Revolution had an immense impact, and many expected further revolutions in advanced countries. Large socialist, communist, and anarcho- syndicalist movements proclaimed allegiance to “revolution.” The stronger the left, perhaps the stronger the authoritarian backlash. Is this so? Usually, though not always. In the 1930s liberal democratic France actually had the largest Communist Party, liberal democratic Norway proportionately the largest left-socialist one. But only central, eastern, and southern leftists sometimes assassinated their enemies and hatched real revolutionary plots. If we placed ourselves in the shoes of Spanish latifundistas, threatened by anarcho-syndicalist and socialist land occupations, bombings, and ostensibly “revolutionary” uprisings, we might also reach for the gun.

Yet if we analyze the class violence more closely, reactions become more puzzling. There was far more violence between 1917 and 1919 than later, and more was committed by the political right than by the left. During 1917 and 1918 various insurrections were launched against governments collapsing under the strains of war. Some had prospects of success. However, except for the civil war in Russia, most of the dead were leftists. Hungary had the only other (short-lived) “successful” revolution. There a communist- socialist coup led by Bela Kun seized the government and held it for just over a year, in the process killing 350 to 600 civilians (three-quarters of them peasants engaged in resisting government requisitioning of their produce). In subsequent reprisals a rightist “White Terror” then killed between 1,000 and 5,000 leftists and imprisoned a massive 60,000 (Rothschild 1974: 153; Janos 1982: 202; Mócsy 1983: 157; Vago 1987: 297). Rightist violence was not a mere response to leftist violence; it vastly exceeded it.

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

60 Fascists

A more routine indicator of class conflict and leftist “threat” might be the strike rate or the socialist-communist vote. The strike rate rocketed at war’s end but then declined before the main authoritarian upsurge. Italy was different. Italian strikes peaked in 1919–20, clearly helping to fuel the growth of fascism. They then declined greatly, substantially due to fascist pressure. Italy thus offers some support to the theory. Austrian strikes peaked in 1924 and then declined fairly continuously, well before the rightist surge. German strikes peaked in 1920, with a smaller peak in 1924 and a yet smaller one in 1928, but the secular trend remained downward – again, without any authoritarian surge until 1932–3. Portuguese strikes peaked in 1920, though there was a lower peak in 1924, two years before the first military coup. Polish strikes peaked during 1922–3, well before any coup. Estonian strikes did peak again in 1935 (back to the level of 1921–2) but had little apparent impact on the coup the following year. Here the main leftist threat had come in 1924, with a Soviet-backed insurrection. Its crushing, followed by Stalin’s purge of its fleeing leaders, removed any internal “Bolshevik” threat to Estonia (Parming 1975). Strikes actually loomed larger in democracies. Britain’s great General Strike was in 1926; the French peak was reached under the Popular Front government from 1936. The problem is that strikes are usually a fairly institutionalized form of expressing grievance, geared at extracting concessions from within the system. They rarely aim at revolution. It is perhaps for the same reason that trade union membership levels do not correlate with rightist coups. Except for Spain, unionization peaked in 1918–21 and then declined. Similarly with the communist/socialist vote. This was in fairly general decline from the mid-1920s (though the Austrian socialist vote held up to the end and the German leftist vote did not decline much and some of it switched from socialism to communism in 1932 and 1933). Eastern European unionization and leftist voting was far too low to explain much. There was little threat in the east from the left. Thus the strength of the left might seem relevant only to the early coups – and especially to the fascist coup in Italy. Workers were not threatening enough to provoke a rightist backlash in many places.

Finally, we have one decisive measure of the strength of left and right – their ability to seize power. During 1917–20 the left might reasonably worry conservatives: Russian and Hungarian revolutionaries did seize power, and there were scattered risings elsewhere. But after 1920 the score reads dif- ferently: successful rightist coups in sixteen countries and not a single leftist one. The nearest leftists came to success was probably in 1934 when Spanish leftists seized part of the Asturias region, though not its capital, and they held out for only two weeks (see Chapter 9). If communists, socialists,

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 61

and anarchists constituted such a serious threat, we would expect at least one success, of a month or so. Most rightist coups occurred in the 1930s, simply too late to be a realistic response to the threat from the extreme left, then fading rapidly across almost all of Europe (as Eley 1983: 79 has also noted). Of course, some Red scares might have been tactical ploys. Did Hitler believe more in the “Bolshevik threat” or in its electoral utility? Mussolini only pretended to believe in a “communist threat” (see Chapter 3). Metaxas used the “communist threat” as a pretext for his coup in Greece. But the Greek communist party was small and split, and the British Embassy reported home that Metaxas’s claim was a smokescreen for a coup that in reality was the result of faction fighting on the right (Kofas 1983: 31–50, 129–45). But someone must have been frightened of a “Red Peril,” otherwise Mussolini and Metaxas would not have bothered trying to scare them. It is not clear why, on rational grounds, they would be.

It might alternatively be argued that authoritarians were able to strike precisely because of the left’s weakness. But if the left was weak, why would the right bother? Why should class interests dictate that the center, east, and south keep moving toward more extreme regimes rather than staying with semi-authoritarian or reactionary ones? We should perhaps not un- derestimate the role that sheer vindictiveness can play in human conflict. If the left had in the past severely scared the upper classes, then the latter might actually enjoy a chance to crush them cruelly later, when the scare had actually gone. But a question still arises. Why should upper and middle classes increase the level of repression, abolish parliaments and civil liberties, and mobilize mass parties – still less call in dangerous fascists – if tried and tested milder forms were available at lower cost and risk? In fact the best solution to class struggle was visible in the northwest. Its unions, socialist parties, and strikes were larger than in most of the center, east, and south but were implicated in class compromise, posing little threat to capitalist property relations. All its socialist parties first came to power as minority governments or in coalition with center parties, a perfect setting in which to learn the arts of compromise. The center, east, and south’s neglect of all this experience appears puzzling.

Nonetheless, worker activity was often perversely described by conserva- tives as “insurrectionary” or “revolutionary.” They were overreacting, fear- ing revolutions that were not there, reaching for the gun too soon, as Mayer (1981) suggests. Most of the so-called Bolsheviks in Germany denounced by Hitler were actually respectable Social Democrats, ruling with moder- ation the largest province, Prussia, for over a decade. In Eastern Europe the actual strength of socialists (and the interest shown by Stalin in aiding

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

62 Fascists

them) was pitiful compared with the right’s anti-Marxist hysteria. Some class theorists acknowledge this. Corner (1975: 83) says of the Italian bourgeoisie: “Convinced that social revolution was on the way, they became incapable of distinguishing between the real and the imagined situation.” If so, we need an explanation that goes beyond “objective” class interest. Explaining such hysterical class overreaction is one of the main puzzles of the period.

Some conclude that authoritarianism, especially fascism, had an irrational strain. Faced with the Nazi Final Solution, this is tempting. But I prefer not to separate quite so clearly the rational from the irrational, for “rational” human calculation always comes entwined with ideology. The problem that the bourgeoisie faced has also bedeviled social theory as well. We still do not have a good explanation of the ferocity of class struggle. Marx himself is partly to blame. Ultimately an economist rather than a sociologist, his masterwork Das Kapital is stuffed full not with analyses of class conflict but with rational economic calculations of profit and loss, of shares of the surplus going to capital and labor, and so on. Marx appears to have shared the common illusion that capitalism is driven by the rational pursuit of profit, though he believed it was ultimately nonrational for humanity as a whole.

There are two problems with this. First, much of the behavior discussed in this book is difficult to understand by this purely instrumental criterion. Consider, for example, Spanish capitalists between 1939 and the late 1960s, loyal supporters of General Franco and running a stagnant, inefficient econ- omy, producing little profit. Why did they help General Franco into power, and then loyally support him? They would have been much better off with the Second Republic (as they are now with the third one). They seemed driven by a more basic capitalist motive – or rather a motive shared by all the possessing classes of history – to keep their property and privileges. To hell with profit, if property itself seems threatened. Profit is inherently quanti- tative, divisible, and compromisable, and indeed cooperation between the classes usually increases profits. Yet property rights are finite and zero-sum. If I give you any rights to my property, I lose them. Resistance to potential loss of property will be much more intense and emotional than resistance to potential loss of profit. We can figure out a compromise solution to share profits, but we will fight near to the death to protect our property. Marxists would do better if they did not actually take bourgeois economics so se- riously. In this book it is less profit than property defense that dominates capitalist class motivations.

Yet neither of these motives comes on its own, as a rational calculation disembodied from ideology. The pursuit of individual profit is accompanied by a theory of an efficient economy and by a morality of individual freedom

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 63

and rationality. These theories and morals are not static, and they have changed during our century. But in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries they were usually accompanied by two notions: that collective organization was an infringement of liberty and that only the educated and refined man (i.e., not a woman) was capable of such rational calculation. Thus capitalists hated trade unions as an infringement on their fundamental freedoms and as irrational blockages to an efficient economy. They also believed that unions would reduce their profits, but this was often not the driving force of their resistance, since the belief was incorrect and was shown to be incorrect where unions were recognized as legitimate. However, this is not the primary source of capitalist hatred and resistance in the countries studied here. It dominated in the United States, not Germany, inspiring the most ferocious and malignant persecution of labor unions of any turn-of- the-century country (see Mann 1993: 638–59). It is still not dead in the United States, inspiring genuine hatred of “Reds” supposedly lurking in any left-of-center organization.

But it was the ideological substratum of the second motive, defense of property rights, that mattered more in the rise of authoritarian regimes. For property was associated in the ideology of the time with two fundamental desirable social values: order and security. The triad of property, order, and security, divinely ordained, was the ideological soul of the old regime. The new authoritarianism began to lay more stress on the order and security part of the formula, and fascism took this even further. There were now two alternative threats that the modern left and the Bolshevik Revolution had supposedly brought. One was the traditional threat to the upper class of having its property and privileges seized. The second was the threat to all classes not of a “successful” revolution but of disorder, class conflict without end. The first was a fundamental threat at the jugular vein of the capitalist class, but the second was a threat to civilized order itself, threatening every- one’s security. Genuine hatred and malignity may result from the perception of such threatening enemies.

I have not yet solved the problem of “hysterical overreaction.” I have suggested that some fairly basic human sentiments of fear, hatred, and vi- olence might be invoked at the class level in the period immediately after World War I. But why were they not then allayed as the objective threat receded? This was perhaps because of other basic human sentiments, not to forgive but to kick our enemy when he or she is down, especially after he or she has scared us. But it may also be because of the role that ideology plays in defining “interests” more broadly than rational-choice theory sug- gests. If property is equated with order and security, then they – in the form

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

64 Fascists

perhaps of increasing militarism or paramilitarism – might become positive values for classes fearing a threat to property. And if disorder is feared, then possible antidotes – nationalism, statism, and class transcendence – might also become positive values. Indeed, this is exactly what we shall find. The right in one-half of Europe also became attracted to nationalism, statism, and militarism as values in themselves, and these often prevented those on the right who were propertied from accurately calculating their rate of profit or even their likelihood of retaining their property. These values led them to a more enthusiastic embrace of authoritarianism and often of fascism than mere class interest could explain. But to fully appreciate this will involve us in also considering the military, political, and ideological crises of the period.

In view of all this, the most ambitious type of economic explanation could be only a partial, not a total, explanation, and it would have to be a compound drawn from all these approaches. Economic backwardness might favor semi-authoritarian regimes. Late development might destabilize class relations and provide more statist models. Conservative fears of destabiliza- tion coupled with more statist ideals might push them further right, toward repression. But neither Germany nor Scandinavia would fit well, and we still have no good explanation of fascism. Though economic and class theories take us part of the way, we need also to investigate the other sources of social power.

military power, military crisis

Military power is the social organization of physical violence. It is universal in human societies because of the need of human groups for organized de- fense and the ubiquitous utility of aggression. Those who command military resources may acquire social power more generally. Conversely, when dom- inant military institutions decay, this opens up new opportunities for others, including other armed groups, to seize power. However, either eventuality also presupposes that “militarism” enjoys some positive ideological valuation in society, and specifically that military organization seems to offer legiti- mate models for power acquisition and rule. In principle, all well-organized militaries could seize power, but only a few actually do so.

Military power has been neglected by social science. Though the early twentieth century produced a flurry of social theories of military power relations, they tended to vanish after 1945 – ironically, with the defeat of fascism. Since then we have had the curious spectacle of a modern age dom- inated by wars, conquest, and genocide interpreted by pacific, economistic

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 65

theories. Even when theorists have turned to consider military power rela- tions, they have tended to focus exclusively on the highly institutionalized force mobilized by states, in domestic repression and interstate wars. As we see below, an exclusive focus on violence organized by states could not explain the rise of fascism.

Yet recent historical sociology has unearthed a set of long-term military and geopolitical causes of the division of Europe into constitutional and absolutist regimes that parallel the economic causes identified by Barrington Moore. Myself (Mann 1986, 1993) Tilly (1990), and Downing (1992) have argued that (1) struggles over political representation resulted from the state’s need to tax more in order to fight more expensive foreign wars, (2) those wars became increasingly fought by professional armies under the control of the state, who could potentially be used for domestic repression to extract more taxes, but (3) states that could raise funds either from foreign trade or from taxing conquered foreigners did not need to turn up the repressive screws in order to get higher taxes, and (4) naval powers could not turn up the repression as much as land powers, since navies cannot sail on dry land. To explain Europe’s division into constitutional and absolutist regimes through the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries would require blending economic, military, and geopolitical causes – and perhaps other causes, too. It is also probable that military and geopolitical causes would continue to play a part in the further development of the “two Europes.”

Moreover, explanations of fascism do generally recognize that military power relations had just been revolutionized. World War I had deepened cit- izen warfare into “total war.” Most writers accept that fascism would never have triumphed without the emergence of such a catastrophic form of war- fare. The capacity to mobilize millions of men to fight and many more mil- lions of men and women to provide economic and logistical support to the armed forces brought many social changes. In the short term it enormously increased the infrastructural, and to a lesser extent the despotic, powers of most states. It is also a truism that victory in war brings more regime legit- imacy, while defeat brings the reverse. Total war might seem to strengthen this argument – especially for defeat, which now becomes a social catastro- phe. But modern total war had also introduced a series of tensions between state power and mass military citizenship that in the circumstances of possible or actual defeat could radically destabilize states. The initial conflicts erupted in 1917 and 1918 with a series of soldiers’ and sailors’ mutinies and in- surrections in most of the combatant armies. These peaked in the February and October Revolutions in Russia. Here soldiers formed many of the rev- olutionary councils (soviets), and their hastily assembled Red Army then

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

66 Fascists

successfully defended the Revolution through a full-scale civil war. Austria, Germany, and Hungary also saw insurrectionary soldiers’ soviets, though these were soon repressed. But the repression was less often by the state’s official armed forces than by the doppelganger of the soldiers’ soviets, right- ist paramilitaries. Such “popular” militarism from below was to provide the core of fascist movements everywhere.

Fascism became a mass movement only at the end of the Great War. Most European states were participants, but even the neutrals were deeply affected. The war obviously intensified nationalism and statism. But there were also three direct military links to fascism. First, the war tended to delegitimate defeated regimes, which had tended to be only semi-authoritarian. Many have thus argued that defeat in World War I was quite likely to produce more authoritarian and fascist outcomes – though the immediate impact was actually the reverse, to increase democratic pressures. This might be plausible for Germany, Austria, and Hungary, the main losers (apart from Russia), all falling to reactionary authoritarians, then corporatists and fascists. The war cost Germany 10 percent of its territories and enormous reparations payments; Hungary lost over half its territories; and Austria lost its entire empire. Rightists in these countries claimed that defeat resulted from a “stab in the back” by civilian politicians, leftists, and sinister “Judeo-Bolsheviks.” Spearheaded by refugees flooding in from the lost territories, they demanded the restoration of those territories. Bulgaria was a loser on a lesser scale. Italy is sometimes added to the list of the defeated. Though actually on the winning side, her armies had taken a battering and her territorial gains were fewer than nationalists desired. A “mutilated victory” was blamed on “decadent” liberal governments and “unpatriotic” leftists (De Grand, 1978: 102–14). Since these countries included the main fascist cases (though not Romania), to link military defeat, revisionism, and fascism seems plausible.

Timing remains a problem. Only Italian fascists (1922) and Bulgarian reactionary authoritarians (1923) took power soon after the war, and these countries had suffered the fewest losses. Germany had time to recover. Repa- rations were settled in 1930, and the Allied occupation of the Rhineland was known to be temporary. Hitler’s coup in 1933 was surely too late to be directly attributed to defeat in the First World War. Hungarian politi- cians knew their revisionism was rhetorical not practical; Austrians knew they could not restore the empire. Defeat could not easily explain enduring authoritarianism or the fascist surge during the 1930s. War defeat did not directly produce fascism. Yet it might have contributed to the first postwar rightist surge, undermining the immediate prospects for democracy, and this might have provided militants for later.

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 67

Authoritarianism also triumphed in countries with different war records. Serbia and Romania were victors. Serbia had been rewarded with dominion over Yugoslavia. Romania had its territories and population doubled by the war. These two victors turned authoritarian, and Romania generated mass fascism. Two neutrals – Portugal and Spain – also turned authoritarian. Portugal was not involved in serious warfare in the period. The Spanish Empire had been destroyed by the United States in 1898–9 and a Spanish army was routed by Moroccans in 1921. Yet the blame for these disasters was traded equally between left and right politicians, the monarch and the army itself. Few Spaniards supported imperial revisionism. Nor did many Greeks, after their defeat by Turkey in 1922. Not until 1936 did General Metaxas stage his coup, and foreign policy issues were marginal to it. Finally, the new “successor states” owed their very existence to World War I. Poland, the Baltic states, and Albania also went authoritarian, but most of their postwar leaders were considered heroes of national liberation. Authoritarianism and, to a lesser extent, fascism were thus associated with varied war experiences, not just defeat.

Yet war had a second big impact on a broader area of Europe. Through- out the center, east, and south victors, vanquished and successor states had experienced severe war dislocation. Vanquished regimes lost legitimacy, terri- tories, and resources, and some were pressured by refugees. Greece (neutral during 1914–18) experienced much of this after 1922. Italy had only a little dislocation, over Trieste and the South Tyrol. The two clear-cut victors, Romania and Serbia, had to cope with a different yet parallel problem: in- corporating extensive new territories that transformed country and state. Serbs had to institutionalize politics that would ensure their own domi- nance yet leave the other ethnicities in the new Yugoslavia not too unhappy. Romanians now had an enlarged, overwhelmingly rural country, and were no longer quite the oppressed “proletarian nation” of the region. Old states in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, and Italy were suddenly required to deepen parliamentarism. The brand-new “successor states” had to be started almost from scratch – none shared the opportunity of Finns and Czechs to build on past regional administrations and parliaments. This amounted to considerable war-induced political dislocation over vir- tually the entire center, east, and southeast. Only neutral Spain and Portugal escaped this.

The northwest had the opposite experience. All but three northwestern countries were victors or neutrals. The two most marginal liberal democ- racies, Finland and Czechoslovakia, were also the only new successor states. Belgium was the only quasi-defeated state (it was occupied by the German

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

68 Fascists

army), but Belgians sensibly blamed geography, not their politicians. Belgium also received small territorial gains and reparations in the Peace Treaties. Amid the victors (France, Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), only France received territorial gains, and Alsace-Lorraine had been French before 1871. Nor were their con- stitutions meddled with. Most were old states. Even the Czechs and Finns had possessed old, hitherto “regional” political institutions, though the Czechs had no tried institutions for ruling Slovaks or Sudeten Germans (this is where their state was later to break down). But virtually none of the northwest had to cope with defeat, incorporate new territories, or devise new constitutions. Thus the center, east, and southeast but almost none of the northwest was witnessing a war-induced dislocation of polit- ical institutions. But why would destabilization come from the right and lead to authoritarianism and fascism? I turn to the third legacy of the war, paramilitarism.

Prewar fascist theory was influenced by the realization that warfare could now mobilize the whole nation. World War I made this reality. “The na- tion in arms” proved to be disciplined yet comradely, elitist yet peculiarly egalitarian – since officers and men now fought alongside each other and officers actually suffered the higher casualties. “Total” war conscripted be- tween 25 percent and 80 percent of young and early middle-aged males. But since mass citizen warfare produced mostly horror for the troops, by 1918 most wanted only to get out as quickly as possible, back to jobs and families. A leftist minority took disillusion further, to demand a juster and more pacific society. After a spurt of “workers and soldiers” movements, they became absorbed into civilian left movements. Though some of these did develop uniformed, marching, demonstrating formations convention- ally called “paramilitaries,” they were much less violent than fascist ones, and they generally lost street battles with them. Leftist veterans had no ven- eration of militarism and soon lost their distinctive identity as veterans. It was different for a rightist veteran minority. They idealized the disciplined cross-class comradeship of the front and became disenchanted with postwar strife-torn civilian democracy. By extolling military virtues and by contin- uing certain military practices in peacetime, they devised a distinctive social movement: the citizen paramilitary.

Rightist paramilitaries and organized veterans’ leagues assumed signifi- cance in most countries. They won a civil war in Finland, repressed the leftist government of Hungary in 1919–20, repressed leftist and foreign opponents in early postwar Germany, Austria, and Poland, overthrew civilian govern- ment in Bulgaria in 1923, and almost overthrew the Estonian government

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 69

in 1934. They were the core of the first wave of all fascist movements. All fascist and some corporatist and reactionary authoritarian movements maintained substantial paramilitaries in which veterans played the core lead- ership role. Most theories of the modern state follow Max Weber in defin- ing it as possessing the monopoly of the means of violence in society. Yet this has by no means always been true. That is why we must analytically separate military from political power relations even in the modern state. Military power is not only mobilized by states. Though all interwar regimes possessed quite imposing armies, well trained, well armed, experienced in war, some of these armies were largely immobilized by ideological divi- sions within. Ideologies, especially rightist ones, were sweeping through all ranks, often sponsored by respected military veterans – even the Supreme Commander, General Ludendorff. Armies were losing much of their caste- like professional autonomy. Some states now had arms of clay and divided hearts.

One view of the link between war veterans and fascism focuses on the link between military and economic power, that is, on veterans’ resentment at their material deprivation. The second view focuses on the link between military and ideological power, that is, on the rise of paramilitary values. The economic argument suggests that a veteran cohort centering on the lower middle class (including small peasants) was pushed toward extremism by postwar unemployment and economic deprivation. The paramilitary values argument suggests it was their wartime experience of the front, of class- less comradeship and hierarchical subordination. Paramilitary organization, veterans believed, could now achieve great social and political purposes, as military organization had in the war. Though rightist veterans were prob- ably no more numerous than leftist veterans, they maintained a distinctive postwar presence, encouraging them toward the violent cleansing of “en- emies” of the nation and toward “knocking heads together” to cure social conflict. My case-study chapters evaluate these two rival explanations. The ideological argument will do better.

Wartime dislocation, and defeat in some of the major cases, provided much of the initial political crisis for the new regimes and could have been vital in stemming the initial surge toward democracy. A particular cohort’s exposure to military organization and values then provided a core of militants and a plausible paramilitary solution to this crisis. But this is not a sufficient explanation. Once again, it was only in one-half of Europe that significant paramilitarism surfaced, while both halves of Europe (and other countries, too) had experienced the war. It is true that some stirrings of paramilitarism and even protofascist activity among veterans appeared in almost all the

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

70 Fascists

combatant countries. They were quite pronounced in democratic France. They were small in Britain yet influential in Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. In the United States, Campbell (1998) has shown that the newly formed American Legion was used by rightists as a strike- and “Red”- busting organization in the 1920s. Yet compared with veteran fascism in Germany, Italy, Hungary, or Romania, these were minor skirmishes. Perhaps victory versus defeat offers part of the explanation for the difference (though not for Romania). But it does also seem that other circumstances beyond war and its effects must also have contributed to the interwar dominance of authoritarianism and fascism.

political power, political crisis

Political power derives from control of the state, and ultimately from the use- fulness to human groups of territorial and centralized regulation of social relations. Clearly, those who control the state can exercise more general power. The interwar period saw many political crises and coups as factions jockeyed for control of states. This is the stuff of “elite theories” of political power, which contend with two reductionist theories of state, class theory and pluralism. But regardless of the degree of autonomous power wielded by state elites, the institutions and the crises of states may have an autonomous influence over political outcomes. The fact that the French state is highly centralized and the American one decentralized has a continuing legacy on contemporary politics, an example of what I have called “institutional statist theory” (Mann 1993: chap. 3). The “new institutionalism” has also empha- sized the enduring impact of existing institutions in structuring social life. In the interwar period we find semi-authoritarian states, long institutionalized but now supposedly making a transition toward democracy experiencing their own crises, with important consequences for fascism.

The main problem of explaining authoritarianism in terms only of the effects of World War I and interwar economic crises is that politics in “the two Europes” had already differed over a much longer period of time. Most of the northwest had made their transition to the liberal democratic nation- state through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In contrast, the whole of the center, east, and south was only now embarking, more suddenly, on this transition amid a rising tide of nationalism and statism. Economic backwardness was important in bringing about this difference, and so were military and geopolitical contexts. But there were also specifically political problems in the center, east, and south. These were states in transition, and they had difficulty coping with interwar crises.

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 71

I distinguish two main facets of liberal democracy, what Dahl (1977) terms “participation” and “contestation.” “Participation” means the extent of participation in government, centering on who could vote. This has dominated discussion of democratic development (Rokkan 1970: part II; Therborn 1977; Rueschemeyer et al. 1992: 83–98). But “contestation” (or competition) is equally necessary for liberal democracy. Contestation means that sovereign power is contested between parties in free elections, and the executive power cannot override elections.

“Participation” does not clearly distinguish between “the two Europes” in the immediate prewar period. Among the early cases of manhood suf- frage were Portugal in 1822, Bulgaria in 1879, and Serbia in 1889, and it had been introduced in France and Germany to bolster the rule of semi- authoritarian Napoleon III and the Kaiser. Late nineteenth-century men might often have the vote, but they were still often controlled by local no- tables, caciques, whose powers as employers, magistrates, charity-dispensers, and tax-gatherers could not be lightly challenged (though the new secret ballot helped). Though by 1914 most franchises were broader in the north- west, both regions contained variation, and this grew greater after 1918. In the 1920s all adult women could vote in Germany and Austria yet none could in France, while single British women aged between twenty-one and thirty could vote only in 1929. The breadth of suffrage could not predict whether liberal democracy survived, though sudden jumps in the suffrage in countries such as Italy and Spain did alarm conservatives, lead- ing some to embrace authoritarianism. Again, political dislocation seems important.

“Contestation” (or competition) predicts better. By the 1880s, mostly decades before, countries in the entire northwest (including their white colonial offshoots) had competitive party systems, largely free elections, and parties that alternated in government with little executive interference. In the Nordic countries, estate assemblies had survived even through absolutist periods. Even in northwestern “colonies,” in Ireland and Norway, locals had sent elected representatives to the colonial power’s assembly in London and Copenhagen. Even the two marginal cases, Finland and Czechoslovakia, had been permitted provincial assemblies by their Russian and Austrian over- lords. Northwestern parliaments also enjoyed powers distinct from those of the majority party, so that a ruling party could not easily remain in govern- ment by manipulating office patronage or repression. The paradigm cases were the United States (free party contest among most white males from the 1790s) and Britain (free party contest among 15 to 20 percent of men from 1832). Most of the northwest followed suit during the nineteenth century.

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

72 Fascists

True, royal prerogatives in the choice of ministers survived in Sweden and Denmark, though they were rarely exercised and were finally laid to rest in 1917 and 1920.

This criterion does seem to distinguish virtually perfectly between the two Europes. Obviously, this had much to do with level of development, with the class politics of an earlier age, but also with fiscal-military differences (Mann 1986; Downing 1992). Whatever the exact mix of original causes, their legacy was considerable differences between the nature and stability of political regimes in the early twentieth century, and these now emerged to have their own causal impact on outcomes.

Thus by World War I sovereign parliaments were institutionalized across the northwest.9 When the suffrage was extended across classes and religions and to women, parties adapted entrenched liberal practices (Luebbert 1991). Interwar discontents were expressed through these representative institu- tions (see the articles in Schmitt 1988). Only Finland and Czechoslovakia had to find new institutions – and so both struggled. The northwestern state was unitary, dominated by institutionalized parliamentary sovereignty, experienced in handling conflict between classes, religious communities, and regions. Belgium and Switzerland were uniquely experienced in cop- ing with ethnic differences. What mattered was less liberal ideology than institutions whose everyday practices embodied liberalism.

Consider late nineteenth-century British miners. Probably few believed in “liberalism.” They were as radical (and as well organized) as miners in most countries. But enough of them possessed the vote under the property franchise, and they were sufficiently concentrated in certain parliamentary constituencies, to constitute a voting bloc that the existing parties could not ignore. The Liberal Party responded and represented their grievances in parliament, so miners voted Liberal. This arrangements contained tensions, and miners’ MPs acquired some autonomy as “Lib-Labs.” In the early twen- tieth century they joined the Labour Party. Their trajectory was dominated by opportunities created by the essential pragmatism of everyday electoral and parliamentary politics much more than by ideology. In comparable ways the new class and other tensions of the interwar period could be filtered through institutionalized parliamentary states, in the process deepening and strengthening them. Such democratic political traditions were simply too institutionalized to allow fascist, Bolshevist, or any other ideology to develop far. In these countries it may even be inappropriate to refer to liberalism as an ideology. It was only so in the residual sense of an “institutionalized ideology,” that is, one embedded in mundane ritual practices. It saw values

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 73

and norms instrumentally, relevant to winning the next election or keeping party factions moderately contented.

As Linz (1976: 4–8) noted, fascist parties were latecomers to parliamentary institutions. If party competition already dominated the state, there was little space left for them. Whatever World War I or capitalism might throw at Norway, Sweden, or Denmark, for example, their democratic parties would cope (Hagtvet 1980: 715, 735–8; Myklebust and Hagtvet 1980: 639–44). If their electoral antennae detect rising nationalism, then conservative parties might offer a bit more of it. If they detect statist sentiments, center-left parties will oblige. So later, when some of these countries were occupied by the Nazis and their party systems were destroyed, things might rapidly change. The Nazis found plenty of willing ideological collaborators once they emasculated parliaments and elections. In Norway, for example, they received the support of 55,000 local national socialist collaborators.

In the center, east, and south of Europe, things differed. Parliaments had either barely existed before 1914 (as in the Russian or Ottoman Empires) or shared political power with a nonelected executive, a monarch, military commanders, or a ministerial regime commanding substantial office pa- tronage. The state was dual, its “two states” (parliament and executive) each enjoying partial sovereignty (Newman 1970: 225–6). That is the meaning of the term “semi-authoritarian.” A legacy of the earlier absolutist period was that the armed forces were more specifically under the control of the executive than they were in the other half of Europe. The monarch could manipulate elections and parliaments by selective repression plus office pa- tronage in the German and Habsburg Empires, Serbia, Romania, Greece, and Bulgaria. In Restoration Spain and (to a lesser extent) in “liberal” Italy up to 1919, the Ministry of the Interior or Prime Minister helped fix elections to produce compliant oligarchical governments (el turno in Spain, trasformismo in Italy). In 1901 half of the Italian deputies were actually government officeholders, hardly “independent” men. “Place holders” had been eliminated in Britain in 1832. But in this half of Europe democratic constitutions were partially undermined by executive powers. Here miners were essentially outside political institutions. Notables might continue to “represent” them rather indirectly through political clientelism. But if this faltered, the notables could have recourse to much greater powers of repres- sion than had their counterparts in the northwest. They had authoritarian, despotic options.

In 1918 the center, east, and south was thus confronted by what we might call “political late development.” Larsen (1998; cf. Griffin 2001: 49) says that

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

74 Fascists

the Axis states were “late nationbuilders, late liberalizers and introduced democratic rule only a short period before they broke down,” but this was also more generally true right across their half of the continent. Germany and Austria moved suddenly to advanced parliamentary sovereignty and full adult suffrage, as Spain did in 1931. Italy had made its first dramatic suf- frage extension just before the war, in 1912, and its second in 1918. These major shifts in the parliamentary side of the state were not accompanied by comparable changes within the executive, which (as we see below in the case-study chapters) remained dominated by “old regime” elements that controlled most of the repressive apparatuses of the state. Dual states, sup- posedly in the process of liberalizing, were found just about everywhere else. But many central, eastern, and southern countries were confronted by a fur- ther transitional problem, for they were also founding nation-states. Here the problems were novel and unlike those earlier experienced in the north- west. Northwestern “ethnic blindness”10 would not do for those inhabit- ing the former territories or neighborhood of the multinational Russian, Austrian, or Ottoman Empires – now representation was not just of class but also of nationality. Political movements seeking to mobilize national iden- tities and interests appeared alongside movements mobilizing classes. There were old imperial nations (Russian, German, and Ottoman), more recent imperialists (Magyar), “proletarian” nations (Ukrainian, Romanian), newer subimperial nations (Serb, Czech), and minorities of all these in the majority states of other nations. Where nationalities also differed in their religions, this reinforced their sense of mutual unease.

National conflicts were also more directly linked to international conflicts than were class conflicts. The Versailles and Trianon Treaties involved much redrawing of boundaries according to two conflicting principles. One was to punish the losers and reward the winners. The other was to establish “national self-determination,” redrawing boundaries according to patterns of ethnic settlement, so that each new state would be predominantly mono- ethnic. The result was to leave some dissatisfied states with “irredentist” demands for the restoration of “lost territories” coming especially from refugees fleeing from the boundary drawing. We see how demanding and complex were the claims now being made on the dual nation-states of the center, east, and south, and how untried were the political practices for coping with them. Actors were faced with considerable uncertainty and risk, largely absent in the northwest. It was safer perhaps for those who controlled the executive part of the state to repress if faced with crisis. Remember also that this criterion puts the formerly absolutist states of Germany and

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 75

Austria in the same position as the less developed states to the east and south.

Let us look at this political crisis of transition through the eyes of the most sophisticated conservative state theorist of the time.11 Carl Schmitt was a famous German jurist who ended up as an apologist for Nazism after Hitler’s accession to power. But in the 1920s he was just a conservative, not wholly committed to any particular type of regime, admiring Mussolini but not Hitler, searching desperately to ground a theory of contemporary constitutional order on a juridical bedrock of absolute legal principle. He wanted certainty, not risk. He believed that certainty was now lacking across continental Europe because the decline of the old semi-authoritarian regime had undermined two essential attributes of constitutional law. First, old regime parliaments had expressed the Enlightenment principle of reason in the form of free debate between rational, independent, educated men. That the best laws were the product of rational discourse between educated men was the essence of nineteenth-century continental liberalism. Now, Schmitt argued, the mass suffrage (“participation” in Dahl’s sense) produced the rise of mass parties, and these threatened the independence of these men. Deputies were transformed into mere “representatives” of entrenched interests in society, instructed by their organizations and ideologies how to vote. Free, rational debate was at an end. In fact, he painted an even gloomier scenario of bureaucratically organized, corporatist, “mass armies” (thinking primarily of organized labor, but also occasionally mentioning economic concentration and big business) “invading” and subordinating the state to highly moralistic ideologies of hatred that ultimately failed to conceal their basis in narrow class interests. Perhaps compromise between these interests remained possible, but it would now have to be effected through these organizations themselves, not through parliament. For this, Schmitt correctly noted, was how the Weimar Republic had actually been founded – through an explicit, somewhat insecure “class truce” negotiated between the socialist unions and big businessmen. The participants were not bound together by the normative solidarity of parliament as an assembly of gentlemen. Nor, I would add, were they bound into long-hallowed everyday practices of parties and parliaments. Could they be trusted? Could they trust each other? Schmitt doubted it.

Second, Schmitt argued, domination by political parties (i.e., full “con- testation”) ended all possibility that the traditional state might continue as the ultimate, neutral guarantor of order and compromise, as it had been in the past. Though we tend to view old regime executives as having been

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

76 Fascists

class-biased, favoring the propertied classes, this is not how conservatives themselves viewed them. The monarch and state had been “above” soci- ety, Schmitt argued, providing the ultimate constitutional guarantee against encroaching private interests. A party could represent only a “part” of the nation. It could not replace the state as a “universal” power. Schmitt be- lieved, with some justification, that German state elites were now paralyzed. Yet the pluralism of party competition that replaced them was only one step away from a condition of civil war where there would be no judge to deter- mine what is “mine and thine.” The unravelling of competition into “war” was a definite risk. If neither the debating chamber nor the old regime exec- utive could provide order, perhaps a new state executive could provide this. And so through the 1920s Schmitt began to formulate the idea that a new type of ruling elite, above society, was necessary to occupy the “vacated” centers of state power and avoid the risk of disorder. This led him through support for the semi-authoritarianism of Bruning and von Papen to Hitler and Nazism.

Schmitt was articulating very widespread fears. His first argument ap- pealed especially to old regime liberals, his second to conservatives. Of course, there was a great deal of class consciousness lying behind these fears. One particular “mass army” loomed largest for Schmitt, as for other con- servatives and liberals – workers’ unions and their attendant socialist parties. The shadow of the Bolshevik Revolution loomed behind their worst fears. Yet Schmitt based his theory not on property rights but on a broader notion of order and security. He embodies perfectly what I noted earlier when dealing with the fears of the propertied classes: Property fears are displaced onto a positive concern with order and security. His stress on the threat posed by large bureaucratic and corporate organizations to free rational dis- course had and still has broader appeal. It is, for example, quite similar to Habermas’s more recent theory of distorted communication, a theory that has a decidedly leftist pedigree. Schmitt even looked favorably on welfare benefits, unless they involved society’s “encroachment” on the state. His primary worries were about the state and social order, not class and material interests. Nor did he or his circle have much to do with capitalism. His own family origins were poor, his father being a menial railway employee. The family was strongly Catholic and Schmitt’s early conservatism took Catholic forms (i.e., until he broke with the church over his own divorce). He then spent his life in German universities as a professor with secure civil servant status. He mixed in cafe and salon society, meeting artists, writers, and other academics. His writings made him famous among jurists and civil servants, and his connections to power elites were primarily with top civil servants.

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 77

He was central to the “humanistic bourgeoisie” and to German statism, but not to capitalism. Though his own nationalism was not extreme, and he was no militarist, his geopolitical writings exposed a contemporary interna- tional order biased toward the interests of the victors of World War I. Thus he helped legitimate German imperial revisionism. As we see below, fas- cism’s appeal to the upper classes was not merely based on property interests. It was mediated by concerns with order and security to arrive at a transcen- dent nation-statism.

And so the fears of many conservatives and some liberals were brought into the same ideological ballpark as that of fascists. A crisis of political tran- sition amid a mass society had disrupted prior sources of constitutional order and security. Things were getting risky, and they might unravel further – amid rising nationalism, statism, and militarism. It was better to be safe than sorry. Since conservatives had ready access to repression in the dual state, they could – to use a football expression – “get their retaliation in first” (while shouting “foul”). This was the rationality lying behind apparent paranoia about the Red Peril. They did not realize that the Black Peril of fascism might be even more threatening.

Thus authoritarianism resulted directly from a political crisis, making it more difficult for some states to cope with the crises emanating from capitalism and militarism. Dual states in the south, east, and center (for I have included the German states) could not be guaranteed to handle crisis safely, except by repression. Whatever crises world war and capitalism threw at the northwest, its liberal states survived. Eugen Weber says, “Twentieth-century fascism is a byproduct of disintegrating liberal democracy” (1964: 139). But this is not quite correct. Institutionalized liberal states successfully rode out the crisis. We should rephrase his statement: Fascism reflected a crisis of the dual state, the “semi-authoritarian, semi-liberal” state found across one-half of Europe, faced with simultaneous transitions to liberal democracy and the nation-state just as these countries were beset by economic and military crises. This produced uncertainty, a downward spiral, and a reaction within the state itself against liberalism: a revolt by one-half of the state against the other, each mobilizing core constituencies of support. We must analyze state elites and parties as carefully as social classes. The lightning rod of this crisis was not liberalism but conservatism. It was the success of northwestern conservatives in moving from notable to mass representative parties that ensured the survival there of liberal states. Elsewhere it was the failure of conservatives to effect this transition that produced authoritarianism and opened the door to fascism. Though the political crisis owed much to long-term processes of economic and geopolitical/military development,

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

78 Fascists

and something to short-term economic and military crises, it also had more specifically political causes. And in turn the political crisis generated a need for real ideologies.

ideological power, ideological crisis

Ideological power derives from the human need to find ultimate meaning, to share norms, values, and rituals that seem to make sense of the world and that reinforce social cooperation. An ideology mobilizing plausible norms, values, and rituals may also confer power on its initiators. Human exis- tence does not “make its own sense.” We draw on more general meaning systems that are not directly “testable” either by science or by our own practical experience. Meaning systems “surpass experience” and so help to define interests. Yet socialization plus the institutionalized routines of edu- cation, employment, politics, and so on normally insulate us from needing frequent recourse to general ideologies. Institutions in which we are im- plicated generate everyday routines that “work” and seem “normal,” and they generate minimal “institutionalized ideologies” in which values are routinely undercut by pragmatism. In times of crisis, however, traditional routines and pragmatism may no longer seem to work and we are thrown onto more general ideas in order to find new workable practices. Then in- tellectuals may offer new meaning systems and so acquire a more general social power. We may then find them plausible, and follow them. This was how I interpreted the rise of the world salvation religions in the first volume of The Sources of Social Power (Mann 1986: chap. 10), and how I interpreted the influence of the Enlightenment movement on the French Revolution in volume 2 (Mann 1993: chaps. 6 and 7). Was fascism similar? I investi- gate fascist communications networks. Geographically, I identify three main networks: transnational networks, macro-regional networks that might help construct or reinforce “the two Europes,” and networks confined within nation-states. Socially, I identify core ideological constituencies of fascism.

Fascism was obviously very ideological. Other authoritarian rightists did not live much at the ideological level. They would pragmatically steal as much fascist clothing as was compatible with staying in power, while seek- ing to defuse fascism’s radical, bottom-up thrust. But the prewar progenitors of fascism had been intellectuals, and intellectuals always remained important in fascism. In the prewar period Maurras, Barrès, Sorel, and race theorists such as Chamberlain and Gobineau, plus a host of middlebrow journalists, popularizers, and pamphleteers – right down to the infamous anti-Semitic forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion – had far more readers than prewar

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 79

fascist or racist political organizations had members. All fascist movements continued to appeal disproportionately to the well educated – to students in high schools and universities and to the most highly educated middle-class strata. Salvatorelli (1923) described this core constituency as the “humanis- tic bourgeoisie.” Though fascism attracted really major intellectuals only in Italy and Romania, everywhere it attracted minor ones, especially commu- nications specialists in newspapers, radio, film, and graphic design. Fascism was a movement of the lesser intelligentsia.

And so fascist programs were formed amid a broader ideology. I quoted Codreanu’s contemptuous dismissal of the typical “shopping list” of party programs. Fascists situated interest-based economics or politics amid a Weltanschauung (a general orientation to the world). They claimed a higher moral purpose, transcendent of class conflict, capable of “resacralizing” a modern society grown materialistic and decadent. They identified a “civi- lizational crisis” encompassing government, morality, science, social science, the arts, and “style.” They denounced their enemies in moralistic and highly emotional terms. Socialists brought “Asiatic barbarism,” liberals were “deca- dent” and “corrupt.” Science was “materialistic.” A “degenerate,” “elderly” culture needing recasting, rejuvenating. They promoted their own art, ar- chitecture, science, and social science, their own youth movements, and a cult of “the new man,” enveloping all with an intense interest in style and ritual. Of course, Mussolini and Hitler also recognized the emotional power of art forms – music, marching, rhetoric, painting, graphic design, sculp- ture, architecture. They found a willing pool of artists who saw their own artistic creativity as being at one with fascist ideology. During the 1920s and 1930s the concatenation of crises listed above produced a severe loss of ultimate meaning. If a country had suffered wars of massive destruction and dislocation, had lost or gained great swaths of territory, saw its own peo- ple as refugees (or as displacing refugees), encountered severe recession and class conflict, and was embarked on a fraught political transition, then not merely the “old regime” but also many old ways and beliefs in gen- eral seemed inadequate. Social and political ideologies do not require and cannot obtain scientific validation. New ideologies require not truth but plausibility, a seeming ability to “make some sense” of current events at a time when established ideologies are obviously in difficulty. In the interwar period traditional ideologies could not easily interpret contemporary reality, at least across one-half of Europe. Conservatism distrusted the masses who were now on stage, liberalism seemed corrupt and insufficiently statist and nationalist. Socialism distrusted the nation and brought class conflict but not its solution. Christian churches had been in retreat from the secular sphere

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

80 Fascists

and were divided. There was an opening for new ideologies and ideologists, capable of what Lucien Goldman called “maximum possible consciousness,” the first to experience the inadequacies of conventional ideologies and the first to generate new ones.

Writers such as Hughes (1967), Sternhell (1976: 320–5), and Mosse (1999) have identified a more general and thoroughly transnational ide- ological crisis permeating Europe. They see a contradiction between “Enlightenment Reason” and a post-Romantic concern with the emotions, passions, the will, and the unconscious – some borne by “mass” phenomena such as crowds, strikes, war, and nationalism. Some have sought to trace a link through “the history of ideas” between fascism and revolutions of “high modernism” that reflected and reinforced a general crisis of the early twen- tieth century: “disturbing revolutions” in psychoanalysis, abstract painting, atonal music, the decline of the omniscient narrator of the realist novel, a fascination with the bizarre, the fantastic, the decadent, and the irrational, all subversive to the Enlightenment program of calm, confident reason. But if a transnational crisis of high culture helped cause authoritarianism, it should have caused it everywhere. Can we tone down the argument to a macro- regional one? In this case we would expect the cultural crisis to be greater in the east and south of the continent. Though it was somewhat weaker in the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries, democratic Paris dominated the avant-garde, while leftist Vienna led its music and psychoanalysis. Nor was the more backward east or southeast into high modernism. In fact, high culture is generated by small coteries of cosmopolitan elites, not much tied to locality. This is especially true of music and art, largely unhindered by linguistic barriers. But it is difficult to connect the “revolutions” introduced by Freud, Schönberg, Picasso, Joyce, and so on to political revolutions. Since many “radical” artists were rejecting art forms embedded in mass human ex- perience (hummable tunes, beautiful landscapes, and so on), they had little connection to the masses. Schorske (1981) says the cultured elites of Vienna saw that liberalism had failed to reform the Austro-Hungarian Empire and were horrified by its emerging violent mass politics. So they retreated into aesthetic romanticism and the occult and rejected the values of the existing social order, foreshadowing the political horrors to come.

But fascists rejected much of this high modernism as “degenerate.” So some say fascism was “antimodern.” I prefer Gentile’s (1996) notion of re- sacralized modernity, or Herf ’s (1984) “reactionary modernism,” coined to describe the world view of the Nazi engineers he studied. There was nos- talgia, romanticism, medievalism, and even primitivism in Nazism. Yet, as Allen (2002) also notes of SS technocrats, Nazi professionals viewed

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 81

themselves as modernists. In areas as diverse as engineering, management theory, biology, propaganda, and graphic design, fascists were enthusiastic modernists. They were innovative in mass communication, disseminating their ideology through posters, parades, art shows, movies, and architecture. In architecture and music they were quite conservative; in graphic design, film, and theatrical demonstrations they were radicals. But it does not seem that a crisis of high culture played much role in the power of fascist ideol- ogy. Rather, fascists offered plausible general solutions to economic, military, and political crises of the time, which their powers of communication made more resonant.

Indeed, this was the age of rising nation-states, and communication was becoming less transnational, more bounded by states. Eighteenth-century literate communication had been dominated by multilingual churches and aristocratic elites. The Enlightenment had been transnational, diffusing across literate Europeans and beyond. This remained true of its nineteenth- century liberal and socialist heirs, the “enemies” of twentieth-century au- thoritarianism. Socialist transnationalism was aided by the transnational dif- fusion of capitalism, the old regimes’ habit of punishing dissidents with exile, and the leftward turn of young Jews, pressured by new political anti- Semitism (discussed in my forthcoming book). Cosmopolitan networks of exiles and Jews were the core of the Internationals, easing speedy transla- tion of socialist texts. There were macro-regional subcultures of Marxism, syndicalism, and reformism, but most labor movements felt all these in- fluences. Indeed, authoritarians and especially fascists attacked socialists as cosmopolitan, foreign, treasonous. The late nineteenth-century rise of so- ciology was implicitly nationalist. Weber, Durkheim, Pareto, and Mosca barely ever referred to each other. They were insulated behind their own national boundaries, all mounting independent critiques of transnational socialism.

The message of liberalism was also transnational, though it had two main homes, Britain and France. Liberalism embodied parliamentary compromise and open debate between independent gentlemen. It began to encounter difficulties in the age of the masses. The gradual extension of the suffrage in Britain had masked this, since mass parties were gradually incorporated into the gentlemanly ways of Westminster. The Third French Republic also masked it for a time, since Republican parties were united by their common need to defend the Republic against the right. But in the view of conser- vative notables elsewhere (such as Carl Schmitt), the more sudden entry of the masses brought disciplined parties adhering to preset ideologies. Free parliamentary debate was being swamped by ideological armies. “Liberal”

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

82 Fascists

notables might cling to power by manipulating emerging mass parties, as in caciquismo and trasformismo, but these became corrupt and developed au- thoritarian leanings. British ideological influence on the continent declined in the late nineteenth century as Britain became more absorbed in its em- pire. British, and to a lesser extent French, liberal influence on Europe declined.

Continental debates with liberalism were often challenges to “Anglo- Saxon” (sometimes to Anglo-French) orthodoxy. In philosophy the util- itarianism of Bentham, the positivism of Comte, and American pragma- tism – all carrying the pragmatic wing of the Enlightenment tradition – were countered with neo-idealist intentionality, the emotions, vitalism, and Lebensphilosophie associated especially with Schopenhauer, Brentano, Bergson, and Nietzsche. Freud’s unconscious was paralleled by LeBon’s crowd psychology, Sorel’s mass strike, and the primordial role of myth. Tönnies and Durkheim challenged the liberalism of Spencer and Comte: Society, they said, was not formed merely by contracts between individ- uals but required community and collective conscience. Gumplowicz and Ratzenhofer developed a sociology of ethnic conflict and militaristic “su- perstratification” to challenge the more pacific Marxian and liberal theories of class and interest group conflict. These new sociologies remained lit- tle known in Britain and the United States. Though Social Darwinism encouraged eugenicism everywhere, the northwest saw the reproduction of the lower classes rather than of “lower races” as the main problem. In Germany and Austria racial Social Darwinism permeated best-selling novels, popular sociology, and new political parties. Though few of these writers were rightists, their vulgarization at “the hands of a thousand minor intel- lectuals” (says Sternhell) encouraged romantic and populist expressions of nationalism and statism.

France and Germany continued to act as ideological intermediaries to the east and south of the continent. Weber saw the duality of instrumental and value rationality. Ortega y Gasset said Bismarck and Kant personified within Germany the entire European political dilemma: Bismarck offered order, stability, community, and authority, Kant freedom, enlightenment, equality, individualism. Liberals turned from Westminster toward the more embattled, nationalist French Republic. Spanish liberals declared that though England had been the cradle of public liberties, France had universalized them (Marco 1988: 37–42). Germany dominated socialism, from Marx to Bernstein, Kautsky, and Rosa Luxemburg, leaders of the world’s biggest so- cialist party, the SPD. Around 1900, as liberalism faded, French and German socialists and authoritarian conservatives both dominated European political

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 83

thought. The new radical right diffused eastward and southward from the two major players of the “frontier zone,” the French and the Germans.

French and German concerns differed. French rightists focused on statism, Germans on nationalism. This was because France had settled ter- ritories and few ethnic disputes (Alsace-Lorraine was disputed but con- tained little ethnic tension). The French disputed instead what kind of state would fill this territory. Its turn-of-the-century protofascist intellectu- als were spurred by the Republic’s defeat of the monarchical, military, and ultramontane right and advanced new forms of statism embracing moder- nity, “integral nationalism,” and mass mobilization. French rightism thus had more appeal in countries with clear boundaries, where the nation was not problematic but the state was. Maurras, Barrès, and Action Française were cited most in Spain, Portugal, and Italy. Italy was distinctive in that liberals as well as conservatives gravitated toward such protofascism. But these were liberals who had failed to institutionalize liberal practices in their countries.

In contrast, Germans lacked a single state. They argued about the merits of a Klein (little) and a Gross Deutschland (including Austria and other areas where ethnic Germans lived), whereas the major German states, Prussia/ Germany and Austria, shared similar constitutions. So Germans debated eth- nicity more than state constitutions. Rightists generated völkisch (“folkish,” “popular”) organic nationalism. This resonated more in areas of Europe where the relationship of ethnicity to state was disputed, across most of the east and in the Balkans. Ethno-nationalism was initially spearheaded by Austrian Germans, since only Austria possessed a European empire em- broiled in disputes between “imperial” and “proletarian” nations. Though Social Darwinism diffused right through the continent, the more easterly German lands adapted it to intra-European ethnic differences – the prod- uct of anti-Semitism and the disassociation between nation and state found there.

The Great War reduced the geopolitical influence of both countries but increased nationalism. The Romanian Eliade denounced “Transylvanian traitors . . . who believe in democracy and have learned French” (Ioanid 1990: 155). Germanic volkisch nationalism spread eastward, especially amid resentment at the war’s outcome. Nationalism also drew more generally on the Germanic philosophic stress on “will” and “struggle” by heroes or elites against decadence, corruption, and the banal, popularized by Nietzsche, Wagner, Spengler, and Sombart’s distinction between Germanic “heroes” and Anglo-Saxon “traders.” Nietzsche and Spengler were popular authors everywhere; Maurras, Barrès, and others were read sporadically in the

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

84 Fascists

northwest. But they resonated far less in the everyday practices of liberal democracies or amid depoliticized Protestantism or Catholicism.

A third German influence was felt through the nineteenth-century dom- inance of the German university system, and with it the systematization of knowledge more generally (Collins 1998: chap. 13). German universities especially dominated philosophy. But German philology, ethnography, and archeology greatly influenced nationalism. Nationalists formally reject for- eign influences, insisting on their own “cosmic singularity.” Nationalist visions of Hispanidad, Hungarism, “the Aryan Volk,” “The Third Greek Civilization,” and “the Second Rome” claimed to be rooted in a unique na- tional history, civilization, and soil. A Romanian fascist proclaimed, “[O]ur nationalism will accept nothing but the superman and the supernation elected by the grace of God” (Ioanid 1990: 114). Yet nationalism was actu- ally a comparative doctrine in which each nation’s genealogy was inserted within a wider civilizational story, influenced by German-dominated schol- arship on the Indo-Europeans, Aryans, Orientalism, the Old Testament, the Barbarians, and early Christianity. From the popularization of schol- arly writings Romania was proclaimed “the only Orthodox Latin and the only Latin Orthodox” nation. Hungarian nationalists identified three chosen peoples of the world: Germans, Japanese, and Magyars. Magyars, the only “Turanian” people of Occidental culture, could uniquely mediate east and west to found a “third, middle empire.” Turks provided an alternative vision of a Turanian Middle Empire. These were world-historical myths influenced by European, especially German, scholarship of the prewar period.

In the interwar period traditional Germanic statism and militarism blended with volkisch nationalism and anti-Semitism to produce Nazism. Its influence spread more eastward than southward, where state borders were firmer and racism and anti-Semitism weaker. French statism fused with Italian authoritarian-leaning liberalism and syndicalism to generate Italian fascism. Pareto and Mosca were adapted to suggest that elites pursuing ab- solute moral values, whatever the means, were superior to the “corrupt” parliamentarism of the “legal Italy.” Spann’s corporatism drew on Austrian notions of organization by “estates,” Manoilescu’s Romanian corporatism pioneered peripheral dependency theory. Like Gentile in Italy, their cor- poratist schemes of social reorganization blended economic efficiency with the integral nation and “the new man.” The corporatist one-party trap- pings of Italian fascism were imitated, from Poland and the Baltic states to Spain and Portugal. Aided by Mussolini’s theatrical style and rhetoric, Italy became the center of the new right during the 1920s. As fascism grew it

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 85

absorbed more Catholic influence. Mussolini’s compromise with the Pope was imitated elsewhere, and Catholic France, Spain, and Portugal adapted Austrian clerico-fascism.

Churches provided key infrastructures of ideological communication. They had been the “soul” of the old regimes and remained powerful mass forces, through school systems providing about half the literate Europeans, and through sermons and pastoral letters reaching every parish, reproduced in newspapers and periodicals. Religious messages flowed through three distinct macro-regions, Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic. But they were also embedded inside each individual state.

Most of the big Protestant denominations were “established” state churches. In the northwest their education systems had been merged into the state or existed in harmonious tandem with the state system. They tended to reinforce the northwestern state, conservative, procapitalist, and prodemoc- racy, only mildly statist and nationalist. Protestant respect for individual and the local community also generated dissident sects across Scandinavia and Britain that reinforced liberal and social democracy. Northwestern Protes- tant churches rarely encouraged radical rightism. Germany was different, the only established Protestant church that remained the soul of a semi- authoritarian regime right up until 1918. It was now wary of the secular and Catholic parties of the Weimar Republic, and many churchmen were searching for an alternative state with a sense of the sacred. They found Nazism.

The Eastern Orthodox churches had originally resembled Protestantism in being “established” in their own local states. But most were then subor- dinated to foreign rulers – Austrians, Russians, or Turks. The monarchs of new nineteenth-century Orthodox states such as Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece were also drawn from foreign dynasties. Thus the Orthodox churches tended to represent not the soul of the state but the soul of the people – often of the peasantry. Orthodox seminaries and schools helped emerging national liberation movements and organic nationalism. The combination of a mild statism (stemming from their political quietism and their liking for hierarchy) and more pronounced nationalism produced varied politi- cal outcomes. Yet important factions in several Orthodox churches bent toward the radical right and even to fascism – especially in Romania (see Chapter 8).

The Catholic Church is transnational except that its base lies within Italy. In some countries its array of teaching orders and schools towered over state schools. Catholic hierarchies had long ago come to terms with the states in which they formed the dominant religion. By the nineteenth century they

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

86 Fascists

provided the soul of the old regimes. But they were then beset by liberals and socialists seeking to secularize the state. The Italian state was secular from the first. By 1900 the church was also losing the battle in France and the Low Countries. Thus some Catholics in the hierarchy and the teaching or- ders were attracted by “social” and “corporatist” concerns. These parallelled fascism in being ambiguously of both the left and the right (Fogarty 1957; Mayeur 1980). Encouraged by the papal encyclical Rerum novarum of 1891, “Social Catholicism” first penetrated economically advanced areas such as Belgium, France, South Germany, and Austria. Catholic labor unions and mass parties were founded. The movement then spread eastward and southward, generating parties such as the German Zentrum, the Austrian Christian Socials, the Italian Populari, and the Spanish Mauristas around the time of World War I. Fascism was to build on the social and hierar- chical spirit of “Social Catholicism.” But in France and Belgium the social and hierarchical factions split. Social Catholics generated leftist movements, while some of those emphasizing hierarchy went into small fascist move- ments. Portuguese Integralismo Lusitano absorbed Action Française texts and then transmitted them to Spain in the early 1920s. Catholic mysticism blended with organic nationalism. Maurras’s call for a populist nationalism based on order, hierarchy, and community as a defense against individual- ism, secularization, liberalism, and socialism resonated through Catholicover countries – and also had some influence in Orthodox Greece and the Balkans (Augustinos 1977; Morodo 1985: 92–100, 107–14; Lyttleton 1987: 16–20; Close 1990: 205–11; Gallagher 1990: 157–8).

Thus religious ideological powers were exercised variously. Religion re- inforced the macro-regional solidity of the northwestern bloc of countries, favoring a liberal democratic compromise between center-right and center- left. Religion had no single general effect elsewhere. Churches tended to see the godless left as the main enemy, but whom would they support against the left? The nationalism of Orthodox churches might turn conservative or radical. But where old regimes and an attendant church remained strong, churches might move a little rightward yet be wary of fascism (e.g., Spain). But weaker, more vulnerable old regimes had lost some of the sacred aura that Weber called “traditional legitimacy.” This loss produced moral panic in which some churchmen began to eye corporatism or even fascism sym- pathetically – as in Germany, Austria, Italy, and Romania. Amid weakening old regimes, all three religions might be tempted by fascism’s moral and transcendent claims not to reject modernism but to resacralize it. Fascism emerged in countries in which churches had played an important though now declining role in political power relations, and fascists exploited this

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 87

by managing to transfer some of the sense of the sacred from God to the nation-state.

We are now closer to explaining distinctively fascist outcomes, since these are four out of the five major fascist movements. As others have noted, successful fascist movements tried to modernize and nationalize the sense of the sacred. The religious spirit of Romanian fascism and (to a lesser extent) Austro-fascism was obvious. Italian fascism specialized in its own non-Christian sacred rituals. Gentile (1990, 1996) says it resacralized an Italian state that had been previously desacralized – and the Pope regarded this with sympathy. Nuremberg rallies and the like were also designed to impart the sacred, and many German Protestant churchmen became Nazis. It is going too far to describe fascism as a religion (as Burleigh 2000 and Griffin 2001 do), since fascism saw men alone as bringing progress and rebirth and it had no conception of the divine. But fascism was usually aided by established religions and borrowed many of their techniques, just as it borrowed techniques from socialist movements.

Secular educational institutions were also crucial to the transmission of values. Between 1900 and 1930, university student numbers increased four- fold across the more developed world, a greater rate of expansion than even that of the late 1950s and 1960s. In both periods the surge caused an explo- sion in student politics. In the 1960s it went to the left; after World War I it went sharply to the right. Table 2.2 shows that expansion was greater in the authoritarian countries. If we remove the two outlier cases, Bulgaria and Denmark, from the calculation, university expansion was 50 to 100 percent greater in the authoritarian than in the liberal countries in the period im- mediately before the authoritarians came to power there. The difference declined in the late 1920s, since fascists and authoritarians reaching power in Italy and Hungary deliberately reduced the numbers of turbulent students. Expanded student cohorts meant “more raw” young intellectuals experi- encing discontinuity between the university and their family backgrounds. We should remember that this expansion was occurring under German uni- versity domination. A German Problemmatik was being exported at a time of massive economic, military, and political crisis, not a recipe for socializing European youth into pacific liberalism. There was also a generational con- tribution. New rightist ideologies were also suffused with the moralizing characteristic of youthful idealism. The exploits of D’Annunzio, the first to exploit theatrical publicity and to glorify youth, diffused rapidly among stu- dents. Mussolini quickly imitated. Extreme nation-statists promulgated the cult of youth, fascists above all. Since fascism was youthful, it was therefore modern, the society of the future – so fascists persuasively proclaimed to

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

88 Fascists

Table 2.2. Expansion in University Student Numbers 1900–1930, Authoritarian and Democratic Countries

Ratio 1900 = 1.00 Ratio 1920 = 1.00 1910 1920 1930 1930

Austria 1.63 – – 0.97 Bulgaria 4.90 19.31 22.45 1.16 Germany 1.58 2.56 2.90 1.13 Hungary 1.33 0.98 Italy 1.03 2.05 1.78 0.87 Japan 1.92 3.20 7.28 2.28 Poland 1.86 Portugal 1.07 2.53 4.78 1.89 Romania 1.98 Spain 1.52 Yugoslavia 1.31 Authoritarian average 1.92 5.93 7.84 1.45

Belgium 1.47 1.73 2.01 1.16 Czechoslovakia 1.15 Denmark 2.00 2.64 12.78 4.84 Finland 1.19 1.25 2.57 2.06 France 1.38 1.67 2.63 1.58 Ireland 1.18 Netherlands 1.32 1.81 3.85 2.12 Norway 1.10 1.31 2.48 1.90 Sweden 1.11 Switzerland 1.62 1.65 1.63 0.99 U.K. 1.48 1.93 2.09 1.08 U.S. 1.45 2.52 4.90 1.94 Democratic average 1.45 1.83 3.88 1.76

Source: Mitchell 1993, 1995, 1998.

new cohorts of youth. Young men always provided their main bastion of support.

As we see, below, in every country highly educated professionals and high school, university, seminary, and military academy students contributed disproportionately to fascism across the authoritarian half of Europe. In contrast, northwestern fascist movements were more variably composed. Students were prominent in France and Finland but not in Scandinavia or Britain. Military veterans were always overrepresented in the immediate af- termath of the Great War, but northwestern military academies continued turning out younger fascist-leaning men only in France. In the authoritar- ian half of Europe, most education was state-run and was often a bastion of

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 89

conservative statism, while church education produced more varied grad- uates. In some countries professors were also nationalists.12 Students were everywhere in the fascist vanguard.

Why did fascism attract the massed lesser intelligentsia? To some extent it reflected the dominance of the German universities and of the German and French military academies in continental education systems. But the power and status of intellectuals who were “notables” in the old regime might also be threatened by the rise of mass movements. The economic ex- planation would be that highly educated professionals and students became unemployable, receptive to radical politics, and more likely to be rightist since they were middle-class. A more “ideal” explanation would be that intellectuals are entrusted with ideological power in society. It is their job to explore matters of ultimate meaning. If there is a crisis of meaning (produced by the concatenation of contemporary crises), they will experience it most severely and pioneer plausible new answers to the crisis. In fact, highly edu- cated people turning fascist were not those suffering the greatest economic hardship. They seem to have turned to fascism because they were attracted to the message of transcendent nation-statism. Of course, ideology never comes disembodied. These people were inhabiting social milieux in which this message seemed more plausible. Their everyday lives gave resonance to it.

Since most fascists were young males, some have suggested that this was “the generation of 1914,” whose first adult experience was of World War I (e.g., Wohl 1979). My case studies reveal that not only the trenches, but also the military academies, universities, and high schools germinated extreme nation-statist and paramilitary values – and among at least two and some- times three generations of young men. This had started before World War I. Much of the officer corps of Eastern Europe had attended prewar Prussian or Habsburg academies. Metaxas, Codreanu, and Szalasi attested to their importance in forming their ideas. The expansion of reserve systems had brought most young men into contact with militaristic nationalism. World War I cemented this. A cohort of young men left in its wake was armed, uni- formed, and committed to paramilitarism as the means of effecting political change. Military academies continued to diffuse military nationalism.

I have tentatively delineated ideological networks communicating au- thoritarian and fascist ideas. Some were transnational, most derived from the frontier zone states of Germany and France, but they diffused mostly across the center, east, and south of Europe, to be reinterpreted within each national tradition. The core carriers – young educated and military or religious males – developed fascism as an entire meaning system. Their

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

90 Fascists

networks of ideological communication also seem to have added the dis- tinctively youthful fascist blend of moralizing and violence that is usually considered to be its “nonrational” side. However, the center, east, and south was not a monolithic bloc, and I have identified some of the infrastructures, especially religious ones, that contributed different types of authoritarian- ism across the region. But this is only a beginning to identifying ideological causes. It is hoped that the case studies will reveal more.

conclusion

The interwar surge of nationalism and statism was probably unstoppable. Stronger, more insulated nation-states were emerging everywhere. Yet the surge might have culminated in more moderate forms of nation-statism. The major divide – both conceptually and geographically – was between liberal democracy and forms of rightist authoritarianism. The winners of World War I almost all favored the former. Yet it was not easy to establish liberal democratic nation-states by fiat, as attempted among the losers in 1918. In the center, east, and south of Europe, without the reinforcement of traditions and of the culture of one’s entire region, parliamentary democ- racy seemed fragile and risky. Risk aversion amid an ideological concern with order and security could lead to preemptive repressive strikes. Ceding sovereign powers to the opponent if electorally defeated was routine in the northwest but problematic elsewhere, where “we” increasingly represented morality, civilization, and the organic nation, “they” the threatening “for- eign” traitors. Parties were often more committed to substantive value goals than to the rules of the democratic game (Linz 1978). Where a movement believes its ends justifies the means, it will more readily turn to violence.

Conversely, parliamentary sovereignty was routinized across the north- west and so resilient. Here socialists withstood communists, conservatives withstood organic nationalists, all subscribing to an instrumental rationality of means not ends – of swing voters and the middle ground – deriving from their long-term historical implication in the liberal institutions of com- promise. The northwest withstood crises until Hitler’s armies marched on them. Though buffeted by the Great Depression, by strike waves, and by fluctuating party alliances, it was not in serious danger from its own au- thoritarian right. The rise of fascism was not here viewed as the dawn of a brave new age but as a distant distasteful threat to civilization. The northwest responded to crisis by moving hesitantly toward the center, to widen the suffrage and deepen welfare states. That bit of the explanation seems obvi- ous. Entrenched relations of political power kept authoritarians at bay, even

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

The Rise of Interwar Authoritarianism and Fascism 91

in a period of severe economic crisis and some class tension. There is thus no need to proliferate case studies of the entrenched liberal democracies, since they varied so little.

But we cannot yet explain authoritarianism, especially its fascist variant. We have a problem of “overdetermination.” The times favored more nation- statism, but all four sources of social power and all four crises of modernity helped to explain the rise of authoritarianism and fascism. Class conflict boosted by late development and capitalist crises fueled authoritarianism and fascism. So did military crisis, through defeat, disruption, and emerg- ing paramilitarism and rearmament. So did the dual semi-authoritarian/ semi-liberal state of the center, east, and south of Europe. So did networks of ideological communication, patterned by the regional divide, conveying messages to educated and armed youth that increasingly verged on fascism. We would ideally establish the relative weights of these four broad causes of authoritarianism and fascism by multivariate analysis. But there are only a limited number of countries as cases and only two Europes. On both sides of the divide we have a number of highly intercorrelated possible causes.

Perhaps the five fascist movements all had different causes. After all, Italy went fascist uniquely early, Germany was a revisionist Great Power, Austria was a shriveled country with two different fascist movements, Hungary was shriveled, Romania swollen, both with authoritarians stealing fascist clothes. All might be very different cases. An explanation of fascist regimes would be largely confined to two cases. Comparative analysis cannot cope with such small numbers. I turn instead to the detail of the case-study method, returning to general explanations in my final chapter.

P1: JRT/KCW/KaD/ILF/JZK P2: KaD/KCY P3: IRP/KaD/ QC: 0521831318c02.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:13

92

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

3

Italy

Pristine Fascists

Fascism was made in Italy. Though the prewar intellectuals subsequently labeled as “fascist” came from various countries, as a mass movement Italian fascism was the pristine case. The very word is Italian, from fascio, a tied bundle of sticks, used then to describe any small, tight-knit political group – the sense being that sticks would have more force if bound tightly together, as human groups would if bound by strong comradeship. Note that this indicates organization, not values. Mussolini additionally emphasized its derivation from the Latin fasces, the ancient Roman Republic’s symbol of popular authority, an axe bound with rods, which he used as the movement’s icon.

Though ideas later called “fascist” were aired in prewar Italy, fascism proper emerged only at the end of World War I. After declaring for neu- trality in 1914, the Italian government joined the Entente in 1915, lured by promises of territories to be won from the Habsburg Empire. But there was serious conflict over entry into the war. The years 1915 and 1916 saw mass demonstrations, rioting, and street-fighting between pro- and antiwar movements. This had followed hard on two further disruptions: a large ex- tension of the male suffrage suddenly introduced (for tactical reasons) by prime minister Giolitti in 1912 and a period of industrial unrest that had increased the power of the left “maximalist” wing of the Socialist Party. Many conservatives and liberals feared that liberal parliamentarism was be- ing threatened from the streets. Divisions over the war weakened the state and split all the main parties, including the ruling liberal and conservative parties. In the Socialist Party, the leadership opposed the war, making the PSI unique among major socialist parties. This led “patriotic” socialists – including Benito Mussolini – to break with the party and join with rad- ical nationalists, futurist intellectuals, and syndicalists to create the fascist movement. Some of the Italian left was strongly drawn toward nationalism.

93

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

94 Fascists

Though working-class movements in other countries were to demonstrate patriotic enthusiasm, only Italian leftists joined with nationalists to form a major new party.

This union had three important preconditions. First, many Italians dis- tinguished sharply between the Italian nation and the Italian state. There was a strong popular sense that the Italian state had been created in the 1860s by diplomatic maneuvers among the upper class and foreign govern- ments, in the course of which Garibaldi’s popular redshirt movement had been sidelined. Nationalists had repeatedly attempted to rekindle populist national fervor, and many sympathized with the leftist view of the state as a sham, its conservative and liberal parliamentarians representing only the rich. Since the Catholic Church was also hostile to this secularizing state and stood aside from politics, the state lacked sacred authority on the right. There was no diffuse “old regime” controlling this state. The contemporary terms were that the “legal” was not the same as the “real” Italy, that is, that the state did not represent the nation.

Second, the Italian labor movement contained an important syndicalist element. Syndicalists rejected the Marxian stress on party and state, arguing that “syndicates” (unions and professional associations) could achieve the revolution. Parties represented only “electoral masses,” whereas syndicates represented the material basis of life and so could become genuine commu- nities. The syndicate of each specialized occupation could force up the price of its labor through a skill monopoly, but the oversupply of unskilled labor meant that its strikes must be general and violent. Laborers must be com- pelled to share work and privations in order to force up their price. Eventu- ally violent, insurrectionary strikes might unite all occupations into a single revolutionary proletariat. After the revolution, society would be structured into “a state of syndicates,” largely decentralized and self-governing, though embodying a technocratic “aristocracy of producers.” Though syndicalists were formally antistatist, they shared with fascists antisocialism and a liking for violence. By incorporating all productive occupations into the prole- tariat, some syndicalists moved away from the Marxian preoccupation with class to extol the power of the whole “people” or “nation.” For syndicalists, the proletariat was the nation, embattled.

Third, Italian nationalism also had many leftist elements. It did not en- dorse the existing state, though nationalists hoped that populism might re- vitalize the state. Italy was “the last (or the weakest) of the Great Powers,” the only one “deprived of Empire.” As Corradini said in 1911, Italy was a “proletarian nation” exploited by the bourgeois Great Powers. Such rhetoric struck a nerve, and there was considerable popular support for Italy to

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 95

achieve “liberation” from Austrian pressure on her borders and to strike out across the Mediterranean for colonies in Libya. For leftist nationalists, the nation was the proletariat embattled. The bridge between syndicalism and nationalism was built by the futurists. Originally a cultural and artistic group, they developed just before the Great War a political program combin- ing aggressive nationalism with a vision of a future technocratic-industrial society. Their contempt for liberal parliamentarianism moved them toward a program of “action rather than words” (De Felice 1995: 738–41).

The splits occasioned by the Great War then produced among these disparate forces a leftist nationalist interventionism that then turned into fascism. Without the war, there would have been no fascism, rightly says Saladino (1966). One of the four crises of modernity identified in Chapter 2 – total citizen war – had precipitated fascism, in its first pristine form. Yet it also presupposed a political crisis and an economic crisis: a weak and only half-legitimate state attempting a rapid transition into full male suffrage amid a postwar recession and class warfare between a relatively weak capital- ist class and a divided labor movement. Mussolini and 190 others founded the fasci di combattimento (“groups of combatants”) in March 1919 at San Sepulchro in Milan. Former soldiers predominated, followed by revolution- ary syndicalists, patriotic socialists, and futurists. The model was the futurist fasci, of which thirty had been formed over the previous three months (De Felice 1995: 476). Of the 85 with known occupations, 21 were writers and journalists, 20 were white-collar workers, 12 were workers, five were manufacturers, and four were teachers. Almost all were under 40, and 15 percent were under 20. Five were Jews (Gentile 1989: 35).

Renamed as the Partito Nationale Fascista (PNF), the movement had 20,000 members by late 1920, almost 100,000 by April 1921, and 320,000 by November 1921 – very rapid growth. It was less of a party than a paramil- itary, and in October 1922 it marched on Rome. The government might have resisted this less-than-overwhelming show of force by the lightly armed fascists, but instead capitulated, asking Mussolini to lead a coalition govern- ment. Three years later he had become dictator. Fascism had surged to a share in power in three years, to full power in six. Why was it so rapidly successful? Who supported it, and why?

two theories of italian fascism

One theory has come from the scholars, the other from the fascists. Though citizen warfare first generated and nourished fascism, most scholars argue that a capitalist crisis caused its great expansion. Fascism, they say, became

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

96 Fascists

essentially bourgeois or petty bourgeois, its “radical rightism” fueled by these classes’ economic discontents, then made use of by the capitalist class to suppress labor and socialism. The distinctive contribution of Italian fascism, they say, was to still class conflict by incorporating labor into corporatist state organizations. Though this has been a popular interpretation of all fascist movements, only in Italy has the view remained dominant ever since (Salvemini 1973: 129; Tasca 1976: 340; De Felice 1980; Abse 1986, 1996; Revelli 1987; Lyttleton 1987: 49–50; Brustein 1991; Luebbert 1991: 274; Elazar 1993). These writers mention other causes of fascism – a frail and suddenly enlarged liberal democracy, nationalism, militarism, youth – but subordinate them to class. Some emphasize the discontent of rural classes, others urban classes; and opinions differ over the relative contributions of capitalists, the middle class, and the lower middle class. Did fascism protect capitalists from proletarian revolution, or was it petty bourgeois radicalism? But even the most nuanced accounts (Roberts 1980; Lyttleton 1996) remain variations on a bourgeois theme. A few dissenters (e.g., Saladino 1966; Gentile, 1996) have seen fascism less as a class movement than as extreme nationalism, a “civic religion” of the nation. But class theory predominates, especially when it comes to identifying who the fascists were and why they had become fascists.

The most interesting class theory is Salvatorelli’s (1923: 130–6), added to by De Felice (1977: 128–31, 175–92; 1980). Salvatorelli believed the war had intensified the squeezing of the middle and lower middle classes between the more organized proletarian and capitalist classes. Fascist ideology cen- tered on a “typically petty bourgeois” nationalism. Though unemployed and handicrafts workers also gave support, “the petty bourgeois element not only predominates numerically, but . . . is the characteristic and direct- ing element. . . . [F]ascism represents the class struggle of the lower middle class that was wedged between capitalism and the proletariat, as the third be- tween two combatants.” Its core lay amid state employees, bureaucrats, and professionals – called by Salvatorelli “the humanistic petty bourgeoisie” – who constituted not “a true social class with its own strength and func- tions, but a conglomerate living at the margin of the capitalist process of production.” Thus, he argued, fascism had no genuine vision of social and economic development and so could not transcend class conflict. Fascists would have either to bring about the ruin of capitalist civilization or to sell out to the capitalists. He expected them to do the latter. De Felice divided this middle class slightly differently, into a traditional middle class (farmers, merchants, professionals, small businessmen), with some autonomy and ho- mogeneity, and a new middle class (white-collar employees and salaried

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 97

intellectuals), with less. In the postwar period the new middle class suffered more and so provided the main fascist thrust. Ideological, military, or po- litical causes tend to enter into both men’s explanation only insofar as they produce economic and class consequences. Thus World War I exacerbated the discontent of the middle class; Italian democracy proved frail because of its class biases; nationalism was essentially “petty bourgeois” (cf. Tasca 1976: 323, 358).

But this class-centered view was not that of the fascists themselves. It is part of my methodology of “taking fascists seriously” to let them speak for themselves. Mussolini’s own account is The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism, written in 1932 from material compiled by Gentile. By then Mus- solini was a dictator wishing to legitimate his regime, so we must correct the propaganda element in the document with some of his precoup statements. Mussolini begins by saying that he had been first attracted to politics by the socialist “doctrine of action.” This was true (as it was for other fascist intellectuals quoted in Chapter 1). The youthful Mussolini had repeatedly urged his socialist comrades “to make history, not endure it” through an “organization of warriors” preparing for “the greatest bloodbath of all.” But he declares that by 1918 “Socialism was already dead as a doctrine: it existed only as a hatred.” Fascism then emerged, he says, from the ashes of socialism as a “third force” leading “the working class to real and ef- fectual leadership” under “strict military discipline.” From the nationalist D’Annunzio, Mussolini then borrowed a cult of paramilitarism and youth, an elitist cult of leadership and a confidence that he could manipulate mass crowds through myth, symbols, and ritual. This means that ritual became a vital reinforcement for formal ideology in the practice of the movement, as Berezin (1997) and Gentile (1996) have argued. It also fueled fascism’s contempt for democracy, expressed here by Mussolini:

Democracy has deprived the life of the people of “style”: that is, a line of conduct, the color, the strength, the picturesque, the unexpected, the mystical: in sum, all that counts in the life of the masses. We play the lyre on all its strings: from violence to religion, from art to politics.

Note the union of politics, art, and style, so typical of fascism. Mussolini neglects to mention that in 1919 fascism had been leftist, com-

mitted to an eight-hour day and workers’ control. The leftist syndicalists Panunzio, Gentile, Rossoni, and Olivetti provided much of the rhetoric of the movement, adding in their different ways more “integral” syndicalism or corporatism. They declared that “the entire working class movement must be orchestrated to the higher aspirations of the nation” and that “statism

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

98 Fascists

and syndicalism are in the process of fusion.” Mussolini had been a little wary of them. Between 1922 and 1924 he still nurtured hopes of leading a fascist/socialist parliamentary coalition against conservatism and bourgeois liberal democracy. This apparent adoption of the parliamentary road alien- ated the futurists, who left the movement. But Mussolini soon abandoned parliamentarianism and then moved to domesticate his syndicalists by bring- ing them into a more top-down corporatist state. He was proclaiming a “totalitarian ethical state,” with workers’ control forgotten and the leftists quietened (Nolte 1965: 202–8, 258; Gregor 1979: 106–14; De Felice 1995; Dahl 1999: 46–70; Riley 2002: chap. 2).

Paramilitarism, the legacy of idealist theories of “action” concretized by experience of the war, had been a more constant refrain. At the begin- ning of 1919 Mussolini joined the futurists in embracing “action” rather than “words” (associated with stifling parliamentarianism), successfully si- lencing democratic nationalists and socialists. The first fasci were founded in March and the first deaths came the following month. Then the first big PNF congress, in 1921, proclaimed its “action squads,” the squadristi, “a revolutionary militia placed at the service of the nation . . . following three principles: order, discipline, hierarchy” (Gentile 1989: 398). As Dahl (1999: 145–6) says, strikes, action, and violence directed by good against evil were crucial to the Italian blending of syndicalism and statism. In 1932 Mussolini was still declaiming paramilitary virtues:

War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts its stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it. . . . [T]he proud motto of the Squadrista, Me ne frego [“I don’t give a damn,” or in the trenches, the obscene expression “I jack off on it”], written on the bandage of the wound is an act of philosophy . . . the education to combat, the acceptance of the risks which combat implies, and a new way of life for Italy . . . holiness and heroism . . . influenced by no economic motive.

Paramilitary virtues were linked to the cult of youth and martyrdom, for the soldiers were young men risking death. Italy itself was a “youthful” nation, united only since the 1860s, “proletarian,” exploited by older “plutocratic” nations. A movement that mobilized the forceful energies of its youth could end this exploitation. Gentile (1996: 23–7) says that paramilitarism was a “holy crusade,” united by rituals of the holy communion. Its blood, he says (with some exaggeration), was like that of Christ and the Christian martyrs. As the Lucca squadristi leader proclaimed at a funeral for local fascists in 1921: “O Holy Trinity, born of blood: your blood, our blood. The veins are emptied of their most vital flow to create a new baptismal

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 99

font: the chalice full of its scarlet gift.” Of course, unlike Christ, these fascists were killed while trying to kill others, for this was the ideology of moral murder. Fascism was too this-worldly and too instrumental really to be a religion.

After seizing power, Mussolini subordinated the paramilitaries to the state, as he subordinated real violence to its ritual commemoration. To use Nazi terms, “order” had to take over from “wildness.” By 1932 he claimed his state was a unitary “organized, centralized and authoritative democracy” that was able to represent the nation “organically”:

The foundation of Fascism is . . . the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. . . . [T]he Fascist state is itself conscious, and has itself a will and a personality . . . it represents the immanent spirit of the nation. . . . It is the force which alone can provide a solution to the dramatic contradictions of capitalism. . . . It is not reactionary but revolutionary.

This state makes obsolete “the rivalry of parties . . . and the irresponsi- bility of political assemblies. . . . Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.” It was supposedly a transcendent state.

The state is also imperialist: “The expansion of the nation is an essential manifestation of vitality. . . . Empire demands discipline, the co-ordination of all forces and a deeply-felt sense of duty and sacrifice. . . . [N]ever before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and of order.”

By 1932 Mussolini’s focus was on war, organic nationalism, and the state. Paramilitarism was seen as uncomfortable to the state, but it remained rhetor- ically and organizationally important, for fascism continued to attempt mass mobilization. And though the party had expounded a full range of eco- nomic and social policies, it had seen these as flowing from the primacy of the nation, militarism, and the state (Delzell 1970: 27–37). Even corpo- ratism was defended in terms less of economic efficiency than of its ability to transcend class and interest group conflict and mobilize the masses (Berezin 1997: 60–3). Italian fascism had surged in the immediate postwar period. Thus the economic problem was less one of recession than of the postwar class conflict.

This became the standard fascist agenda across Europe, revealing the core fascist values distinguished in Chapter 1: an organic, paramilitary nation- statism, claiming to transcend social conflict. The main Italian peculiarities were in being first, and so early exhibiting much ideological variety, and then in taming its “radical” paramilitarism into a less dynamic, though mobilized,

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

100 Fascists

statism. This also weakened calls to cleanse the nation from its enemies – the paramilitaries had already accomplished the task of cleansing Italy of its political opponents, while there was little sense of ethnic enemies, except later in Africa.

Any short statement of fascist doctrine must simplify. Italian fascism was a developing, pluralistic, decentralized, even disorderly movement. Its paramilitaries valued action over ideology, while Mussolini was an oppor- tunist leader. Nonetheless, most Italian fascists thought they were espousing not a class ideology but a doctrine of transcendent, organic nation-statism cloaked in antimaterialist moral fervor – a total transformation of society. Some say that fascism was “the religion of Italy,” “the religion of the nation,” “the militia of the nation”; its enemies were “traitors to the nation.” They say that the movement stressed faith, symbols, rituals, the cult of martyrs dying to purify the nation. Every party branch office contained a shrine to the nation and its martyrs (Gentile 1990, 1996). But the fascist leaders were well aware that a true religion – miracle-working, commanding a sense of awe, reverence of things set apart from the material realm – existed in Italy. It was not fascism but Catholicism. So they tried to weave fascist rituals into its sacred mantle.

These two views of fascism – emphasizing class and nation-state – are very different. The class theories involve denying the significance and sincerity of fascist ideology. They are part of the tradition of not taking fascists seriously. Was Mussolini sincere, deceiving, or deluded in emphasizing the latter? Was he fronting a class movement or was he leading a movement genuinely committed to paramilitary nation-statist ideas? We see below that he was doing both.

who were the fascists?

Gender, Age, Militarism

As in all my case studies I examine in some detail the social backgrounds of the fascists. They offer the best evidence regarding ordinary fascists. Yet social movements are not mere aggregations of individuals, each of whom can be counted equally and statically. Movements contain particular social structures and processes. This fascist movement greatly respected order and hierarchy, and the attainment of substantial power within the movement was an important part of the “career” of fascists. Moreover, paramilitary violence conferred distinctive powers on a “mass” (though less than “majority”) movement committed to violence. As in all fascist movements, violence

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 101

was key to their success. We must observe these fascists in action as well as count their individual attributes.

But I start with the known attributes of the mass of fascists. Unfortunately, the Italian data are not plentiful. The PNF made only one calculation of the social background of its members, based on the records of half its 320,000 members of November 1921. We hope it was a representative half, since we have few other sources of information. Scholars have concentrated on its class composition. Yet its gender, age, and military composition are more striking.

The movement had started with some feminist input. Nine women had been at the founding meeting at San Sepulchro, 5 percent of those present, and early fascist/syndicalist ideas included some freethinking about gender and sexuality. But the movement’s violence rapidly made it masculinist. By 1922 only 1 to 2 percent of full members were women, and there were no women leaders. Of course, other parties were probably similar since Italian women could not vote. Indeed, the ancillary fascist women’s organizations soon became larger and more active than those of any rival movement save for the Catholic Church. Fascism recruited many women skeptical of the employment-centered feminism that came to dominate most western liberal and socialist feminist movements. But the most important cause of the growth of fascist women’s organizations was probably fascism’s pretensions to be a “totalitarian” movement. The movement had to organize women in order to control them. It had no desire to do this coercively, so it accomplished it primarily through social and ritual activities. Fascism honored women as mothers, “reproducers of the nation,” “angels of the hearth.” It gave them a role in the nation not only in principle but in ritual ceremonies comparable to those of religion. The Concordat with the Pope enabled the movement to stage quasi-religious ceremonies honoring mothers or widows of fascist martyrs and women donating their wedding rings to provide gold for the African War (Berezin 1997). De Grazia (1992: 35) considers that fascism now “nationalized” women, just as men had been nationalized in the later nineteenth century. Social policies borrowed from Social Catholicism helped women through protective legislation at work and welfare assistance to mothers and large families. Though comparable policies were emerging in some other Catholic countries, fascist Italy was in the lead – though their effect on working women may have been outweighed by fascism’s other labor policies that tended to harm men and women workers alike (Caldwell 1986; Willson 1996). Fascism also enabled women to march, to demonstrate, to join in sporting and dramatic pageants, and to wear fine uniforms. Many felt liberated by the novelty of these public roles (Passerini

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

102 Fascists

1987: 193). As Willson (1996: 81) remarks, fascism was the first movement to bring women onto the national stage – though their lines were mainly written by men. The early movement and the seizure of power had been also decidedly “macho.” But Italian women certainly came to offer as much passive support to the established fascist regime as men did.

Fascists were also young. In the national list 25 percent of members were under twenty-one. Probably most of the rest were not much older. The average age of members in both Reggio Emilia and the province of Bologna in 1922 was twenty-five, and of squadristi in both Bologna and Florence it was twenty-three (Cavandoli 1972: 135; Suzzi Valli 2000: 135; Reichardt 2002: 347). Their parliamentary deputies were mostly in their thirties (younger than in other parties) and so were their regional secretaries (Gentile 2000: 411, 491). Unlike other parties, virtually no leader was over fifty. Young men especially dominated fascist violence. Among 400 fascist “mar- tyrs” honored by the party, a quarter have their ages mentioned and they averaged twenty-one. Most precoup fascists belonged to a single genera- tion, born between about 1890 and 1905. I assume that this was easily the youngest, least married of the Italian parties (though I have no actual membership data on other parties). Even fascist deputies (picked for their respectability) were on average thirteen years younger than other deputies.

Youthfulness, entwined with paramilitarism, was probably responsible for the fascist combination (found in all countries) of morality, modernism, and murder. The militants were violent yet seen as “idealistic,” “modern,” and “the wave of the future.” Since Italy was considered in public rhetoric to be a “young nation,” fascist youthfulness was claimed to exemplify it. And when we consider class, we must remember that fascism was especially mo- bilizing young, unmarried men, whose experience can hardly be regarded as typical of the classes to which we assign them. And when combined with gender, youth made an enormous difference: Fascism resembled a violent male teenage gang, though an unusually “idealistic” one, with its primary ties cementing strong and violent comradeship (Lyttleton 1987: 244). It is easy to see the appeal to young males of the motto me ne frego. And it is easy to see the power that such disciplined, ideologically legitimated violence might confer on fascism over political parties that debated, demonstrated, but did not lay lives on the line. Mussolini himself declared that his squadristi would rule through trincerocrazia (“trench power”). This was the generation of 1916, mobilized by militarism.

Indeed, most of them were already trained in military violence. Some 57 percent of the 1921 members had fought in the war (DeFelice 1966: 7; Revelli 1987: 18). Yet virtually none of the quarter who in 1921 were

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 103

under twenty-one (and none of the few women) could have fought in the war. Thus about 80 percent of those fascists who were eligible for mili- tary service (males aged twenty to forty-four during 1916–18) must have fought. Even more of the leaders had fought – between 68 and 81 percent of the cohorts of regional secretaries up to 1931 were veterans (Gentile 2000: 495). The highest Italian wartime recruitment rate among this age group had been about 23 percent – a ratio of overrepresentation of 3.5. Indeed, the very first fascist militants are usually said to have been mostly drawn from the elite volunteer soldiers known as the arditi. It seems that some arditi units came over wholesale to the fascists, mostly led by futurist officers. They were supplemented mainly by students, too young to have fought, but seemingly fired with similar extreme nationalism The early squadristi seem to have been highly educated young men (Gentile 1989: 74; Snowden 1989: 158–60; Riley 2002: chap. 2). Probably about a quarter of arditi became fascists, with others joining other nationalist movements. Since most industrial workers had been exempted from military service, most arditi were former peasants, serving under middle-class officers. Some contempo- raries believed that junior officers were overrepresented among the fascists. Gramsci (1971: 212–13) believed that ordinary career officers were dispro- portionately drawn from the “medium and small rural bourgeoisie,” their training conferring on them the values and power to defend their class in- terests by force. They were drawn to fascism by both economic goals and military means.

Since the army had comprised three million men, only a small pro- portion became fascists. Most soldiers just wanted rapid demobilization into civilian life and were concerned more with employment or educa- tion than with ideology. Did material discontents lead some into fascism, as is often asserted? Little research has been done on the issue. More sol- diers joined the more mainstream veteran association, loosely connected to the Catholic popolari but confining itself to lobbying for jobs and wel- fare benefits and actually opposing fascism. A small leftist paramilitary, the Arditi del Populo, formed but was rebuffed by the socialist and commu- nist parties, who (as we see below) preferred rhetorical to real action. Others joined d’Annunzio’s nationalist Legion (Ledeen 1977). Fascism pro- vided a more “radical” destination for a small minority of veterans, keep- ing alive their organization and their comradeship. Their experience pro- vided them with enduring militarist values and organization. They claimed that the comradeship, discipline, and egalitarian nationalism of the trenches could solve the ills of Italy. Just as “there were no class differences at the front,” paramilitarism could now “transcend” class differences. The

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

104 Fascists

socialist leader Turati emphasized the inurement to violence such “careers” involved:

The war . . . accustomed the youngsters as well as the grown ups to the daily use of usual and unusual weapons. . . . [I]t praised individual and collective murder, black- mail, arrest, the macabre joke, the torturing of prisoners, the “punitive expeditions,” the summary executions. . . . [I]t created in general the atmosphere in which alone the fascist bacillus could grow and spread (quoted in Nolte 1965: 144)

For these fascists disciplined paramilitary violence was viewed positively, as moral. Gentile (1996) quotes many of the official ideologists declaiming the spirituality of paramilitarism. One wonders how the young thugs standing to attention in front of the speech makers understood it! Balbo, the leader of the squadristi, was a little more down to earth. He had served with distinction at the front during the war, and he there confided to his diary: “To fight, to struggle, to come home to the land of Giolitti [the arch-fixer prime minister], who transformed every ideal into a business proposition? No, better to deny everything, to destroy everything, in order to renew from the ground up.” Violence, he wrote, was “the quickest and most defini- tive way of reaching the revolutionary goal. . . . No bourgeois hypocrisy, no sentimentalism: action, direct and sharp, carried out to the end, at whatever cost” (Segrè 1987: 34). But he did have the sense of commanding thugs to a higher purpose. He described his squadristi as the heirs of “the holy rabble of Garibaldi,” the redshirts who had liberated Italy from foreign oppression – an analogy often made by fascists.

Paramilitarism also conferred a concrete and enveloping social iden- tity. The returning soldiers were young, mostly unmarried with little labor market experience, poorly integrated into local communities centered on family, occupation, and religion, prone to identify with the nation as a whole – which the mass army had claimed to “represent” (Linz 1976: 37). Where fascist members are described in party records as arditi, they are given no other class or occupational label – as if this were a total social identity (Misefari and Marzotti 1980). They may never have been in an employ- ment or family situation that could provide other adult identities. Their military skills would have been their main skills, militarism was among their main values, the squadristi unit their social life and provider of an emotional sense of belonging, of comradeship. Unlike the Nazis, party and paramili- tary were usually not even separate: Local party activists were often simply termed “squadristi.” Tasca (1976: 345; cf. Lyttleton 1987: 46–9, Snowden 1989: 157) concluded that fascism was paramilitarism, its edge over its op- ponents being disciplined paramilitary ferocity. But under (somewhat loose)

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 105

discipline, often permanently living in barracks, with ruthless treatment of “traitors,” the hierarchical paramilitary was also coercively socializing fascists themselves into a life of collective violence. The squadristi were a substitute for employment, community, and church. They caged and coerced their members into an enjoyable life of violence. In their rhetoric, fascist speech makers endorsed the philosophy of action. But that is also what the paramil- itaries actually practiced. In so doing, they coerced others into compliance with fascist dictates. As with all the bigger fascist paramilitaries, we must understand this double coercion, of comrades and enemies, as crucial to fascists’ success.

Yet the violent careers of Italian fascists differed from that of other fas- cisms. As elsewhere, the first cohort of recruits came straight from the war, but the Italian fascist cohort was unique in proceeding straight through vi- olence to the quick seizure of power, without going through a period of prolonged electoral activity. Once in power, the paramilitaries were tamed by Mussolini through their integration into a well-paid state paramilitary, the MSVN. A second burst of violence, now state-sponsored, came in the late 1930s in Africa, and a third burst came near the end of the war in Europe. Italian fascists thus had uneven careers in violence. The first phase was short-lived, supposedly legitimated by military values and a “civil war” situation. The second and third phases (discussed in my forthcoming vol- ume), though murderous, were short-lived and hidden somewhat from the gaze of most Italians.

Thus most early Italian fascists were young males organized into a paramil- itary gang. Most had fought as young men in the war, others were even younger. All these were introduced to militarism and/or paramilitarism be- tween the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, either in the war or in the squadristi. What better motto for them than me ne frego? So far they might seem closer to Mussolini’s than Salvatorelli’s and De Felice’s conception of fascism. Indeed, they delighted in parodying class theorists, taunting their Marxist opponents with the hurtful epithet “bourgeois.” Since the Italian borghese also means “civilian,” the taunt meant to hell with the “respectable,” psychologically “repressed,” and “feeble” “bourgeoisie.” As we shall see, “youth,” “action,” and even “violence” came to have broader ideological resonance as well.

Region

Fascism was strongest of all in Italy’s two smallish “threatened border” re- gions, the northern Alto Adige (South Tyrol), disputed with Austria, and the

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

106 Fascists

northeast, disputed with Yugoslavia. In March 1921, Trieste alone provided almost 15,000 of the movement’s 80,000 members, more than twice the contribution of any other province. Trieste and the neighboring province of Udine provided 20 percent of fascist members (there were seventy-one provinces). In the immediate aftermath of war, with the revised borders still disputed, many saw the north and northeast as “threatened,” and many of its locals turned to extreme nation-statism to protect them from rising Austro-German and Slovene nationalism (De Felice 1966: 8–11; Linz 1976: 82–4, 92; Steinberg 1986). But fascism was also strong in the modern cities of northern Italy, from where it spread into the more advanced agrarian regions in the northeast and center-north – that is, in Venezia Giulia, of the Veneto, the whole Po Valley, Tuscany, and Umbria. Then the major cities of the northwest were also captured. Riley (2002: chap 2) notes that these were the most modern parts of Italy. The agrarian areas had very varied relations of production – some with large landowners, others with small peasant holdings. But what all these fascist areas had in common were relatively strong “civil societies” – measured by dense networks of voluntary associations such as cooperatives and chambers of labor. He concludes that fascism spread most where civil society was strongest and where it could mobilize existing voluntary associations. Finally, after the March on Rome, fascism was able to spread across most of the country. By 1923, some 40 percent of members were in central Italy, 37 percent in the north, and even 23 percent were to be found in the south – though really backward southern districts remained largely untouched. By 1922 the relative contribution of Trieste and Udine had fallen to 5 percent, while that of the seven biggest Italian cities had fallen from 39 to 25 percent (Revelli 1987: 22).

Northeastern fascists remained distinctive. Members for Udine as of 1922 are detailed in row 2 of Appendix Table 3.1. Though mildly middle-class, they spread across most of the local labor force.1 I calculate a ratio between the percentage contribution of a group to the fascist movement compared with its percentage in the whole labor force. This generates an index of fascist over- or underrepresentation. Values of over 1.0 indicate overrep- resentation of fascists, under 1.0 indicate underrepresentation. I calculate such ratios throughout my case-study chapters.2 In Udine those in public or private administration were the most overrepresented group (having a ratio of 3.1), followed by large property owners and professionals (ratios of 1.5). Commercial workers were roughly at parity (having a ratio of 1.1). Those in industry were very underrepresented (a ratio of 0.5). The ratio for agriculture was also only 0.4, but remember that this was a city. Yet the “ad- ministration” category contained public sector manual workers. Subtracting

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 107

them would yield a “white-collar” ratio of about 2.0. They and not the “clas- sic (i.e., the independent) petty bourgeoisie” were probably the most over- represented group. Workers made up more than a quarter of the Udine party, but somewhat underrepresented (ratio of about 0.75). In Trieste, contempo- raries described fascists as multiclass. Their violent attacks on local socialists and Slovenes brought control of the streets earlier than elsewhere. News- papers said local fascism was strongest among workers and public officials, combining aggressive nationalism and syndicalism conjoined in provoca- tive demonstrations and parades. Some fascists attacked Jews, but more at- tacked the socialist “enemy,” here also identified as “Slav” or Slovene and so “alien.” Alto Adige fascism was also strong, and this was the earliest regional administration taken over by fascists (Silvestri 1969; Payne 1995: 108; Abse 1996). In these two areas we find fascists endorsing ethnic politics, including discrimination against other ethnic groups that at its worst was accompa- nied by violence aimed at ethnic cleansing, the violence being intended to pressure minorities into flight. However, murder was rare and formal depor- tation schemes were not aired. Coercive emigration pressures were common across virtually all the disputed borders of Europe after World War I (as my forthcoming companion volume shows), and Italy was no exception. Here it clearly encouraged fascism.

This pattern proves to be common. Fascism appealed most broadly across the classes in supposedly “threatened” border areas. Because Italy was a peninsula with good relations and no border disputes with its main neighbors France and Switzerland, there were only two smallish “threatened” border regions, Trieste and the South Tyrol. Had there been more, Italian fascism might have had a broader class base – and its cleansing tendencies might have become more ethnic, less political.

Class

As in all countries, easily the most attention has been paid to the class backgrounds of the fascists. And as usual, most scholars see these fascists as predominantly middle- or lower middle-class. Yet the best source, the national membership list, does not unequivocally support this view (Payne 1995: 104, also notices this). Appendix Table 3.1, row 1, shows that work- ers constituted 41 percent of PNF members. They formed 46 percent of the national labor force (Sylos Labini 1978), a ratio of 0.86, which indi- cates only rather slight underrepresentation. However, the ratio for workers outside agriculture was only 0.64,3 while agricultural workers were slightly overrepresented (a ratio of 1.10). Fascism may have been broader based in

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

108 Fascists

the countryside, though the towns partially conform to the orthodox class view that fascism did not attract all that many workers.

Yet there are problems with these data. First, being young, most fascists might be expected to have had lower occupational attainments than had the adult population as a whole. The members might thus have been potentially more middle-class than these figures indicate – though there is no way of testing this suspicion. Second, labor force data include working women, yet there were few female fascists. The proportion of women in the labor force was a little higher in agriculture than in industry or most service sectors. So if we were able to exclude women from our calculations, the working- class ratio among agrarian fascists might rise to perhaps 1.15–1.20, while the nonagricultural ratio would go down slightly. Third, the boundaries between agricultural laborers and small farm proprietors were fuzzy, since many laborers and sharecroppers often had very small plots of land, which meant that they were both laborers and tenants or owners. There were also many gradations of tenant rights. It is difficult to assign people clear class identities in the countryside. As we see below, this fuzzy class zone was at the heart of the fascist-socialist struggle in the countryside. Fourth, the 1921 figures might be affected by fascist “coercive persuasion” among workers. By then many socialist organizations were already being repressed by fascist violence, and workers were joining the fascist unions – a few being coerced – mostly because these seemed to be the only effective unions left (Tasca 1976). Fascism may thus have been rather more middle-class than the figures reveal, especially in the cities, but much less so in the countryside. Yet the data are not good.

What kind of middle class overrepresentation was there? In the national list artisans and small traders – “the classic petty bourgeoisie” – had a ratio of only 0.77, and so were underrepresented. Their rural counterparts, peasant farmers and tenants, had an even lower ratio (0.39). Is this real? Were small peasants being labeled as laborers? Bigger businessmen were overrepresented (a ratio of 2.5), though their numbers are small. Those in the tertiary sector were clearly the most fascist, especially the most educationally qualified. Students provided no less than 13 percent of all members, yielding a massive ratio of 9.3 (cf. row 4 in Appendix Table 3.1). Some 4 to 5 percent of all teachers and 12 to 13 percent of all students were estimated to be fascists in 1920–21 – making the PNF the largest movement in schools and universities. Most university students in this period were of middle-class origin (Petersen 1975: 660). The kinds of occupations that students went into were also very overrepresented. The ratio for the professions was 8.3, for white-collar workers 10.9, and for public employees and teachers 3.0. Salvatorelli’s theory

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 109

begins to seem apposite (as Linz 1976 and Weiss 1988: 32–5 note) – if to the youthful middle class. The youthful “humanistic” or educated bourgeoisie was the main part of the middle class drawn to fascism. But its high level of education would not suggest it was particularly petty bourgeois.

These figures would suggest that fascism had more working-class mem- bers in the countryside than their “petty bourgeois” reputation would sug- gest. But this tag – qualified by big sectoral differences – may apply better in the towns. We must therefore distinguish urban from rural fascism.

Class in the Cities. We have estimates available for class backgrounds of fas- cists in several towns and cities. Rows 4 and 5 of Appendix Table 3.1 detail fascist members or squadristi in the stronghold cities of Bologna, Florence, and Reggio Emilia. Bologna and Florence are major university cities, and students alone contributed virtually half their squadristi. These were in fact decidedly bourgeois squads, with workers and the petty bourgeoisie underrepresented and professionals and public employees especially over- represented. Since Suzzi Valli (2000) found that the students tended to be students of the sciences rather than the arts, this was not the “humanistic bourgeoisie” in the strictest sense! In Reggio Emilia workers were also un- derrepresented, as they were also in the city’s hinterland (we see below that this was not the case around Bologna). Cavandoli (1972: 133) notes that this was partly because many workers had just left the local party, unhappy about its rightward drift. He also seems to assign “artisans” to the middle class, a classification that is problematic in most countries in this period.4 The few job titles he provides – such as “cheese makers” and “street performers” – seem to evoke a back-street casual economy more than secure independent artisans. White-collar employees were the most overrepresented in these samples, probably followed by the gray area where artisanal activity meets the informal and casual labor market.

Appendix Table 3.1, rows 5 and 6, detail two predominantly urban na- tional samples of fascist “martyrs” (who died for the cause) and the MVSN paramilitary. It does seem that fascist violence was largely perpetrated by men from the cities. The dominant groups were students, workers, and public sector workers – who in Italy were mainly police and soldiers, often covert fascists before the seizure of power, open afterward. Note, however, that workers were still somewhat underrepresented. As Reichardt (2002: 344) notes, the Italian martyrs differed from Nazi (SA) martyrs, who were overwhelmingly workers or artisans, with few students or public officials. Fascists in the industrial seaport of Livorno (where socialism was strong) were mainly middle-class. Some 19 percent are described as “liberal professionals,

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

110 Fascists

industrialists or students,” 30 percent as white-collar, 18 percent as “petty bourgeois” (which included artisans and public sector teachers), and only 9 percent as workers (a local ratio of only 0.20). One ex-member wrote bit- terly that “fascism here is hated by all the workers.” More workers were in the local MVSN: Students formed 28 percent of the paramilitary, white-collar workers 22 percent, the rest of the middle class 20 percent, and workers 29 percent – a ratio of 0.71 (Abse 1986: 68–9). The figures in the small town of Arezzo are given in suspiciously rounded percentages: 50 percent shopkeepers, traders, and white-collar workers, 25 percent professionals and students, and 25 percent workers (Lyttleton 1987: 68). Snowden (1989: 165–77) believes that most Tuscan parties were petty bourgeois until 1922, when industrial workers began to join from the beaten socialist unions. Yet when he gives earlier figures (for five small Tuscan towns without heavy in- dustry), workers comprised between a quarter and a half of members in each. Most were employed in fairly small workshops, rather than fully fledged factories.

Lyttleton (1987: 49–71) says that the early student and veteran fascist core was broadened by “yellow” and Catholic unions active in less concentrated industries and in smaller workshops involving struggling artisans, traders, and the lumpen proletariat. Francini (1976: 82–4) says the Pistoia fascio centered on laborers and traders of the streets and the cattle market. It thus seems that fascism could not easily penetrate the organized working class in urban manufacturing industry, the working-class ghettos. Yet the towns also had a large casual, street, and informal economy, putting most workers and “not- quite-artisans” outside the normal reach of the socialist movement, and so recruitable by fascism. This would account for the quite broad social base of the 1921 membership list.

A fascist journalist claimed that big-city fascists were

employees, small rentiers and lesser middling professional men . . . the new men. They formed the crowd which before the war watched political events with indif- ference and apathy and which has now entered the contest. Fascism has mobilized its forces from the twilight zones of political life, and from this derives the unruly violence and the juvenile exuberance of its conduct. (Lyttleton 1987: 67)

But this seems more of a description of the fascist leadership cadre than of ordinary city members. Urban fascism seemed to recruit militants from all groups left outside the prewar political organizations, the “notable” liberal and conservative parties and the socialists. In the bigger cities they probably first centered on the “new middle class,” before sweeping up many others employed in smaller workshops, in more casual and street employment and

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 111

in the public sector. In small towns, where socialism was weak, a higher proportion of workers might be exposed to fascism. “The unruly violence” referred to by our fascist journalist may have derived less from class than from veterans, while “juvenile exuberance” may have been more an attribute of youth than of class.

So most fascists seem not to have been at the urban capitalist core of either the industrial proletariat or the middle class. Indeed, the fascist claim to transcend class conflict may have found most support among persons of all classes who were situated at the margins of that conflict. In the towns, the PNF was more a middle-class than a working-class party. Yet though it was certainly not a proletarian party, it was “radical” and populist, it was led by ex-syndicalists and ex-socialists, and it had a moderately diverse social base. Indeed, its “radical” base became unhappy with Mussolini’s opportunistic alliances with the parliamentary parties and the propertied classes. This is rather a mixed urban picture.

In the past, some writers portrayed the fascists as marginal, even malig- nant members of the bourgeoisie. Squadristi leaders were described as “up- rooted,” “marginal” men from “the dark criminal underworld” or “shiftless dissipaters of small family inheritances” – “displaced men of ambition who found in their willingness to use violence the key to upward mobility and influence that was denied through conventional channels” (Snowden 1989: 163). More recent work (Suzzi Valli 2000; Reichardt 2002) has tended to refute these stereotypes. True, some fascists were criminals and corruption was common. The Florence fascio was dissolved by an investigating party committee piously declaring, “Fascism must remain a movement of ideals for the economic and moral rebirth of our nation; it must not be a band of mercenaries and praetorian guards who, for love of lucre, assassinate, rob and plunder.” Keeping morality and violence harnessed together was fascism’s perennial problem. Yet Snowden’s examples of downwardly mo- bile leaders do not always convince. For example, Compagni was indeed downwardly mobile until he served with distinction in the army during the war. Afterward he was able to reacquire wealth and patronage as a Veterans Association official. Only then did he become a fascist. Giacomelli seems geographically more than socially mobile, beginning as a crane operator, migrating to America without much success, returning to Italy, and pe- titioning his friend Pasella for work in the Milan party (because he was a convinced fascist or from economic desperation? It is not clear). Nor is a political renegade necessarily socially marginal. Pasella denounced his former socialist friends to the authorities during the war because of nation- alist convictions. If fascism allowed him to “escape from the ruins of his

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

112 Fascists

political career,” “ruin” resulted from his fascist beliefs, not fascism from ruin.

The creators of a radical movement rarely have conventional work ca- reers. But what is cause and what is effect? Were family fortunes, educational advantages, and occupational opportunities dissipated in the pursuit of ex- treme political convictions? As we see later, many highly respectable persons came to rather admire the reckless “idealism” of the squadristi. Would they have admired shiftless, marginal, and criminal elements? I am skeptical. This may have been an example of scholarly desires to denigrate fascists rather than to take them seriously.

Italian fascists (like those in other countries) are often portrayed as marginal people suffering economic and social frustrations. Did more de- prived occupations supply more fascists? Were fascists disproportionately unemployed? Did fascist students have worse job prospects than other students? We lack the data to answer these questions. Barbagli’s (1982: 110– 28) figures do suggest that higher education was producing far more qual- ified persons than the professions could handle. The situation was bad for teachers but worse for engineers. He suggests that many turned to extremist politics but acknowledges that the evidence is lacking. In any case many were absorbed by the public sector, growing rapidly, especially in its higher grades. Was the “humanistic bourgeoisie” more affected by inflation, un- employment, or low wages than other middle-class groups? Zamagni’s data (1979–80: 41–2) suggest the opposite. Maier (1975: 313) attempts to sum- marize fascism’s social base: “Thus a decaying small-town bourgeoisie and a rising rural one reinforced each other. Both were defensive, either about newly acquired or newly threatened status and property.” This is having it both ways! Note that all these assertions correspond to the views of early scholars of German Nazis, before serious research was done on them. Sub- sequent German research refutes the stereotype, as the next chapter shows.

There is an alternative view. The overrepresented “humanistic bour- geoisie” may not have been the “lower” or “marginal” or “deprived” part of the middle class but persons attracted to nation-statist values and paramil- itary means. This fascist movement, more than any other, had captured the sympathy of many intellectuals. Their youthful wing, the students, were also captivated. Most learned professions seem overrepresented, while there were many sympathizers among civil servants. The military and police officers of all ranks evinced such fascist sympathies that ministers and prefects could not get them to enforce public order bans against the fascists (Dunnage 1997: chap. 6). Yet these people had secure jobs. Civil servants were wary of revealing party membership and activism before the seizure of power

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 113

(as in other countries). They were only slightly overrepresented in mem- bership lists until there was no need for caution, after the coup. By 1927 civil servants were the largest group in the Verona and Rome parties, with ratios of 3.0–5.0 (Revelli 1987). Rome, the capital, became the main fascist stronghold, as it is the neo-fascist stronghold today. Probably, support came less from the “lower” or “marginal” middle class, more from an entire sector of the middle class – from its highest, most privileged levels to its lowest, least privileged. This sector would be defined by its masculinity, youth, military experience, high level of education, experience of the state, and relatively indirect relation to class conflict.

All this would support a more ambiguous class and a rather more “nation- statist” version of Salvatorelli’s argument. There might in fact be at least two core “fascist constituencies”: (1) a bourgeois bias, greatest among those at the margins of Italian class struggle, attracted by the fascist claim to tran- scend it, and (2) those whose social situation favored paramilitary nation- statism. Given the present paucity of data, these are plausible conjectures, not demonstrable truths.

Class in the Countryside. Rural fascism became larger than urban fascism. The PNF seriously ran in only one free election, in 1921, in alliance with other rightist nationalists. The alliance received 15 percent of the vote, rising to over 25 percent in agricultural areas of the center and north in Tuscany and the Po Valley. Only there might fascism be described as having demon- strated genuinely mass support. Rural fascism also differed socially, though again the data are spotty. Reichardt’s (2002: 306) study of squadristi in the province of Bologna, summarized in row 7 of Appendix Table 3.1, reveals quite a broad-based party, broader than squadristi in the city of Bologna (evidenced by Suzzi Valli 2000). Half the provincial squadristi were laborers, about the same proportion as in the provincial labor force (unfortunately, we cannot exactly determine the relative numbers of agricultural versus industrial workers). Students, property-owners, white-collar workers, and public sector workers were overrepresented, while sharecroppers and the petty bourgeoisie were greatly underrepresented. One large local party near Bologna was predominantly lower class: 7 percent were landowners or lease- holders, 13 percent professionals, 3 percent merchants or manufacturers, 5 percent white-collar workers, 4 percent public service workers, and 11 percent factory workers, leaving 58 percent who were agricultural day laborers or sharecroppers. Cardoza (1982: 320) believes that this was typical of the region. Corner (1975: 151–7) believes that Ferrara recruits came from all classes except poor laborers. Yet Kelikian (1986: 205) says that the Brescia

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

114 Fascists

party was staffed by younger, less respectable members of the educated mid- dle class, supported by prosperous lease-holding peasants. This would not correspond to the social composition indicated by the national party list. In the southern towns and villages of Calabria (where fascism was weak), of those persons identified (by Misefari and Marzotti 1980) as fascists, about half were arditi war veterans, and most of the rest were middle-class, mainly professionals and civil servants, plus a few landowners and peasants. Thus rural overrepresentation may have been due to the war. A predominantly peasant army had nourished early fascism, as militarism transmuted into paramilitarism.

Indeed, Italian fascism triumphed more through violence than the bal- lot box. Paramilitary thousands, not voting millions, mattered. Thus fascist violence may reveal something about who the fascists were, while its tar- gets reveal who they were against. Here we have evidence on incidents of violence involving fascists, recorded by the PNF for each province and published by Tasca (1976: 120) and De Felice (1966: 35–9). Tasca expressed reservations about these data, calling them inconsistent and partial. Most were originally drawn from a Socialist Party count of attacks on its own militants, neglecting attacks on nonsocialist “enemies” – only two such in- cidents are mentioned, in a footnote. The “white” peasant leagues organized by the Catholic popolari, the communists, the anarchists, the Slovenes of the northeast, and the Germans of the Tyrol were all suppressed by the fascists, but do not figure in these statistics. There are no figures given for Trieste at all, and those for Udine contain no attacks on Slovenes. These data also suited fascist propaganda. They could be used to justify their own violence as mere self-defense against attacks from socialists. Tasca’s data may thus be a little biased. Yet Franzosi’s (1996) alternative data source reveals only a little more variety of opponent. In national Italian newspaper reports, “commu- nists” figured in 65 percent of the 1921 clashes and 53 percent of 1922 clashes, socialists in 15 percent and 17 percent, respectively, and the popolari and “constitutionalist” parties in only 7 percent and 5 percent, respectively. But the northeast is again omitted.

Whatever their defects, Tasca’s figures have been used for “ecological analysis,” comparing variations in fascist violence between provinces with variations in economic and political factors. Szymanski (1973) showed there was violence involving fascists in industrial more than in agricultural areas, and much more violence in areas of socialist strength (as measured by the socialist vote in 1919; cf. Tilly 1975: 177). Elazar (1993) uses the figures more thoroughly. She also shows that incidents of fascist violence were much higher in provinces voting socialist in 1920 – and highest of all in

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 115

provinces ruled by socialist administrations. This relationship was strongest in central and northern areas with a large agricultural proletariat. She also brings more reliable evidence to bear to reveal that the fascists seized power in twelve out of the fourteen provinces with a socialist electoral majority and in only one out of fifteen with a liberal or conservative majority. Thus she deduces that fascism was fundamentally antisocialist. Adding evidence showing army, government, and upper-class support for squadristi violence, Elazar concludes that it was essentially class struggle that generated and nourished fascism. Indeed, she says that fascists did not really seize power, they were given it by men of property and state officials to protect them from the working class and socialism. She rejects the Salvatorelli–De Felice theory of an independent middle-class fascism. Rather, she says, fascism was the tool of the capitalist class, and especially of large landowners. Tasca – a socialist leader, of course – had earlier concluded along similar lines, though in more qualified fashion.

Ecological analysis of voting and membership data can also help here. Since fascists seriously contested only one election, in 1921, on a joint list with nationalist candidates, it is not easy to say who supported them. Linz (1976: 82–4) showed that fascist membership was inversely related to the vote for the Catholic popolari party, being stronger in relatively de-Christianized areas (the Po Valley and Romagna). Nationalism in Italy tended to be rather secular, opposed to the transnational power of the Catholic Church – and fascism inherited this anticlerical mantle, while distinctively attempting to resacralize the state. Brustein (1991) separates out the vote for the fascist and nationalist candidates in 1921 (though he does not say how he has done this). He supports Linz in finding a high correlation between PNF voting in 1921 and socialist voting in 1919 and 1920. The relationship for 1921 was much weaker, especially in agrarian areas. He thus concludes (contrary to Szymanski and Elazar) that many socialists defected to fascism. This provides an alternative explanation of why fascists seized power in former socialist strongholds: They weakened the socialists by splitting them. Brustein also finds a strong relationship between the fascist vote and profitable commer- cial farming, whether large- or small-scale. Controlling for urbanization, new voters, region, and the vote for the Catholic popolari does not reduce these two correlations. Brustein argues that by 1921 the fascists offered the agrarian program most attractive to commercial farmers and to laborers and sharecroppers who believed they could buy or lease land in the future. Even quite poor peasants might aspire to this goal, however unrealistically. Thus the attractions of fascism might extend far down rural social structure, espe- cially in the more prosperous regions. Indeed, these were the areas of greatest

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

116 Fascists

fascist strength and also the most secular areas. Rural fascists, Brustein says, were not economically declining but prospering, modern. They responded positively to the fascist agrarian program, negatively to socialist collectivist policies. Thus Brustein makes apparent sense of not only the class but also some of the regional composition of rural fascism.

Local studies tend to support Brustein, suggesting that modernizing com- mercially minded farmers were turning against the parliamentary regime that they saw as caving in to the demands of peasant leagues representing the landless and poor sharecroppers (Cardoza 1982; Kelikian 1986; Dunnage 1997). The wartime boom plus peasant league pressure had enabled many laborers and sharecroppers to achieve some financial independence. Land sales had accelerated. Now many peasants defected to the fascists, preferring fascist support for private property (“Land to the peasants” was the slogan, subsidies for purchase were the bribe) to socialist collectivization (Snowden 1972; Corner 1975: 144–67; Maier 1975: 310–11).

It is difficult to be exact about rural fascists. The categories “landowner,” “peasant,” “sharecropper,” “leaseholder,” and “day laborer” found in the sources covered a diversity of local conditions, of crops, of wealth, of orga- nizational resources. Yet one thing is sure: Dense communities of roughly equal landless laborers or sharecroppers were rarely fascist. Instead, they pro- vided the core of the socialist or occasionally the “white” peasant leagues organized by the Catholics. The organized proletariat in its proletarian ghet- tos, just like its urban counterpart, resisted fascism.

Yet violence and organizational turbulence were endemic because of the fundamental problem of the rural economy: a large oversupply of landless labor. This often undercut any attempt to mobilize discontent, but it also meant that collective mobilization tended to be violent and often transitory. Laborers and peasants had to be coerced into solidarity, to accept work only through union hiring-halls, to share work through short working weeks and through mass withdrawals of labor always threatened by “scabs” (or “black- legs”) crossing the picket lines (often protected by employers’ armed gangs). The revolutionary syndicalists had developed and publicized these tactics. The socialists often applied them, and so now did some of the popolari. But most strikes did not work, causing the rapid collapse of the organization and the subsequent rise of new ones. The peasant leagues had grown very recently (membership more than doubled in 1920), and they were frag- ile, with many enemies. Their “labor exchanges” attempted to distribute jobs, thus creating perceived inequities. They administered rough justice to laborers driven by dire need to break strikes or boycotts and to small pro- prietors unable to afford the labor terms of the leagues. The more powerful socialist leagues cowed the large but poorly organized white leagues. There

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 117

were many unwilling members of the socialist leagues, and these provided many fascists (Maier 1975: 174–5; Cardoza 1982: 337–8; Segrè 1987: 36, 59). “Scabs” have been very important in modern labor relations. Remem- ber that the “working class” is not the same as the “organized working class.” In the first half of the twentieth century, two-thirds of the labor force generally remained nonunion. In rural areas, this two-thirds tended to be found in localities where unions had not appeared, among workers who were in debt or isolated from worker support networks. Or they were merely timorous, religious, or conservative workers, some kin to foremen or bailiffs, who hoped for such positions themselves, or whose family members (especially wives and daughters) were the servants of the owners and feared or empathized with them. For them guaranteed work was more impor- tant than risky protest. They might “scab” if protected. Fascists understood all this. Leading squadristi had begun as revolutionary syndicalists, and the squadristi offered better violence than anyone else, since they were proper paramilitaries. Sometimes their violence was in support of strikers, some- times of scabs. But fascist violence got results and was positively valued by many rural Italians.

They were also tiring of socialist rhetoric. Socialists’ main problem in a party led by “Maximalists” was that they preached revolution but could not achieve it. Mussolini’s statement that socialism remained only as ineffectual hatred was a constant fascist theme. “Marxism” and “Bolshevism” brought strife, but not triumph. Since this seemed true in the early 1920s, defections were to the movement that claimed to be able to transcend class struggle. In 1921 socialists wrote candidly of “the daily enthusiastic adhesion of large masses of laborers to the program of the fascio”; “the present defections are the work of those who came last to the proletarian organization because they are unhappy with the regime of working-class justice” – a reference to the coercion used to achieve class solidarity. Collectivization was “felt to be an ever-increasing violation of individual liberty.” They admitted the popularity of fascist slogans such as “The land to him who works it!” and “To every peasant the entire fruit of his sacred labor!” (Corner 1975: 144, 159; Snowden 1972: 279). Nor did fascism simply betray these people. The mushrooming fascist unions quickly settled disputes over contracts, often with force, perhaps on more proemployer terms than socialist unions demanded. But they did settle them, and this provided work, quickly, to fascist members.

Yet any claim to actually transcend class was specious. Indeed, rural fas- cism became increasingly conservative, an alliance of the rural propertied classes, that is, between large, commercial farmers and “middling- to lower- middling” peasants – those believing themselves capable of independent

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

118 Fascists

economic activity, even many with tiny plots. Balbo said “the strength of our army” came “from the small leaseholders and small proprietors of the countryside” (Corner 1975: 102). The large landowners came to dominate this alliance, as they did the later agrarian policy of the fascist regime. They had the resources to fund rural fascios (thus financing the full-time squadristi) and to provide their own collective associations to organize the struggle (Maier 1975; Elazar 1993). A discontented radical fascist noted: “Whereas in the cities and the industrial zones it appears as a romantic movement . . . in the agrarian zones . . . it is the party of a class, and it acts as such” (Snowden 1972: 283). A class model – not static but emergent, dynamic – works bet- ter in the countryside. Rural fascism was substantially taken over by the landowning classes, though it had not originated among them and they re- mained among the most conservative and the least ideological fascists. For them, fascism was useful, not the revealed truth.

Yet we must not embrace a one-dimensional model. Even in the country- side, we still need to also explain militants’ youth, masculinity, and military experience and their enthusiastic embrace of extreme nationalism. Mussolini himself argued:

The unity of Italy is the work of the intellectual bourgeoisie and of some of the artisan classes of the cities. But the great war of 1915–1918 recruited the rurali in their millions. However, their participation in events was on the whole passive. They were once again dragged forward by the cities. Now Fascism has transformed their rural passivity . . . into active support for the reality and sanctity of the nation. (Lyttleton 1987: 70)

He is saying that first the war, then paramilitary fascism, gave peasants col- lective organization.

But among rural fascists nation-statism seems weaker than class discon- tent. Fascists did appear to many agriculturalists (including many socialists) to be able to transcend class struggle, but this was to prove somewhat illu- sory. To a degree, fascism did put Italy back to work again, but on terms that contained a substantial procapitalist bias.

the social composition of other movements

Ideally, we would wish to compare fascists with persons in other move- ments. I can do this for Germany, in the next chapter. Yet we know little of the ordinary members of other Italian parties. Appendix Table 3.1, rows 5 and 6, compare fascist with Catholic deputies. They seem similar. Data collected by Gentile (2000: 413, 493) on all parties’ deputies show that professionals dominated them, especially lawyers. The socialists also had numerous workers, while the fascists had a wider variety of middle-class

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 119

occupations. Together with the socialists, they also had more journalists (and this was also true of the fascist regional secretaries). We also lack much ecological voting data on the other parties. We must resort to contempo- rary journalistic assessment of electoral support and party composition.

Most scholars believe the left parties drew mainly northern worker sup- port, with few votes in the south (apart from Apulia). The socialist PSI party had only two-thirds the membership of the PNF, but drew over four times the electoral support, especially in the cities. In 1919 it got 40 percent of urban and 30 percent of rural votes. The Catholic PPI had more nominal members but three times the electoral support of the fascists. This was con- centrated in the countryside and the nonindustrial cities of the north. Of the 1.2 million Catholic union members in autumn 1920 (half the num- ber in the socialist unions), 80 percent were in agriculture (compared with only 33 percent of socialist union members). “Whites” rivaled “reds” in the countryside. But the recently founded PPI remained a fragile union of priests, clerical conservatives, and radical populists (Salvemini 1973: 137–51; Molony 1977: 55–6, 88; Mayeur 1980: 109–17).

The “constitutionalist” or “liberal” parties are generally considered bour- geois in their composition (though we lack membership data). Yet their large vote – four times the fascist – must have spread through most classes. These were notable parties, relying on traditional patron-client networks, at risk from the new mass membership parties – socialists, fascists, and popolari. From what we know of conservative, liberal, and Catholic parties in other countries, we can guess that while their leaders and members were far more bourgeois than were socialists or fascists, they still managed to pick up the votes of almost as many workers as the socialists did. This was because they still held onto the more backward areas and the most religious areas of Italy as well as the most bourgeois.

The big question is why these three much larger rival movements col- lapsed so rapidly before fascism. The answer is twofold. First, fascist paramil- itarism was the most effective form of power mobilization in the arena that turned out to be most critical, violence. Second, some of these rivals, led by their elites, defected and supported the fascist coup. I now ask why.

elite support for fascism

Class Motivations

Fascists did not gain power unaided. They were helped there by elites. I begin with capitalists. Did they finance fascism? PNF records show that the party was mostly financed by small contributions from members and

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

120 Fascists

sympathizers. Yet at the local and provincial level and in the financing of fellow-traveling newspapers and strike-breaking organizations, more big money went to fascist front associations. Some industrialists had panicked during the factory occupations of 1920, but they had asked for the cara- binieri, not squadristi. Most wanted the socialists repressed by the govern- ment just sufficiently for the restoration of “liberal” managed parliamen- tarism. In 1922 the Italian Confederation of Industry did not support the March on Rome, preferring a “semi-authoritarian” option under Giolitti or Salandra. This option was widely canvassed again during 1924 when the killing of the respected socialist deputy Matteotti by fascists shook the new regime. When fascism revealed its true level of violence, industrialists revealed more moderate preferences. Unlike landowners, few industrial- ists invited in the squadristi, though from October 1922 some gave subsi- dies and a few became members. This was later and lesser support than that of landowners, and it was spearheaded by businesses with agricultural interests and in commercialized agricultural provinces (Melograni 1965, 1972; Seton-Watson 1967: 598; Kelikian 1986: 144; Lyttleton 1987: 210– 11; 1996: 19; Snowden 1989: 121–56; Elazar 1993: 161–2, 181–9).

All this was important assistance, decisive in some rural areas. But only after the coup did the whole capitalist class swing around. Most upper-class groupings distrusted a fascist violence that was wielded by “radicals,” and this seemed especially so in the cities. To assuage their fears and so to reach power, Mussolini began to make clear in late 1921 and 1922 that he was offering a deal. For their support he would damp down the revolutionary violence of true, radical fascists. This brought results, but it had been immediately preceded by other elite defections. As we see below, many among the church and political and military elites also swung around to ally with the fascists. Let us first consider the extent they did so – along with many capitalists – for straightforwardly class reasons. Three propertied class motives might be relevant. The first two concern the supposed need for “property defense,” the third concerns the need for “capitalist profit.”

(1) The propertied classes might fear the pervasive and growing violence gripping the country and associate it with the need to defend property and order. Unlike the violence of the strike movement of 1911–12, unlike the mob conflicts over entry to the war, unlike even the industrial disputes of 1918–19, hundreds of people were now being killed. Most officials com- piling reports on the violence blamed the left. One wrote hysterically of its “intoxication with violence,” of soldiers and police “massacred by anar- chists and socialists.” A few officials argued the reverse: The squadristi were encouraged by the “mad and above all intransigent spirit of the commercial

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 121

and industrial classes” (Maier 1975: 317, 319). Most scholars believe the right was considerably exaggerating. Cardoza (1982: 293) says elites were motivated by violent sentiments of revenge. De Grand (1978: 120) says they showed “frightening,” “hysterical” verbal violence. The facts of the fatalities reveal that most violence was by the right. The period of leftist insurgence during 1919–20 had seen few casualties, but the fascist-instigated “civil war” of 1921–2 saw many. Estimates of the total dead vary around 2,000. Around 300 of these were definitely fascists, over 700 definitely leftists. Local esti- mates also average just above a 2 to 1, leftist to fascist, ratio among both dead and wounded. Serious violence was not primarily the work of the left. And on top of that, more people were still being killed in the traditional “social wars” and Mafiosi struggles of the south – more in Western Sicily alone – than in the main area of socialist-fascist confrontation, Tuscany and the Po Valley (Molony 1977: 99; Lyttleton 1982; Petersen 1982: 280–294; Payne 1995: 105–6). Violence was mostly traditional, then fascist, with the left puffing along in the rear.

But there was an important difference between fascist and other violence. It was not aimed at the state. Whatever the fascist theory of an eventual coup, in practice fascists did not challenge or even much bad-mouth the state. In fact, they attacked those who said that they were attacking the state – leftists. Thus many provincial and local government officials covertly abetted the fascist violence. A few moderate officials complained of the “sympathy”, “excessive tolerance,” and “collusion” toward the fascists shown by magis- trates, police, and troops who were asserting that “the fascists are the de- fenders of order.” Socialists were twice as likely as fascists to get killed, but they were also between two and four times more likely to get arrested. During 1921–2 some police and army units also supplied the fascists with sidearms and supplies, and once with trucks, cannon, and tanks (Lyttleton 1987; Elazar 1993: 227–32). Indeed, much of the executive part of the state rather liked fascist paramilitarism – it was “patriotic,” in the service of “order” (De Felice 1966: 35–7; Petersen 1982: 280–1; Segrè 1987: 55–7; Snowden 1989: 194–204; Dunnage 1997: 120–5).

Leftist words, however, contrasted with fascist deeds. Socialists talked of revolution and attacking the state but they actually viewed paramilitarism as a weapon of the class enemy. Moderate socialists repeatedly denounced violence. Turati, ousted from the PSI leadership, denounced the victorious Maximalists at the party congress of 1918:

Violence is nothing other than the suicide of the proletariat; it serves the interests of our adversaries. . . . [O]ur appeal to violence will be taken up by our enemies,

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

122 Fascists

one hundred times better armed than we, and then . . . goodbye Socialist Party. To speak . . . of violence continually and then always postpone it until tomorrow is . . . the most absurd thing in the world. It only serves to arm, to rouse, to justify rather the violence of the adversary, a thousand times stronger than ours. . . . This is the ultimate stupidity to which a party can come, and involves the renunciation of any revolution. (quoted by Elazar 1993: 135–6)

But even the Maximalists were offering little more than mass strikes and demonstrations – with more broken windows and beatings than Turati could stomach. The War Office sent a colonel to report on the threat. He wrote that only the Maximalists endorsed revolution and they

. . . are not capable of organization. They act in heterogeneous masses under the im- pulse of passing emotion. The arms in their possession are scarce and unevenly dis- tributed. They have no organized bodies capable of making use of them. . . . [T]hey all have a very limited grasp of tactics, the use of arms, discipline, cooperation and even action itself. . . . [A]ny attempt at co-ordinated preparation remains local, or at best extends to the district. . . . [L]ong and far-sighted preparation is impos- sible for them. . . . Hypnotized by noise and crowds they delude themselves as to their strength and prospects. Their first reverse will be followed by disillusion and disorder. (Salvemini 1973: 269)

The colonel was right. When the squadristi attacked, socialists tried only to defend themselves. They failed. They rarely attacked local fascist headquar- ters. At their most aggressive, they would ambush advancing fascist units. Each socialist local tended to act on its own, whereas fascists regionally co- ordinated “trucks and telephone.” Socialists defended their own turf; the arditi moved and slept wherever fascism wanted them. There was, the so- cialist leader Tasca later ruefully concluded, no socialist stomach for war (1976: 126–7). Not votes or debates decided the issue, but paramilitarism. Socialist, communist, and anarchist militants were defeated in brief battle, for which their near-pacifism had ill-prepared them.

Thus fascist violence did not need to be horrendous. Balbo’s glorifica- tion of violence, quoted earlier, was not tested. In fact, they claimed their violence was defensive – it was the socialists who were attacking social order in general and themselves in particular. We do not know how far the fac- scists would have gone. They broke bones, poured castor oil down throats, burned and looted buildings. They usually killed only when encountering resistance. The dead mounted, but only to the quite early point when the enemy capitulated. Some leftists were punished with prison, others expelled from their home area into informal internal exile. Cleansing was almost ex- clusively political, its violence broadly pragmatic. And it worked. Socialism was rolled over in a matter of weeks in some areas, and in a year, mid-1921 to

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 123

mid-1922, across the whole of Italy. This enabled Italian fascism to relax and to become more benign until the Ethiopian venture. The rollover impressed many Italians, especially those without a ringside seat. From a distance the fascist victory seemed like transcendence of conflict, not the brutal violence it actually was. And this was popular among elites and others who valued social order. Just how widespread was this popularity we do not know, since there were now no fully free elections. But fascist paramilitarism was not just about violence, it also concerned building up the internal solidarity of the movement and its popularity among Italians.

Fears of violence were thus reasonable but focused on the wrong enemy. Leftist violence was dwarfed by the traditional violence of the south and by fascist and state violence. But the upper classes quite liked these last two types of “orderly” violence.

(2) The propertied classes might fear political revolution. Unlike other countries, Italy’s turbulent quasi-revolutionary postwar period immediately preceded the fascist coup. The strikes of 1918–19 did seem to combine wage and price grievances with Bolshevik-influenced politics. Several towns were briefly taken over by self-styled “soviets,” though projected general strikes all fizzled out. Most strikes were more limited, however. In March 1920 most concerned the joint worker-management “internal commis- sions” surviving from the war that employers now wished to abolish. The employers won the strikes, but sporadic protests and violence (exaggerated by the press) continued. Some 1.3 million Tuscan industrial workers staged short strikes in late summer over wage claims and internal commissions. The employers refused to concede, locked out the workers, and started disci- plinary proceedings against their leaders. The strikes spread and led to factory occupations.

These occupations later acquired mythic status, hailed as a microcosm of the future socialist order and as “a necessary moment of the revolutionary development and of the class war.” The police claimed to have seized arms caches, but many observers remained skeptical, since the government failed to produce them. The workers did not try to seize government buildings and few strikes had advance planning. Skirmishes occurred only outside union headquarters or occupied factories, some of which workers attempted to run. Workers “defended their own spaces” – the characteristic activity of interwar socialists (Mann 1995). The slogan controllo, Salvemini (1973: 274) cautions us, means not “worker control” but merely the ability to check company accounts, a privilege that the unions had enjoyed during the war. Splits soon appeared among militants, unions, and the socialist party: Did they want higher wages, accountability, or revolution?

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

124 Fascists

Prime Minister Giolitti, now eighty, had two decades of experience as prime minister in dealing with the left. Despite conservative calls for the army, he did not intervene. He said his tactic was “to let the experiment continue up to a certain point, so that the workers might convince them- selves of the impracticability of their conceptions and also in order to prevent the ring-leaders from throwing on others the blame of their failure.” To use troops “would have been playing into the hands of the revolutionaries, who asked for nothing better” (Giolitti 1923: 437–8). Instead, he brokered a deal on joint councils between moderate industrialists and unionists. The occu- pations fizzled out, as he had predicted. Thus Giolitti had already called the revolutionary bluff in November 1920 – before fascist violence developed (Salvemini 1973: 296–315; Tasca 1976: 83, 122–3).

Thus class motivation theorists have retreated to a secondary “revolution- ary” argument: Fascism was not a response to revolution, it was a “preven- tive counterrevolution,” to forestall a revolution happening sometime in the future. Socialist membership had quadrupled between 1914 and 1919, to 200,000, while the socialist union federation, the CGL, increased seven-fold to 2.2 million (including a million agricultural workers) by 1920. Maximal- ists also defeated reformists in the party, though not in the unions. The party now advocated “the setting up of the Italian Socialist Republic under the dictatorship of the proletariat.” In 1921 some leftists split off to form a small Communist Party. “Maximalists” and Communists spouted revolutionary rhetoric. In the national election of 1919, splits among the “constitutional” conservative and liberal parties enabled socialists to capture 156 of the 535 seats, the PPI 100. The “constitutionalists” were reduced from 410 to 239 seats and remained divided. The local elections of 1920 then gave the social- ists control of 2,162 local councils, enabling them to take over one-quarter of the local administrations. “The bosses felt they were no longer bosses,” remembered one militant. Yet these socialist councils were not revolution- ary. Some raised red flags on town hall roofs – often sparking fascist violence. Most raised taxes, especially on landowners, and gave more public contracts to local cooperatives, fewer to big businessmen. They declared they would not use troops to quell strikes and land occupations. This was the Italian variant of interwar “municipal socialism.”

True, at the national level the Maximalist-led socialists rejected Giolitti’s offer of seats in his cabinet. Yet Giolitti believed they would soon have to accept his offer, since the country was clearly moving rightward. Employers were showing greater solidarity, and the hitherto-divided “constitutional” parties formed common lists and recaptured all the major cities except Milan and Bologna in the local elections in late 1921. Union and socialist

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 125

membership, the socialist vote, and the strike rate all declined, while leftist faction fighting increased. Maximalist rhetoric and minimalist achievements, militant anticlericalism and alienation from the small farmer all trapped them within their ghettos. As in the rest of Europe, the revolutionary tide had been turned back before the fascists struck. Mussolini himself actually agreed with this analysis, writing in July 1921, “To say that a ‘Bolshevik’ danger still exists in Italy is to confuse certain vague fears with reality. Bolshevism is conquered. More than that: it has been abjured by the leaders and the masses” (Nolte 1965: 206; cf. Maier 1975: 182–92). Thus fascist help to conquer “Bolshevism” was not actually required.

So this second fear was real but exaggerated. Not even a preventive coun- terrevolution was necessary. But Giolitti got no thanks for his noninterven- tionist victory. He was reviled by the right. It is understandable that a violent surge from one political wing produces panic on the other. If the tide turns, a desire for vengeance, not conciliation, may ensue. But did vengeance need such bloodletting as fascism provided? Was something else also contributing?

The agrarian propertied classes provided most of the conspirators. Perhaps they were terrified by rural agitation and land occupations – especially when the Giolitti government, the PPI Minister of Agriculture, and local priests seemed to treat occupations as acceptable ad hoc land redistribution. The issue was primarily one of property defense. Yet the problem is that most of these occupations occurred in areas of little fascist activity, in the central region of Latium and in the south. Even there they affected only 2.3 percent of the land area – the national proportion was a minuscule 0.33 percent. Few were organized by socialists, most were part of a local tradition of rural insurrection (Salvemini 1973: 227; Tilly 1975: 170–1). And fascist activity aimed less at land occupations than at the labor contracts of the peasant leagues. The point can also be applied to industry. Fascist violence aimed mainly against reformist, not revolutionary projects. This might invoke the third motive.

(3) Capitalists might seek to repress labor in order to protect their profits. In 1936 (with the aid of hindsight) the Austro-Marxist leader Otto Bauer offered such an explanation, of European fascism in general and Italian fascism in particular:

Fascism did not triumph at a moment when the bourgeoisie was threatened by the proletarian revolution, but rather when the proletariat had for long been weakened and forced on to the defensive, and the revolutionary flood had already subsided. The capitalists and large landowners did not surrender state power to the violent hordes of fascism in order to protect themselves from the threat of proletarian revolution but with the aim of driving down wage levels, reversing the social achievements

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

126 Fascists

of the working class, and destroying their unions and their political power. Their aim . . . was not so much to suppress revolutionary socialism as to smash the achieve- ments of reformist socialism. “The verbal revolutionism of the maximalists,” writes Silone, “endangers only the street lamps and occasionally the bones of a few police agents. But reformism with its co-operatives, its pay increases in times of crisis, and its unemployment insurance threatens something much more sacred: capitalist profit.” (Forgacs 1986: 31)

Bauer has here invoked what I have identified as the second great motive of the propertied classes: the pursuit of capitalist profit. But did capitalist profit really require Mussolini? What was wrong with Giolitti’s recipe of Northwest European class compromise, perhaps with a mild additional dose of semi-authoritarianism? This was now surely a winning strategy (Giolitti believed so) because labor had peaked. Why did Italian capitalists, especially landlords, oppose reformism so strongly that they would import fascists to kill their opponents and thus threaten themselves? Their support still remains puzzling. We must turn also to other sources of social power besides the economic.

Ideological, Political, and Military Motivations

At first, the Catholic Church had looked askance at fascism. It favored semi-authoritarian, nonnationalist conservatism, yet so far it had played lit- tle role in politics. After the war, leading Catholics persuaded the hierarchy of the need for a mass Catholic party. They founded the PPI. But by 1922 a “clerical-fascist” faction had appeared within the PPI. It now favored ac- commodation with Mussolini and persuaded the Vatican to its view. The party leader, the priest Dom Sturzo, was a democrat, but his vows compelled him to obey. The party abstained on the vital 1922 parliamentary vote con- demning fascist violence. Then it joined Mussolini’s coalition government and helped achieve the Concordat between fascism and the church. The church’s aim was to preserve its own institutional interests and autonomy. Yet it clearly also preferred a Mussolini regime to a democratic alliance be- tween the PPI and the center-left (Salvemini 1973: 345–56; Molony 1977; Mayeur 1980: 109–17). Fascism and the church were more rivals than en- emies. As Pius XI said, “if a totalitarian regime exists – totalitarian in fact and by right – it is the regime of the Church” (Gaillard 1990: 208). Once fascists recognized the church’s legitimate institutional interests, the Vatican preferred them to democracy if that included socialists. Pius seemed satisfied with his deal, thanking Mussolini for implementing the “Social Catholi- cism” of Rerum novarum.

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 127

One major rival movement and almost the whole of Italy’s most powerful ideological institution had defected from democracy. It played a considerable part in “sacralizing” and mobilizing local communities into the ceremonies of the new fascist regime (Gentile 1996; Berezin 1997). This had been primarily engineered by Catholic elites, especially the Vatican – probably against the majority sentiment of the PPI. It is difficult to be sure, since the party was rather amorphous. Only the church hierarchy could steer it in a single direction. Unfortunately, that direction was toward fascism.

Much of the executive hierarchy of the state also defected. This was of crucial military significance, since only the police forces and the army pos- sessed the coercive power to repress the squadristi once they had rolled over the socialists. Yet the state’s monopoly of armed force proved hollow. Neither the police nor the army resisted fascism. Indeed, they were subverted within by widespread sympathy for fascism. Many members of the higher civil ser- vice (especially the interior ministry), regional prefects, magistrates, and the army command effectively became fascist fellow-travelers between 1920 and 1922. In the executive the king’s court and some ministries with “softer” functions held out longer. The executive branch of government had en- joyed some autonomy in military and law and order before and during the war. The declaration of war itself in 1916 had been engineered against the wishes of parliament. Though parliamentary control increased in 1918, the magistrates, prefects, and police continued to exercise autonomy. This had always favored the political right, and now it increasingly favored fas- cism. Some prefects and police and military authorities showed bias toward the “patriotic” fascists, but the main problem lay with lower officials not implementing public order directives against fascists. This fueled disorder, and in turn this persuaded more higher officials to favor incorporating the fascists into the regime, so as to “tame” them and end the violence (Dunnage 1977: 138–45). Thus fascist paramilitarism not only killed, it also persuaded the authorities to legitimate the killing.

Public officials were thus overrepresented among the fascists. During the months surrounding the coup, many more officials came out of the closet. During 1922 newspapers reported “hundreds” of army officers joining the party. At least twelve generals joined between July and September. The March on Rome was commanded by former generals, and it took place only once Mussolini was assured the army would stand aside. This was decisive. With only a few scattered skirmishes, the march was no revolution, perhaps not even a real coup (concludes Salvemini 1973: 316–86). Many officials and soldiers would have preferred only semi-authoritarian government, but this option was failing, and in any case some admired the ideals and “dash” of the

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

128 Fascists

fascists – who were often their own children. Extreme nation-statism could also tug at their sentiments. The executive half of the dual state connived at the overthrowal of the parliamentary half.

But even the parliamentary side became divided. Popolari elites made the switch noted above. Many “constitutional” politicians also switched. They had hoped to mobilize popular nationalism themselves, but fascism had out- flanked them among the young. They came to terms with Mussolini once he was willing to curb his radicals. But they did not favor fascist revolution, corporatism, or syndicalism (except where it subsidized their own economic activities). Their reasons for switching were typically mixed, entwining class with more nation-statist sentiments. Here is Nazione, a Florentine newspa- per, exemplifying a conservative nationalism that was also class-conscious:

Fascism is inevitably a reaction that is often bitter and violent – sometimes exagger- atedly so – but always against an emotional background of maximalist [i.e., socialist] violence. It is the sharp weapon with which the middle class arms itself when it rises up against the forces of destruction. . . . Its youth does not save it from mistakes, but it does deliver it from the boredom in which many venerable parties doze. In any event, it is another phenomenon . . . of that restoration of national values which is the most comforting sign of the end of the year just past. (Snowden 1989: 151)

But there was a political crisis. Full manhood suffrage had suddenly been introduced – though some residual powers were possessed by the executive. A stable parliamentary government could have been based on coalitions, ei- ther a center-left coalition of moderate socialists, the PPI, and the Giolittian liberals or a centrist coalition of liberal and conservative “constitutional- ists” and the PPI. Neither proved possible. Maximalist socialists refused to participate, so did the PPI (which might have split had its leaders chosen either coalition), and the constitutionalists remained fractious. The leaders of both mass parties, socialist and popolari, were unaccustomed to the com- promises necessary to discipline their own party within a coalition. The notable party leaders were good at deals behind closed doors, but not at defending them before a mass public. The responsibility for failure to arrive at liberal democratic compromise lay not just with the socialists but across the whole political spectrum. Liberal democracy was in transition, not yet institutionalized (as Maier 1975: 322–50 emphasizes). Thus a class crisis got entwined with a distinctively political crisis.

As fascist violence increased, the “constitutional” parties became less interested in protecting the victims than in an authoritarian government. This brought them toward an order-enforcing alliance between the existing state and the fascist movement. Giolitti hoped to forestall this, but even he

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 129

convinced himself that the fascists were just youthful, overzealous nation- alists – the attitude “of a father for a scapegrace son.” He hoped the son’s violence would bring moderate socialists to the bargaining table – and in June 1921 most socialist deputies (though not the leadership) declared they would support any government coalition resisting fascism. This panicked Mussolini into his march – though the Vatican was also instructing the PPI against a coalition. Giolitti was typical of semi-authoritarian politicians of the 1920s, unaware that fascist paramilitarism would be of an order different from his own occasional selective repression or from the rhetorical violence of the socialists. Politicians of the 1930s had learned this lesson.

Yet most “constitutionalist” leaders also seemed to prefer fascism to com- promise with the left. Prime Minister Salandra said fascism was now “the salvation and the only valid garrison against subversion and anarchy. . . . It was necessary in my opinion to give a legal form to the inevitable advent of fascism without delay.” Other ex-prime ministers, Facta and Giolitti himself, followed suit. They were not true “constitutionalists,” committed to par- liamentary institutions. Over two decades Giolitti had selectively repressed and manipulated. Office patronage had provided him a “guaranteed major- ity” and turned parliament into a market where negotiations for privileges were carried out and where they were paid for. Corruption had lessened the attractions of liberalism, encouraging dissidents on left (syndicalists) and right (Corradini, D’Annunzio, and fascists) to assert that legitimacy lay not in parliamentary institutions but directly in the “people” or “nation” – and in a minority volunteer movement that would represent the people “organically.”

Liberal and conservative commitment to democracy remained contin- gent. They had failed to make the transition from notable to mass parties because they had become badly split. The war had brought divisive mass- mobilizing nationalism. Liberals and conservatives had been split down the middle, and there had been significant defections from both to D’Annunzio and then the fascists. Then the church changed its political stance from hos- tile neglect of politics (that at least had allowed the secular liberal and con- servative notables of the north to dominate prewar parliamentary politics) to participation through its own mass mobilizing PPI. This weakened the old secular notables’ hold on political power and divided them from the new religious centrists. Their weakened and assailed position made them very receptive to ideas such as those of Carl Schmitt, discussed in the previous chapter. Confronted by a young fascist movement, they also had the uneasy feeling that at least some of the fascist combination of nation-statism and paramilitarism might be the wave of the future, more effective in modern

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

130 Fascists

conditions of dealing with turbulence than their own somewhat corrupt and semi-authoritarian subterfuges. As Gentile (1996: 1–18) emphasizes, prewar elites, particularly those in the executive half of the state, had sought repeatedly but ineffectually to cultivate a more mobilizing patriotism. Their failure made them turn a favorable ear to more “modern” fascist methods. A problematic political transition had muddied party politics, corroded the state executive, and made more difficult liberal conciliation of class conflict.

Since there were no elections it is impossible to know how deep-rooted were these fears among their mass supporters. Many people of all classes pre- sumably did fear disorder. Though we have seen that the “threat” from the left was exaggerated, these did seem dangerous times. The Bolshevik Revo- lution and revolutionary turbulence in other countries served to inflame the threat. Mass circulation newspapers exaggerated the threat so as to increase readership, sensationalizing violence and anarchy – just as their counter- parts today alarm us about sex, drugs, and criminal violence. Newspapers, mostly rightist, were the main means of communication at the time (there were fewer than 100,000 radios in Italy). Such fears may have become quite deep-rooted. Yet there were no mass demonstrations (apart from the fas- cists themselves), and the March on Rome brought little popular response. The organization of complicity was almost entirely elitist. So the answer is, yes, the elites did think they were turning to fascism to defend “or- der,” which certainly including defending themselves from socialism. Part of their motive was that a political crisis had undermined more moderate op- tions for them. Yet this would still be an insufficient explanation. They also found fascist solutions to crisis attractive because they endorsed other fascist values, too.

As Mussolini’s pamphlet had made clear, fascism focused on organic na- tionalism and a paramilitarism leading toward a highly statist and imperialist regime. Italian nationalism had tended to focus on foreign policy grievances against the peace settlements of 1918–19. Nationalists demanded bits of the Austrian Tyrol and Yugoslavia, and D’Annunzio’s followers had seized Fiume (Ryeka) but then been stopped by the constitutionalist government wishing to respect the peace treaties. Mussolini made great play of this. The “plutocrat” nations, Britain and France, had dominated the peace treaties, with Italian liberals as their lackey. The “proletarian nation” must rise up to achieve equality and perhaps also to seize its natural territories. As Gregor (1979) has emphasized, Italian fascism had a pronounced “developmental- ist” ideology. Italy would grow prosperous by collective mobilization of the resources of the nation. This was appealing rhetoric with a broad popular appeal.

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 131

It is not clear to which groups it especially appealed. Aggressive nation- alism such as this is usually identified as “middle-class.” Yet what relevance did these issues have to the concerns of any major class? Fiume, poor African colonies, or the arrogant British or French were a long way from Italians’ everyday concerns. New territories would contribute little to economic development; another war was an appalling prospect. But smaller constituen- cies of support did exist. First, fascism attained easily its highest recruitment rates in the northern border provinces. Nationalism here meant removing the sense of vulnerability of border Italians by giving them privileges over “second-class” Slavs and Germans. Second, the nationalists initially follow- ing D’Annunzio or fascism were mostly former arditi who had risked life for nation. They felt humiliated by the postwar settlement. Third, much of the state-centered “humanistic bourgeoisie” favored an expanding state – and the military and civil servants had material interests in this. These three groups seem to add up not to a class but to a smaller, more particular, and “nation-statist” core constituency for paramilitary nationalism.

Mussolini sought to broaden this narrow constituency of nationalist sup- port through a populism oriented to both past and future. He garbed his movement in Roman imperial symbols, claimed descent from Garibaldi, wove fascist rituals into the young nation’s memorial days, and acquired the sacred blessing of Italy’s church. He called for the rebirth of Rome and the fulfillment of Italy’s thwarted drive for dignity and power. Personally, he struck a quintessentially Italian pose as “the virile man, the passion- ate person, the poor man who shouts and shakes his fist at the nations of the world . . . expropriating . . . the comic traditions of street theatre in his grimaces and posturings” (Passerini 1987: 191–2). Yet this “proletarian nation” was not very aggressive. Most Italians distrusted militarism. They again proved poor soldiers – though very sensible human beings – in World War II. Most Italians were too shrewd to favor aggression abroad, and Mussolini sensed this. Though he initially joined in the clamor over the Adriatic, he abandoned it in November 1920, when fleetingly offered the chance to break with D’Annunzio and join Giolitti’s coalition government. Declaring that “Italy needs peace to recover,” he denounced those “hypno- tized by the sight of a few islands and beaches in the Adriatic” (Tasca 1976: 84–5). Though he probably desired glorious Roman imperial expansion, he remained realistic at this stage about Italy’s chances of achieving it.

So Mussolini’s nationalism (like most fascists’) initially centered on domes- tic rebirth. Murri, a convert from Christian democracy, saw fascism as the organic solution to modern Italian history: “Today, as in the Risorgimento, the aim is to make Italians into one Nation and one State . . . to seek and

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

132 Fascists

firmly establish a vision of national unity . . . and an ethically valid State that would function in our very consciences” (Gentile 1996: 57). Thus fas- cist aggression was mainly directed at “internal enemies” whose “interna- tionalism” supposedly weakened the nation. Socialists, described as foreign “Bolsheviks,” had opposed the war and then imported “Russian” political practices. The PPI was denounced by more radical fascists as representing a cosmopolitan church, which had always been hostile to the Italian nation- state. The struggle between socialism and capitalism only divided the nation, while parliamentary institutions worsened divisions into “anarchy.” A fascist sympathizer in the Florence prosecutor’s office wrote in an official report of June 1921:

Sympathizers follow the fascist movement with satisfaction, and if they do not approve of it, they at least justify its violence, for they feel that in no other way would a scant minority of hardy souls have been able to wear down the preponderance of socialists, anarchists and populari who by virtue of government inaction would no doubt have driven Italy into a chaotic and bolshevik state as in Russia. (Maier 1975: 316)

At this time Russia was racked by civil war. Mussolini said that if Bolshevism had worked, fine. But “Bolshevism has ruined the economic life of Russia” (Delzell 1970: 8). Fascists would use paramilitaries and the state to suppress class conflict and to restore organic unity. They had been the only true patriots during 1914–18. They were entitled now to shout “Viva Italia” and label their enemies as “antinational.” They denounced not “the working class” or “the proletariat,” but rather “Marxists” and “Bolsheviks” who were labeled “the other Austrians,” “traitors and denigrators of victory,” and “traitors to the nation.” Their early antibourgeois rhetoric was smothered by a barrage of nationalism and anti-Bolshevism, Prime Minister Bonomi observed (De Felice 1977: 117–18).

This was nearer to everyday Italian experience. It appealed less to the two contending class camps, more to those on the margins despairing of a solution – to the “humanistic bourgeoisie” outside the sphere of direct production, to some of the unorganized two-thirds of the proletariat, to small and medium farmers. It also appealed to the elites of a state that had lurched in a decade to manhood suffrage and formal parliamentary sovereignty. The military, the monarchy, the higher civil service, the regional prefects – plus the politically entrenched old regime (the church and local notables) – doubted the liberal constitution alone could keep social chaos at bay. They shared Carl Schmitt’s second concern (discussed in the previous chapter): Italy needed a state “above” the fractious contention of a society

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 133

dividing into armed camps. Could the old authoritarian part of the state suffice? Or would it need help from a new elite, as Schmitt had come to accept?

The fascist local bosses, the ras, perceived and exploited the state’s dilemma. They saw that “two states” actually existed, one waveringly demo- cratic, centered on the constitutional parties, the other more authoritarian, centered on its executive arm. They sought to widen this fissure and infil- trate both. In May 1922, Balbo organized a march of forty to fifty thousand laborers into the center of Ferrara to demand employment. He persuaded the police and troops to stay away from the mob, promising that the squadristi would keep order. The authorities were pleased to avoid a riot. Then he said he could not control the mob unless some of its demands were sat- isfied. He demanded the prefect promise a public works program within forty-eight hours – or violence would break loose. Frantic telephoning be- tween the prefect and Rome secured the promise within the day. Who now ruled? many asked. Then Balbo moved on Bologna with 20,000 sup- porters. Bologna’s prefect was one of the few genuine constitutionalists. Yet even he dared not to use the troops, many of whom were now fraternizing with the fascists. There was stalemate, solved when Mussolini persuaded the ministry to transfer the prefect. In Ravenna, Balbo warned the police chief that his men were intending to burn socialists’ houses. But Balbo said he could prevent this if the police provided a fleet of trucks to take them out of the city. He did so but kept the trucks, which he then used to spread “a column of fire,” burning socialist and communist headquarters throughout the provinces of Ravenna and Forl̀ı.

These tactics were repeated in the March on Rome. A half-orderly paramilitary advance amid an immobilized army forced a divided govern- ment to yield. The unity and authority of the ostensibly democratic, in reality dual, state was destroyed. To preserve national unity and state order, its officials and politicians turned to fascism. A radical populist movement embodying considerable paramilitary violence had undermined elites’ ca- pacity to resist by appealing simultaneously to its class and to its nation-statist prejudices.

the fascists in power

Italian fascism was not a unitary movement. It contained very diverse ten- dencies and factions – socialists, syndicalists, statists, conservative nationalists, radical squadristi, and agrarian reactionaries. Mussolini himself may have fa- vored a socialist-flavored fascism, but his opportunistic antennae enabled

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

134 Fascists

him to seize power by playing off the various factions with policy zig-zags. In this respect he resembled Hitler. Yet major differences between them were revealed after they had seized their states. Mussolini lacked Hitler’s radical racial transcendentalism, and his statism sought not to purge factional dif- ferences but to envelop them all in a loose corporatism. Once in power, he gave them all a piece of the action. Fascists had not conquered power. Rather, they had pushed close to it and then done deals with nonfascist elites. Attempting to satisfy all these powerful groups produced a dispersal of state sovereignty among a monarchy, a traditional bureaucracy, the Fascist Grand Council, the Ministry of Corporations, the Syndicates, the Party – and the Duce himself. At the local level the party secretary, the prefect, the syndical leaders, and the podesta all competed for authority. Fascist statism, militarism, syndicalism, and opportunism actually created a highly pluralist state. The kinds of conflict and compromise that liberal democracy institu- tionalized in parties and parliaments now came in more private forms within the fascist state.

Radicals were thwarted in their attempt to establish a syndicalist state, but were bought off with monopoly control over unions, just as the employers’ associations were given similar powers over the other side of the bargaining process and in the ministry of corporations. After 1926 large material benefits were distributed to fascist militants through the syndicate dues, buying out their desire to make violent trouble (Riley 2002). Elsewhere, the regime conceded powers to nonfascist elites. This was noticeable at once in the countryside, as the landowners took over fascist organization during 1922. It took longer in the towns where radical fascios continued to generate tur- bulence throughout the 1920s. The fascist unions also became more middle- class, dominating the lower and middle ranks of the civil service and local government (Lyttleton 1987: 217–20, 278). After the coup the PNF had a declining worker and peasant presence, as many middle-class opportunists joined. Scattered data on local parties in 1927 reveal few worker members and a predominance of the public sector (Forgacs 1986: 50 n. 32; Revelli 1987: 25–34). Nonetheless, from about 1935 the syndicalists began to re- vive, and the growing popularity of Hitler’s regime emboldened Mussolini to become more radical in both domestic and foreign policy. He was now able to use the energies of the fascist militants to reduce the power of some of the old elites (Sarti 1990; Dahl 1999).

Both the stabilization of his own power and the rise of Hitler allowed Mussolini a more aggressive foreign policy. He moved aggressively against the weaker Africans in Libya and Ethiopia (I deal with this in my forthcoming book). But, as Mallett (2000) shows, he had early realized that Britain and

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 135

France blocked Italy’s access to real empire across the oceans. After Hitler’s rise to power, he pursued an alliance with Germany to combat them. By the time of Italy’s entry into World War II, he had begun a capital ship and submarine program that he thought might challenge Britain’s dominance in the Mediterranean and Red Seas. The expansionist side revealed in his 1932 essay had come to disastrous fruition, despite his apparent awareness that it could have only two possible outcomes: either Italy would be defeated or it would become subservient to Germany (Ceva 2000).

By broadly satisfying its various factions and providing order and a sense of expansion, the regime also became quite popular. The elections of 1924 were not entirely free, but the unexpectedly large fascist majority seemed mostly genuine. There was widespread relief that order had been restored. Once firmly in power, after about 1926, the regime needed little further violence and seems to have achieved a broad if not very intense popularity. The introduction of special courts and secret police did not lead to terror: 80 percent of those tried of political offenses were acquitted, and most of those convicted were sentenced to less than three years’ imprisonment. From 1927 to 1940 there were only nine political executions. Even the war brought only a further twenty-two. Significantly, most victims were Slovene nationalists. In the war the fascist regime condemned to death only ninety- two Italian soldiers, compared with the 4,000 death sentences handed out by its “liberal” predecessor in World War I – and to the 35,000 death sentences of its ally, the German Wehrmacht (Payne 1995: 117; Knox 1996: 128). All this indicated only a low level of repression. There were few signs of proletarian, peasant, or any other disaffection aside from discontented local party bosses.

De Felice (1974: chap. 2) said this showed that the regime had the active consent of Italians. The regime weathered the Great Depression (though not as well as it claimed). It asserted Italy’s position as a Great Power – until it made the dreadful mistake of entering World War II. Passerini’s (1987) interviews with old Italian people reveal more ambiguous views than simple “consent” or “dissent.” Their jokes – about the regime, its songs and slogans, and about their own sometimes dubious compromises with it – indicated ambivalence toward fascism. Fascist trade unions and women’s, youth, and leisure movements provided services and rituals for their many members. Berezin (1997) says that fascist rituals penetrated the practices of everyday life, appropriating and intensifying ordinary patriotism, har- nessing Catholicism and the village priest to its projects. Even if fascism did not actually “resacralize” the Italian state and nation, it did implant it- self as normal and Italian. World War II brought more radicalism and less

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

136 Fascists

popularity. Police reports indicate that from 1943 many Italians regarded the food shortages and the bombing as the consequences of a stupid war, forced on a weak regime by the more powerful Germans (Abse 1996). Italy then became deeply split, as many rose up against fascism and as the fas- cist rump radicalized. Yet before then, a few thousand old fascist fighters and more numerous opportunists seem to have ruled Italy without undue strain.

conclusions

Fascists killed democracy and a few thousand Italians. The targets were political rather than ethnic, mainly because the country had secure terri- torial boundaries. Only the insecure northeast tempted local fascists into aggression against ethnically defined enemies. Ignoring Africa and the last year of the war (discussed in my forthcoming book), Italian fascism was the most benign fascist movement I discuss here. That is why self-proclaimed “neo-fascists” reemerged in Italy in recent years.

Fascists emerged as a response to a crisis of mass mobilization warfare. Italy was marginal in the Great Power system and Italians were divided by the war. It divided the political parties and created space for new ones. A few hundred fascists then became a mass movement as further crises of postwar Italian society exacerbated the class struggles of capitalism and energized a paramilitary youth movement. Paramilitarism became seen as the solution to class struggle. But to view Italian fascism merely as paramilitary organization applied to a capitalist goal would be to oversimplify. As elsewhere, the pos- sessing classes turned to the gun “too early,” when neither property defense nor profit were actually threatened. To explain this apparent overreaction, we must add a political and ideological crisis created by a dual state. Italy had not possessed a cohesive “old regime.” The church was powerful but opposed the state. Liberal and conservative elites had run the prewar state without possessing deep social roots, and the state had not effectively mobi- lized nationalist sentiments. The parliamentary half of the state was making a rapid transition to masculine democracy, confronted by two new “mass armies,” parties of radicalizing socialists, and incoherent Catholic populists. The executive half of the state possessed a monopoly of military power but had been corroded by dreams of a more mobilizing nationalism and statism. In a country where an old regime could not mobilize its own authoritar- ianism, fascism had early appeal. That is why the fascist repressive option was called in “too early.” But the very close sequence of World War I, post- war class confrontation, the attempt by a weak state to deepen democracy,

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

Italy: Pristine Fascists 137

and the young fascist surge makes it difficult to establish the relative causal weights of these four crises.

Italian fascists offered plausible solutions to crisis. They claimed to tran- scend class struggle, especially attractive to those located outside the prole- tarian ghettos and outside the industrial/commercial core of the capitalist class. They claimed to achieve social development through nation-statism, attractive to those with stronger links to nation or state. The chosen means, paramilitary violence, appealed especially to the military-cum-macho values of demobilized young men. The militancy of these fascist thousands brought fascism close to power. But elites also came to favor fascist repression of class dissent, partly because the political crisis had narrowed the alternative options, but also because fascist nation-statism appealed to them. Their de- fection enabled the actual seizure of power. Each of these elements brought distinct core constituencies toward fascism – classes, sectors, regions, gen- erations. The variety of this support may have finally required something like Mussolini’s own acute opportunism to enable the seizure and hold- ing of power. It is a story of thousands, not millions – the paramilitary strik- ing force of thousands of fascists and the betrayal of thousands among Italy’s varied elites. The socialists and popolari had the numbers to oppose them, but they did not have paramilitary force or an equal appeal to elites. The majority of Italians watched with mixed feelings. They seem not to have disapproved of a result that brought social peace and moderate progress. But they were largely irrelevant to the fascist surge into power.

My explanation has been more multifaceted than either the class or the fascist theories presented at the beginning of the chapter. I have invoked all four sources of social power – ideological, economic, military, and political – in order to explain the first fascist seizure of power. The complexity of this explanation would ideally require more precise and extensive data than I have been able to marshal. Let me finally admit what accounts of Italian fascism rarely do. All general interpretations of Italian fascism, including my own, rest on fairly flimsy evidence. Data on the fascists and their al- lies, their backgrounds, and their motivations do not permit very confident generalization. I turn to the much better-documented Nazis.

P1: JRT/KaD/KCX P2: KaD 0521831318c03.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:25

138

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

4

Nazis

Germany was the greatest power and the most developed country to go fascist. The Nazis were the world’s largest fascist movement, with the largest paramilitaries and the largest vote. This was the most “radical” fascism, committing the greatest evil. Thus it is especially urgent to explain who the Nazis were, what they believed in, and how they seized power. Luckily, this is the best-documented case. Though there are always more questions to ask and more data to seek, this chapter and the next can come close to explaining the rise of the Nazis, solving some puzzles left by the sparse Italian database discussed in the previous chapter. And though fascist movements all differed, they shared enough for us to use the solidity of German data for broader, more comparative purposes.

Yet there were obvious differences from Italy. Unlike Italy, Germany had lost World War I. Germany also had a distinct postwar political history. A short period of revolutionary turbulence ushered in an advanced liberal democracy, the Weimar Republic, which conceded female suffrage and the most developed welfare state in the world. Germany also contained not one but two major Christian faiths, Protestantism and Catholicism. Since Hitler seized power only in 1933, the Nazi rise was also slower, affected by unfolding interwar events: an inflation crisis, disputes with the Entente Powers over borders, reparations, and armaments, the Great Depression, and the general surge of interwar authoritarianism. Far more than the Italian fascists, the Nazis seriously contested elections; far less, however, did they challenge the military power of the state. Finally, German fascism was far more racist than Italian fascism. All these differences mattered.

So did the long-term peculiarities of German history, often described as a Sonderweg, a unique path of historical development. This is usually seen in terms of class politics: Lacking a “bourgeois revolution,” Germany became an advanced country while retaining a semi-authoritarian old regime state

139

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

140 Fascists

that the bourgeoisie supported. Together, it is argued, the old regime and the bourgeoisie undermined Weimar democracy and drifted toward supporting fascism. Yet the German nation, as well as its classes, had its own special path. The German nation-state had two alternative possible boundaries: a Klein or a Gross Deutschland (small or big Germany). Sixty million Germans lived in the Weimar Republic, but almost twenty million lived outside it, mostly in adjacent territories. This gave the German “nation” a less state-centered and more ethnic and potentially more racist identity, and it gave a poten- tial project of territorial expansion. The “small” German state (originally Prussia, now Weimar Germany) might unify the entire “great” German nation, mainly through expansion in the east. I consider the role of these distinct legacies of class, nation, and state.

I ask who supported Nazism and why. In this chapter I discuss Nazi members. In the next I discuss the two other main ingredients in the Nazi rise to power, Nazi voters and elite “co-conspirators.” I also discuss how members, voters, and elites got mobilized together as the Nazis surged to power. These chapters take the story only up to 1933. The ensuing twelve- year Reich is discussed in my forthcoming volume. This chapter takes Nazis seriously. What did they believe in, who were they, and what was the nature of their activities?

official nazi ideology

Many observers and scholars have emphasized that Nazi ideology was in- coherent. The Nazis, they say, were politically “semi-illiterate,” wielding only “a ragbag of ideas,” drawing on the “scrapheap of ideas current in this period” – ambiguous, contradictory, unprincipled, notable only for “the gripping effectiveness [of ] popularized snippets of ideas and dogmas of salvation . . . a political myth for the masses” (Broszat 1987: 38, 186–90; cf. Peukert 1989: 39; Bracher 1971). Such views are part of the tradition of not taking fascism seriously. Part of the problem is that, since Nazism is generally thought of as a very ideological movement, many have had unrea- sonable expectations of its ideological sophistication. It was not like Marxist parties. No fascist party possessed the theoretical ballast (one might alterna- tively say doctrinal rigidity) that Marxism provided to some socialist parties. Rather like conservative and liberal parties, the Nazis had a looser orienting ideology – the German term Weltanschauung (“view of the world”) is ap- posite – informing their policy proposals. As among all effective parties, this was also compromised by political opportunism and the fudging of internal disagreements. But there is a curious sense in which we might regard fascist

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

Nazis 141

opportunism as “principled.” Since fascists worshipped power, elitism, and leadership, leaders were actually empowered by their followers to behave arbitrarily if this was likely to secure power. Fascism also privileged action over dogma. Many Nazis liked to affect that they were merely men of action. They would boast that they had never looked at the party program and say (though only in private) that they had never opened their copies of Mein Kampf. Eichmann said pointedly (while on trial for his life in Jerusalem), “The Party program did not matter, you knew what you were joining.” I explore the “shared knowledge” to which Eichmann was alluding, more than any canonical dogma. At this level Nazis had more ideological cohesion than is conventionally argued.

Some of their shared knowledge might seem patently absurd to us and also to many contemporaries. The notion that Jews, 0.76 percent of the population (and rising to a peak of only 2 percent among Germany’s bankers and stockbrokers, i.e., “Jewish finance capital”), constituted a major threat to Germany should have been laughable. It was surely also absurd of voters to support the very party that was committing most of the violence in Germany on the grounds that this was necessary to stop violence. But many parties offer bizarre yet somehow resonant “solutions” to a country’s problems. Politics are about not truth but minimally plausible resonance. I have lived in countries whose elections have also been won by parties identifying a caricatured, almost imaginary main enemy: Neither the conservative and rather bumbling British trade unions nor the truly feeble domestic power of the U.S. federal government could in truth be held responsible for much of their countries’ ills during the 1980s.1 Nazi blaming of the Jews was even less plausible, but the real difference lay in its infinitely greater potentiality for evil.

I start with a classic Nazi text, the party program of 1920. Some scholars downplay this document, yet (with one exception) it is a clear summary of Nazism, and of a cleansing nation-statism. Its opening points were con- stantly repeated by Nazis: the “union of all Germans in a Greater Germany,” revocation of the peace treaties, and “land and territories (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.” “Only those of German blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation. Accordingly, no Jew may be a member of the nation.” Further clauses listed the educational, economic, legal, media, and health policies and the authoritarian corporate state such goals required. These domestic policy clauses were drenched in völkisch language: Non-Germans should be barred from influence in the media, religious freedom would be permitted only if it did not threaten the State or “offend the moral feelings of the German race.” The penalty for

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

142 Fascists

non-Germans infringing these provisions is twice stated as deportation. In a speech of 1923 Hitler made perfectly clear how important “enemies” were to Nazism:

Nationalism is above all innoculation against a bacillus, and the anti-Semitic concept is the necessary defence, the antibody if you like against a pestilence which today has a grip on the whole world. . . . There is only one differentiation: one is either German or anti-German. The National Socialists spearhead the march of Germany, and we declare we will not sit down at a table with criminals who already once stabbed us in the back. (Sereny 1995: 58–9)

It is a Manichean vision of the world divided into Germans and their en- emies. However, like the Italian fascists, the Nazis began more leftist than they later became. The party program included a sketch of Nazi “socialism”: not the abolition of private property, economic democracy, or equality but “the primacy of the worker over the exploiter” – which was defined as big capital and high interest rates. This was vague but statist: The state was to provide a livelihood and welfare for its citizens, abolish incomes unearned by work, and take action against big finance and Jewish capital. There was also a radical land reform program that included expropriating landed property.

This early leftism appeared in even simpler form in countless early party handbills. Here is one of 1920:

national socialist german workers’ party

With untiring activity the agents of the Jewish international stock exchange and moneylenders are trying to make Germany ripe for collapse, so that they may hand over the state and the economy to the

international finance trusts

This requires the division and thereby the weakening of our people at home. Hence also the embittered struggle of the

mercenaries

of international high finance against a party which, unlike all the other parties, is not composed of

“bourgeois” or proletarians

but of the creative mental and manual workers of our people. They alone can and will be the supporters of the future Germany. (reproduced in Noakes and Pridham 1974: 37–41)

But in the streets Nazis confronted neither capitalists nor Jews. They were involved in street fighting against leftists proclaiming the virtues of inter- nationalism and Russia. So the Nazi emphasis changed. Regional studies of Nazism reveal that right across Germany the voicing of anti-Semitism

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

Nazis 143

by Nazis declined during the late 1920s. Though anti-Semitism was not abandoned, from now on “Bolsheviks” or “Marxists” were viewed as the preeminent “anti-Germans” – in some areas they always had been (Heilbronner 1990). But the Nazis also claimed that violence against Bolsheviks and restraints on capitalists were essential to reach a positive goal. This was the creation of the Volksgemeinschaft, “an organic community of the people,” whose role was to transcend class and other conflict.

Additions to the program were made as the movement grew. Some firmed up the fascism. Early rhetorical attacks on the “civilian” Republic devel- oped into a more principled attack on democracy itself: The desired “strong” state became avowedly authoritarian. In the mid-1920s, after Hitler’s release from prison, its centerpiece became the “Führer principle”: unconditional loyalty to the leader, the personification of the German Volk. It helped that Hitler was charismatic, with a remarkable capacity to generate faith in his followers. He was a man who could express a “vision,” lacking con- crete specifics, expressed in rather simple black-and-white dichotomies, but seemingly blindingly clear and sincere (Kershaw 1998: 290–1). We tend nowadays to puzzle over the manic magnetism he displayed at the Nuremberg rallies. But his leadership qualities were more evident in pri- vate settings. Nazi memoirs also tell of men and women stifling doubts and criticisms after quiet but firm words from Hitler in private. After about 1927 Nazis seem to have given almost unconditional devotion to their leader, the personification of Germany, as is revealed by the most famil- iar Nazi slogan of all: “Ein Volk! Ein Führer! Ein Reich!” But compared with Italian fascists, Nazis downplayed blueprints of a future society. For them the “corporate state” was a foreign ideal, either Italian or Austrian. The shape of the future Reich was left to Hitler, and he was not too specific. Though “statism” was greatly emphasized, its exact contours remained a little vague.

The major backtracking was from “socialism.” In 1928 the party aban- doned its commitment to radical land reform. Its anticapitalism also wavered and became more contested within the movement. Under the influence of Feder, Hitler had distinguished “productive” from “unproductive” or “para- sitical” capital, the former truly “German,” the latter international or Jewish. But from 1930 he was seeking the approval of businessmen who did not understand the distinction. Nazi “socialism” was now downplayed, in fa- vor of the constantly repeated and vaguer demand for “social justice.” This was the major Nazi ambiguity. Nonetheless, the movement did keep some “socialistic” leanings. They were to influence the way political economy figured in Nazi electoral strategy after the Great Depression struck, as we see in the next chapter.

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

144 Fascists

the ideology of nazi members

Is it worth taking this general Weltanschauung seriously? The important ques- tion is, was it shared by Nazis in general? Obviously, we have only limited evidence on the hundreds of thousands of “ordinary” Nazis. Our richest source on the beliefs of Nazi militants are the 581 essays written for a compe- tition advertised in a Nazi party journal on “Why I Became a Nazi.” These were solicited in 1934 by the enterprising American sociologist Theodore Abel. The essays reported in his book of 1938 have been twice reworked by Peter Merkl (1975, 1980). The essayists were obviously not a random sample or a cross-section of Nazis. They provide us with a very literate, and so a rather middle-class, sample of “old fighters,” more committed to fascism than the average member. But these Nazi militants did share the beliefs expressed above. The central ideological theme of 32 percent of the essays was a transcendent Volksgemeinschaft, 23 percent of the essays expressed “super patriotism” (pride in Germany plus hatred of foreigners), 18 percent identified with Hitler as the embodiment of the Volk, 14 percent centered on anti-Semitism, 6 percent centered on “blood-and-soil romanticism,” and 5 percent advocated military recovery of the lost territories – quite a narrow ideological range.

These militants were also very strong on “enemies.” Marxists/comm- unists/socialists were seen as the main enemy in 63 percent of the essays, Jews in only 18 percent, liberals/capitalists in 8 percent, and Catholics in 5 percent. A third of the essays showed no evidence of anti-Semitism, half revealed some, and 13 percent seemed obsessed by it. Some 22 per- cent showed hatred for foreigners abroad, 15 percent for “foreigners” in Germany, and 5 percent referred to a conspiracy between both. Almost all said they hated the Weimar Republic, 30 percent because it was run by Jews or other “un-Germans,” 19 percent because it was a multiparty system, 9 percent because it was Marxist, 3 percent because it was liberal capitalist, 23 percent because it was “liberal or capitalist” and “Marxist,” 6 percent because it was “black” and “red.” A slight majority believed their enemies could not be reached by reasoned argument. Some 21 percent used terms excluding enemies from human or moral status (such as “subhuman,” “rodents,” “murderers”). Some 40 percent advocated war, and 48 per- cent had engaged in violence “such as to imply sadism or masochism.” But apart from the Fuhrer cult and militarism, there was much less statism expressed in the essays (Merkl 1975: 453–542). The main enemies had be- come Bolsheviks, though often linked to Jews and “the system” of Weimar. Biomedical racist language was frequent, while ethnic and political enemies

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

Nazis 145

seemed closely entwined. Violence would cleanse them from the Volksge- meinschaft. It would be redemptive, as Friedlaender (1997) has remarked of Nazi anti-Semitism, bringing great emotional attachment to Germany, to the movement, and to the Fuhrer. The Nazi “hard core” was endors- ing the transcendent, cleansing organic nationalism expressed in the party program and propaganda. But it involved more than mere instrumental rationality. It involved a leap of faith and commitment. Ideological power rarely depends on the sophistication of its message. At its strongest it in- volves simple but resonant appeals transcending mundane reality and giv- ing meaning to action. This gave the Nazis their distinctive fervor and drive.

What of other more “ordinary” Nazis who might not have been up to writing essays? Here the evidence is less systematic, but we can still find some.

We can reach down to very “ordinary” Nazis through the form required of applicants to the Sturm Abteilung (“Storm Section”), or SA. From 1930 they had to complete a “reasons for joining” question. Most responses were simple but to the point. An engineer declared:

I joined the SA to support my leader and Germany in the battle against communism and the SPD, those traitors to people and homeland, and to support the eradication of these parasites, to the very end, may it cost me my life!

Since by 1930 some 70 percent of new SA members were now workers, most of their answers were even simpler:

Work was out of the question because the Marxist government did not understand how to provide the people with work and bread.

To participate in that organization which guarantees the unity of the German people and provides the German worker with the means of reintegration within the productive process.

I am in the SA because I was brought up as a nationalist from childhood because my father [also a worker] had no time for the SPD or KPD.

The new movement, the Leader Principle, aroused my interest long ago, since I was convinced by our leader’s National Idea.

I am nationally minded, love the Fatherland and have not previously belonged to any political party.

I have long since yearned for an ordered Germany, uninfested with Jews, and yearned for the day when the SPD’s boss-rule would be abolished.

As an Aryan German it was beneath me to support this boss and Jew government.

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

146 Fascists

They too were making a leap of faith, “to the very end,” involving “love” and “yearning” for the goal of “reintegration.” In more mundane form, they were also endorsing the party program and the Abel essays. They “knew what they were doing.”

I do not here go into motivations drawn from my sample of Nazi war criminals, presented in my forthcoming volume (since they might be rather unusual people). But like all successful movements, Nazism attracted many adherents for vague or minimal reasons. SS officer Gerstein (who later risked his life to expose Nazi genocide) remembered that he had joined ( just grad- uated with engineering and medical degrees) because of simple idealistic na- tionalism. The Nazis would revive Germany, he believed. Scheltes, a young architect in the office of Albert Speer (Hitler’s architect and economic plan- ner), felt he “had to make a choice . . . everything in Germany had become political . . . between left and right. . . . I chose right, which was the Na- tional Socialists.” Hupfauer, eventually Speer’s administrative assistant, was an ambitious lawyer, hoping to study abroad. But “friends persuaded me to stay. . . . The party was intending to change the whole concept of labour re- lations, based on the principle of co-determination and shared responsibility between management and workers. I knew it was Utopian, but I believed in it with all my heart. . . . Hitler’s promises of a caring but disciplined so- cialism fell on very receptive ears” (Sereny 1995: 146, 180–1, 356). These two members of Speer’s staff were also revealing a leap of faith, though as intellectuals they were also aware of the essential political and class ambiguity of Nazism: Was Nazism rightist or was it genuinely transcendent of class?

All the main tensions of the movement focused on this ambiguity. In 1932 and 1933 the SA became restive at Hitler’s opportunistic dealings with elites and his apparent backtracking on Nazi “socialism.” The usual contra- diction had emerged between revolutionary and bureaucratizing tendencies of fascism (see Mann 1997). The SA evinced a proudly proletarian tone, as in this marching song:

We are the swastika army, Raise the red flag high, We fight for German labour’s freedom.

Though the SA leader Röhm was no theorist, he did support a state of “workers, peasants and soldiers,” based on “Germany’s front-line soldiers” (all the quotes derived from Fischer 1983: 55–6, 82–3, 149–59).

I am suggesting that this movement was stronger in its emotional com- mitment and no less cohesive in its beliefs and tendencies than most mod- ern movements. Indeed, it contained the normal dynamics of political

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

Nazis 147

movements: tension among the three elements of the official ideology, a more radical rank-and-file, and more conservative leadership trimming. The ambiguity that resulted was of a form and at a level normal to po- litical movements. In this case Hitler’s undisputed authority succeeded in damping it down. These were the beliefs emotionally endorsed by the Nazis. But what kinds of people were they? Can we begin to identify the core Nazi constituencies?

nazi core constituencies

Male and Female

As in other parties of the time, most Nazi activists and all the leaders were men. Women made up 5 to 10 percent of ordinary party mem- bers (and later of perpetrators of genocide). But there were far more women Nazis than this suggests. Some 90 percent of the women in the party were unmarried; on marriage the husband’s membership was as- sumed to represent his whole family. Most women joined only women’s auxiliary organizations. I do not know their numbers, but it is prob- able that adding them would bring Nazi women above the (varying through time) 10 to 23 percent of women in the socialist SPD and the 9 to 16 percent in the communist KPD. The center and right par- ties had fewer women members, but some also had auxiliary women’s organizations.2 Other parties’ leaderships included 5 to 15 percent women, but these were rarely influential. The liberal DDP formed a women’s com- mittee to marginalize its feminists whom it considered vote-losers. Thus all parties in the Weimar Republic were masculine. Only at the leadership level did the Nazis take this to an extreme. In the town of Marburg, Nazi women outnumbered other parties’ women in both absolute and relative terms. And whereas female leftists were mostly working-class and conserva- tives were middle-class, Nazi women came from all classes (Weber 1969: I; Bacheller 1976: 321; Kater 1983: 149–52; Wickham 1983: 324; Frye 1985: 95–6; Koshar 1986: 239; Boak 1990; Brustein 1996: Table 3.2).

But Nazi ideology was unique in formally subordinating women to pa- triarchal authority. Left and liberal parties claimed to be feminist. Even the conservatives claimed they wanted more women activists. Nazi ideology was decidedly “macho,” insisting that women remain in the private sphere, to bear and to nurture the “master” race. Under the Nazis German female labor force participation remained lower than in other combatant countries until 1943. Yet according to their own lights, the Nazis cared for women.

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

148 Fascists

They provided welfare subsidies to widows and mothers and denounced as decadent the “woman as sex object” culture of the liberal democracies. Their women’s organizations were active in charitable and educational work and in sponsoring sports and physical exercise among girls. Hitler Youth leader von Schirach remarked, “It doesn’t matter how high a girl jumps, or how far she puts the shot, but that her body develops properly, harmo- niously” (Steinhoff et al. 1989: 20). The Nazis were concerned with the health and well-being of the bearers and nurturers of the race. Their concern with the latest medical, public health, and dietary knowledge, its diffusion through the latest mass communication media, and their sports, parades, and communal programs all indicate a rather modernist form of patriarchy – proclaimed more loudly than liberals or leftists proclaimed feminism. The Nazis kept some of their views relatively quiet but they were proud of their patriarchy.

This proved popular among women as well as men. Ecological analysis of voting (discussed more in the next chapter ) suggests that women, less likely than men to vote Nazi in the 1920s, thereafter closed most of the gap. Indeed, Protestant women, the majority, eventually voted a little more Nazi than Protestant men did. Among Catholics, the Nazis could not com- pete with the Center Party, which drew 70 percent of Catholic women’s votes, compared with 56 percent among Catholic men (Mayeur 1980: 133; Childers 1983: 260; Falter 1986, 1991: 136ff ). Since the Center Party was also (more traditionally) patriarchal, few women seem to have been put off by ideologies excluding them from the public sphere. Nazi propaganda images of women are familiar to us – healthy, attractive (though not sexy), dressed in virginal white, scrubbed and smiling, playing ball games, admir- ing nature, presenting flowers to Hitler. These were effective images, part of the Nazi claim to represent the “clean, healthy and consciously German” Volk. Though few women were militants, many were loyal to Nazism. Some proved this by assisting in genocide (they are discussed in my forthcoming volume). Yet this was a decidedly masculinist movement, with consequences to be discussed later.

Youths and Military Veterans

We saw that Italian fascists had been mainly young military veterans. The Nazis were also young, though with fewer veterans. The average age of 1923 members was twenty-seven, rising to twenty-nine through the late 1920s. Militants were younger still. In a 1929–32 sample of very active SA members, 60 percent were under twenty-five, while “martyrs” killed in street fighting

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

Nazis 149

during 1923–3 averaged twenty-four. Half the party members and three- quarters of SA militants were unmarried. As in Italy, most fascists were free from family commitments, their “careers” at the disposal of the movement. Around 1930 Nazi leaders were a full decade younger than the leaders of all other Weimar parties except for the communist KPD. Socialist SPD militants were rather older than the German population. The “bourgeois” parties and the socialists personified the stagnant wisdom of the middle- aged, not the dynamism of youth, so the Nazis proclaimed, “Make way you old ones!” Eventually, of course, the Nazis began to age: New members averaged thirty-six in 1933 and forty-seven in 1939. By then Nazis were representative of the age-structure of Germans as a whole (Weber 1969: II, 26; Merkl 1975: 13, 1980: 98; Douglas 1977: 71; Kolb 1979: 101; Madden 1982a, 1982b: 50; Fischer 1983: 49–51; Kater 1983: 139–48; Peterson 1983: 216; Jamin 1984: 85; Brustein 1996: Chart 5.2b).

Abel’s Nazi autobiographies reveal that the NSDAP and the SA were considered adult organizations, usually reached after an apprenticeship in a rightist youth movement. Nearly all these militants had been in a youth group, half in the Hitler Youth or rightist paramilitaries, another fifth in civilian rightist movements (Merkl 1980: 205–6). So most Nazi militants had begun extremist activities as young as Italian fascists, in their late teens or at the beginning of their twenties.

Thus many explain Nazism as a generational phenomenon, a “youth cul- ture of revolt.” World War I is said to have been experienced similarly by “The Generation of 1914,” born 1890–1915, too young for much adult experience before the war. Within this age cohort are distinguished a “front generation,” born 1890 to about 1901, fighting in the war, and a younger “home generation,” experiencing war only as children. Both experiences alienated young men from Weimar and drove them rightward. Less atten- tion has been paid to the war experiences of young women. The “front generation” had confronted death daily, developing intense, egalitarian, and masculine comradeship. But their sacrifice was “betrayed” by middle-aged civilian elites back home. Then “the home generation” joined in, expe- riencing material and paternal deprivation during the war, developing a voyeuristic militarism and nationalism. Their romance with war was then shattered by the surrender and the return of defeated father figures. In the prosaic and feeble civilian democracy, unemployment also fell mostly on the young. They longed for a more integrated community and a strong father- figure – and found them in Volk and Führer. Such is the generational story (Merkl 1975, 1980; Wohl 1979: 64–84; Madden 1982a; Loewenberg 1983; Ziegler 1989: 59–79).

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

150 Fascists

This story contains both truth and problems. In the 1920s the Nazis were still a small minority, with smaller youth movements than their socialist, Catholic, and “bourgeois” rivals. Thus only a few of this generation became fervent Nazis. There were also many Nazis of other generations. The average Nazi member in 1920 had been born in 1887 and so was slightly older than the war generation. The age group eighteen to twenty-nine was only a little overrepresented in the Nazi party: The ratio of its percentage in the Nazi party compared with its percentage in the population was around 1.25, rising to 1.40 in 1927. No age cohort was much underrepresented. Only the ratio for the over sixties dipped below 0.90 (Kater 1983: 261, 269–73). Thus all age groups were quite well represented. Ecological studies of voting suggest that, if anything, by 1930 older voters were a little more Nazi than were younger ones (Falter 1991: 146ff ). Of the twenty-four top leaders, nine were over twenty-four when war broke out in 1914. Though Hitler himself (born 1889) had barely any adult accomplishments before the war broke out, Ritter von Epp (age 46) was already a high-ranking officer, Schwarz and Hierl (both 39) were a respectable civil servant and a middle ranking officer, and Frick (37) was a higher civil servant with a doctorate in law. These mature men already embraced extreme rightism, from which their Nazism then developed.

A “youth culture” had also formed well before 1914. The universities were an important breeding ground for Nazism. Some argue that their postwar expansion created a distinctive generational experience (especially where parents had not attended university). Yet university expansion had been greater in the prewar era (Flora 1983–7: 808, 811). Conservative na- tionalism already dominated the universities by 1890. By 1918 it was de- cidedly völkisch. This important term literally means “popular” but denotes a racist and anti-Semitic–tinged organic populism. Volkisch politics empha- sized the ethnic unity of Germans wherever they lived, endorsing geopolit- ical expansion in the East. Though Jews were picked on as the most obvious “enemy” of such an eastward-tilting project, Slavs were also included. Before 1918 students were loyal to the Kaiserreich and so remained conservative. But the collapse of that state in 1918 meant that racist-tinged nationalism could now flourish independently of conservative statism. It did until they joined it up with Nazi statism. In 1928 the journal of the university fraternities declared, “Not economics but race determines the fate of a Volk” (Mosse 1971: 141). By 1930 most students were probably Nazis. But this was the culmination of a long-term trend.

One important antecedent of postwar youth organizations was the Wandervogel movement, organizing hiking and work camp parties from

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

Nazis 151

around 1900. Its leaders were adults, encouraging young people to seek activities and ideas that would express the romantic, idealistic soul of the Ger- man Volk. From this emerged small political youth organizations that after 1918 expanded and became more völkisch, antidemocratic, and militaristic. Half a million mainly middle-class members drilled, wore uniforms, and sometimes carried weapons. They liked to describe themselves as a “third force” between capitalism and socialism. Nazis such as the Strasser brothers and many of the Abel sample first imbibed protofascist ideas there (Mosse 1971: 118ff; Stachura 1983a). Most of the organizations were controlled by adult parties and veterans’ and völkisch associations. The Nazis grew up in the shadow of a larger paramilitary, the Stahlhelm (“Steel Helmet”), led by völkisch veterans. Its leader, Franz Seldte (later the DNVP party leader), declared: “We must fight to get the men into power who will call upon us to smash once and for all these damned revolutionary rats and choke them by sticking their heads into their own shit” (Ziegler 1989: 77). But the Stahlhelm’s real innovation was in the organization of civil society. Its paramilitary parades, its celebratory “German Days,” brought many thou- sands of Germans, including many women, into the streets in great bursts of nationalist community activism – on which base the Nazis were to build (Fritzsche 1998: 134–6).

Thus though youth culture had been transformed by the war, so had adult culture. Nor was it youth revolt against adult culture. Half the Abel essays detail their father’s politics. Only 14 percent of these fathers had supported conventional parties (from conservative to socialist), while 15 percent re- ported an apolitical home environment. No less than 68 percent of fathers had been extreme nationalist, militarist, or völkisch. And only 2 percent of re- spondents reported acute conflict with their fathers (Merkl 1975: 295). Most of these Nazis were not revolting but amplifying the political characteristics of home upbringings that had also been changed by the war. These families could hardly remain bastions of conservative, system-endorsing militarism and nationalism when that system had vanished.

Nazis were often military veterans. Even as late as 1933 one-third of party members were veterans. Some 84 percent of the Abel sample who were of draft age had served in the war (similar to the Italian fascist figure), somewhat overrepresented (Merkl 1980: 107–9). The SS came heavily from army family backgrounds (as we see later). Local studies find that once the Nazis became serious political contenders, they received much support from local veterans’ associations. Among the 60 Gauleiter (regional leaders) and Reichsleiter (national leaders) who could have fought in the war, all but one did so (Goebbels, rejected for military service on medical grounds).3 They

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

152 Fascists

were spread through the ranks: At least 27 had been officers (including one general, one colonel, and two majors); 29 were definitely other ranks. At least 34 had seen action at the front, only one was definitely stationed in the rear. At least 25 had been wounded, and none had deserted. Corporal Hitler had performed a lowly but dangerous role carrying messages be- tween the trenches; Göring was a much-decorated fighter pilot. Naturally, the Nazis flourished their warrior credentials at election time. With these credentials, plus the traditional authoritarian rightist ethos of the German armed forces, the Nazis could obviously tug at the moral and political senti- ments of the small peacetime army. Hitler’s very first postwar agitations had been financed by army funds. He then marched next to General Ludendorf in postwar demonstrations. In contrast, the German left was antimilitarist. Some 57 communist KPD leaders could have fought in the war. But 16 had definitely been civilians, five had been officers, 34 other ranks. Eleven had definitely been at the front, four definitely at the rear. Only five had definitely been wounded, outnumbered by the six who had deserted or been court-martialed. Many had been active in the 1918 workers’ councils that the right saw as betraying the armed forces (Weber 1969: II). Almost all the councils organized by leftist sailors and soldiers had occurred among reserve troops, among inactive garrisons, or among naval forces cooped in- side German ports, not among troops at the front. The war was a formative experience for right and left. The right drew on the virtues of militarism and the “myth of the front”; the left drew on the exploitative conduct of the war.

As in Italy there are two main explanations for military veterans’ fascism. One is economic: Germany was full of unemployable military veterans, trained only to fight, their discontent translated into radical rightism. But though the German army was the most reduced by the peace treaties, vet- erans were accorded preferential and (by the standards of the time) generous employment programs. Employers complained at being forced to hire them. Most unemployment was short-term (Bessel 1988; Geary 1990: 100–1). Veterans’ organizations also played down material interests in favor of calls for a “national, social, military, and authoritarian” state, rejecting the values of a “defeated,” civilian, and democratic republic (Diehl 1977). No doubt material discontents played a role, but not the major one. And why would they lead to extreme rightism?

The second explanation centers on the translation of military into paramilitary values. As the war ended, demobilized soldiers and a few stu- dents tried to defy the emerging Republic and the peace treaties, forming free-booting paramilitaries such as the Freikorps to fight “Bolsheviks” at

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

Nazis 153

home and Slavs across the disputed eastern borders. They, not the regular Reichswehr, had put down the early postwar leftist risings. The leaders of the Weimar Republic were embarrassingly indebted to them – Weimar politi- cians did not command a monopoly of military power in Germany. Some of the Freikorps were soon to constitute a first wave of Nazi recruits. Their campaigns were increasingly publicized through the 1920s in best-selling memoirs and novels containing chilling brutality:

We made the last push. Yes, we roused ourselves one last time and stormed ahead across the entire line. Once again we pulled the last man with us, taking him from his cover, and plunged into the forest. We ran over the fields of snow and came to another forest. We fired into the surprised enemy and raged and shot and beat and chased. We drove the Latvians like rabbits over the fields and threw fire into every house and pulverized every bridge into dust and broke every telegraph pole. We threw the bodies into wells and threw hand grenades in after them. We slew whatever fell into our hands; we burned whatever could be burned. We saw red; we had nothing more of human feelings in our hearts. Where we had lived, there the earth groaned under our annihilation. Where we had attacked, there lay, where once were houses, ruins, ashes, glowing beams, like suppurating wounds in the open fields. (Von Salomon, quoted by Hamilton 1982: 340)

The stories combined nationalism, brutality, adulation of comradeship, and disturbing male sexual fantasies, praising violence for its capacity to pu- rify and liberate masculinity from the suffocation of conventional morality (Theleweit 1987, 1989). Though the Freikorps killed and raped with aban- don, they had no developed theory of political or ethnic cleansing. The “enemy” was to be scared off, some killed, but his identity was straightfor- wardly geopolitical: He was usually a Pole or a Balt allowed by the 1918 Peace Treaties to seize German lands. There was anti-Slav racism, but the “Judeo-Bolshevik,” later central to Nazi demonology, was rare. The ni- hilism pervasive in this literature was also common in postwar art. Leftist artists such as George Grosz depicted grotesque war scenes intended to turn us against all war; rightist artists produced stark images of dehuman- ized, armored power, dignifying the warrior as the efficient instrument of a modernist war machine.

Postwar paramilitarism might have died away but was boosted by the events of 1923, as French and Belgian troops occupied the Rhineland to enforce reparations demands. This yielded a second wave of Nazi recruits, teenagers of the “home generation,” drawn especially from these occu- pied territories (i.e., “threatened border Nazis”) and from the sons of civil servants and soldiers (i.e., “statists”), denouncing a Weimar unwilling to defend its reduced territories. They again encroached on the state’s formal

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

154 Fascists

monopoly of military power, donning uniforms, some shooting at the oc- cupying troops, but most marching and beating up “collaborators.” It was not successful – the French remained – but it was defiance and it evoked considerable sympathy among Germans. These two waves – of “threatened border” and “statist” recruits – constituted almost half the Abel sample. A third wave of recruits arrived at the end of the 1920s, mostly young workers, disillusioned by Weimar political and economic stagnation. Most of them were not rejecting but amplifying the values of their upbringing: more ag- gressive nationalism, increasing hostility to democracy and socialism (Merkl 1975: 68–89, 139; cf. Diehl 1977; Grill 1983). All three waves centered on paramilitarism. Until the seizure of power most Nazi members were also in one of the paramilitaries.

“The myth of the front” and the myths of “the stab in the back” and of Weimar ingratitude escalated in the late 1920s. They were not true: Most returning army units had actually been feted as heroes, says Bessel (1988). It was probably the military feebleness of the republic that nourished the myth. But the Abel essays show fascist veterans recalling the war fondly: Egalitarian yet hierarchical military discipline had produced personal and national fulfilment:

National Socialism was conceived in the experiences of the trenches. It can only be understood in terms of these front-line experiences.

[T]he war had taught us one lesson, the great community of the front. All class differences, staunchly entrenched before the war, disappeared under its spell. Out there it was what a person was, not what he seemed to be, that counted. There was only a people, no individuals. Common suffering and a common peril had welded us together and hardened us; that was why we were able to defy a world for four years.

My old world broke asunder in my experiences. The world of the trenches instead opened itself to me. Had I once been a loner, here I found brothers. Germany’s sons stood shoulder to shoulder in heated battles aiming their rifles at the common enemy. We lay together in the bunkers, exchanging our life stories, sharing our possessions . . . we tied up each others’ wounds. Who would ever question authentic German-ness, or how much education you had, or whether you were a Protestant or a Catholic? (Abel 1938: 142; Merkl 1980: 113).

Indeed, from 1916 the German armyhad been quite egalitarian and techno- cratic, with the highest proportion of fighting troops of any of the combatant powers. Geyer (1990: 196–7) describes it as “Taylorism for the organization of violence,” a model able “to organize the nation at large” by dissolving “the boundaries between military and civil society.” Abel respondents claimed

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

Nazis 155

only the Nazis maintained this spirit. In the Stahlhelm one had found “no spirit of comradeship [only] class distinctions” (Merkl 1980: 211). Paramil- itarism could thus transform politics.

As in Italian fascism, therefore, Nazis were disproportionately single young males with military backgrounds – though Nazis got older, more married, and more civilian as the war receded. Successive male genera- tions amplified the right-wing nationalism and statism of their home back- grounds – through prewar youth activism, then through the trenches, and finally through a decade-long paramilitary struggle against civilian leftism and foreign intervention. The real generational story is thus rather com- plex, not exactly a “revolt” and involving at least two generations. Nazism emerged as a paramilitary nation-statism enhanced especially for one broad generation by the war, then amplified by later events. Perhaps more signifi- cant was the perpetuation of the violent young male-dominated paramilitary into the government of a major power.

Religious and Regional Cores

Since Germany possessed two great churches, Evangelical Protestant and Catholic, the Nazis tried to appeal to both once they aspired to be a major party. The Party Constitution of 1920 advocated “positive Christianity,” that is, deism, but since this only alienated both churches it was soon played down. Hitler was a lapsed Catholic, as were many of his early cronies. Yet Nazis were from disproportionately Protestant backgrounds. Only the pre- 1933 Gauleiter differ: Their proportions are close to the national average of 62 percent Protestant, 37 percent Catholic (Rogowski 1977: 403). But of the thirty-three principal Nazi leaders, sixteen said they were Protestant, only three Catholic (the rest saying they had no religion, Knight 1952: 31). In the Abel essays, two-thirds do not mention their religious upbringing, 25 percent say Protestant, only 10 percent Catholic. Lacking information on the religion of ordinary party members, we rely on ecological data: Precoup Nazis from Catholic areas were substantially underrepresented (Brustein 1996: fig. 1.4). The paramilitaries did record religious background: Samples of officers and men in the SA and officers in the SS were between 3 to 1 and 5 to 1 Protestant, though SS rankers were only 2 to 1 Protestant (Merkl 1980; Jamin 1984: 90; Ziegler 1989: 87–9; Wegner 1990: 239–42). German Nazis were thus disproportionately from Protestant backgrounds. The next chapter shows Nazi voters were, too. My forthcoming volume shows that the core perpetrators of genocide were disproportionately from Catholic backgrounds. I explain this puzzle there.

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

156 Fascists

We lack good data on regional backgrounds. Scholars have been obses- sive about class while ignoring geography. The full title of Kater’s major book is The Nazi Party: A Social Profile of Members and Leaders, 1919–1945 (1983), yet “social” has for Kater a rather restricted meaning. Some 90 per- cent of the time he discusses occupational class, 10 percent age. Studies of the paramilitaries tend to conclude that there were few regional variations, yet the geographic classifications of the authors lack sophistication. Some merely divide Germany into “north” and “south” and find no signifi- cant difference between them. Others divide it into provinces and find only an overrepresentation of Bavarians – which is itself interesting, since they would be mainly Catholics, who were underrepresented in the party ( jamin 1984: 92–3; Ziegler 1989: 83; Wegner 1990: 235–9). Yet “eth- nic Germans” from abroad and men from the “lost territories” and the “threatened border” areas adjacent to these formed 36 percent of the Abel sample, an overrepresentation of between 2.0 and 3.0. Merkl stresses that the French invasion of 1923 had produced fervent Nazis in the south- west (Merkl 1975: 105, 1980: 136–7). Some 12 percent of the top Nazis but only 4 percent of Weimar Cabinet Ministers had been born abroad (Knight 1952: 28; cf. Kater 1983: 188). Austrians and “ethnic Germans,” mostly refugees from the east, were also overrepresented among SS officers (Ziegler 1989). We encounter these groups below in more sinister circum- stances. These samples are of hard-core Nazis, those with long-term career commitment to Nazi organizations. Newman (1970: 291–6) believes “fron- tiersmen” were generally overrepresented among interwar fascists. They were certainly overrepresented in the Nazi hard core. I delay exploring why Protestants were so Nazi until examining voting patterns in the next chapter.

Working-Class Nazis

We now move into class, the obsession of almost all previous scholarship on the Nazis. The data on the social class of Nazi party members are therefore abundant. They are summarized in Tables 4.1 to 4.6 in the Appendix.4 They almost all detail Nazis before the seizure of power. Thereafter opportunism and careerism obviously influenced joiners, especially for those in the public sector. Many of these were “Bandwagon Nazis” rather than committed ideological Nazis. I return to the Bandwagon when dealing with its possible role in Nazi genocide.

I start with blue-collar manual workers. In the various local, regional, and national samples of Table 4.1 workers form 28 to 52 percent of Nazi

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

Nazis 157

members. The lowest figure is the earliest, deriving only from a single city, Munich, with little industry. In other data for the early period, workers were also underrepresented, petty bourgeois groups overrepresented – fitting the traditional stereotype (Douglas 1977; Madden 1982; Grill 1983: 81–8). This was when the party was of no significance, for Germany or for the world. Yet as it grew, its base broadened and its workers increased. In the table the remaining samples yield a range of 31 to 52 percent workers. From now on workers formed between a third and a half of Nazis.

Two rather different conclusions may follow from this. We may stress that many Nazis were workers, obviously with some impact on the party. Alternatively, we may stress that workers were slightly underrepresented in the party (this disappears later when we add the paramilitaries). Workers formed 55 percent of the German labor force in 1933, though just under 50 percent in most of the regions and towns cited in the table. Most worker ratios in these samples would be between 0.75 and 0.90, indicating slight underrepresentation (cf. Brustein 1996: chap. 4). The higher ratios in this range tend to be Mühlberger’s regional figures, drawn from local party file cards; the lower ones are from the national party statistics. Mühlberger believes this reflects the party’s difficulties in retaining workers: Some joined and left local parties too quickly for the central party to track them. Rapid turnover was an even worse problem for the mainly proletarian Communist Party.

What kinds of workers were Nazis? Skilled workers were slightly over- represented when compared with unskilled workers (Rosenhaft 1987; Mühlberger 1991; Fischer 1995: 115; Brustein 1996: fig. 4.4). This is not surprising: Skilled workers are more likely to join all kinds of voluntary as- sociation (since they have more social and organizational skills). Few Nazis were agricultural workers: 8 percent of the national labor force, less than 4 percent in the Nazi samples in my Appendix, 5 percent in Brustein (1996: fig. 3.1). But there weren’t many socialists or communists among farm labor- ers, either. Most of these laborers lived and worked among their employers (unlike southern European farm laborers) and lacked the autonomy to join radical political movements. Again, this may be an organizational rather than an ideological disincentive. Farm workers, like unskilled workers, may have been sympathetic but found joining difficult.

Elsewhere, there were more Nazi workers. Discounting agriculture would push up worker ratios to around 0.90, nearly at parity. Workers were actually overrepresented in the Hitler Youth until after the seizure of power (Mühlberger 1987: 110–11; Stachura 1975: 58–62). The Nazis did better in small to medium towns than in the biggest cities. Nazi worker

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

158 Fascists

ratios must have been above 1.0 in many smaller towns, yet down near 0.5 in some big cities. Outside the big cities perhaps 40 to 55 percent of Nazi members were workers, in the big cities only 30 to 40 percent.

Most studies argue that the Nazis did worst in larger firms in heavy industry, since these were already locked up by the socialist unions and party. The most hospitable employers were in the public sector – transport, postal services, and public utilities – especially since the public sector took on long-service military veterans (who were often Nazis). Most scholars see the Nazis as also doing well in smaller workshops and in the service sector (construction and hotels being well represented), because these had little social distance between boss and workmen and a shared rightist perspective (Kratzenberg 1989: 175–95; Mason 1995). Workers in the Abel sample were mostly from the public sector, handicrafts, and artisanal trades. The few working in large-scale manufacturing often reported being victimized by their “Marxist” colleagues. Brustein presents detailed data on sectors (1996: figs. 4.2 and 4.3). His ratios do not vary that much: Nazis were slightly overrepresented, at 1.3, in the service sector, at 1.2 in handicrafts, and at 1.1 in “mixed branches.” They were slightly underrepresented, at 0.9, in big industry. Only agriculture, with a ratio of 0.7, deviates much.

Brustein found greater differences between branches within sectors. In agriculture the results are clear: more Nazis in livestock rather than in grain or vegetable farming areas (once we control for the distorting effects of religion). He attributes this to rational responses to Nazi economic policy such as protectionism, support for impartible inheritance, and opposition to subsidies for eastern grain growers. Brustein’s “rational economic actor” model of fascism, which he has applied also to Italy (see Chapter 3 above) and to the Belgian Rexist movement, works best for peasant farmers. They buy and sell directly on the market and their fortunes are directly and visibly affected by government economic policies. Yet for the vast majority, work- ing in the industrial or service sectors, the political economy that would further their own economic interests is far muddier. Would it be redistribu- tion or trickle-down economics, free trade or protectionism? How can we judge which would benefit most? All political movements argue with great confidence that their varied prescriptions would be beneficial. Much of the political game turns on the relative plausibility of rival appeals to people whose social position does not give them a clear view of their “rational” economic interest.

That said, here are Brustein’s industrial branch results. Workers in met- alwares were most overrepresented, with a ratio of 3.0, followed by wood- working, food products, and leather (all above 2.0). Ratios were lowest in

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

Nazis 159

mining and earth and stone (0.3), and in rubber, asbestos, chemicals, utili- ties, metal products, and textiles (all 0.1–0.2). These are big differences. He argues that workers in different branches had different economic interests and so responded differently to the Nazi economic program. He focuses on one issue: A domestic rather than an export orientation in an industry results in higher Nazi membership, since the Nazis favored autarchy. I am a little dubious. The proportion of Protestants and skilled workers in an industry are both good predictors in his data. Brustein believes skilled workers were angry at employer attacks on their privileges and liked Nazi encouragement of social mobility. Yet skilled workers tend to be “joiners” of all parties: The same result might well be found for SDP members. Of course, miners differ from textile workers in many respects. We need to know more about the characteristics of workers in each industrial branch to interpret these results properly.5

Some suggest that the experience of unemployment made workers Nazi (Kratzenberg 1987: 204–24, 245–63; Fischer 1991: 130–1; Stachura 1993: 706–10; Mason 1995). This is sometimes linked to the more general no- tion that fascism appealed especially to the deprived and the marginal. Yet Brustein (1996: fig. 1.2) finds no relationship between local unemployment rates and Nazi membership rates (membership was highest in communities with middling unemployment). Since the Nazis were young, and youths were more likely to be unemployed, we would actually expect Nazi unem- ployment to be higher than the national average. SA militants did have a higher unemployment rate during the Depression, but their unemployment could have been the effect rather than the cause of their time-absorbing militancy. This was so in the Abel sample. One-third had been made un- employed, bankrupted, or otherwise suffered severe damage from the De- pression (probably close to the national average). Yet almost all had held fascist beliefs or were involved in Nazi or similar organizations well before the Depression (Merkl 1980: 191–4). The voting data presented in the next chapter suggest that the communist KPD, not the Nazi NSDAP, became the party of the unemployed. Nazi workers were probably not more materially deprived than other workers.

But equally relevant is whether the Nazis had more workers than other parties. Appendix Table 4.4 shows that the socialist SPD and the communist KPD really were “proletarian parties.” Some 80 percent of KPD members in 1927 were workers or craftsmen. Adding most of the “housewives” (prob- ably the wives of workers) would push this close to 90 percent. Yet since the KPD was much smaller than the Nazi Party, it actually mobilized fewer workers. The SPD remained the dominant proletarian force, mainly through

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

160 Fascists

its massive unions. Workers and their wives still comprised 60 to 80 percent of its interwar membership lists. Skilled workers were overrepresented in the SPD, though probably not the KPD (Weber 1969: I: 27; Fischer 1991: 128–32; Lösche 1992: 14–17). Yet the Nazis were more proletarian than the center or right parties. Appendix Table 4.4 reveals that only 1 percent of the conservative DVP were workers. Appendix Table 4.1 details members of the ultraconservative DNVP and Nazis in comparable local areas. Work- ers made up only 2 percent of the Osnabruck DNVP, but 39 percent of Hanover Nazis. In the industrial Ruhr, workers formed 11 percent of the Düsseldorf DNVP, 41 percent of South Westphalian Nazis, and 52 percent of Western Ruhr Nazis. Appendix Table 4.5 details party activists in the rather bourgeois town of Marburg: 16 percent of Nazis were workers, far less than the 63 percent in the SPD and KPD, but more than the 3 percent in the “bourgeois” and the 7 percent in the “special interest” parties.6 The left parties were “proletarian,” the right were “bourgeois,” the Nazis were more multiclass.

Since Nazi leaders were much more bourgeois than ordinary members, some have argued that Nazism became “embourgeoised.” Yet workers di- minish up the hierarchy of any party – this was part of Michels’s famous “Iron Law of Oligarchy,” based on his knowledge of the German Socialist Party. The vital question is: Were Nazi leaders more “embourgeoised” than those of other parties? Appendix Table 4.5 compares the Reichstag deputies of all parties. Here Nazi workers lagged well behind the SPD and KPD, were rivaled by the Catholic Center Party, but were well ahead of the three “bourgeois” parties. Appendix Table 4.2 shows that of Nazi Reichstag can- didates, 16 percent were workers and 6 percent white-collar in 1929, and 18 percent were workers and 13 percent white-collar in 1930. These figures dwarf the worker and white-collar representation among DNVP candidates and provincial leaders. Appendix Tables 4.2 and 4.6 contain data on all lev- els of the Nazi hierarchy. At the top, the national Reichsleiter contained no ex-workers unless we count Hitler himself (a painter forced to paint houses and a corporal). The regional Gauleiter were 7 percent ex-workers; while among the next 250 bureaucrats and local leaders, workers contributed 21 to 25 percent. In Frankfurt local elections, 48 percent of KPD, 42 percent of SPD, and 32 percent of Nazi candidates lived in working-class neighbor- hoods (Wickham 1983).

The Nazis kept a substantial worker and white-collar presence at every leadership level except the very top. Though not a proletarian party, they remained broadly rooted.

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

Nazis 161

Middle-Class Nazis

I turn now to the occupational groups labeled as lower middle-class, petty bourgeois, or Mittelstand – small farmers, white-collar workers in public and private employment, and “the classic petty bourgeoisie” (artisan masters and small businessmen and traders). Combined, these groups usually comprised 31 to 36 percent of the party – slightly overrepresented, with ratios of 1.20–1.30.

Small farmers became overrepresented only after 1928 – with big regional variations. I have already mentioned Brustein’s economistic arguments in this regard. But farming districts were also more religiously segregated than were urban areas. Solidly Protestant farming areas produced many Nazis, solidly Catholic ones rather few. Finally, the anxiety of “frontier” regions seems to have brought the Nazis some farming recruits, though previous scholars have made this argument only to explain the high rate of Nazi membership in Schleswig-Holstein. All three of these explanations seem to have some weight.

White-collar workers in the private sector were usually somewhat over- represented, especially in the national samples in my Appendix (cf. Brustein 1996: fig. 3.6). The “classic petty bourgeoisie” was neither under- nor overrepresented. Within this group artisan masters were underrepresented (ratios of only 0.3 to 0.6), self-described “merchants” overrepresented (ra- tios around 1.3 in the national samples, greater in the regional samples). Mühlberger suggests the latter is an artefact: A young commercial clerk would describe himself as a Kaufmann (almost untranslatable, but literally “merchant”), in order to impress. White-collar workers may have thus been a little more overrepresented – they certainly tended to switch from leftist to rightist trade unions through the late Weimar period. Some white-collar fascism was caused by economic discontent. But rising unemployment af- fected manual workers more, while white-collar sectors moving rightward actually had lower unemployment rates than other sectors, said Speier (1986: 62ff, 104). Though in this period wages were falling, so were prices. The real incomes of private-sector salaried employees increased by 13 percent between 1929 and 1932. Small business was underrepresented among the Nazis yet was worse affected by the Depression. Speier (a Weimar sociol- ogist) suggested that clerks were angry at the erosion of privileges such as weekly salaries rather than hourly wage payments, insurance schemes, and the right to be called “Herr” in work. He noted that the mimicking of military command structures in German offices nurtured an authoritarian

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

162 Fascists

culture that might turn discontent rightward. Economic and “authoritarian” motivations may both have been present among white-collar fascists.

Two middling groups were even more likely to join: lower professionals and lower civil servants. From the late 1920s both joined the party in propor- tions almost identical to their seniors in the German census classifications, “academically qualified professionals” and “higher civil servants.” Jarausch (1990) also finds no difference between the two levels of professionals in his study of individual professions. As in Italy this suggests a sectoral rather than a class effect. Thus I have classified both lower groups with their seniors in my Appendix tables.

The German census grouping of “elite occupations” enables us to iden- tify the top 5 percent of the labor force, including entrepreneurs, pro- fessionals and higher managers, and civil servants. They were dispropor- tionately Nazi. Ratios fluctuate (small numbers will tend to do this) but they are usually upward of 2.50, the largest found so far. This would seem to aid a “bourgeois” rather than a “petty bourgeois” interpretation of fascism. But we should pause a moment. Elites dominate most polit- ical parties, as they do voluntary associations (other than unions). Again, the vital question is: Were elites more dominant in Nazism than in other movements?

Appendix Tables 4.4 and 4.5 show that elites were few in the two left parties, but dominated the other parties. We should be wary of the SPD and KPD figures: Many of the originally working-class leaders had spent years as comfortably-off party or union functionaries. Things were transparent in the three “bourgeois” parties. Over half the ultraconservative DNVP lead- ers and candidates held elite status – mostly big landlords and businessmen, then retired officers, senior civil servants, and educated professionals. At the local level (in Düsseldorf and Osnabrück) the Mittelstand, mainly the classic petty bourgeoisie, predominated in the DNVP. In the conservative DVP 60 percent of activists were from elite occupations, mostly business- men and top managers, followed by senior civil servants, with a smattering of classic petty bourgeoisie, very few white-collar workers, and no workers (cf. Fritzsche 1990: 94–100). Large merchants and businessmen, lawyers, and teachers dominated the top of the liberal DDP (Schneider 1978: 50–1; Frye 1985: 1–2). Even among Catholic Center deputies landed and industrial elites were much more numerous than among Nazi deputies (Morsey 1977: 35). In Marburg elites formed 41 percent of “bourgeois” party members, 18 percent of the special interest parties, 15 percent of Nazis, and only 1 percent of the combined SPD/KPD. Marburg women active in the “bour- geois” and special interest parties were mostly elite, while Nazi women were

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

Nazis 163

mainly nonelite. Except in the left and Nazi parties, Mittelstand members and activists were drawn disproportionately from small business and trade (Koshar 1986: 238–9). In a local East Prussian Nazi women’s group 50 per- cent were workers’ wives, followed by the wives of civil servants of all levels (Fischer 1995: 165).

Thus the Nazis were less elitist and less business-oriented than any ex- cept the two left parties. Landlords, industrialists, and higher executives dominated the “bourgeois” parties but were rare among the Nazis. Small business was overrepresented in the “bourgeois” and special interest parties compared with the Nazis. Instead, the Nazis most recruited civil servants and professionals from the elite, and lower civil servants followed by white- collar workers among the Mittelstand. This is beginning to look a little like what I suggested might be the Italian pattern: recruited from the “nation- statist” bourgeoisie, which was also somewhat removed from the sphere of direct production relations.

But figures for civil servants and state-employed teachers raise a method- ological problem. They were banned from Nazi membership by various provincial and city governments from 1925, by Prussia from 1929 and in the whole of Germany from 1930. Thus declared Nazi membership among them was low. When the government applied pressure, Nazi members would ask the party for “withdrawal” papers showing (falsely) that they were no longer Nazis. Brustein (1996: 167–75) finds civil servants neither over- nor underrepresented before 1933, which (given the disincentives) he believes demonstrates impressive Nazi commitment. Contemporaries believed civil servants and teachers had covert Nazi sympathies, while the Nazis aimed more pamphlets at them than any other occupational group. Historians have instanced many local officials and schoolteachers semi-covertly assisting the Nazis (Childers 1983: 176, 238–43; Grill 1983: 203–5; Caplan 1986, 1988; Zofka 1986).

To control for the problem of deception we can examine the backgrounds of full-time Nazis and of Abel’s 1933 sample of long-term militants, neither of whom needed concealment. In the Abel sample civil servants were easily the most overrepresented occupational group – four times as likely to be Nazis as Germans as a whole (Merkl 1975: 14). Among the fifty-four full- time Nazi Gauleiter up to 1928, 56 percent had previously worked as civil servants or as state-employed teachers, rising to over 60 percent thereafter – five times the representation of other persons of comparable social status. These years predate the Nazi coup, after which civil servants might benefit from joining the party. Among mid-level Nazis such as the Kreisleiter (sub- regional bosses) or local Nazi deputies in 1933, a quarter had been public

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

164 Fascists

employees. Local membership records were affected by clandestinity. But even here public employees made up 10 to 25 percent of members (Kater 1983). In 1933 only 5.7 percent of the labor force worked in the public sector. Some 10 percent of civil servants had joined the Nazis by 1933, 18.4 percent by 1935. These are high levels of mobilization. By 1932 some government departments were dominated by Nazis – so their chiefs warned (Mommsen 1991: 116). Jamin (1984: 258) also finds that civil servants were always “drastically over-represented” in her samples of the paramilitary SA.

Rightist penetration of the state was not new. Civil servants had domi- nated pre-1914 nationalist pressure groups (Mann 1993: 585–8). After 1918 this gradually amplified into Nazism. A quarter of the Abel respondents came from “military-civil service” family backgrounds (Merkl 1975: 50– 61). Wegner’s (1990: 240–1) study of high-ranking SS officers reveals an enduring connection between militarism, education, and the state. Some 17 percent had previously been army officers, 15 percent police officials, 22 percent teachers, and 6 percent other civil servants. Half their fathers had been in the public sector. The German state sector was to contribute half of those who later became the managers of genocide.

But again we must pause. The vital question is the comparative one: Were civil servants more likely to belong to Nazism or to other movements? As in other countries, public officials and teachers were overrepresented in most parties. My Appendix Tables and other sources show that in Germany the entire right, Nazi or not, attracted them as members and local leaders, with the political center lagging and the left trailing way behind. Before 1933, but not afterward, there were fewer civil servants among the Marburg Nazis than in the “bourgeois” or special interest parties. In the Reichstag public employees were overrepresented in all parties. Before 1930 this was most pronounced in the bourgeois parties and the Catholic Center, then the Völkische bloc and the Nazis. After 1930 they were distinctly more Nazi (Stephan 1973: 308; Bacheller 1976: 365–6, 379, 453–62; Linz 1976: 63– 6; Morsey 1977: 34–5; Mühlberger 1987: 106–7; Sühl 1988: 203–5, 227; Lösche 1992: 14–16). Civil servants became disproportionately Nazi.

Weimar civil servants were ripe for the picking because they already pre- ferred the executive to the legislative part of the state: “The interests of state” were higher than “party political interests,” they said. When democracy wa- vered, this “statism” waxed stronger, enabling civil servants to usurp the role of politicians in the post-1930 authoritarian governments of Brüning, Papen, and Schleicher and fomenting Nazi sympathies in the service (Mommsen 1991: 81–4; Caplan 1988). Was there also a material motive? This does not seem very likely. Higher civil servants were so privileged that neither

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

Nazis 165

unemployment nor poverty could have driven them rightward. In 1930 the first Brüning government did cut salaries, pension entitlements, and even jobs (Mommsen 1991: 79–118). Yet since prices were falling, the real incomes of civil servants between 1929 and 1932 actually rose slightly. Eco- logical data reveal that civil servants were slightly more prone to vote Nazi in the aftermath of the two economic crises of 1924 and 1929, though the relationship also endured during the good times (Childers 1983: 171–8). Nazi propaganda directed at them focused not on their economic interests but on a broader nation-statism – in which they would obviously play an important role (Caplan 1988). Their rightism probably blended a very broad sense of occupational self-interest with a more ideological nation-statism – as I also suggested in Italian fascism. I myself believe that investment in pub- lic education today is necessary to economic growth – but I am a professor in a public university. Can my self-interest and my economic theory be disentangled? My motives are probably mixed – and so were probably those of the Nazi civil servants.

Finally, university-trained professionals (i.e., “academic professionals”) were overrepresented in the NSDAP and in the SA and SS officer corps – more than was the “business and managerial” group. They also dominated the ultraconservative DNVP. Jarausch (1990: esp. 78–111) attributes this to economic discontent. Yet his own data do not support his conclusion. He acknowledges that workers and white-collar workers suffered more. He shows that professions harder hit by the Depression were not more Nazi. His multivariate analysis of the backgrounds of schoolteachers shows that Protes- tantism was the best predictor of Nazism, followed by urbanism, youth, and masculinity. Rank and salary differences lagged far behind. The most Nazi professions – foresters, veterinarians, university-trained farmers, judges, and doctors – did not face most Jewish competition (though Jews hardly over- whelmed any German occupations, the highest figures being 16 percent among lawyers and 10 percent among doctors). The most Nazi professions seem attracted by völkisch and “blood and soil” nationalism plus statism. Nazi propaganda focused not on their economic deprivations but on polit- ical and ideological themes: antimaterialism, loyalty to the state rather than to the parties, nationalism, and a class-free modernism. A pamphlet aimed at engineers denounced “the suffocating Jewish-materialist embrace of our life elements” that held back advanced technology. The party claimed that its educational policy “never focused struggle on professional, bureaucratic, pay or hiring questions. Its will has always centered on the ideological pen- etration of German education, the fight for political power in the state and the cleansing of our cultural life from all Marxist destructive tendencies.”

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

166 Fascists

Jarausch’s own data suggest that ideological predominated over personal material motivations in forming attitudes to Nazism. And like other Nazi strongholds, the professions were removed from the direct relations of production.

Of course, professionals, teachers, and civil servants were also highly edu- cated. Perhaps this was the cause of their Nazism. The universities had turned against the republic from the first. The student fraternities were mostly völkisch and anti-Semitic. Perhaps half of the German students were Nazi sympathizers by 1930, with few differences between social backgrounds or academic disciplines – apart from far less support among Catholics. The Nazis won a majority in the national student elections of 1931. Remember that these dates precede the Nazi breakthrough in national politics: The Nazis captured the universities before other major institutions.

Did economic deprivation cause student fascism? Many students were poor (not unusual, of course). Yet in Marburg majors who had the worst job prospects, in medicine and the natural sciences, were less likely to be Nazis (Koshar 1986: 243). In any case, the universities had been rightist since the 1880s, when the originally liberal notion of Bildung (cultured education in the Enlightenment tradition) had become more nationalist and when nationalism had begun its biological and racist turn. Few professors were Nazis but most were conservative nation-statists. As higher civil servants with tenure and privileges, recent recipients of large salary increases, they were perhaps the most secure group in Germany – followed closely by other civil servants and members of the free professions (Weisbrod 1996: 31). Their nourishing of authoritarian racism could not have flowed from economic deprivation or insecurity. Secondary and primary teachers were also more likely to be Nazis and among the more secure members of the work force. Educational institutions had long been central to the German nation-statist tradition – they had moved toward völkisch sentiments, and they now radicalized to Nazism (Kater 1975, 1983: 44; Linz 1976: 67; Giles 1978, 1983; Marshall 1988).

One female student, born 1910, tells how her nationalism had been strengthened by the French occupation of her hometown, Düsseldorf. But then at the university, friends took her to a Nazi meeting:

The Nazis told us that Hitler had learned a great truth from his experiences in the war. The important thing was not whether someone had money or a title, but whether he contributed to the well-being of his people. Hitler said nationalism and socialism should be identical. The nationalist should be there for every one of his countrymen and socialism must be adapted to the nature of a people. Thus, National Socialism. For us it meant comradeship – solidarity. . . . We said, “This is

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

Nazis 167

the only possible answer to Bolshevism.” And that’s how I came to join the National Socialist German Students’ League.” (Steinhoff et al. 1989: xxviii)

Thus the Nazis attracted two generations of young people, mostly males. The first came through war experiences, the second was socialized later in German schools, universities, and youth movements. The more intellec- tually minded there discussed the latest ideas of the age and attempted to combine them with the romanticism, idealism, “spirituality,” and racism of German culture. Many believed the liberal and bourgeois age had collapsed in the war and its aftermath. The socialist alternative seemed old, mate- rialistic, and too proletarian to be hospitable to intellectuals (Mosse 1971: 144–51). Many preferred more organic visions of modernity in which a movement and state embodied the nation and so brought social and moral development. Fascism was capturing the young and educated males because it was the latest wisdom of half a continent. Its ideological resonance in its era – far more than the specific sufferings of an age cohort – was the main reason it was a generational movement.

the nazi paramilitaries

All this has concerned the Nazi Party. But we must add the paramilitaries – the SS and especially the SA, which was ten times the size of the SS before the coup. By 1932, combined, they had more members than the party. Since only somewhere around half their members were also party members, the paramilitaries provided alternative channels of access to fascism. Appendix Table 4.3 assembles the relevant data, which are more complete for the SA than the SS. Only white-collar workers in the private sector seem to have been (slightly) overrepresented in the precoup SS. Workers were the largest group, slightly underrepresented before 1933, then at parity. In their occu- pations the SS seems broadly representative of German men. This was to change considerably during the mid-1930s as the SS became viewed as “the elite” of the Nazi regime, though it was to change in ways congruent with my argument in this chapter (very large overrepresentation of higher civil servants, academic professionals, and students, with contrasting underrep- resentation of those in industry – see my forthcoming volume).

In contrast the SA was proletarian. Appendix Table 4.3 indicates that workers rose from comprising 60 percent of SA members before 1929 to 70 percent thereafter. The Depression increased the SA unemployment rate to a staggering 60 to 75 percent. But did workers join the SA because they were unemployed, or did SA activities disqualify them from employment?

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

168 Fascists

Probably both. The Abel sample contains many SA men who commit- ted their lives to the cause well before the Depression, whatever the eco- nomic consequences. SA files also indicate employers did not like hiring SA men, since they were prone to answer back and to absent themselves to go marching. On the other hand, some SA recruits gave unemployment as their reason for joining. Overall it seems likely that the SA began as prole- tarian and as unemployed as the age group from which it was drawn, and then became even more proletarian and unemployed under the pressure of the Depression (Fischer 1983: 25–47).7 Paramilitarism provided alterna- tive full-time activity to work. Maybe this was the main material role of Nazism.

We also have data on the street-fighting core of the paramilitaries. Among 300 Nazis killed in street fighting, 57 percent were workers (a ratio of 1.22) and 25 percent were “business, professions and students” (probably mostly students, since they were young). All other groups were underrep- resented (Merkl 1980: 98–9; cf. Stachura 1975: 59). These fascist fighters were not as proletarian as their communist counterparts. Some 90 percent of communists arrested for street fighting in Hamburg and Berlin, and about 70 percent of the party’s “martyrs,” were workers (Kater 1983: 253; Peterson 1983: 214; Rosenhaft 1983: 167–207). Nonetheless, as in other countries, most dead fascists were workers or students.

Before 1933 the paramilitaries and the party combined contained half a million workers, and they were roughly proportionate to their numbers in the German population. Overall the Nazis were not especially petty bour- geois or bourgeois. They comprised a broad cross-section of the German class structure. In this sense, they were what they claimed to be: a national party, yet they were biased away from the urban-manufacturing sector and toward the state and educational sectors.

social mobility and social marginality

Uniquely, Nazi samples enable us to assess social mobility and success. It is often said that Nazis were downwardly mobile, taking out career frustrations on the political system. Yet in the Abel autobiographies just under half had experienced no significant mobility, a quarter had risen significantly above their origins, and only a seventh showed signs of decline (Merkl 1975: 62– 76). Of Rogowski’s (1977) Gauleiter, 64 percent had enjoyed secure jobs and 75 percent had occupational careers commensurate with their educational qualifications. Some 40 percent had been upwardly mobile compared with their fathers, only 21 percent downwardly mobile. Their upward mobility

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

Nazis 169

was thus double that of all Germans. Groups with most upward mobility – army veterans, university graduates, and white-collar employees – also pro- vided most Nazis. Kater (1983: 182–4, 375) concludes that Nazi functionar- ies “did not project the image of a group of losers living on the fringes of society.” He tracked down more Gauleiter than Rogowski had and believes their upward mobility was not quite so high. Nonetheless, they “exceeded by a very significant margin the upward mobility standard set by the population at large” – though Kater adds that such upward mobility must have given them an “excruciating” fear of toppling down again. Are only the immobile secure? Kater adds that high party technocrats had more stable and conven- tional upper-middle-class backgrounds and education, with no indications of marginality.

Ziegler (1989: chap. 4) concludes that the SS was a genuine meritoc- racy. Its officers had already achieved modest educational and occupational success before joining, but this accelerated once they were in the SS. Many contrasted the SS favorably with the “status-ridden” occupational world of Weimar. A minority of Wegner’s (1990: 251–62) sample of SS officers (no figures given) experienced postwar downward mobility, while some of the younger recruits had feared economic difficulties. Yet none of his individual case studies had been economically marginal – except for true “desperadoes” such as Theodor Eicke, whose frequent sackings and brushes with the police had resulted from his political extremism, not vice versa (see my forthcoming volume for more details of this terrible man). Both studies show that military and nationalist values played a much larger role than economic deprivation in attracting SS recruits.

Jamin (1984) deviates from this consensus. She says that the careers of SA officers demonstrated “social inconsistency.” The officers lacked “a stable place in the social hierarchy” and experienced much downward mobility. Yet her actual data are not so clear-cut. Half of her main sample of SA leaders had experienced no significant intergenerational mobility and half no intragenerational mobility (as in the Abel sample).8 Of the mobile SA officers, she says that twice as many had been downwardly as upwardly mobile. Yet this disproportion is contributed by her category “ambiva- lent downward mobility,” measured (intergenerationally) by having a father as “self-employed, artisan or farmer” and self as “white-collar employee, skilled worker, professional soldier.” This is dubious for three reasons: Most “artisans” were workers, not middle-class; the term “soldier” is too vague to denote social status in a world war; and outmigrating farmers’ sons may have been escaping poverty rather than moving downward. If we accept her categories, 25 to 30 percent of SA leaders had experienced downward

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

170 Fascists

mobility; if we do not, 10 to 15 percent had. If we settle for 20 percent, this is hardly overwhelming. Against the other evidence reviewed here, this cannot sustain her conclusion that Nazism represented the “socially up- rooted and isolated” and so could not develop a “positive socio-political programme and rationally represent the real social interests of its members.” But Nazism did represent “real social interests” – though not primarily class ones.

The notion of marginality has influenced many analyses of Nazism. Of course, Hitler himself fits the stereotype perfectly – failed painter, interna- tional migrant, discharged corporal, vegetarian in a meat-eating era, a man without real family life, probably sexually inactive. Yet his racialism had originated through the “normal” experiences of an Austrian anti-Slav Pan- German nationalist whose casual anti-Semitism became something much more dangerous as a result of his experiences in the revolutionary years following 1917 (Hamann 1999). “Mass society” theorists used to argue that “atomized” masses and “marginal” individuals, without strong social roots, turn to radical utopian movements and charismatic leaders. The the- ory has been recently updated in the notion that a healthy democracy rests atop a vibrant “civil society,” dense networks of sociability among the cit- izens, centered on voluntary associations dominated by neither the state nor the economic market. Supposedly, the best guarantor of a free society and of democracy is a dense network of sociability centered on voluntary associations.

Unfortunately, the Germany that became Nazi was exactly this, a very dense “civil society” – and the Nazis were at its very heart. Germany had high levels of interest group and voluntary association membership, includ- ing dense white-collar as well as manual worker unionization. It was such evidence years ago that enabled Hagtvet (1980) effectively to demolish mass society theory of Nazism. There is now further evidence to support his ar- gument. The voting studies discussed in the next chapter suggest that whole communities, not marginal individuals, swung round to the Nazis: In agri- culture, for example, the most cohesive Protestant communities went Nazi. The Nazis were also very successful at organizing in, and often taking over, professional associations. They were also hyperactive in local community as- sociations. In Marburg, Koshar (1986) demonstrates, Nazis were more active in other local social clubs than was any other political movement. The local party depended on and mobilized social networks provided by sharpshoot- ing clubs, veterans’ leagues, gymnastic and sports societies, singing societies, and student fraternities. It was partly this social activism that led the Nazis toward the elitist view of themselves as being the “consciously German” part

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

Nazis 171

of the population. This is similar to Fritzsche’s (1998) argument that Nazi community activism had built on top of Stahlhelm innovations to provide the main source of their popularity: They did actually organize the German nation. Koshar concludes that the Nazi surge to power can be interpreted in one sense as a revolt by local community activism against the failures of the national political system. That is what Abel’s Nazi militants and the SA recruits quoted earlier were saying: They were against “the system.”

Germany was thus a very strong civil society, and Nazis were at its heart. Led by Nazis it became a strong but evil civil society. As we saw, Riley (2002) shows a similar association between civil society and fascism in Italy. My forthcoming book similarly reveals a general tendency for movements of ethnic cleansing to be more strongly rooted in the voluntary movements of “civil society” than were their liberal opponents. Civil society may not be very civil! Indeed, this is not very surprising. It is rare to find marginal losers among political elites – we look for losers in bars, jails, and morgues, not politics. Those who seek to change the world, and to court danger while doing it, are more likely to be confident, feeling empowered by social success. Most German fascists felt empowered by a mixture of personal military, educational, social, and career success, buttressed by a sense of being “good Germans” with an ideology that was the latest wisdom of the age.

conclusions

Class and Sector

Since class theories have dominated approaches to the social bases of Nazism, it is worth summarizing my conclusions on the economic and class correlates of Nazism. Though Nazism started with a particular base among predomi- nantly lower middle-class groups, by the time it became a mass movement after 1930, its contours differed.

(1) There was no overall correlation between class and German fascism, unlike in Italy. Almost all classes were well represented in Nazism.

(2) As in Italy, rural classes moved from under- to overrepresentation, though few German agricultural workers became fascist members.

(3) As in Italy, the educated “nation-statist” bourgeoisie was the most overrep- resented, while the business bourgeoisie, large and small, was underrepre- sented. This also influenced the education of young people. State and Protestant (though not Catholic) education assisted the emergence of fascism as a gener- ational movement.

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

172 Fascists

(4) As in Italy, the Nazis found difficulty penetrating working-class communities in the urban-industrial economy. Yet since more workers lived and worked outside than inside these communities, the Nazis picked up plenty of workers from other social settings.

(5) As I suspected but could not prove for Italy, German fascists were neither so- cial marginals nor economic losers. Where we have background data relevant to their motivation, these would not usually suggest economic or career frus- tration. If anything, they were more secure, protected from the vagaries that economic booms and slumps bring to groups more directly related to business activities. And socially they were at the heart of civil society. Though this was a very strong civil society, it was not a very nice one – unlike the almost universal portrayal of civil society in contemporary social science.

(6) As in Italy, fascists tended to be distant from the main arenas of modern class conflict: few businessmen, “classic petty bourgeoisie,” private sector managers, or urban-industrial workers. Nazis were indirect, not direct, observers of the most pronounced class struggle – these people were, of course, responding to the Nazi claim to be able to “transcend” class conflict (a point I discuss further in the next chapter).

Of these six points only the last might have surprised the Nazi leaders. The lack of overall class bias was no surprise: They claimed they transcended class structure, as a Volkspartei, a people’s party. We have seen the claim was plau- sible, though there was a religious gap in their “national” credentials. They had few Catholic supporters – which the next chapter discusses. Overall, however, the Nazis were the party most able to project themselves at their meetings as “classless.” Their platforms would deliberately include speakers ranging from Prussian princes to railway clerks, retired generals to students and workers, speaking in varied accents – a public display of classlessness epitomized by Hitler, the little corporal with the derided accent of Austrian provincialism.

The Significance of Nazi Militancy

We have now seen something of the beliefs and social base of Nazi militants. But what did they actually do, and how did this help them to power? By the time of the coup the Nazis had over a million members. But what mattered was less their overall size than the activism of the core militants. As in all movements, there were many nominal and marginal members. As the party grew to great size it experienced difficulties with rapid turnover of mem- bers, especially working-class members (Mühlberger 1991). Nonetheless, the average Nazi member was far more active than the average member of any other movement. On almost every given occasion the local leadership could call out tens or hundreds of militants to march, to demonstrate, to

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

Nazis 173

pack halls, and, if necessary, to brawl, and the members would turn out, leaving their jobs (annoying employers considerably) and giving of their time and energy generously. The bourgeois parties were respectable no- table parties lacking much sense of “militancy.” They did not march and rarely demonstrated. Their meetings were formal, polite, depending heavily on routinized practices of deference to the platform and the social status of their speakers. If their meetings were disrupted by determined hecklers or by pushing and punching, they could not call on their supporters for a determined collective response. They were overwhelmed by the greater collective energy, enthusiasm, and violence of the Nazis. Even the socialists and communists, who had invented the notion of militant comradeship, were rocked back on their heels.

Rituals were key to Nazi mobilization of militants. Since we can lis- ten to recordings of Hitler’s speeches and watch newsreels of his mesmeric Nuremberg performances, we tend to view such grand rituals as the key. Yet Hamilton (1982: chap. 12) reminds us that Nuremberg-style mass meetings involved only a tiny minority of Germans, while Hitler could not domi- nate radio or newsreels until he seized power. Rather, the party mobilized through the local party cell, using telephones and trucks for physical com- munication and the typewriter and cyclostyle for written communication – all manned by activists willing to leave their jobs at a moment’s notice to perform these roles. In “Northeim” (population 10,000) about sixty to seventy party and SA members plus seventy-five Hitler Youths generated more meetings, demonstrations, and marches than any other party. Their actions, energy, and enthusiasm were presented to onlookers on ritual oc- casions as microcosms of the new and future Germany. It did not seem par- ticularly authoritarian, for it exhibited the “collective effervescence” that Durkheim regarded as the key to solidifying rituals. It is worth stressing that the Nazis thrived on liberal democracy – on freedom of assembly, demon- stration, and duplication of the printed word. This was most intense at election time, but it carried on the whole time. They could not have done so well against an authoritarian regime. Apart from anything else, their own violence would have been promptly exposed by police and army units as mere amateur brawling, which as we see in Chapter 8 eventually happened to Romania’s fascist “legionaries.”

Local Nazi leaders enjoyed some legitimacy as people willing to put in time and energy for the work of the local community. They found members through the networks of local clubs, engaging in activities such as sports, singing, sharpshooting, which were formally apolitical but which had ac- quired nationalist coloration in the late nineteenth century. Nazi militancy

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

174 Fascists

then grew to generate quite a wide range of activities. The Hitler Youth and the women’s movements were widely seen as worthy, attractive move- ments, encouraging healthy bodies and minds. Though the party and the paramilitaries half-overlapped, their activism can be partially distinguished. Party members tended to stand in small groups on street corners, leafleting, speechifying, and then packing into meetings. Some did this full-time but most did not.

The paramilitary SA had distinctive appeal and powers. Its members moved together in rather larger ritual displays. SA men were younger, more likely to be single. More were full-time, often living together in small bar- racks, their subsistence paid for out of party funds. Just like the Italian squadristi, they were caged into an enjoyable life of disciplined comradeship, drinking together, swaggering around in their uniforms, reveling in the Nazi elitism that made them special, “consciously German.” Some units added homosexual solidarity to this. Most of the time their violence was largely symbolic. They would form guards of honor for speakers or would intimi- date leftists and Jews just by their collective presence. Then they would eject hecklers, so that Nazi meetings created an impression of orderliness, in con- trast to other parties’ meetings that they were successfully disrupting. When violence came, they reveled in it, for they were an organized and armed gang of young males committed to radical means and goals by their movement. Most of their violence was aimed against the left (in eastern border areas it was against Poles), with much less against Jews or the “bourgeois” parties. The Nazis sought to legitimate their violence by proclaiming it “defensive.” They claimed “Bolsheviks” had already taken over parts of Germany. SA tactics were based explicitly on provoking the enemy. The enemy was never the state. Nazi paramilitary power never took on the state’s military or police powers. The enemy was other movements or Jews. It was far easier to appear defensive against the left, since Jews and the “bourgeois parties” were completely nonviolent. SA units were ordered into the strongest so- cialist and communist strongholds to march and to shout and to sing, and so to provoke attacks on them. Brawls would follow and wounds were then pa- raded to validate their claim that “there isn’t a night in which SA men don’t lie in the streets as victims of the Communist terror.” Merkl comments: “[A] bogus enemy, the aggressive, brawling Communists or Socialists, was substituted for the real object, the conquest of state power.”

But Nazi tactics were actually subtler than this. They did not intend to conquer the state by direct paramilitary power, since they knew they could never take on the German army. Nazi violence had three other goals: actually to solidify their own comradeship, emotionally “toughened

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

Nazis 175

by battle,” to intimidate their opponents, and to demonstrate that the “Marxist threat” could be overcome by their own disciplined paramilitarism. Nazi propaganda and the biased press then transmitted this claim to mil- lions who had never directly witnessed the violence (Abel 1938: 99–110; Allen 1965: 23–34, 73; Noakes 1971: 99, 142, 202–19; Hamilton 1982; Merkl 1982: 373; Bessel 1984: 26–32, 45–9, 75–96; 1986; Heilbronner 1990).

Nazi violence was thus effective, not so much in actually destroying the enemy (as fascist violence had in Italy), since German socialism was initially much better at defending its own communities, as in persuading its own members that they were a solidary, comradely elite, willing to take risks for radical goals, and in persuading many Germans and German elites that ritualized “orderly” violence was needed to solve the country’s “anarchy.” Once in power they would provide a state more committed to “order.” Indeed, the second paramilitary, the SS, a rather small organization before the seizure of power, did blend the notions of violence and order. The SS was committed to the notion that paramilitary discipline could generate a new social, political, and racial elite. Thus, in contrast to the SA, it attracted many of Germany’s young educational and professional elite (this is discussed more in my forthcoming volume). This range of militancy – from the worthy to the violent – made Nazism appeal to very diverse types of people. It also confused ordinary Germans’ responses to Nazism, since it fused together what we normally think of as the legitimate and the illegitimate. This takes us toward the response of the two other vital ingredients in the Nazi surge to power: the electorate and elites.

P1: JRT 0521831318c04.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:43

176

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

5

German Sympathizers

The Nazis were able to seize power because a shrewd leadership was able to mobilize three essential power resources: the activism and violence of Nazi militants (discussed in the previous chapter), the votes of one-third of the German electorate, and the ambivalence of German elites concerning Weimar democracy. Unlike the Italian fascists, the Nazis seriously and suc- cessfully contested elections. Over a third of Germans voted for them, and this enabled them to reach the very brink of power by constitutional means. But, like the Italian fascists, the Nazis actually seized that power with help from the country’s elites. I first consider the breadth and the motivations of the electoral support. For the sake of brevity, I focus on the main period of electoral success, after 1930. I consider the mass ideological power resources of the Nazis: what electoral message the Nazis tried to put across and how voters perceived it.

nazi electoral strategy

Some say that the Nazis would do anything for votes; not ideology but opportunism dominated their electioneering. This is part of the tradition of not taking fascists seriously. Childers (1990) says that leaflets and speeches were tactically aimed at specific interest groups, with policies opportunis- tically tailored to each. Indeed, Hitler’s book Mein Kampf openly reveals contempt for the masses and explains how to manipulate them and their hatreds. As he once explained to his confidants: “Comprehension is a shaky platform for the masses. The only stable emotion is hate” (Kershaw 1991: 51). But at election times he instructed the movement to downplay warmon- gering and hatred for “enemies” such as Jews and Slavs. More than other German parties the Nazi leaders held repeated tactical meetings, trained

177

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

178 Fascists

their speakers, and instructed militants on whom to address, what to say, and what to avoid saying. The Nazi were innovators in political manipu- lation. Of course, compared with the political parties of today, they were amateurish in their techniques and bleedingly sincere in expressing their hatreds.

The message was actually fairly clear and consistent. Nazi propaganda centered, as we might expect, on strong nationalism. The electorate was told that Germans were racially and culturally superior, destined to rule over other nations. The party promised territorial expansion into a “Greater Germany” that would liberate millions of Germans living under foreign domination. It described the Russians as bestial but backward, unable to resist the power of modern Germany; while the French and British were “civilized” but “decadent,” probably unwilling to fight. The harsh bor- ders they had imposed on Germany was an international (sometimes a “Jewish”) conspiracy. The Nazis had a strongly revisionist foreign pol- icy, making simple demands for the restoration of lost territories and “German’s rightful place.” This was not very controversial. Almost all German parties argued thus, though many Nazi orators spoke in a more inflammatory way. But the Nazis had two advantages in making such for- eign policy claims. First, as an out-of-power party, the Nazis had an edge, since most other parties participated in the Weimar coalition governments and could be accused of selling out to foreign powers. Hitler’s consistent revisionism, his advocacy of rearmament, and the Nazi movement’s own militarism boosted the appeal of Nazi foreign policy. These were harsh peace terms that most Germans felt were unjust. The stripping of German terri- tory and industry boosted the electoral chances of a revisionist movement such as the Nazis. Of course, the geopolitical reality was that the foreign powers were committed to a timetable of withdrawal from the Rhineland and the ending of reparations. Thus Germans did not expect that wielding a big stick to get justice quicker – perhaps even to recover some lost terri- tories – would lead to a major war. In geopolitics Hitler talked the way they talked, the way a Great Power such as Germany was entitled to talk. Thus Nazi foreign policy was popular: aggression but without war. For six years of his rule Hitler did indeed deliver this fine combination.

But that was not electorally decisive, since German voters (like most electorates) were concerned more with domestic issues. Yet the second Nazi advantage was the greater span of its nationalism. For Nazism also had a uniquely vigorous domestic message, which was at one both with its foreign policy and with the apparent classlessness of the party itself. One of

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

German Sympathizers 179

the Abel respondents recalled first hearing a Nazi advocating transcendent nationalism:

I was swept along not only by his passionate speech, but also by his sincere com- mitment to the German people as a whole, whose greatest misfortune was being divided into so many parties and classes. Finally a practical proposal for the renewal of the people! Destroy the parties! Do away with classes! True Volksgemeinschaft! These were goals to which I could commit myself without reservation. . . . Thus I entered the Hitler Youth and found what I had sought: real comradeship. (Merkl 1980: 251)

A schoolteacher’s diary describing hearing a Hitler speech given to a massive crowd imparted a rather concrete meaning to transcendence:

There was immaculate order and discipline . . . for the man who had drawn 129,000 people of all classes and ages. There stood Hitler in a simple black coat. . . . Main theme: Out of parties shall grow a nation, the German nation. He censured “the system” (“I want to know what there is left to be ruined in this state!”) . . . he made no personal attacks, nor any promises, vague or definite. . . . How many look up to him with touching faith! as their helper, their saviour, their deliverer from unbearable distress – to him who rescues the Prussian prince, the scholar, the clergyman, the farmer, the worker, the unemployed, who rescues them from the parties back into the nation. (Noakes and Pridham 1974: 104)

Note how she specifies the classes. The last chapter established that the Nazi claim was not mere rhetoric – it mirrored the actual composition of the Nazi movement. Most Nazi speakers entwined the foreign and the domes- tic aspects of nationalism together, in classless and often rather aggressive rhetoric that was not so universally popular. Political enemies were de- nounced as foreign or alien. Leftists were (Slav) Bolsheviks or Jews; finance capital was foreign or Jewish; liberals and Catholics were internationalists. For the Nazis “enemies” always had a mixed ethnic and political identity, and this was persistently affected by border issues. The Nazis always ad- vocated a policy of mixed ethnic and political cleansing. They would “do away with,” “eliminate,” “crush” “the Marxist-capitalist-Jewish extortion system,” the “black-red internationalism” that kept the German nation di- vided. The Nazis promised to “knock all their heads together” to secure social peace. The “bourgeois” and special interest parties were portrayed as “splinter parties” of class or sectional interests, while appeals to class, Stand (status group), and Beruf (profession) divided the nation. When the upper-class leaders of the rightist DNVP party also urged suppressing class differences for the sake of German unity, hypocrisy was evident, especially to workers. The DNVP speakers, like those of the other “bourgeois” parties,

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

180 Fascists

were from the privileged classes. The socialists and communists were mainly working-class with an added sprinkling of Jews. The classless Nazis were dif- ferent, seeming to be a more plausible instrument for a neutral but Germanic social justice. This claim to an organic nationalism pervaded all Nazi policy.

As well as somewhat appealing general rhetoric, the Nazis had more concrete policies. Amid a Depression, the Nazis could not ignore economic issues. Yet Hitler and most Nazis scorned narrow “economics” and sub- ordinated them to politics. Their economic policies had solid roots in a German statism stretching back to Friedrich List, through Rathenau’s autarchic “state socialism from above” during World War I, acquiring völkisch tinges during the 1920s (Barkai 1990). Distinctions between pro- ductive/creative and unproductive/Jewish capital were borrowings from this academic tradition.

This political economy was aimed at various interest groups. Autarchy (involving lower interest rates) was proclaimed especially to farmers, who might benefit from lower food imports and indebtedness. Many farmers voted Nazi for what they perceived as their material interests (as Brustein 1996 emphasizes). But these were not one-off policies, tailored specifically to farmers. Nazis set agricultural policies amid broader themes. In the Offi- cial Statement on Farmers and Agriculture “national self-determination” would reverse “bondage by debt to international high finance” and “international Jewish capital.” Reparations placed burdens on agriculture and must be ended. So must be a parliamentary democracy that failed to protect farm- ers. The Nazis claimed these policies were more moral than economic. Farmers were “the main bearers of a healthy völkisch heredity, the foun- tains of the youth of the people, and the backbone of military power.” But farmers’ sectional interests must come second in the “political war of liberation”: “[T]his war cannot be carried on from the standpoint of a sin- gle occupational group; it must be carried on from the standpoint of the entire people,” represented by “the consciously German members of every occupation and rank” (Fischer 1995: 147–8). In rural Lower Saxony the overall ideology appealed more than specific policies (which in many ways resembled the policies of the rival rightist DNVP party), says Noakes (1971). Anti-Semitism figured in some rural campaigns: German “blood and soil” was exploited by Jewish moneylenders. In reality it was not. Jews were a useful alien symbol of the farmers’ real resentments against a cosmopolitan urban world that they thought was grinding them down. But the Nazis always set specific material interests amid a broader ideology – as successful political movements do. That is how they sought to transcend (or perhaps to evade) the real-world multiplicity of interests.

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

German Sympathizers 181

They also promised to save the “essentially German” middle class, “crushed between international socialism and Jewish stock-market capital.” Again, sectional interest was set amid a broader theory of alien exploitation, reinforced by an attack on liberal democracy that failed to protect the vic- tims. But they spent twice as much organizing effort on workers (Brown 1989). They denounced Bolsheviks, but not the working class. They glo- rified the productive worker: Productive workers and productive capitalists alike were praised as being “consciously German,” as opposed to exploiting capitalists who were “unproductive,” “profiteering,” or “usurious” – and Jewish or foreign. Thus the core of the Nazi Weltanschauung – Germans against aliens at home and abroad – was presented to the voters. And the voters responded.

The original party program promised work and welfare for all, though with little sense of how to achieve this. In the Depression the party began to firm this up. It first developed its own voluntary labor service, “So- cialism of the Deed,” in which it improbably boasted: “[A]ll do the same work: architects, engineers, merchants, office workers, salaried employees, craftsmen, students, skilled and unskilled workers. Here the Volksgemein- schaft manifests itself truly and honestly” (Kele 1972: 193). At this mo- ment of the Depression the Brüning government was deflating the econ- omy, which involved cutting vocational training, job-creation schemes, and remedial education programs. Many young people would be reluctant to cast their first votes for the conservative or liberal parties that this govern- ment represented – or even for the socialists who were still cooperating with it.

In a May 1932 speech in the Reichstag, Gregor Strasser moved further, proposing Nazi public works programs financed by “productive credit ex- pansion.” Behind this was a radical program proposed by the Nazi Economic Policy Section, including higher taxation on the rich. Hitler was reluctant to publicize this, fearing to alienate big business – that could wait until after the Nazis came to power, he assured the head of the Section (Turner 1984). Yet Strasser’s promises were publicized in the next election campaigns, and they were popular. Indeed, once in power, much of the policy was imple- mented. The major Nazi goal was actually to finance rearmament, but the consequent investment in heavy industry did reduce unemployment. The electoral slogans “work and bread” and “the right to work” were also set amid nation-statist rhetoric: “national economic self-determination so that international capital can no longer decide whether or not Germans work and live” (Childers 1983: 148–53, 246–8). This was attractive rhetoric to many, but it was not just rhetoric.

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

182 Fascists

German official statistics suggested that unemployment was slashed dur- ing the period of Nazi rule, and many have accepted this claim. Some eco- nomic historians look skeptically at the figures. Probably unemployment did fall, but not by all that much (Silverman 1988). Yet the figures were the only ones available, and because after 1933 workers could no longer or- ganize autonomously of Nazi institutions, workers who were unemployed had little opportunity to discover how many they were. Many of them were also put very conspicuously to work on beautification projects smarten- ing up Germany’s towns. Thus “the ending of unemployment” seemed to be a major Nazi achievement. And in truth the Nazis did have more of a positive impact on the economy than almost any other contemporary gov- ernment – at least until about 1938 when overheating became apparent. The Great Depression had stimulated the Nazis to give some substance to “productivist socialism.” In contrast, most of the capitalist right and the Marxist left believed in “the laws of the capitalist economy” and so did nothing. The socialists were betraying their workers more thoroughly than the Nazis did theirs (some socialists also advocated Keynesian policies, but were squashed by their leaders). Since the Nazis rejected the primacy of material forces, they believed in no capitalist laws, and this enabled them to pioneer a kind of Keynesian-militarist nation-statism. The Depression did help the Nazis, but precisely because they were fascists, plausibly claiming to solve it.

Brustein (1996) especially emphasizes that workers appreciated the Nazi promise of jobs. Yet we saw that SA recruits’ reasons for joining often embedded personal material interests amid a broader nationalism: They could feel their own job security was also part of a national reawakening. In speech after speech, Hitler hammered home the message that the Nazis were centrally concerned not with day-to-day policies but with a “gigantic new programme,” a “vision,” a “high ideal” that would overcome social divisions (Kershaw 1998: 330–2). Socialists in Germany, as elsewhere in the interwar period, often made the mistake of believing that class and national identity were alternatives. A good half of German workers disagreed. They were proud of being workers and Germans. And the Nazis trumpeted the dignity of both identities.

Of course, the Nazis could not really transcend class conflict, as they promised. Half the leadership wanted to delay any such goal until well after the seizure of power. Conservative Nazis such as Göring persuaded Hitler to seek power by conciliating capitalists and other reactionaries. They could settle accounts later. The “radical” Goebbels wavered. Though no socialist, he hated capitalism because he believed that Jews were at its core

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

German Sympathizers 183

and that remedy would come through “the spirit of sacrifice, the berserker steadfastness of freedom that slumbers in the proletariat and will one day awaken.” This spirit, he believed, could be used for national, not class ends. Hitler made his own views clear in his argument with Otto Strasser (the most leftist leading Nazi):

Hitler: [O]ur organization . . . is based on discipline. . . . Those who rule must know they have a right to rule because they belong to a superior race. They must maintain that right and ruthlessly consolidate it. . . .

Strasser: Let us assume Herr Hitler, that you came into power tomorrow. What would you do about Krupp’s? Would you leave it alone or not?

Hitler: Of course I should leave it alone. Do you think me so crazy as to want to ruin Germany’s great industry. . . . There is only one economic system and that is responsibility and authority on the part of directors and executives. I ask Herr Amann [his office manager] to be responsible to me for the work of his subordinates and to exercise his authority over them. Herr Amann asks his office manager to be responsible for his typists and to exercise his authority over them; and so on to the lowest rung of the ladder. That is how it has been for thousands of years, and that is how it will always be. . . . A strong state will see that production is carried on in the national interests, and, if these interests are contravened, can proceed to expropriate the enterprise concerned and take over its administration. (Noakes & Pridham 1974: 99–100)

Otto Strasser now left the party claiming that Hitler had betrayed National Socialism by endorsing capitalism. Yet his brother Gregor, who stayed loyal, more correctly observed that Hitler had promised protection only to capi- talists who served National Socialist interests. It was the authority principle that was at stake, and Otto, not Hitler, was betraying it, said Gregor (Kele 1972: 159).

As long as capitalists lent their authoritarian work organizations to Nazi goals, Hitler allowed them to reap profits. If they resisted, he smashed them. Capitalism as private property did not interest him. Capitalism as disciplined, authoritarian production did. This was the ideological source of the Nazi procapitalist bias – practically reinforced by their antisocialist street fighting. The Nazis did not transcend class struggle, but they muted it with full employment, repressed it with violence, and subordinated it to nation-statist goals. And after eight years all of Germany’s social classes would begin to suffer catastrophically from Nazi rule.

The Nazis did not conceal their racism. Though extreme, it built on top of mundane sentiments of the time. The Weimar Constitution itself defined the German nation as a union of “tribes,” and “German blood” defined citizenship (Brubaker 1992). Racial theory was influential in contempo- rary biomedical science in many countries, and common-sensical racial

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

184 Fascists

assumptions were everywhere made. Germans and other nations were de- fined by blood, hereditarily, and to this was yoked a sense of national supe- riority common among Great Powers. Germans were regarded as racially superior to nations around them, especially to the supposedly less civilized nations to the east and to “Semites.” Anti-Slav jokes, songs, and graffiti were common through the east of the country, even in the SPD. Was this very different from the “Polack” jokes of Americans or the Irish jokes of the British? Ethnic and racial slurs were commonplace in the early twenti- eth century. “Casual” anti-Semitism was so widespread in Germany that at elections the Nazis did not need to flog it. It was enough to invoke strong German nationalism and a casual, loose-tongued anti-Semitism – such as the endlessly bellowed marching slogan “Germany Awake! Jewry Croak!” Was this to be taken more seriously than the chants of modern football hooligans? Even Jews doubted it, since few feared more than economic discrimination and discomfort under Hitler. Most Germans disliked Jews, or rather they disliked the dominant cultural images of “the Jew.” But this was not a high priority in their lives. As we saw in the last chapter, casual anti-Semitism figured in the essays of half the Abel sample, but dominated only a small minority. Only a handful of Nazi leaders were originally drawn to the movement by anti-Semitism, and many Nazis were deeply troubled by SA violence and anti-Jewish laws during the 1930s (see my forthcoming volume for more sustained discussion of these themes).

Of course, Hitler was different, as were the Nazi intellectuals drawn from the “Vienna-Munich” axis of völkisch nationalism that had arisen in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Hitler had apparently not been particularly anti-Semitic in prewar Vienna (says Hamann 1999). Yet the war and the revolutionary years at the end of it seem to have changed him. His writings in Germany before Mein Kampf contained three times as many passages about Jews as Bolsheviks (Friedlander 1986: 26). By the time of Mein Kampf he asserts that the stateless Jews were a “bacillus,” “disease,” “plague,” “parasite,” “contagion,” or “virus” in the host body of other nations. German Marxists and capitalists had both been infected by “spiritual Judaism.” Marxism, the Russian Revolution, and capitalism were all Jewish plots. The Jew must be “removed altogether,” “eliminated” “by the most severe methods of fighting.” Yet it is unclear quite what he meant by this. Hitler used hyperbolic prose all the time, and when he got worked up, he used violent words indiscriminately. In a conversation with him, Chancellor Brüning once received the full treatment. Hitler bawled at him that he was going to “annihilate” (vernichten) the KPD, the SPD, “the reaction,” and France and Russia – he did not here mention Jews (Kershaw 1998: 339).

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

German Sympathizers 185

It was still unclear, even perhaps to Hitler himself, what all this ethnic and political cleansing might practically entail (Gordon 1984: chaps. 3 and 4).

Nonetheless, the Nazi leaders knew enough about the priorities of Germans to downplay anti-Semitism at election time, except as the rou- tine and casual accompaniment of antiusurer or anti-Bolshevik rhetoric. It was also useful in papering over the contradiction between transcendent ideals and pragmatic capitalist bias. If the adjective “Jewish” were casually added to Marxism and finance capital, they seemed bedfellows whose heads must be knocked hard together. But anti-Semitic policies relating to real-life Jews were not vote-winners, especially in the cities, where almost all Jews lived. Though the image of the Jew was usually negative, most Germans perceived Jews as either mildly useful or too minor a problem to decide their vote. So the party kept anti-Semitism as loose-tongued slogans – until dictatorship, war, and the SS state allowed different options (Kele 1972: 77; Grill 1983; Gordon 1984; Zofka 1986; Schleunes 1990).

Hitler would not have reached 5 percent of the votes if he had promised either a second world war or the murder of millions of Jews and Slavs. Nor did he seem to have such goals directly in mind. But the leading Nazis did hide from the electorate the systematic depth of their hatred. Amid more contingent events, these would later lead them into war and genocide. With the enormous exception of this deception (which was partly self-deception), the Nazis came to offer a fairly coherent, often sincere and plausible, and sometimes innovative electoral program based on organic nation-statism.

When the Depression made the ruling parties unpopular, the electorate began to respond more. From only a 3 percent vote in 1928 the Nazis reached 18 percent in 1930 and 37 percent in July 1932, dropping slightly to 33 percent in November 1932 (the last free election). One-third of Germans came to vote for them. This fell short of a majority, though in many democ- racies this would have given them the government. The Nazis had a higher percentage of the total electorate, for example, than today’s Democrats or Republicans get in the United States. In Germany this did allow them constitutionally, as the largest single party, to try to form the next govern- ment. A clear majority could be obtained with the support of the other authoritarian-leaning parties, and together they did form a government. This was important since it meant that the Nazis did not have to launch a risky full-scale coup. In 1933 they were able to manipulate the Constitution’s Emergency Powers Provisions. They did not have to break the Constitution.

Why did they get so many votes? Voting is a minimal act, usually in- volving little commitment to a party ideology. Contemporaries believed the NSDAP drew many protest votes – not surprising in a party identifying

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

186 Fascists

so many “enemies.” When the German economy was in such trouble, one did not need to be a convinced fascist to consider voting for the NSDAP. “I’ve tried the others, its time to give Hitler a chance” was the simple mo- tivation of many. From 1930 first-time voters provided 20 percent of the Nazi vote, a mixture of previous nonvoters and young voters (Falter 1986). Their knowledge of Nazism was perhaps limited. However, other correlates of voting Nazi suggest more resonance of Nazi ideas. Let us try to identify the core Nazi constituencies.

nazi voters

Religion and Region

In the major national studies, easily the best predictor of Nazi voting is religion (Falter 1986, 1991; Childers 1983). Of all registered voters in July 1932 (including people who did not vote), about 38 percent of Protes- tants supported the Nazis, only 16 percent of Catholics – a big differ- ence. The greater the percentage of Protestants in an area, the greater its Nazi vote. In solid Catholic areas the Nazi vote was commonly below 10 percent, in solid Protestant areas it was commonly above 60 percent. All but seven of the 124 constituencies with the highest Nazi vote in 1930 were majority Protestant (Falter and Bömermann 1989). Even in the big cities, where the two faiths lived among each other, the religious impact was as important as class (Hamilton 1982: 38–42, 371–3, 382–5). And in the small towns with a population of fewer than 25,000, where two- thirds of Germans lived, religion far exceeded class as a predictor of Nazi voting.

Thus the electoral surge of the Nazis was disproportionately a surge among Protestants. Conversely, the collapse of the liberal and conservative parties in the face of the Nazi electoral surge was only a Protestant collapse. The two Catholic parties (the Center Party and the Bavarian BVP) managed to hold up their vote, which was correlated around .90 with the percentage of Catholics in a constituency. Thus Catholics in the Catholic areas barely wavered. Yet the three so-called bourgeois parties – the liberal DDP, the conservative DVP and the ultraconservative DNVP – had depended on Protestants. From 1928 the Nazis began to mop up much of these. Even the two ostensibly secular socialist parties were actually mostly Protestant, and so were at risk. The trend was greater among women: Catholic women voted overwhelmingly for the Center/BVP, Protestant women mostly for “bourgeois” parties, then for the Nazis (Falter 1986: 163–70).

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

German Sympathizers 187

Thus all other correlations reported here were only partial ones: It was overwhelmingly Protestant classes, Protestant veterans, Protestant students, a Protestant generation, and so on, which were drawn particularly toward Nazism. Strong Catholic communities were insulated against the charms of Nazism – just as a similar number of Germans were insulated inside cohesive “proletarian ghettos.” In the end neither “reds” nor “blacks” were untainted by authoritarianism. The Catholic parties supported reactionary authoritarianism after 1930, in order to head off what they believed to be the worse dual threats of fascism and Bolshevism. In 1932–3 they cooperated with Hitler. And the Communist Party made its crazed attack on the “social fascism” of the SPD, during which it often cooperated with the Nazis. In the end the KPD and SPD united to oppose the Nazis, but this was verbal resistance. They finally submitted without a fight. All this meant that most Catholics, socialists, and communists exhibited only frailty and foolishness, not something worse.

The importance of religion to Nazism has been recognized, but under- theorized. In general, scholars stress Catholic resistance to Nazism, but see Protestantism less as pro-Nazi than as “weaker” than the Catholic Church, less able to resist (e.g., Brooker 1991: chap. 7). There are also puzzles. The association between Nazism and Protestantism was not constant. Initially, the core Nazis, especially the core theorists, tended to be renegade Catholics (like Hitler) coming from the Vienna-Munich axis. And from the late 1930s renegade Catholics were to reassert themselves, being disproportionately in- volved in the worst excesses of Nazism (see my forthcoming volume). Nor was the relationship constant across Europe. As we saw in Chapter 2, the democratic northwest was mostly Protestant – and its democratic Nordic areas were mostly Lutheran, which was the Protestant denomination doc- trinally the closest to German Protestants. So why at this particular stage did German Protestants support Nazism?

The causal link runs less through theology or church strength than through the churches’ relation to the nation-state. The Catholic Church looked askance at the German state. Catholicism’s heartlands were in south- ern provinces incorporated fairly unwillingly into the Prussian-dominated Kaiserreich in the nineteenth century. The German Catholic Church was controlled from abroad and favored transnationalism, not “nation-statism.” This had moved the Center Party toward support for liberal democracy, to resist the authoritarian tendencies of the Kaiserreich. Catholics who were less tied to Rome had looked to Catholic Vienna, not Protestant Berlin, for political protection. Thus they had imbibed pan-German aspirations (the union of all Germans), not the Kleindeutsch (little German) strategy of

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

188 Fascists

Prussia. The Protestant Church – strictly, the Evangelical Church – had been in a complicated way the Established Church of Prussian Germany, and so was “nation-statist” in an implicitly Kleindeutsch way. It was actually a fed- eration of various provincial Länder churches belonging to three Protestant denominations, Lutheran (the majority), Reform, and United. From the Reformation these churches had been headed in each German mini-state by its local ruler. After national unification (1871) they were administered and financed by each provincial Land government. Their assemblies, pulpits, and publications supported the Kaiserreich and its official values of discipline, piety, order, and hierarchy. Weimar had removed the monarchy and most state controls, but not the government subsidies or the identification with the nation-state. Thus the Evangelical Church remained, in its traditions and expectations, rather “nation-statist.” It looked to the state to provide social order, positive Christian-German and mainly conservative values, and an active national social policy.

But such a Christian-conservative state no longer existed, and conser- vatives and Evangelicals were now searching for a stronger state capable of embodying German culture and morality. Few initially supported the Nazis. More drifted through völkisch or conservative organizations toward the Nazis. From the mid-1920s the irreligious Nazi leaders were surprised by a spate of Protestant churchmen endorsing the party from the pulpit and party platforms. Nazis in the small town of “Northeim” studied by Allen (1965) responded by adding prayers and hymns to meetings, and they ran “Christian-National” candidates for school board elections. Protes- tant themes attracted votes to the Nazis from the “bourgeois” parties. The Nazis thus succeeded in splitting the Evangelical Church, as they could not the Catholic. The Evangelical “German Christian” Nazi front organiza- tion won a two-thirds’ majority in the Evangelical Church election of July 1933. But it then overreached itself, proposing to expunge the whole of the ( Jewish) Old Testament from the Bible! Nonetheless, over half the church re- mained “Nazi German Christian,” the rump forced to form an independent “Confessing Church” (Helmreich 1979; Brooker 1991: chap. 10). The affin- ity between Nazism and the Evangelical Church, evident in both mem- bership and voting data, had an obvious ideological core: their common nation-statism. Since it was Protestant civil servants, Protestant students, Protestant veterans, and so on who were becoming Nazis, this doubled their nation-statism.

But once an expansionist Reich was established, the Evangelical Church might not offer such ideological support. A powerful Austria no longer existed to block union of all Germans in a single Grossdeutsch state. The

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

German Sympathizers 189

further expansion of a German state would be mainly among Catholic Germans, in Austria, Silesia, and Alsace-Lorraine, while pan-Germanism had not been associated strongly with the Kleindeutsch Evangelical Prussian/ German state. My forthcoming volume shows a religious shift in the core Nazi constituency, from Protestant to (ex-)Catholic, occurring in the late 1930s as Nazism “radicalized.”

Protestantism also helps to explain much of the regional pattern of voting. In the early elections Nazi support, though low, seems to have come from both religious communities. In 1924 two of their four regional votes of over 10 percent were in Protestant Mecklenburg and Franconia, two were in Catholic Bavaria. Yet by July 1932 the highest Nazi-voting regions were overwhelmingly Protestant: most of the Protestant northeast (East Prussia, Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Brandenburg, Lower Silesia, and Thuringia), the whole of the Protestant northwest, and the more Protestant parts of Hesse and Bavaria (i.e., Franconia). A secondary cause was also visible. Rural and agrarian Germany was somewhat more Nazi. Thus Protestant areas that voted less for the Nazis tended to be dominated by urban-industrial workers – Berlin, Saxony, and Western Westphalia/Rhineland Ruhr. These remained quite faithful to the left parties (Milatz 1965; Passchier 1980). A third cause of regional variations still lay half-concealed. The heaviest- voting Nazi areas were Schleswig-Holstein and the northeastern areas that were cut in two by Poland (the only other area voting over 45% Nazi in 1931 was Hanover). These might be described as “threatened border” areas, next to territories that the Versailles Treaty confiscated from Germany. It may be countered that the allies also took away German control from much of the Saar and Ruhr in the southwest, yet this did not produce high Nazi voting – since these areas were both majority-Catholic and urban-industrial. Once Catholics and the industrial working class lost their insulation from Nazism – after the seizure of power – “threatened border” regions were to emerge as the bastion of radical Nazism. But before the seizure of power, the core Nazi voting constituencies were primarily Protestant and secondarily rural.

Class

Much attention has been paid to class voting. Since we lack exit polls, we rely on ecological studies of voting. Were those polling districts voting more Nazi also more middle-class, as one prominent theory of fascism asserts? The first major ecological study was Hamilton’s (1982) of the big cities. He found there support for bourgeois class theory: The higher the social class of an area,

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

190 Fascists

the more it voted Nazi. Most mixed areas, where he deduces more of the lower middle class lived, gave support close to the national average. But later studies have considerably qualified this finding. Childers (1983, 1984, 1991) analyzed the whole country. He found that up to 1928 the Nazis did best in areas with many artisans, small shopkeepers, and civil servants. From 1928 small farming areas joined in. Thus, he says, the original Nazi nucleus was among the “old” lower middle class – the classic petty bourgeoisie plus lower civil servants – but not the “newer” middle class of white-collar workers and managers. Since Childers classified most “artisans” as petty bourgeois rather than working-class, he probably overstated classic petty bourgeois support for Nazism. Up until 1930, Nazism would fit partially into the mold provided by petty bourgeois class theory. Thereafter, however, Childers accepts that support widened and class correlations weakened, usually into insignificance. He interprets this (not quite taking them seriously) as the Nazis becoming a national “catch-all” party of protest, “a mile wide but an inch deep.”

Falter’s (1986, 1991, 1998) national data are the most recent and the fullest. They support Childers’s post-1930 conclusion. Falter shows that the proportion of workers in a constituency made little difference to the Nazi vote. Overall, there was no class bias. But there were important sectoral differences. Agricultural workers were the most Nazi (despite there being few party members among agricultural workers), then workers in construc- tion, services, and public employment. But in industrial working-class areas the Nazi vote was lower – except for areas with government-owned plants. Childers (1983: 255) also found a relationship between Nazism and handi- crafts and small-scale manufacturing, especially after 1932. So by 1930 the Nazis drew about 30 percent, and by 1932 some 40 percent, of their votes from workers. By then about 50 percent of German workers voted socialist or communist, 30 percent voted Nazi, 10 percent voted for the Catholic parties, and 10 percent for the “bourgeois” parties. There was much switch- ing in the three “radical” parties after 1930. The Nazis attracted three million votes from the SPD, half a million from the KPD, while a million and half a million flowed in the reverse directions (Falter 1991: 116). The SPD had flirted with some Volksgemeinschaft ideology in the early 1920s, aware that many workers saw themselves as both working-class and German national- ists (Fischer 1995: 115–16). But, notes Falter, the Nazis actually did create a “Volksgemeinschaft-type of movement” (1998: 123).

The voting data confirm the membership data presented in the previous chapter. Workers were no less attracted to Nazism than were other classes. Middle-class theories of fascism are wrong, in the case of Germany. But the

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

German Sympathizers 191

core of proletarian fascism lay not in large-scale private manufacturing in big cities, but in the agricultural, service, and government sectors and in smaller plants scattered through smaller towns and the countryside. Fascist workers were plentiful, not at the heart of contemporary class struggle but at its margins.

Falter also shows that among middle-class voters the Protestant small farming areas became distinctly Nazi in 1932, while Catholic ones voted Nazi at about the national level. The self-employed (though not indepen- dent artisans) were slightly Nazi, as were communities with many retired persons and housewives (cf. Childers 1983). Most white-collar areas were a little less Nazi when the effects of other variables are partialed out, though Falter says that the Nazis tended to be from the “old middle class” – indepen- dent businessmen, artisans, and farmers. Correlations between Nazi voting and civil servant numbers are modestly positive, weaker than in Childers’s more aggregate data. Only rarely do Falter’s correlations between middle- class groups and the Nazi vote exceed .20. But he also shows that Nazi voting was lower in areas of high unemployment, especially during the De- pression. Prosperous Catholic areas still voted for the Center but prosperous Protestant areas turned Nazi. Areas of high unemployment voted socialist or communist. Employed persons from all classes were more attracted to Nazism than were the unemployed (cf. Stachura 1986). Economic success thus helps to explain Nazism more than does deprivation, as we saw was also the case among Nazi members. In Chapter 1 we saw that middle-class theories of fascism were often yoked together with theories of economic deprivation. Neither will work when applied to German voting – once the Nazis had become a force to be reckoned with.

class, the economy, and the decline of the democratic parties

However, middle-class theories might still be partially rescued. The Nazi vote rose largely at the expense of votes for the so-called bourgeois parties, that is, the conservatives and liberals (the DNVP, the DDP, and the DVP) and the smaller “special interest parties,” such as the Peasants League, the Tenants Party, or the Interest Alliance. Childers (1991: 320) argues that the “bourgeois” parties made little attempt to cross class, regional, or religious cleavages, especially ignoring workers, while special interest parties focused on specific bourgeois occupations. Both, he says, practiced the politics of status group and profession.

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

192 Fascists

In fact all the older parties bore the legacy of the prewar semi- authoritarian Kaiserreich. Since the Reichstag had not controlled the executive, its parties had not been ultimately responsible for policy. They had little experience in compromising with each other in order to produce a policy outcome, since the Kaiser’s ministers had made the necessary deals. Parties tended to represent only their own special interest constitutencies. In its early years the Weimar Republic had held together because the for- merly antisystem parties, the socialists and Catholic Center, had joined with some of the bourgeois parties in a broad coalition. When the so- cialists left the coalition, had the bourgeois parties been genuinely “liberal” or “conservative” in the broadest sense, they might have widened their ap- peal. But instead they carried on representing their narrow support base ( Jones 1988). When the Nazis began to offer a broader vision, after 1928, they were able to mop up their voters. Conversely, two votes held up, the Catholic and the left (in which the communists gained at the expense of the socialists). The left appealed mostly to the urban working class, the Catholic parties to Catholics of all classes. All this might reinforce a class interpretation of the Nazi rise: “Bourgeois” organization collapsed as middle-class voters moved to the Nazis (Kitchen 1976). Though the mid- dle class may have been no more likely to vote for the Nazis after 1930, it could have been shifts in the middle-class vote that brought about their success.

Yet can parties be identified so simply with classes? Some of the special interest parties were actually more sector- than class-specific. To win elec- tions, peasant parties had to recruit laborers and dwarf holders as well as independent farmers. Handicrafts parties had to recruit masters and men. The “Interest Alliance” that won a quarter of Marburg’s votes in 1924 represented renters, apartment- and house-hunters, veterans, land reform- ers, white-collar workers, and big families. It stressed consumers’ interests and trawled as widely as it could for votes (Koshar 1986: 84). These were not merely bourgeois parties. Nor even were the so-called bourgeois lib- eral and conservative parties. They appealed to the nation, or alternatively to a middle class that supposedly included workers (as in contemporary American usage of the “middle class”). In most countries around one-third of workers vote routinely for conservative parties, mobilized by patron-client networks, believing in conservative ideologies or the superior competence of conservative notables. Falter (1986: 167–9) shows that the overall per- centage of workers in a locality did not make much difference to the vote for the “bourgeois” parties (though the formerly liberal DVP got slightly more votes in areas with more workers). They all picked up most votes

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

German Sympathizers 193

in the primary sector and fewest in industrial areas. The Nazis probably swept up most of the working-class supporters of the “bourgeois” parties – especially in agriculture and services – just as they swept up their supporters from other classes. These parties were bourgeois in leadership and usually in policies, but not in mass support. They would never have been major parties if they could only attract bourgeois support. So the Nazis seem to have swept up and to some extent “radicalized” most conservative-minded Germans of all classes.

Why did the conservatives and center collapse? Was it related to the health of the economy? The vote of the so-called bourgeois parties remained static at 35 to 37 percent during the inflation and stabilization crisis of 1923– 4. It began its slide during the economic boom years. By the economic high point of May 1928, the “bourgeois” parties had lost almost a third of their electorate – before the Great Depression started (Childers 1991: 326). Meanwhile the Nazis had also quietly mopped up the votes of the smallish völkisch movement to become the major party of the radical right (Grill 1983). The first big Nazi breakthrough, at the local elections of 1930, was also before the recession bit. Even the national breakthrough, in December 1930, occurred before it was clear this was a “great” depression. The Nazis now became the main völkisch party, able also to tug at nationalist, statist, and anti-Semitic sentiments in the “bourgeois” parties. As they had risen, therefore, the “bourgeois” parties had declined continuously, over a decade – though the smaller “special interest” parties collapsed suddenly, near the end.

As a response to their decline, these parties all thought they saw the trend of the times and sought to move rightward. The liberal DDP had been unequivocally committed to the democratic republic, and it declined first (down to 1% of the vote by 1932). Its response was to favor strengthen- ing the state. The conservative DVP had favored a constitutional monarchy, but when it lost votes (down to below 2% by 1932), it embraced semi- authoritarianism. The most conservative of the three, the DNVP, had in- herited the mantle of prewar semi-authoritarianism. Its vote held up better than its rivals, but it still declined, to 8.3 percent in November 1932. By then it was at the heart of the reactionary authoritarian government of the immediate pre-Nazi period.

Thus voters supporting the “bourgeois” parties turned steadily against democracy. They shifted to the less democratic of these parties until 1930, then they voted Nazi. All three parties perceived this shift and reacted by turning away from democracy. Though the leadership of the parties was “bourgeois,” their fears were founded on very widespread sentiment across

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

194 Fascists

the country outside the two internationalist “red and black,” Marxist and Catholic, camps. Only these two subcultures strongly resisted the Nazi al- lure. Industrial workers surrounded by other industrial workers continued to vote for the left. Catholics living and working among other Catholics voted for Catholic parties. Both provided networks of voluntary associa- tions to reinforce the party line. The Center held onto its votes in districts with more active churchgoing and increased its votes where priests made voting a confessional issue (Kühr 1973: 277–95). While the SPD, the KPD, and the Center held on to most of their stronghold constituencies, the Nazis had stolen half the strongholds of the “bourgeois” parties (Falter and Bömermann 1989). Outside these two communities Germans were at risk, regardless of class – indeed, most of them may have voted Nazi in 1932. Unpalatable as it might be, most of the German nation that was neither “red” nor “black” turned steadily against liberal democracy, and then to- ward Nazism. The Nazis were a national party in two distinct senses. They did appeal broadly across the nation. But they also mobilized the nation in a more mythical sense, against two large and supposedly “antinational” communities within Germany, the “reds” and the “blacks.” The Nazis did not appeal specifically to the bourgeoisie or the petty bourgeoisie, but they did specifically appeal to Protestants of all classes, and they radicalized them. That was the core of their mass constituency.

weimar elites

We must now turn to upper-class theories of fascism. The Nazis did not attain an electoral majority. As in Italy, they came to power helped by back- stairs plots among upper-class and elite groups. Elites began to gravitate toward authoritarianism from 1930, when coalition government began to creak under the strain of the Great Depression. Brüning’s center-right gov- ernment began to avoid the Reichstag, ruling by presidential decree under the Constitution’s emergency powers. Then the semi-authoritarian regimes of von Papen and von Schleicher brought the first actual repression. Then in 1933 von Papen and Hindenburg invited Hitler, now the leader of the largest Reichstag party, to join the cabinet. This was a brief attempt at semi- reactionary authoritarianism. But Hitler was not much of a sharer. Helped by President Hindenburg’s death, he quickly took over the entire govern- ment and established the Nazi dictatorship. Who were implicated in this drift of elites toward fascism, and what were their motivations?

Let us consider first the usual suspects in this type of theory – capitalists – and their likely motives. In the case of Germany the argument has to concern

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

German Sympathizers 195

only one of the two “capitalist motives” I have been identifying, that is, the desire for profit rather than property defense. German capitalists might have reasonably shown some concern for basic property rights during the imme- diate postwar years – though actually the moderate Social Democrats had then been quite willing to bring in the troops and rightist paramilitaries to crush the few actual revolutionaries. But by the end of the 1920s the SPD was monolithically moderate and respectable, and though the com- munist KPD was growing, it tended to mobilize the least powerful groups of workers. There was no significant threat to property from the left. But through 1929 to 1933 capitalists might feel squeezed between Great De- pression and the progressive taxation and welfare policies of the Weimar Republic and so seek repression wielded by an authoritarian regime as a solution to profitability.

Capitalist support for Weimar had been indeed lukewarm, born not of conviction but of aversion for the threat of postwar “revolution.” Many were initially unhappy with the postwar social and labor reforms. Unem- ployment insurance, public housing, and municipal projects were paid for out of progressive taxation, including wealth and corporation taxes. Labor laws restricted the working day, forced employers to hire the disabled and veterans, prohibited unfair dismissal, and forced employers to recognize trade unions, to consult with factory councils, to submit to government arbitra- tion, and to seek government approval if laying off more than fifty workers. Even before the Depression, employers were growing restive. Thus Ruhr iron and steel bosses launched a lockout in 1928 to resist a government- imposed wage settlement.

The Depression increased their unhappiness. Taxes were raised on them as government expenses rose but profits declined. Heavy industry suffered most, though political differences between sectors were not great (Geary 1990; Patton 1994). Most politically active capitalists approved the right- ward drift of the “bourgeois” parties. They wanted deflation, more labor market flexibility, cuts in welfare, a break with the SPD, and government by presidential decree. Some economic historians argue that the Depres- sion simply put too much pressure on Weimar democracy, which could not solve the structural economic weaknesses it exposed (Borchardt 1982; James 1990). Excessive wages and welfare payments plus labor market rigidities were protected by conciliatory Weimar institutions. A reflationary strategy was blocked since foreign loans would have carried unacceptable conditions and domestic loans would have led to inflation (and possibly breached Reichsbank rules). There was in any case a low rate of domestic savings. This economic theory of Weimar breakdown might be extended into explaining

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

196 Fascists

the repressive solution: The republic, it might be said, embodied too much worker power for the liking of many capitalists, so they turned first to semi- authoritarians, then to the Nazis, for repressive salvation. Indeed, many of the actors – even some of the Nazi leaders – believed that this is what was happening after 1930. I am inclined to agree that if there had been no Great Depression, there would have been no Nazi regime. For the Nazis to surge into power, Weimar breakdown was a necessary precondition. And it was the Great Depression that rocked the somewhat precarious republic. But did it happen through the agency of class conflict? This seems more dubious.

The first counterargument had been made by economists perceiving a viable alternative class scenario. Holtfrerich (1990) argues that the low rate of domestic savings could have been tackled by agreement among capital, labor, and a government diverting resources into popular savings schemes. Perhaps such policy solutions require a degree of Keynesian wisdom from contemporaries that was available only rather later. Yet the northwestern democracies facing Depression offered democratic solutions that did not involve great wisdom. Politicians muddled their way through day-to-day crises. British Conservatives waited for the governing Labour Party to split and then did a deflationary deal with its right wing. In the United States the New Deal offered a proindustrial counterdeflationary strategy, buying the support of moderate unions, “corporate liberals,” and an internationally oriented fraction of capital. Scandinavians began to enter collective agree- ments among capital, labor, farmers, and government to restructure labor markets and mildly reflate. None of these solutions as yet made an enor- mous amount of economic difference. Nor did they claim to “transcend” class conflict. But they did deepen class conciliation. The democratic so- lution combined slight alleviation of suffering with making the parties and classes jointly responsible for the mess. This was no revolution – on bal- ance in most countries most of the pain fell on the workers, in the shape of unemployment. German conservatives could have developed their own version. A few tried, but most did not – they preferred solutions escalating along the authoritarian continuum to fascism. Something more than mere economic pressure is required to explain this.

The second counterargument is that few capitalists figured among the Nazis or even in the plots of von Papen, von Schleicher, and the circle around President Hindenburg. Gregor Strasser aptly labeled Schleicher’s proposed semi-reactionary authoritarian government “the cabinet of anti- capitalist longing.” Even fewer capitalists turned to the Nazis. A meeting at Bad Harzburg in October 1931 has often been assumed to mark the first major cooperation between industrialists and Nazis. But Turner (1985) has

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

German Sympathizers 197

shown that only one powerful industrialist was present, the others being smaller businessmen or relatively unimportant company executives. Indeed, most capitalists seem to have hoped that more conservative authoritarians would deflate the economy, abrogate labor reforms, and control Hitler.

The third counterargument is that most capitalists did not want a Nazi regime since they distrusted Nazi economics and feared Nazi radicals. Press and cinema newsreels barons seem to have been the closest to being Nazi sympathizers. Hugenberg, an extreme nationalist, controlled the largest me- dia empire. Under his leadership the DNVP shifted to semi-reactionary authoritarianism. He made the world-historical mistake of giving favorable coverage of the Nazis, believing his fortunes and those of the Nazis would rise together. Most popular newspapers were rather apolitical, preferring to report personalities, scandals, and sports. They reported Nazi activities briefly, though usually without hostility. Most of the quality press supported the bourgeois parties, viewed as combating “the internationalist Marxist parties . . . who would destroy people and nation, family and German spirit” (as the Hamburger Nachtrichten put it). Nazi “socialism” equally turned them off. But as the bourgeois parties declined, some quality newspapers came to see the Nazis as just overenthusiastic patriots: “[S]harp and ruthless national fighters,” said the Rheinisch-Westfälische Zeitung, endorsing them in 1932. The Nazis now received more favorable press coverage, which increased their vote (says Hamilton 1982: 125, 165). This was quite general across the early twentieth century: Media barons mobilized a populist nationalism that boosted audiences and moved politics rightward. In Britain the North- cliffes and Beaverbrooks boosted conservative imperialism; so did men such as Hearst in the United States; in Germany they moved conservatism back into authoritarianism. I have no good explanation of this, but it was of some political significance, given the ideological power of media barons.

Yet most of business distrusted the Nazis. Hitler kept assuring them he hated socialism, but they feared the Nazi radicals of the Economic Policy Section. Nazi violence worried them, but the Nazis did not attack property rights – they assaulted those who did. The Nazi “authority principle” was congenial. They would have greatly preferred other solutions. Yet the enemy of my enemy may be my friend. Many finally welcomed their accession to power, few had helped them, but even fewer had hindered them.1 This is not massive capitalist culpability, unlike in Italy.

The fourth counterargument is that there was an absence of profound class struggle in Germany. The countryside was especially peaceful. Turbu- lence had peaked in 1918–20 and then declined. KPD growth after 1930 was a little worrying, since communists preached revolution. But this was

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

198 Fascists

a minority party, mainly recruiting the powerless unemployed. The social- ist SPD and its unions were far larger. Since 1925 they had been formally committed to a “class struggle” line. But in reality the SPD was moderate, having run several Länder governments for over a decade. “Class strug- gle” rhetoric reappeared whenever the SPD felt the KPD was stealing its votes, but the SPD fought neither Brüning’s deflationary strategy nor Hitler’s half-coup. There was objectively no revolution in the offing – except the Nazi one. There was no need for capitalists to defend their property. No one was likely to expropriate it. If profit was all that concerned them, why were they not more pragmatic in their political economy?

But class arguments might make a riposte at this point. Perhaps capitalists were motivated by a more diffuse fear of violence, concerning supposed “anarchy” as much as class conflict. There were some major disturbances. Yet, as usual, socialists were more victims than perpetrators: 22 murders committed by leftists resulted in an average sentence of 15 years for 38 per- sons plus 10 death sentences; 354 murders committed by rightists resulted in average sentences of four months for 24 persons – and no death sentences. Though in 1927 the 22 rightist killers who were members of the “Black Reichswehr” conspiracy received six death sentences and six long prison sentences, the death sentences were commuted, and only two of the defen- dants were still in prison three years later. When the rightist paramilitary Stahlheim marched, police protection was arranged; when leftists marched, the police harassed them (Tilly 1975: 224–5, 229; Southern 1982: 339). The SPD “militia” remained defensive, and until 1928 so did the KPD. But then the Comintern instructed Communist parties that “the mass-struggle of the proletariat . . . [will] . . . burst the bounds of . . . trade-union legality.” The communists became more violent. Yet by 1931, of 29 persons killed, 12 were communists, two socialists, six Nazis, one Stahlheimer, four policemen, and four of unknown affiliation – a ratio of two leftists to one rightist. Then the communists, afraid, drew back, saying that anything more than vigor- ous self-defense might alienate neutral workers and compromise party ideals (Newman 1970: 227–36; Merkl 1980: chap. 2; 1982: 377; Rosenhaft 1982: 343–52). The left’s flirtation with violence had been brief and ineffective.

In contrast the Nazis embraced tactical paramilitary violence from the beginning. But it was small-scale. Unlike the Italian squadristi, they never launched full-scale military attacks, never besieged socialist headquarters nor drove them out of towns. Parades, uniforms, flags, and a sense of dis- ciplined power were used to impress, to launch provocative demonstrations and marches, and to break up enemy rallies. It was aimed to provoke rival movements, not the state. It did not alienate state elites but it did cow the

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

German Sympathizers 199

rival movements. In July 1932 it was not the Nazis but the semi-authoritarian von Papen who used executive powers to remove the socialist Prussian provincial government. Goebbels wrote in his diary, “You’ve only got to bare your teeth to the Reds and they lie down. The Social Democrats and the trade unions don’t lift a finger. . . . The Reds have missed their chance. There won’t be another.” The next year the Nazis seized power. The SPD protested to the constitutional authorities, the communists “went under- ground” but did little. The right, not the left, committed almost all the German violence – and capitalists did not need fascists to defeat German socialism. Since they knew this, they did not at first favor them.

However, other elite groups were much more complicit. The army was crucial, since its military capacity could have overwhelmed the Nazi paramil- itaries. The Nazi leadership was careful with the army, believing it would resist an out-and-out coup attempt. But while many older officers op- posed Hitler, younger ones often sympathized. The armed forces wanted rearmament above all else, and this was exactly what the Nazis were con- sistently promising (Geyer 1990). In contrast, publicly declared the High Command, the Weimar Republic would not give it the resources to be able to defend Germany with “any chance of success.” By 1932 its loy- alty was more to the head of state, the renowned ex-general Hindenburg, than to the republic, while political generals such as Schleicher were players in the semi-authoritarian intrigues around the head of state. In truth the political leadership of the republic had never possessed a real monopoly of the means of military violence. The armed forces had retained much of their professional autonomy, sitting apart from political strife, grumbling yet nourishing their own sense of pride and honor. After 1930, however, both semi-authoritarians and Nazis were politicizing among the troops and the officer corps. Generals such as Blomberg and Reichenau admired Hitler and openly supported the Nazi constitutional maneuvers that avoided the necessity for a coup.

Thus in 1933 the army’s loyalty was not actually tested. There was no “march on Berlin” against which a legitimate government might have sought to deploy it. Yet the army was clearly now split, no longer a separate coherent caste. While most of the High Command remained deeply professionally jealous of the SA, clearly a potential rival, some regional army groups were actually training SA units (Fischer 1995: 22, 132). Since Hitler had great plans for the German armed forces, once in power he needed to restore its unity and professionalism and ensure its commitment to his regime. He was able to sweep away most army opposition by murdering Röhm and the SA leadership in June 1934 – with army assistance. Within two months

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

200 Fascists

every German soldier was swearing a personal oath of loyalty to the Fuhrer. With the help of several purges of the High Command, the army was then lured into bed with the Nazis, implicated in their worst atrocities (see my forthcoming book).

There was no Nazi coup. The last legitimate governments of the Weimar Republic acquiesced in their own downfall. Leading civil servants, judges, and the leaders of the “bourgeois” and Catholic parties were especially com- plicit, though less in the Nazi coup than in ditching democracy. These were the old regime circles in which Carl Schmitt moved, and his ideas (discussed in Chapter 2) were very influential. Brüning, leader of the Catholic Center Party and Chancellor from 1930 to 1932, embraced Schmitt’s notion that the state had to be “above” the contending “armies” encroaching on the state. He used the economic crisis to rule by decree “above” party polit- ical strife. Through 1932 parliament met on only fourteen days. Brüning saw the semi-authoritarian Kaiserreich of the pre-1918 period as his consti- tutional model (Mommsen 1991: 84–5). But von Papen, von Schleicher, and Hindenburg (and Schmitt) thought the monarchy obsolete. They en- gineered his dismissal. The DNVP and Stahlhelm leaders, plus generals and civil service chiefs, briefly became the leading players. Representing not modern capitalism but the last bastions of the old regime and old money still entrenched in the state, they foolishly believed they could either split the Nazis between Strasser and Hitler or bring the whole NSDAP into alliance with them. The transition to Nazi dictatorship was accomplished through the last flailings of old regime leaders, the law courts, and the higher civil service. In Hitler’s first cabinet there were only four Nazis but five conser- vative aristocrats, Hugenberg the DNVP media magnate, the DNVP head of the Stahlhelm, and a Catholic rightist. For at least two years, these rightist nationalists had wanted authoritarian government but could not accomplish it themselves. Only the Nazis could provide the shock-troops for the elite. Since the Nazis also possessed the will to power, the game was up for the old regime.

Thus Germany differed from Italy, where most of the ruling class was involved in the fascist half-coup. Here ruling class aid was very uneven. In fact, elite support mirrored popular support. It was stronger outside the main bastions of modern capitalism. German industrial and financial leaders did not oppose Hitler but neither did they do much to help him. The main help came from the dying remnants of the old regime, somewhat removed from the heartlands of class conflict. They saw the crisis as the constitutional theorist Carl Schmitt had seen it. “Mass armies” of class and nationalism had invaded the liberal-conservative parliamentary debating space, as well

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

German Sympathizers 201

as (through welfare programs) the ministries. There was no longer a higher, neutral state able to arbitrate their claims authoritatively. The Chancellor’s Emergency Powers (for which the great sociologist Max Weber was partly responsible, and for which the renowned jurist Carl Schmitt now offered a vigorous legal defense) offered a breathing space. But – they again agreed with Schmitt – the required state really needed a new elite. Though some believed they were it, they were soon forced to recognize the superior claims of the Nazis.

the crisis of class and economic theories of nazism

I have now presented four empirical objections to directly economic and class theories of the rise of Nazism.

(1) The decay of Weimar democracy had continued through both good and bad economic times, as the electorate and the “bourgeois” parties gradually withdrew their support. It had hastened with the Depression, and this was important. Nazism was already becoming significant within Germany, yet the Depression may well have been a necessary cause of its surge to power. That is probably the core truth of economic explanations of Nazism. Nonetheless, other causes besides economic crisis must also have been involved in the decay.

(2) The key Nazi constituencies, though alarmed by class confrontation, were not very directly involved in it and were among the least affected by economic crisis and deprivation.

(3) Capitalists were involved in the overstraining of democratic govern- ment, but they were not main players in its actual collapse, still less in the Nazi coup. On balance their contribution was not supportive of Weimar democracy but neither did they usually support the Nazis.

(4) The “crisis” and “class stalemate” period was too short and too lacking in political initiatives to explain an entire break with democracy – unless this was already groggy from other blows (as Kershaw 1990 also notes).

In fact, class theories of Nazism have been decaying for some years. Kele (1972), Mason (1995), Merkl (1980: 153), and Eley (1983) had years ago emphasized that there was considerable working-class support for Nazism. More recent writers have moved rather grudgingly away from class theory, accepting instead more of Nazism’s view of itself. Stachura (1993) abandoned his former class interpretations (1975: 58; 1983b) to suggest that nationalism, widely shared by Germans of all classes, was the key to Nazi success. Falter (1991: 51ff., 169–93) sees Nazism as a broad national “popular party of protest.” Mühlberger (1987: 96, 124; 1991: 202–9) and Childers agree that

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

202 Fascists

the Nazis were more a national than a class movement, though they argue that this made them relatively incoherent. Nazism, says Childers, was

a remarkable heterogeneous coalition of social forces. Yet, just as that support was remarkable broad, it was also remarkably shallow. . . . [T]he socially disparate elements of the National Socialist constituency formed a highly unstable politi- cal compound, and signs of its nascent decomposition were already evident in the November [1932] elections . . . [not] a movement of genuine social integration, a Volksbewegung, as its leaders maintained. Instead, the NSDAP was ultimately a highly volatile catch-all party of protest whose successes were built on economic crisis and whose constituency was tenuously held together by anger, frustration, and fear. (1984: 53; cf. 1991)

Eley (1983) suggests that Nazi ideology centered on “national populism” or “right-wing Jacobinism,” defined as “activist, communitarian, antipluto- cratic, and popular, but at the same time virulently antisocialist, anti-Semitic, intolerant of diversity, and aggressively nationalist.” Fascism, he concludes, “becomes primarily a type of politics, involving radical authoritarianism, militarized activism, and the drive for a centrally repressive state.” This is close to my own view. But to explain its popularity, Eley then returns us toward class analysis: Class confrontation produced the political stale- mate that allowed the Nazis in. This seems overstated. Fischer goes a little further: The Nazi Volksgemeinschaft was a truly national ideology, shared by millions of Germans of all classes. He suggests it was recognizably of the same twentieth-century family as the notion of “citizenship,” which priv- ileges national integration over class confrontation (1995: 125–8). This is very close to my own position that Nazism offered a plausible transcendent nation-statism.

Yet none of these scholars goes the next step, to identify a national- ist constituency that gave structural coherence to the Nazi movement. Indeed, Baldwin (1990) goes to the other extreme. Since he accepts that class will not explain things, he believes all “social interpretations” are finished. He rejects all social structure in favor of a psychologi- cal interpretation. “Anomie” and “uprootedness,” he argues, indicate the absence of social structure in the Nazi appeal. Like many others, he seems to believe that “economic” or “class” equals “social”: If class ex- planations of Nazism do not work, then Nazism must have lacked all social structure. These historians could benefit from a little more sociol- ogy, to appreciate that there are other social structures besides classes and markets. Nazi coherence rested – just as Italian fascism probably did – in the social constituency of what I termed “transcendent paramilitary nation-statism.”

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

German Sympathizers 203

conclusion: mobilizing the constituency of transcendent paramilitary nation-statism

Let me finally assemble the overall core Nazi constituency, providing enough committed members and sympathizers to permit the Nazi seizure of power. Of course, Nazis came from across the country, across its social, age, and gender structures. I make no claim to have explained all the German support for them, only its disproportionate core sources. One of these was at this stage Protestant, because the Evangelical Church saw itself as the soul of the German nation-state. Nazism was also strongly rooted among ethnic Ger- man refugees and among Germans from border areas that could be plausibly regarded as “threatened.” It was strongly rooted among public sector em- ployees, especially among men who had experienced military discipline, but also among civil servants, state-employed teachers, and public sector manual workers. All these might especially look to a strong state as the solution to social problems, but believe the Weimar state to be divided and feeble. It was strongly rooted among the universities and in the most educated strata in the population, imbued with a völkisch nationalism. All of these groups shared “nation-statism,” the belief that an activist state, embodying the culture of the Volk, could embody collective moral purposes.

These environments, already rightist nationalist before the war, then nourished the key carriers of fascism, two generations of young males launching paramilitary violence against “foreign” enemies at home and abroad. Members and militants from this core had stronger social roots to the nation-state than to modern industrial capitalism or class struggle. Their collective movement borrowed socialist notions of committed militancy and comradeship, adding a distinctive paramilitarism that heightened the caging of the youthful members. They were committed, “consciously German,” and some were very idealistic, while others were very violent (and some were both). The overall combination confused onlookers who were not interpreting social reality through the prism of either socialist or Catholic communities.

As well as these key carriers – thousands marching and assaulting – the Nazis attracted more diffuse support from most classes and generations – millions voting or sympathizing. The most striking characteristic of this broader one-third of the German population was that it was somewhat re- moved from the front line of class struggle. It was mainly outside the big city industrial areas, outside the sphere of the organized industrial working class, outside the highest, most modern circles of capital, outside the eco- nomically fraught world of the independent petty bourgeoisie, outside the

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

204 Fascists

high unemployment areas of the Great Depression. This popular support was most likely to fall for the Nazi paramilitary tactic that Nazi violence was only defensive and required buttressing by a regime more thoroughly committed to order. Popular support was reinforced by the more secretive machinations of a military and a civilian old regime that was also somewhat removed from the main arenas of modern class struggle. The sympathizers were not marginal to society as a whole. They were not deprived or alien- ated. They were more from agriculture, the public sector, the professions, education, small workshops, and small towns. Thus class conflict resulting in a supposed “class stalemate” was an important cause of the rise of Nazism to power – not primarily because Nazism represented some classes in conflict with other classes (though it was not entirely neutral, either), but because it promised to transcend class conflict, and because this promise was min- imally plausible in terms of policies offered and the social composition of those who offered them.

Most of these Germans were tired of class politics and German national weakness. Prewar conflict between the Kaiserreich old regime and the osten- sibly Marxist proletariat had actually been rather ritualized, and so through it all Germany had remained united and strong. But the war had destabilized the rituals and weakened both the old regime and the nation as a whole. A crushing and unexpected war defeat could be plausibly blamed on either the reactionary elites in charge of the war effort or on the socialists who lacked patriotism and assumed governmental responsibility for the surren- der. Germans then witnessed the turbulent class confrontations of the early postwar years, the loss of German territories, the burden of reparations, all enforced by foreign powers, enriching the French, the British, and the Slav populations of the east. Complicit in all these “internationalist” humilia- tions were the socialists and liberals who ran early Weimar and, perhaps less plausibly, the Jews. Germans then witnessed two international economic disasters – the inflation crisis and especially the Great Depression – which also brought a limited revival of class conflict. This one-third of Germans could be persuaded to curse foreigners and both class camps. Socialism of- fered only an utopian future and a chaotic present – as “Bolshevism” or “Judeo-Bolshevism” (as White Russian exiles and eastern ethnic Germans claimed) was doing just then in Russia. German socialists lacked the sup- port and the resolve to overthrow capitalism. They brought no solution, only more problems. Nor could an industrial and financial capitalism, iden- tified with internationalism, Judaism, liberalism, and Depression, overcome socialism and regenerate the economy. Nor did either great class camp seem willing to do much to remedy the laws of capitalist economics.

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

German Sympathizers 205

Hitler offered another solution, plausibly asserting that he would subordi- nate class conflict and capitalist “laws” to the common good of the nation – just as he would submit foreign powers and their domestic lackeys to resur- gent German power. To this third of the German population, located where it was, there seemed two plausible tasks: for a transcendent “third force” to acquire state power to overcome class conflict by any means necessary and to achieve progress by mobilizing a German national solidarity against all forms of divisiveness and foreignness. These seemed good reasons for taking Nazis seriously and sympathetically – for giving them a chance.

To those of us living amid functioning democracies, a military and an economic crisis still do not seem enough to cry out for such an extreme solution. That the Nazis would abolish democracy if they came to power was quite well known. Germany was not in chaos; its depression was no worse than the American depression. Democracy can handle such level of crisis. Party politics operate, as Lipset famously noted, as “the democratic translation of the class struggle.” Yet this is to ignore the political crisis of the German state. An advanced parliamentary democracy had not yet in- stitutionalized its rules of the game as the only rules in town. The rapidity of the transition had left conservative parts of parliament and the executive with ambivalent feelings toward democracy. Elites still felt they had an alter- native authoritarian option. Nor was the most pro-Nazi part of the German population strategically placed to initiate class and democratic compromise. Instead it was strategic and receptive to a “nation-statist” solution: an “autonomous” state standing “above” class conflict, pursuing the demands of the nation. Conservatives preferred a semi-authoritarian Kaiserreich. But that had been destroyed by catastrophic war defeat. Not only the monar- chy but also the formerly ruling conservative and national-liberal parties of the prewar period had been destroyed. The civil service was largely intact, but the army was radically cut back, licking its wounds, reluctant to inter- vene. As in Italy, the armed forces were immobilized by both old regime disintegration and their own receptivity to the paramilitary and militarist leanings of fascism. In neither country did fascists merely triumph merely through public opinion or the ballot box. They also deployed paramilitary force entwined with electoralism and they could also count on some elite sympathy for their goals and their paramilitary means. The old regime had been immobilized. Any milder authoritarianism would have to depend on the successor conservative and centrist parties, all (except the Catholic party) in decline, and the civil service. From 1930 these did indeed attempt their own authoritarian rule, but lacking the capacity for social mobilization, they failed. The shrewd use of these three resources – highly committed militants,

P1: JRT 0521831318c05.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:48

206 Fascists

widespread voter sympathy, and elite ambivalence and weakness – allowed the Nazi leaders to seize power with a mixture of coercion, electoral contest, and constitution manipulation.

The Nazis were indeed a third force – but less a third-class force than a distinctive nation-statist force that promised a “cleansing” paramilitarism. In descending order of explicitness the nation was to be cleansed of Bolsheviks/Marxists, Jews, Slavs, divisive politicians, and internationalists. Exactly what was meant by terms such as “exclusion” or “elimination” was unclear, especially to the German electorate, whose attention span was as limited as most electorates’. Had more than a handful bothered to wade through Mein Kampf, Hitler’s drift might have been clearer. But it needed other conditions, occurring after the seizure of power, to add mass murder to that drift – as my forthcoming volume shows.

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

6

Austro-Fascists, Austrian Nazis

During World War II the Allies proclaimed Austria “the first victim of Nazi aggression.” To define the 1938 Anschluss as a German invasion was to depict Austrians as innocent victims and Austrian fascists as a clique of collaborators, not a national mass movement. This is a distinctive way of not taking them seriously. The youthful wartime activities of the U.N. Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim that were revealed in 1988 shocked the world because they seemed to put him into this terrible extremist clique. Yet the truth is more shocking. Waldheim was no deviant, just a young, ambitious Austrian officer “doing his duty” (he said), assigned in the Balkans to assist in what the regimental reports termed “cleansings” to be carried out “without pity or mercy,” since “only a cold heart can command what needs to be commanded.” The majority of the Austrian electorate may have also thought this normal Austrian behavior, since despite the revelations they then voted him in as President of Austria (Ashman and Wagman 1988: chap. 4; Sully 1989).

Indeed, Austria might seem the most fascist country in the interwar world, since it had two fascist movements, each with mass support, each able to seize power and to govern the country. Yet some of their success was due to Austria’s position as a lesser Germanic power. The successes of Hitler were especially admired and emulated in Austria. Yet Austrians then contributed substantially to the German war effort and especially to the Final Solution, whose perpetrators were disproportionately Austrian (as we see in my forthcoming book). Austrian anti-Semitism was particularly brutal, sometimes shocking German SS officers administering deportations of Jews from the country (Botz 1987b; Bukey 1989, 1992; Ferenc 1989: 217; Parkinson 1989: 319–22; Stühlpfarrer 1989: 198–204). This chapter seeks to explain why fascism involving strong anti-Semitism was so popular in Austria. Though “the ordinary Austrian” was neither a fascist nor a

207

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

208 Fascists

murderer, the extent to which these acquired legitimacy, was nowhere greater than in Austria. So I ask who the Austrian fascists were, how they acquired legitimacy, and how they came to power.

two nation-states, two fascisms

In 1918 the Austrian nation-state was brand-new. Until that year Austria had been the heartland of the multinational Austro-Hungarian monarchy, ruling over fifty million people spread across much of Eastern and Southeastern Europe. Now a rump republic covered only that smallish country we call Austria, with six and a half million people, of whom 94 percent were eth- nically German. But if Austrian Germans were now to have a nation-state, which one would it be? There were two possible candidates: Austria itself – a second Kleindeutsch state – or Anschluss, union with neighboring Germany (the Grossdeutsch solution). The two rival fascisms became the more extreme versions of the two possible answers to this basic “national question.” Their extremism had two basic sources: a positive valuation of statism derived from this having been the heartland of a great historic state, and a positive val- uation of a revisionist nationalism in reaction against that “cosmopolitan” Empire and the Slav states that had displaced it. “Revisionism” was also double-edged. Austrians knew they could not restore empire themselves. Either Germans under the leadership of Germany could restore lost terri- tories and dominion or they could recriminate against those “traitors” who had lost them.

The movement generally called “Austro-fascism” wavered around the op- tion of an independent but recriminating Austria. Austro-fascism emerged out of paramilitaries formed in the aftermath of World War I, then con- solidated into the Heimwehr (“Homeguard”) rightist paramilitary of the late 1920s and early 1930s, and out of the conservative Christian So- cial Party, which won around 40 percent of the national vote in inter- war elections and headed all the elected governments. The Christian So- cials offered old regime continuation from the Habsburgs: No monarch, but a Catholic conservative nationalism with some authoritarian leanings. They were strongly rooted among the middle classes and across most of the countryside and provincial towns. But from 1930 their government depended on support in parliament from the more “radical” deputies of the Heimwehr. Most Christian Social leaders, including Chancellors Dollfüss and Schüschnigg, now drifted through corporatism toward fas- cism, though their fascism was more one of intentions than accomplished practices.

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

Austro-Fascists, Austrian Nazis 209

Austro-fascists drew heavily on the Catholic Church and the Habsburg legacy. The new Republic of Austria had been reduced down to the Empire’s Catholic heartland, distinctively conservative, attached to hier- archy and order. Yet old regime conservatism was now widely considered insufficient. Fascism seemed to offer a more modern alternative. Mussolini offered a promising blend of nationalist mobilization and hierarchical corpo- ratism, resonating here in Social Catholicism and in a romantic view of the supposedly corporate “estate” traditions of Austrian history. Conservatives might thus continue to rule by appropriating the more “top-down” ele- ments of fascism. This was the main thrust of Austro-fascism. In its desire to modernize and mobilize while also relying on the power of traditional social hierarchies, it began semi-authoritarian and then moved to semi-reactionary authoritarianism and beyond. Though it drew some doctrines from Italian fascism, it most resembled the Franco and Salazar regimes: authoritarian, corporatist, traditionalist, a Catholic strain of fascist ideology lacking the turbulent, violent mass paramilitarism characteristic of German and Italian fascism. Its Heimwehr paramilitary did aim to fill this role, but had only lim- ited success. The single party introduced in 1934, “The Fatherland Front,” was (like its Spanish and Portuguese counterparts) a top-down organization, integrated into the traditional state. Its leaders wanted mass members the better to control them, and people joined in order to get on. Chancellor Schüschnigg, visiting an industrial town, is said to have asked a local party boss about local conditions:

“Well,” came the reply, “there is a little handful of communists, perhaps two or three per cent. The Nazis, unfortunately, are fairly strong; lets say twenty per cent, perhaps twenty-five . . . the ‘Reds’ were always well organized here. There is no doubt that sixty per cent remain with them and possibly even . . .” “My God!” interrupted Schüschnigg, “How many are in the Fatherland Front?” “Why everybody, Herr Chancellor – absolutely one hundred per cent.” (Pauley 1981: 160)

The Heimwehr provided most of the radicalism. It began as a loose associ- ation of paramilitaries formed around 1918, fighting against “reds” and foreigners in border regions. After the territories were lost, nationalist recrimination took over their rhetoric. I leave anti-Semitism until later, but Austro-fascism expressed “Aryan” nationalism, with a strong sense of the “enemy,” aiming to unify “the entire German Volk” to “fight against Marxism and bourgeois democracy, [for the] creation of an authoritarian state” and to “combine on a völkisch basis and eliminate the international Jewish rabble which is sucking the last drop of blood from our veins.” It inherited the völkisch tradition of denouncing capitalism as “Jewish,” but

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

210 Fascists

funding by employers undermined its claims to be a “third force” (Siegfried 1979). Nor could it agree on the form of its authoritarian state. The 1930 rambling Korneuburg Oath advocated seizing the state and remolding the economy: “[W]e repudiate western parliamentary democracy and the party state,” desiring “government by the corporations (Stände)” and “fighting against the subversion of our Volk by Marxist class-struggle and liberal and capitalist economics”; corporatism “will overcome the class struggle” since “the state is the personification of the whole Volk.” The enemy was “Bolshe- vism, Marxism and their handmaid, the democratic-parliamentarian party system, the causes of the existing corruption and the principal enemies of völkisch traits, Christian convictions, German ideology [and] . . . a Ger- manic racial consciousness.” One leader declared that “only fascism could now save us (loud and enthusiastic applause)” (quotes from Carsten 1977: 44, 47, 172, 213–14; Jedlicka 1979: 226, 233–4). Though lacking an ac- tual policy program, the slogans sounded fascist: Cleanse the nation from its ethnic/political enemies and establish authoritarian statism. But the claim to class transcendence was undercut by an evident capitalist bias. What “cleans- ing” might imply, moreover, was obscure. Most Christian Social politicians implied only discrimination and second-class citizenship for their enemies, but some Heimwehr activists seemed to imply a great deal more. Seeing their enemies in racial terms, they believed they could not be “converted” or persuaded to cooperate.

Estimates for 1928–30 put Heimwehr members at 200,000 and its armed paramilitaries at 120,000. This is probably exaggerated. It would have been greater than the Austrian army, reduced by the peace treaties to only 25,000 men plus the police and security forces of 14,000. Heimwehr units were never cohesive and their performance always fell far short of their boasting (Wiltschegg 1985: 292). The paramilitaries then declined to around 50,000 amid factionalism caused by the leadership turning to electoral politics. Its mediocre electoral results were just sufficient to end the absolute parliamen- tary majority of the Christian Socials. Heimwehr leaders were now invited to enter the cabinet, and their influence on the Christian Socials grew. They were obvious allies in the struggle against socialism and might be used to undercut the appeal of the more secular Nazis. But they also influenced the Christian Socials. In 1934 Dollfüss proclaimed his regime corporatist and formed his Fatherland Front. The Heimwehr helped to put down an at- tempted Nazi putsch later in the year, though Dollfüss was killed in the fray. His successor, Schüschnigg, merged the Heimwehr into the Fatherland Front in 1936. As the leaders of the Heimwehr became domesticated inside the regime, many of its more radical militants became disaffected and joined the

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

Austro-Fascists, Austrian Nazis 211

Nazis. One of them was Kaltenbruner, who rose to be Himmler’s deputy in the SS. The drift was particularly evident in Styria. At least three of the fu- ture SS police chiefs of occupied Eastern Europe (Constantin Kammerhofer, August Meyszner, and Hans Rauter) began their life of illegal violence in the Styrian Heimatschutz.

The Heimwehr provided the turbulent bottom-up paramilitarism charac- teristic of fascism. But its ideology was woolly and varied: In Styria it was clearly fascist, in Lower Austria and the Tyrol probably only reactionary authoritarian. In government the movement was somewhat conservative and procapitalist. Its “estates” corporatism was proudly proclaimed, but not implemented. Its nationalism was racist and anti-Semitic, but which state should embody it? It had considered Anschluss with Germany, but since Germany was dominated first by socialists, then Nazis, Austro-fascists came to favor an independent Austria.

So some doubt whether Austro-fascists were truly “fascist” (Carsten 1977: 237, 244–5; Payne 1980: 109). Some call them “clerico-fascist” (Gulick 1948: II, part 7). Edmondson (1978, 1985) portrays them as violent “spoilers” for fascism rather than the real thing. Wiltschegg (1985: 270) aptly sums up with two Austrian colloquialisms, Möchtegern and Maul – loosely translated as “wannabee” and “gob” – fascism. Yet, unlike the Iberian cases, Austro-fascism combined corporatism, violent para-militaries, and cleans- ing anti-Semitic nationalism. It certainly aspired to be a violent and ruthless mass movement, even if it could not quite become such. After the Anschluss most of its activists participated enthusiastically in the National Socialist regime of the Greater German Reich. They were quite ready for fascism, even if they could not quite get there by their own efforts. Adding all these characteristics together yields a borderline fascism containing much tension between fascists, corporatists, and semi-reactionary authoritarians.

But the Austrian Nazi Party clearly was fascist. It could trace its ancestry back to 1903, well before the German Nazis. After 1918 its combination of racist nationalism and proletarian socialism brought growth in the bor- der areas nurturing völkisch movements. The Nazis emerged mostly out of the constituency of the German Nationalist parties, which received around 20 percent of the early interwar vote, dominating border regions next to Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Germany. Their nationalism was more racist. But anticlericalism, disunity, and later subservience to Hitler led to stagnation. Up to the early 1930s its ideology and organization closely re- sembled German Nazism. There is no need here to repeat these details, though it is worth noting the Austrian party was probably more anti-Semitic. A Social Democrat wrote to his wife from prison: “The real plague are

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

212 Fascists

the National Socialist [prisoners]. . . . Most of them are terrible anti-semitic rowdies whose only argument is ‘The Jew’ ” (Carsten 1977: 251). Hitler’s successes in Germany turned the Austrian Nazis decisively to the Anschluss option and aided their growth. In the last free local elections between 1931 and 1933 the Nazis usually polled 15 to 24 percent of the vote (Kirk 1996: 35–9). They reached 41 percent in the very last election, in Innsbruck in 1933. The German National Party was collapsing and the Nazis were also capturing 10 to 20 percent of the Christian Social and Socialist votes. Some say the Nazis would have peaked at 25 to 30 percent of the national vote (e.g., Pauley 1981: 83, 86). Chancellor Dollfüss disagreed, since he risked no further elections and tried to suppress the Nazis. Yet the clandestine party continued to grow: 69,000 members in 1934, 164,000 by time of the Anschluss, and 688,000 by 1941 – 10 percent of the Austrian population. This “illegal period” was crucial in the training of a core of “radical” Aus- trian Nazi killers, who came into their own during the Final Solution (as we see in my forthcoming book).

These two authoritarian rightist camps were opposed by the Socialist Party of Austria, receiving just under 40 percent of the vote, dominating urban working-class districts, especially in Vienna. Since only Socialists re- sisted fascism to the end, Austria was the only country in which fascism was endorsed in free elections by parties representing the majority elec- torate. This success makes it urgent that we explain the rise of Austrian fascists.

who were the fascists?

Age, Gender, and Militarism

Fascists were again disproportionately young, male, and military. Both move- ments remained quite young, especially the Nazis. In the late 1920s Heimwehr members averaged twenty-seven years of age; in the early 1930s two national leadership groups averaged thirty-eight. In the late 1920s Nazi members av- eraged twenty-nine, while the SA averaged only twenty-three. The Nazi Party did not age much: In 1933 Nazis still averaged only thirty-three, in early 1938 only thirty-six, rising to thirty-nine during 1940–41, before a massive injection of new blood from the youth movement brought it down to twenty-three in 1942–4. Yet, as in other countries, extreme left activists were just as young. The Nazis rounded up in prison camps after 1934 were slightly younger than their communist-socialist and Austro-fascist coun- terparts (since more were under twenty), but slightly older than the leftists

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

Austro-Fascists, Austrian Nazis 213

killed, wounded, or arrested during the disturbances of 1919 and 1927 (Botz 1983: 66, 155, 325–7).

As in Germany, it is usually asserted that Austrian fascism was dominated by two age cohorts: the “front generation” of younger ex-soldiers (born 1890–1900) and the “home generation” (born 1900–14), the schoolchildren of the war period, with some of both cohorts becoming the first postwar university students (Pauley 1981: 91–2; Wiltschegg 1985: 274; Botz 1987: 253–7). Age data for the Nazis show a ratio of only 0.20 for those born before 1878, rising to 0.75 for 1879–88, parity for 1889–93, and then overrepresentation increasing from 1.2 for the 1894–8 cohort to 1.5 for those born 1899–1903 and 1904–8, 1.8 for the 1909–13 cohort, and then back down to parity for the few born later. Thus the “front generation” was not nearly as prominent as the younger “home generation” that dominated the movement far more than in Germany. Nazis remained younger than Austro-fascists, as we might expect from a movement peaking later.

I have found no exact data on soldiers in either movement. Yet mili- tary veterans were obviously important, especially among the first wave of Austro-fascists, able to appropriate the military traditions of the old empire. The original core of the Heimwehr was the 50,000–strong “Association of Front Fighters.” Initial postwar Nazi growth may have also depended on ex-soldiers, but its stagnation, followed by later growth, diminished their relative contribution. Since both movements remained quite young, and since Austria was allowed only a tiny interwar army, there would have been few war veterans in either movement by the mid-1930s. The lasting impact of militarism, as in other countries, was rather in the realm of paramilitary organization and ideology. The combination of discipline, comradeship, and hierarchy encouraged “organic” authoritarianism and the cult of the leader. But police, security forces, and army personnel also provided considerable aid, first to the Heimwehr, then later to the Nazis, especially younger officers and men (Carsten 1977: 330, 252). Austrian fascisms were capable of renew- ing themselves among young soldiers and civilians, as middle-aged veterans dropped out, presumably to spend time with their families. Thus, though first boosted by the wartime experience of a particular generation, fascism conquered Austria (as it did Germany) by its ability to socialize a second generation into paramilitary nation-statism through the interwar period. Fascism was the coming idea of the age, at least in this region of Europe.

For gender the data are sparse. There were no women members in the Heimwehr, though there was a large women’s support group. I have found no information on gender and Heimwehr voters. But the Nazis had lots of women members. In 1919 women had comprised 15 percent of the party’s

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

214 Fascists

candidates in the national election, as much as any party anywhere in this period. Then it masculinized, partly on Hitler’s express orders: Women made up only 6 percent of new members during 1926–31. Thereafter they rose again, to 12 percent among 1933 new members, 28 percent in 1938, and remaining just below 20 percent during the war. But these many women were kept in subordinate roles, as they were in Austro-fascism. Uniquely, Austrian women voted separately from men, so we know how many women voted Nazi. Most voted quite similarly to men, probably as family blocs. Yet there were slight differences. Women contributed 46 percent of the Nazi vote in 1919, 42 percent in 1930, and 47 percent in 1932 in Vienna – very slight underrepresentation. The Communists got proportionately fewer women’s votes than Nazis did, the Socialists slightly more, while the Christian Socials got the most, with women contributing a clear majority of its votes, presumably through women’s greater religiosity (Pauley 1981: 101–2; 1989: 42). Women were probably supportive of the Dollfüss regime – though there were now no elections to test this. Women seemed at least as committed as were men to Nazism after the Anschluss and seemed to have a bigger impact on the new regime than they did in Germany. The regime operated less gender-segregated policies in Austria than in the Reich as a whole. For example, female labor force participation was much higher (Bukey 1992: 223–4).

Austrian fascism thus seems less gender-biased than most fascisms, or indeed than most political movements of the period. Though its paramil- itaries resembled the adolescent male gangs of fascism elsewhere, it re- ceived almost majority approval (and substantial participation) from Austrian women. Many eyewitnesses describe women bystanders as being particu- larly unpleasant toward Jews during deportations. Fascism resonated amid “national” climates. Austro-fascism resonated in political traditions and in the Catholic Church, Nazism resonated in pan-German nationalism. Nei- ther of these was distinctively masculine. Open demonstrations of anti- Semitism were considered more legitimate in Austria than in countries to the west or south, and so could be evinced by ordinary women and children, as well as by male militants. Austrian fascism and anti-Semitism was at the heart of national life, led by young men but abetted by much of the population.

Region and Religion

Since Austria was 96 percent German-speaking and 90 percent Catholic, the only significant ethnic/religious conflict was Christian versus Jew. Al- most no Jews were Nazis, and few were Austro-fascists. Yet regional patterns

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

Austro-Fascists, Austrian Nazis 215

of support for fascism reflected national and religious undertones as well as class and sectoral differences. Like Spain, the country had a politically riven capital. Vienna was the historic seat of a great empire, with strong military, civil service, and Catholic traditions, all of which fueled Austro-fascism. It also contained the bulk of the Jewish population, fueling both fascisms among some of their Christian neighbors. Yet Vienna also had large-scale industry and a well-organized proletariat that gave political control of the capital to socialism. Fascism increasingly dominated the provinces and the countryside. Here class mattered less in determining political loyalties than it did in the capital. Some provinces felt border tensions. Many Germans of all classes who lived adjacent to the new Slav states felt threatened. Both fascisms recruited disproportionately from Carinthia, Styria, and areas of Burgenland lost to Hungary. One small Burgenland village alternating be- tween Hungarian and Austrian control produced dozens of Nazis and several SS men, the most notorious being the brutal Gestapo war criminal Alois Brunner. As small children this cohort of locals had imbibed anti-Slav and anti-Semitic sentiments from family and church, and they had nurtured German nationalism in school, where they had been forced to learn Magyar (Epelbaum 1990). Their border anxieties, more than their class composi- tion, made them fervently nationalist, favoring a strong state to protect the nation.

Austria also had a half-buried religious history influencing regional re- cruitment into its two fascisms. The old Habsburg heartland was deeply Catholic and sustained the Christian Socials and Austro-fascism, whereas the westerly formerly Protestant provinces were a little more secular, and moving toward German Nationalism and Nazism. Nazi relations with the Catholic Church proved ambivalent. Though many Nazis were anticlerical, Nazi leaders knew unrestrained anticlericalism would mean political suicide and were ready to compromise with the church. Ambivalence was recip- rocated by the clergy. Some priests were later imprisoned and a handful executed as opponents of the Nazi regime. But though initially Austro- fascist, the church hierarchy became collaborators. They preferred Nazism to democratic socialism. Thus they negotiated with – and then came to support – the regime except when it threatened the church’s institutional interests. The 4 percent of the population who were Protestant seemed to have voted overwhelmingly Nazi, and their ministers were often alleged to be Nazis (Carsten 1977; Pauley 1981: 96, 99–100; Botz 1987: 262–3; Hanisch 1989; Bukey 1992: 226).

These religious and regional differences involved different views regarding the nation-state. Initially, the Catholic Church supported an independent

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

216 Fascists

Austria (since that would be Catholic), while Protestants wanted to lean on Germany. Those in the regions bordering Germany felt more akin to Reich Germans than did those in the Habsburg heartlands. Those bor- dering Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia looked to the stronger protection a pan-German state could provide. Though the different provinces had slightly different class structures, this paled beside their different visions of the nation-state. Yet by 1938 preferences were changing: It was now clear that Austria could not have its own nation-state but would be absorbed into the German Reich. Historic aspirations for a “Greater Reich” were being realized. Such a Reich would not be distinctively Protestant and it would tilt eastward, into the traditional Austrian sphere of influence. More Austrians could thus support it. Thus Austrian fascists of both types, of both reli- gions, of most regions, and of most classes, could now serve it with some enthusiasm. Nazism became truly a national movement.

Class, Sector, and Economy

How much can be explained by class conflict and other economic power relations? Previous chapters have found that different fascist movements had somewhat different class compositions. Though both the Italian and German movements recruited members from all classes, the Italians were somewhat more petty bourgeois and bourgeois than were the Germans. The two Austrian fascisms, one more influenced by Mussolini, the other by Hitler, differed accordingly.

Yet opinions differ about the Heimwehr. Newman (1970: 261) says it got recruits from all but the urban-industrial working class. Edmondson (1978: 38–9, 59) says it was led by professional and reserve officers, disentitled aristocrats, white-collar workers, and “disillusioned youth,” with the rank and file being “probably peasants and lower middle classes” – which he explains means tradesmen, lawyers, and bureaucrats. August Meyszner seems to fit this leadership stereotype perfectly. The son of an army lieutenant, he served in both the police and the army before World War I, was wounded and decorated in the war, and then – deprived of his minor title – farmed in his native village in Styria. He was a Heimwehr militia leader, then a Heimatblock parliamentary deputy before switching to the Nazis. He was imprisoned several times during the republic, and looked back proudly on his record of violence. Meyszner became a notorious wartime SS police chief, eventually hanged by the Yugoslavs in 1948 (Birn 1991).

But Edmondson also endorses the New York Times’s improbable estima- tion in 1927 that the Heimwehr was 70 percent peasant, 20 percent student,

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

Austro-Fascists, Austrian Nazis 217

and 10 percent industrial worker. Carsten (1977: 93, 113, 120, 123) says that most of the Viennese branch were workers and public sector employ- ees. But elsewhere (apart from Styria during the Depression), he believes it was mainly a rural “movement of protest against modernization and urban- ization.” He notes that both the Heimwehr and the Nazis recruited among völkisch community clubs, especially gymnastics clubs, and these were impor- tant for attracting students and young people. Botz (1987a: 257–63) believes that many Heimwehr leaders were aristocrats, military veterans, and students, and speculates that agricultural, especially forestry, workers on large estates were overrepresented among members. Most agree it was essentially rural.

Not all these views can be correct. The quantitative data, though lim- ited, refute some of them. Though there were a few prominent aristocrats, Wiltschegg shows they represented under 2 percent of leaders. My Ap- pendix Tables 6.1 and 6.2 show that Heimwehr leaders and activists were drawn quite broadly from across the class structure, somewhat biased toward the upper and middle classes, but less so than other nonsocialist parties of the period. There were many ex-army officers and NCOs. They were mostly provincial, though not rural. The Heimwehr (and the Christian Socials from whom they drew) were the only movements relying fairly equally on rural and urban activists. We also have small samples of militants. Among thirty- six mostly urban militants arrested by the police for political violence, the “classic petty bourgeoisie” and workers were both overrepresented, with ra- tios of 1.71 and 1.16, respectively (Botz 1980). Among forty-two Heimwehr “martyrs,” 43 percent were workers, 21 percent were entrepreneurs (big or small?), and the rest were scattered through the class structure (Wiltschegg 1985: 278). Can we conclude that the most violent of the Heimwehr were disproportionately workers (as usual among fascists) and the classic petty bourgeoisie (very unusual)? With such small samples we cannot be sure.

The Heimwehr vote was not rural, but slightly urban. In 1930 there was a negative correlation (−.15) between its vote and the proportion employed in agriculture in each commune, and positive correlations between its vote and the degree of urbanization (.14) and the proportion employed in the tertiary sector (.15; Botz 1987a: 269). Since these are low correlations, Austro-fascism probably appealed quite broadly across the country. It also had workers’ associations. Though much smaller than those of the Social Democrats, they totaled nearly 100,000 members, especially concentrated among white-collar and public sector workers, and their numbers were holding up better than were the socialist unions after 1930 (Wiltschegg 1985: 274–83; Kirk 1996: 33). The Heimwehr did well in a mining and heavy industrial area in Upper Styria, whose members were mainly workers

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

218 Fascists

(Pauley 1981: 76). Its trade union outstripped the socialist union from 1928, and the area returned a Heimwehr MP from 1930. Lewis (1991) attributes this success to management repression of socialist unions and favored treatment given to the organization. Since socialists were weak in this area and most jobs were unskilled, management could fire leftists and replace them with the docile unemployed. But this cannot explain the electoral success here (in a secret ballot) of the Heimwehr: Workers seem to have turned more willingly toward fascism than Lewis will admit. The Styrian branch was the most violent in the Heimwehr, actually affiliating with the Nazis in 1933. Though probably skewed toward the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, Austro-fascism was fairly broadly based. While its conservatism encouraged a bourgeois and rural composition, its fascism encouraged countertrends.

We know more about the Nazis. Their 1930 vote was similar to the Heimwehr’s: a low negative correlation of −.20 with agricultural employ- ment and low positive ones with urbanization (.15) and tertiary sector employment (.21). Originally urban, they were keen to expand among peasants, whom they referred to as “the backbone of Austria.” Electoral success followed in the early 1930s in rural Styria and Carinthia as the Heimwehr stalled. The participation of peasants in the failed Nazi putsch of 1934 shocked conservatives. But the fairly low correlations may indicate that their support, though uneven, was quite broad. The Nazis also had one at- traction only contingently connected to fascism: They favored Anschluss and after Hitler’s coup they were the party most likely to accomplish it. Many supported the Nazis as the most likely way to achieve union with Germany – and economic prosperity. Anyone depending on tourism, an important in- dustry, might acquire Nazi sympathies: Anschluss would open the borders and bring the tourists back. German-owned companies were also interested in free trade, whereas many Austrian ones favored Austrian protectionism. Electoral support need not indicate fascist beliefs, only materialism.

Yet the Nazi core was genuinely fascist. The small prewar DAP and the early postwar DNSAP were genuinely nationalist and socialist. Their mem- bers were mainly workers, especially railway workers (public sector workers yet again). Yet the early 1920s saw an influx of students, teachers, and pro- fessionals. A class-cum-generational conflict then weakened the party for most of the decade (Pauley 1981: 27–9, 40–1). Appendix Table 6.1 contains membership data from 1923. The ratio for workers during 1923–5 was 0.82 – slight underrepresentation – dropping to a very low 0.36 among the new members of 1926–32, rising again to 0.67 among new members of 1934–8. As in Germany, public sector workers were more fascist. But though the party always contained between a quarter and a third workers

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

Austro-Fascists, Austrian Nazis 219

and artisans, it had become more middle-class than its German counter- part. This was essentially because Austrian socialism was better entrenched in the urban-industrial areas, especially in Vienna. Here the socialists dom- inated working-class districts. Appendix Table 6.1 shows that socialism was much more proletarian than Nazism. The Nazis offered serious competi- tion only among public sector workers, especially railroads, trams, and postal services, and in outlying mining areas and in German-owned companies in the provinces.

As in other countries, workers figured more prominently in the paramili- taries than in the parties. Appendix Table 6.1 shows that many workers were among those Nazis on police files and that workers comprised 52 percent and 39 percent of Botz’s small samples of the SA and SS, respectivly – though this was well below the 82 percent worker membership in the milder so- cialist paramilitary, the Schutzbund. One SA leader described his worker recruits as being “the true believers,” and during the Dollfüss repression the percentage of workers increased (Botz 1980: 196, 206, 221; Pauley 1981: 97–8).

Fascism appealed more to workers outside Vienna. “Red Vienna,” where half the socialist members lived, was not typical of Austria. Provincial so- cialism was weaker, less Marxian, more fluid. As in Romania and Hungary, fascism and socialism could overlap, especially in German Nationalist areas where many socialists and Nazis shared anticlericalism, anticapitalism, and anti-Semitism. Though socialist leaders opposed anti-Semitism, they were reluctant to much publicize this since they believed many of their supporters hated Jews. Their preferred solution to the “Jewish problem” was assimila- tion of the Jews, not multiculturalism. Nor did all provincial socialists share the Viennese orthodoxy that socialism and Nazism were polar opposites. Both parties believed discontented militants were switching between them, the better to fight the real enemy, Austrian conservatism. After 1934 much of this movement went to the Nazis, though its extent is difficult to gauge (Kirk 1996: 44). A few socialist Schutzbund units defected en bloc, while two socialists who fled Linz after the failed uprising in 1934 returned in 1938 as SS officers (Bukey 1986: 136). The Nazis plausibly promised full employment. Since this had been achieved in Germany, this promise was influential among workers. The Gestapo reported during the Anschluss that “an enthusiasm existed among the workers for national Socialism such as no other government before had been able to sustain” (Bukey 1978: 317). For a while in 1938 the new regime kept its promises: Unemployment was slashed by 60 percent, benefits improved, and wages rose for at least a year. Thereafter the Nazi economy was in difficulties. Middle-class opportunists

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

220 Fascists

were now entering the Nazi Party in large numbers, while worker disillu- sionment grew. The limited wartime dissent found by Kirk (1996) – leaflets, graffiti, and barroom shouting matches – mainly came from workers (Bukey 1989: 155–6; 1992: 210–19; Konrad 1989). Workers had made more of a contribution to Nazism during the period that really mattered, 1934 to 1938. But this was a cross-class, not a proletarian, party, like its German counterpart.

Who were the middle-class members? Even more than in Germany, be- fore 1934 they were disproportionately “academic professionals” – civil ser- vants, qualified professionals, and students (the so-called Aryan intelligentsia). By 1918 the universities were suffused with authoritarian ideas, especially the Catholic corporatism of the sociologist Othmar Spann, whose ideas were a common jumping-off point for intellectual fascism. From 1930 Nazi student organizations captured student governments at several universities and became the largest national student movement. Teachers and professors became especially Nazi, followed, it is usually said, by lawyers, veterinar- ians, pharmacists, architects, and engineers – many apparently switching from the Heimwehr (Carsten 1977: 191, 198; Pauley 1981: 94; 1989: 41–2). Appendix Table 6.1 shows that public employees were the most overrep- resented among the Nazis before 1933 and again between 1939 and 1941 (constituting 20 to 27% of members, with ratios of between 2.0 and 2.5). My forthcoming volume shows that war criminals were disproportionately drawn from the police force, the military, and lawyers in the public service. In the period of persecution, from 1934 to 1938, the “official” numbers of Nazi public sector workers obviously declined. Bukey (1978) estimates that half the Linz party had depended on state employment, many now being fired (some fled to Germany). Others concealed their membership.

In my sample of war criminals discussed in detail in my forthcoming volume, it is especially difficult to tell when some of the Austrians who were police officers or civil servants had actually joined the Nazis. Men such as Franz Stangl, commandant at Treblinka, on trial for his life, tried to put the date of joining as late as possible. However, men like him were already informally cooperating with the Nazis. The Nazi vote was almost always higher in those provincial capitals and county seats containing sub- stantial public administrations (Pauley 1981: 95). Civil servants, judges, and other administrators were persistently biased toward both fascist move- ments, while the Vienna civil service helped to organize the Anschluss (Botz 1988).

We can directly compare different kinds of political activists in Linz. Bukey’s (1986) data are given in Appendix Table 6.2. They indicate that the

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

Austro-Fascists, Austrian Nazis 221

Nazis had more professionals than any other party and were more proletarian and less petty bourgeois than any other except communists and socialists. Appendix Table 6.1, rows 8 and 9, detail Nazis and leftists on Vienna police files for violence. Some 82 percent of the leftists and 40 percent of the Nazis (a ratio of 0.75) were workers; there were more white-collar and student Nazis (ratios of 2.64 and 16.67). Rows 10 and 11 detail inmates of a prison camp after the failed socialist and Nazi uprisings of 1933–4 – a sample of the fighters of the two movements. But there is a problem: the numerous “artisans.” In my table they are assigned (as they are by the author of the study) to the petty bourgeoisie. This yields only 38 percent of workers among the Nazis (a ratio of 0.71), 48 percent (0.90) among the socialists, and 53 percent (0.98) among the communists. It is unlikely that workers would be underrepresented among all three political groups. As in Germany, many of the “artisans” were probably workers. If we added half of them, workers would be equally represented at around parity (1.00) among Nazis and socialists and overrepresented among the communists (at about 1.20). This is probably closer to the truth. Nazi fighters would thus appear fairly proletarian – and included the most unskilled workers. Among the middle- class inmates, students (a massive ratio of 11.00) and private employees (ratio 1.70) were overrepresented among the Nazis, and professionals among all three groups (ratios just above 2.50). The SA also had more students and workers than did the party (Carsten 1977: 198). Thus Nazi fighters were mostly young workers and students, with a broad scattering of the middle class – and an absent “classic petty bourgeoisie.”

So the Nazis were led by public employees (especially those concerned with public order) and by professionals, with a broad-ranging if slightly bourgeois and petty bourgeois membership, though depending on young workers (especially in the public sector), students, and white-collar work- ers to do the paramilitary dirty work. Probably underrepresented were the “classic petty bourgeoisie” and most groups in the private manufacturing and distributive sectors. Again, we see a constituency seemingly surveying class conflict from outside, probably responding to fascist claims to be able to transcend class conflict.

Can fascist support be explained in terms of the condition of the economy? Partially, yes, because of the distinctive way the Austrian econ- omy related to the German one. The Great Depression certainly hurt Austria hard. Its 23 percent fall in GDP was the greatest in Europe, as Table 2.1 showed (though it was less than the fall in the United States and Canada). The peak year for unemployment proved to be 1933. Yet unemployment remained high until the Anschluss, partly because of Hitler’s blockade of

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

222 Fascists

the Austrian economy. Fascist surges in Austria correlate quite well with economic recession. The Heimwehr and antiliberal, anticapitalist populism grew rapidly at the onset of the Depression; the Nazis grew as it peaked and endured. The Dollfüss/Schüschnigg governments certainly believed that economic distress lay behind political discontent. Fascists claimed that be- hind government economic failures lay national disunity fomented by Jews and Bolsheviks. National cleansing and corporatist reorganization could remedy this. Some Austrians accepted this argument, but more perceived that governments were not delivering the economic goods and that a union with Germany might, since it would bring integration with the successful economy next door. Economic crisis was a major factor in the collapse of the republic and especially in the Nazi seizure of power. The Nazis seemed to have the best policy solution: Anschluss. Nazism resonated strongly in the material experience of Austrian families, for more straightforward economic reasons than in any of the other countries.

But were the worst hit by economic difficulties also the most fascist? The fascist core identified above is often explained in terms of overcrowded universities and professions, unemployed former civil servants and army officers, and declining civil servant living standards. Fascists were “the groups which were the main victims of the great economic crisis” (says Carsten 1977: 206, 331–2; cf. Siegfried 1979). This is to explain fascism principally in terms of economic power relations. Yet the evidence is equivocal. Much of the Austrian public sector, armed forces and universities, previously the backbone of a Great Power, were “the ultimate losers” in the Hapsburg collapse (Bukey 1978: 325). “Losing” obviously did mean material loss, though it also meant losing position in society, social meaning, and purpose. Yet Botz (despite appearing to accept a materialist argument) shows that civil servant income levels and unemployment rates had not worsened in relation to those of workers. Newman (1970: 257) observes that though many civil servants and officers were unemployed, most had already been German nationalists for many years, and this was the decisive spur to their fascism. Moreover, the Nazi elite in Linz had seen more upward than downward mobility, with a relatively high level of education. Bukey (1978: 323–5) doubts they were “marginal men,” especially after bourgeois Pan Germans began to swarm into the movement during the 1930s. Economic problems gave a general boost to Nazism but do not seem to have particularly attracted its militants.

Of course, since Austrian unemployment levels remained high right up to the Anschluss, many Nazis were unemployed. But in my sample of war crimi- nals (a sample of more “radical” Nazis described in my forthcoming volume)

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

Austro-Fascists, Austrian Nazis 223

it is usually difficult to tell which came first, extremism or unemployment. Vinzenz Nohel, a mechanic, was intermittently unemployed, but probably when already a Nazi member (his brother, an SA militant, certainly was). Josef Schwammberger, a shop assistant, ended fifteen months’ unemploy- ment by joining the SS, where he promptly became extremely active. But he had been forced to move at age six with his family from the Austrian Tyrol when the area was ceded to Italy in 1918, and seems to have had extreme views while quite young. He ended up an NCO guard in death camps, where a survivor said of him, “I couldn’t call him a beast because I wouldn’t want to embarrass the beast. He just killed because he wanted to kill.” Herbert Andorfer, later commandant at Semlin camp, Belgrade, was forced by the Depression to leave the university without completing his degree. But he seems to have joined the Nazi Party a few months earlier. Dr. Irmfried Eberl, later briefly commandant at Treblinka death camp, could not find public medical employment in Austria, but this was apparently because he was already a known Nazi. Adolf Eichmann, not actually un- employed but not a success as a salesman, joined the Nazis on the advice of his more successful acquaintance, Kaltenbrunner. So far as we can tell (be- hind the lies he told during his trial), career frustrations were inextricably mixed up with his ideological discontents. Obviously, mass unemployment did play a substantial role in drawing Austrians toward Nazism – especially since Hitler seemed to offer a solution. But Nazism does not seem to have appealed disproportionately to those actually unemployed. Economic prob- lems brought mass Nazi sympathizers, but not the core militants who actually secured victory.

Both Austrian fascisms were boosted by economic discontent, both had their class biases. Both probably underrepresented industrial workers in the party, though not in paramilitary activism. Both overrepresented pub- lic employees, the Nazis underrepresented farmers, the Heimwehr under- represented private sector white-collar workers. Yet their electoral support was broader spread than their rivals’. The Socialist Party of Austria, with a massive negative correlation in 1930 of −.70 with agricultural employment and large positive ones of .60 with urbanization and .45 with tertiary sector employment, was trapped inside urban-industrial ghettos. Since in Austria these were large, the socialists did well. But not quite well enough actu- ally to win national elections. The Christian Social Party reversed all three correlations (respectively, .45, −.40 and −.31), being relatively weak out- side agriculture. The Austro-fascist social base then steadily narrowed. The Dollfüss regime, swimming against the pro-German tide, became distinctly upper-class and old regime, its group photographs filled with clerical and

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

224 Fascists

military uniforms and expensive suits. In contrast, the Nazis became more populist.

Botz concludes that they were two “heterogeneous catch-all-parties” or “asymmetrical people’s parties” – a conclusion identical to the new or- thodoxy on German Nazism. In this country, many turned to the Nazis because their main attraction or repulsion was felt for others. The Austrian Nazis rose on the coat-tails of Hitler and the economic and military strength of Germany – both increasingly attractive to Germans in neighboring coun- tries. And in a three-way rivalry – between Social Christians, German Nationalists, and Socialists – each could appeal to the enemy of its enemy. In the late 1930s the Nazis recruited more workers and socialists by offer- ing the only remaining “radical” alternative to the Austro-fascists, and they recruited Austro-fascists by offering the only viable nonsocialist national- ism. Yet nation-statist constituencies provided a solid basis of support. Once again, those in public institutions (army, civilian employment, and higher education, with an academic professional penumbra) plus those whose po- sition made them believe in a strong, integral nation (especially border Austrians) provided the core. Once again, Austrian fascism also added on support from people lying outside the urban and industrial capitalist core of the class struggle. Having seen the republic stalemated by conflict between an urban-industrial socialism and a rural-provincial conservatism, many gravi- tated to a plausible fascist promise to “transcend” national division. But the unusually strong appeal of fascism here was probably due to the possibility that this ethnic German country could unite with the economically and geopolitically more successful Nazi Reich. All four sources of social power seem to have been involved in this appeal, though with macro-economic factors playing a larger role than elsewhere.

austrian anti-semitism

Austria’s most significant contribution to European fascism was to heighten its political anti-Semitism. Though there had historically been fewer pogroms than in Poland or the Ukraine, Austria had been the pioneer in developing modern anti-Semitic political movements. From the 1850s Austrian politics had been permeated by a rhetoric that associated Jews with rapacious capitalism, political and religious radicalism, an antinational cos- mopolitanism, and an eastern racial threat to “Western civilization.” Pulzer (1993: 38) notes that though scholars like to distinguish among economic, political, and religious anti-Semitism, Austrian politicians thrived on blur- ring them into a single threat to the unity of the Austrian or German people.

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

Austro-Fascists, Austrian Nazis 225

Their rhetoric was paralleled by newspaper scare stories and exaggerated statistics about the number of Jewish banks, department stores, newspa- pers, cinemas, and so on. Anti-Semitism acquired deep popular resonance. From the 1880s Schonerer and Lueger made anti-Semitism the core of their mass nationalist parties. Schorske (1981: chap. 3) says that they developed “politics in a new key,” sponsoring their own newspapers, sporting clubs, and mass and violent demonstrations. From such populism, fascism easily developed.

As the Habsburg Empire weakened, Austrian and German nationalism strengthened. By the first years of the twentieth century Jews were seen as cosmopolitan stooges of the Habsburg antinationalist and antidemocratic regime. As early as 1884 SPD leader Karl Kautsky warned: “The anti- Semites are . . . much more dangerous than in Germany because their ap- pearance is oppositional and democratic, thus appealing to the workers’ instincts” (Carsten 1977: 16). They remained more dangerous in a popular sense. From the late 1930s though committed German Nazis exhibited the most vicious anti-Semitism, more Austrians seem to have participated in riots, grabbing Jewish neighbors’ property, and local deportations before the Final Solution (Botz 1987b; Bukey 1992: 214–19).

The strength of Austrian anti-Semitism is sometimes explained in pre- dominantly materialist terms: The working class resented Jewish wealth, the middle class resented Jewish competition (Pauley 1981: 16–17). This could be plausible only in Vienna, where 91 percent of Jews lived. Elsewhere, Jews were largely absent from conspicuous consumption and competition. But in Vienna they comprised about 10 percent of the city’s population, a noticeable and prosperous minority. By 1914 Viennese Jews were predom- inantly middle-class and well educated. Some 35 percent of students at the Vienna Gymnasium (the best high school) were Jews, as were 28 percent of the city’s university students. They were highly cultured. Viennese Jews such as Freud and Mahler were among the greatest figures of European high culture. Jews provided 62 percent of the city’s lawyers and dentists, 47 percent of doctors, 27 percent of university professors, and 18 percent of bank directors. Some 94 percent of advertising agencies were Jewish, 85 per- cent of furniture retailers, and 70 percent of those involved in the wine and textile trades (Pauley 1987: 154–5). These are formidable concentrations. Overall, about 200,000 Christians had Jewish employers, though Jews were far fewer in most manufacturing branches and in other towns. Unlike Ger- many we find plausible material roots for anti-Semitism, expressed through urban resentment of Jewish-dominated finance and service capitalism and in rural resentment of supposedly Jewish-dominated towns.

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

226 Fascists

Yet with one main exception, Nazism and Austro-fascism were actually stronger where there were fewer Jews. Jews comprised under 2 percent of the population outside Vienna. Though some professions might have contained religious rivalry in Vienna, this was rare elsewhere. Few teachers were Jewish, Jews were a minuscule 0.25 percent of civil servants, and even fewer were in the army. Yet Nazism was entrenched inside state employment, outside Vienna – and especially in the border areas of Carinthia and Styria, where there were fewest Jews of all. While Austro-fascism did eventually be- come important in the Viennese middle class, its heartland lay in the provin- cial towns and countryside. Anti-Semitic fascism seems to have thrived on distance from Jews, not proximity. “The Jew” could be a convenient symbol for urban domination. But this would be a more plausible explanation for Austro-fascism than for Nazism, which was more urban.

The urban exceptions are a few professions and, more important, stu- dents. Students formed the most Nazi group in the entire population and the group most likely to encounter Jews. Their anti-Semitism often did focus on Jewish competition. Students vocally demanded a numerus clausus (maximum quota) for Jews entering university. Did material interests make them the principal ideological carriers of anti-Semitism to a more distant population? To some extent, yes. Yet student anti-Semitism had actually preceded the big Jewish immigration at the beginning of the century and had always been entwined with other rightist ideals, especially pan-German nationalism. The gradual turning of this toward fascism was a long-term process, seemingly unrelated to employment fluctuations (Whiteside 1966; Pauley 1981: 17–19, 93–4).

Ernst Kaltenbrunner, later head of Hitler’s SD, led Viennese student at- tacks on Jews and “reds” in the 1920s. But he was only following a family tradition. In the 1890s his father had also led student attacks on Jews, de- scribing them as an “alien body” in the nation. Both father and son then had successful careers as provincial lawyers, while maintaining their nationalist activities. Josef Fitzhum, later an SS police chief in the Balkans, claimed his career chances in Vienna had been blighted by Jews. Yet (leaving aside one job dismissal for embezzlement) already in 1918, as he was leaving the army, twenty-two years old, before his career had even begun, he was describing the republic as dominated by the “red rabble,” “communist criminal gangs,” and Jews. There seems more to Nazis’ anti-Semitism than mere materialism, a something that was ideologically connected to their strong nationalism.

We are familiar with the materialist anti-Semitic stereotype of the Jew as Shylock, the dissembling, sharp-practiced, “shyster” moneylender, landlord, or small entrepreneur (in some cultures the lawyer is added). This stereotype

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

Austro-Fascists, Austrian Nazis 227

was widespread in interwar Austria. But it coexisted with a second stereo- type, of Polish or Ukrainian Orthodox Jews from the Pale of Settlement, still living and dressing in the old style, a symbol for many Austrians (and others) of Eastern barbarism – the supposed antithesis of Austrian Habsburg Catholic civilization and the supposed antithesis in the interwar period of the civilized, Christian German nation. But by connecting the cultured Viennese doctor or tailor or salesman – or Sigmund Freud – to a distant, alien, but threatening “other,” Hitler and other Austrians might justify ex- cluding them from the nation by force. This might allow neighbors and colleagues to seize their property and jobs – perhaps a satisfactory solution to any material resentments they might have felt. We must still explain this ideology of antithesis between the Jew and the civilized nation. But its causes look less material than its consequences.

Two further ideological connections seem to have been necessary. First, anti-Semitism was central to nationalist ideology in this region of Europe (as it was further east, as my forthcoming volume details). Parkinson (1989: 327) rather psychologizes this:

specifically Austrian . . . anti-semitism, with its venom and greed, is explicable only in terms of the psychological condition in which Austrians found them- selves. . . . Cursed with a rankling inferiority complex toward both Germans and Jews but unable to vent their spleen on the former, the Austrian majority tried to cope by fawning on the Germans while savaging the Jews.

But we must also remember that in the prewar period the cosmopolitan Jews had been identified (not inaccurately) as supporters of the Habsburg ruling dynasty, who had also been antinationalist. As Kautsky noted, populist movements argued that Jews propped up the hated old regime. Before 1900 Schönerer’s populist anti-Semitic movement had voiced such anti-Semitism. Then Mayor Lueger’s Christian Social administration of Vienna had targeted a “Judeo-Magyar” enemy of Austria. Elsewhere in the Habsburg successor states Jews remained scapegoats for centuries of Habsburg oppression (Sugar 1971: 154), but in Austria itself Jews were scapegoats for the collapse of Aus- trian power. After 1918 they were the only nonnational reminder left of the disastrous “Habsburg multi-national experiment.” We have already noted the importance of the more diffuse völkisch movement, carried through a Vienna-Munich nexus of intellectuals, in the formation of German Nazism. In Austria in the interwar period it permeated through much of the political spectrum, drifting from the right toward the left (Whiteside 1966; Carsten 1977: chaps. 1 and 5). Jews actually were enemies of the organic nationalism now being expressed by German nationalists.

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

228 Fascists

Second, Nazi ideologists, as in Germany, insisted that Jews exacerbated class conflict: Were not most of the biggest, most exploitative capital- ists and most of the leading “reds” Jewish? This was not without truth. Many (though not most) prominent socialists and capitalists were Jews. It is believed that 75 percent of Viennese Jews voted Socialist. The Nazis dichotomized between an idealized German nation and its “enemies” – “foreign” international/Jewish capitalism plus “barbarous” Eastern “Judeo- Bolsheviks.” Austro-fascism substituted an Austro-German nation-state, but visualized a similar enemy (though hating the Jews as much for religious as racial reasons). An anticapitalist populism could attract many work- ers not insulated inside the core socialist communities (in the end it at- tracted many of them), while anti-Bolshevik nationalism attracted much of the middle class and the agrarian and provincial population. As in other countries, the notion of a strong state knocking together the heads of both classes in that urban-industrial sector attracted broad support. But here, as in other countries to the east, most of the targeted heads looked Semitic.

Jews were the tangible symbol of all these “aliens” and so became the main candidates, along with Bolsheviks, for national cleansing. Since in rump Austria there were no other significant ethnic or religious minorities, attacks on “aliens” focused on them. Jews had become entangled in pop- ular consciousness with both nationalism and class conflict. Anti-Semitism was a general property of Western Christian civilization. But it moved up a gear during the interwar period, toward systematic “cleansing,” where the removal of Jews might plausibly reduce class conflict and make the nation more integral. The problem with a materialist explanation of anti-Semitism, or indeed of fascism more generally, is not that economic interests and re- sentments were not important. It is that self-interest does not automatically lead to any particular political outcome. Between a sense of personal eco- nomic frustration and being anti-Semitic, conservative, or socialist is a realm of ideology and politics in which political movements seek to persuade us of who might be our enemy and who our friend. If these enemies and friends are as broad as “classes” or “nations,” our actual material experience cannot possibly confirm their “truth,” only their surface plausibility. So it is primarily the realm of politics and ideology, mediated by more com- plex and local social structures than just class or nation, that explanations of mass anti-Semitism must explore. This was especially so in Austria. Though Austrian fascism came to have a substantially economic component, this was far less true of its anti-Semitism – a key part of Austrian fascism and especially of its virulence and violence.

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

Austro-Fascists, Austrian Nazis 229

an elite conspiracy? class motivations

Was there also an Austrian upper-class conspiracy, as in Italy and (to a lesser extent) in Germany? Did the ruling classes aid fascists as a way of repressing the lower classes, compromising the fascist claim to represent the nation and transcend class? With the Austro-fascists, the answer is very clearly yes. The Heimwehr had intimate relations with the clergy and officer corps and received large subsidies from politically minded capitalists (obviously a mi- nority of all capitalists) once they perceived the republic had become inse- cure (the Heimwehr also took money from Mussolini). The Dollfüss regime was staffed by the old regime, with the support of modern capitalists. Big landowners and businessmen dominated its deflationary economic policy. After the Hitler regime promulgated the Nuremberg racial laws, even Jewish capitalists aided Austro-fascism, since they now lived in terror of its rival, Nazism. Some Austrian capitalists also feared the increased competition Anschluss would bring. Thus elites and capitalists led the undermining of the republic and its replacement by Austro-fascism. Elites were central to Austro-fascism, as they had not really been to either Italian or German fascism. In contrast, only a few German-owned businesses contributed to the Austrian Nazis. Most members of the upper classes were actually very suspicious of Nazi radical populism. Their direct responsibility for the Nazi takeover was small.

What was the motivation of the Austro-fascist elites? Was it a straightfor- ward class motivation? They sometimes admitted it was, though (as in other countries) claiming self-defense – that is, defense of property rights and capitalist profit. They claimed their support was a justified response to the violence of the socialists. I go through the various parts of their argument. First, they said the socialists proclaimed “revolution,” which clearly threat- ened property. Indeed, the socialists had proclaimed revolution in 1918–19, amid the collapse of the Habsburg Empire. But the socialists had themselves immediately defused the revolution by demobilizing workers’ and soldiers’ councils, advising demonstrators to return home, praising republican con- stitutionality, not even asking for civil service or army purges. Though in response to the rightist paramilitaries they formed their own paramilitary in 1923, the Schutzbund, this was a rather defensive organization. True, they re- fused to join a national coalition government, flourishing Marxian reasons: The Socialist Party was the party of the proletariat, other parties represented opposed classes, there could be no alliance between them. They also believed (not without reason) that the offer was a ploy to make them share respon- sibility for the mass unemployment of the Depression. Their intransigence

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

230 Fascists

was a tactical sop to the socialist left. Tactically, it worked: The left did not defect to the small Communist Party yet was unable to influence party policy. Yet it was a strategic disaster. It polarized Austria to a level where violence (more efficiently mobilized by the right) might seem a reasonable solu- tion, and it made socialist soldiers and civil servants vulnerable to Christian Social purges. In 1933 the Socialist Party become desperate, changed tack, and offered compromise and coalition to The Christian Socials. But this was too late: the Christian Socials were now embarked on their journey through authoritarian solutions (Gulick 1948: II, 1266–78).

In practice the Socialist Party had long adhered to “bourgeois democ- racy” and reformism. The reformist drive was greatest in so-called Red Vienna, to whose regional government (controlled by the socialists) the constitution assigned considerable powers, including taxation. The scale of Red Vienna’s housing, education, and welfare projects was not particularly large when placed in comparative perspective, but the method of financ- ing them was: progressive taxes paid disproportionately by the middle and upper classes. If its massive public housing blocks were the symbol of in- terwar social democracy, redistributive taxes were its infrastructure (Gruber 1985; Marcuse 1985). This tended to squeeze the profits of the rich, as such programs do everywhere. The second class motivation of the prop- ertied classes, capitalist profit, kicked in. In the short term this might be a justified fear. But in the long term such redistribution did not actu- ally reduce profit. Such aggressive reformism was only the equivalent of what Swedish and Danish socialists undertook slightly later – and what in- deed the Second Austrian Republic accomplished in more consensual fash- ion and achieving spectacular macro-economic results after World War II. Neither provoked fascist backlashes. And since most Austrians, and especially most Austrian fascists, did not live in Vienna, it is difficult to see the actual achievements of Austrian socialism as requiring a fascist response from the right.

Second, they claimed that the fascist backlash was a response to mass inflammatory strikes, rhetoric, and occasional street violence by the left. But the Austrian strike rate was not particularly high, and only occasional strikes were violent after 1920. Strikes peaked in 1931 and then declined to near-zero in 1934, as a result of the Great Depression and moderate levels of repression. Conservatives might conceivably claim that a semi-authoritarian regime should continue, but they could hardly justify either Austro-fascism or Nazism as a response to strikes.

Third, rightist criticisms of socialist rhetoric usually focused on a clause in the party’s “Linz Programme” of 1926. This has been often taken to

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

Austro-Fascists, Austrian Nazis 231

advocate “dictatorship of the proletariat.” It is worth quoting this clause:

The Social Democratic Workers’ Party must . . . maintain for the working class the possibility of destroying the class rule of the bourgeoisie by democratic methods. If, however, despite all these efforts of the Social Democratic Workers’ Party, a coun- terrevolution of the bourgeoisie should succeed in shattering democracy, then the working class could only conquer the power of the state by civil war. . . . If, however, the bourgeoisie should resist the social revolutionary change, which will be the task of the state power of the working class, by planned constriction of economic life, by violent uprising, or by conspiracy with foreign counter-revolutionary powers, then the resistance of the working class would be compelled to break the resistance of the bourgeoisie by means of dictatorship.

The prose is tortuous, but all I (and Lowenberg 1985: 73–4) can read into it is the right of a legally constituted government or party to arm in self-defense, if attacked. Indeed, Austrian socialists actually demonstrated extraordinary, even suicidal restraint against rightist provocation (Stadler 1981). Its paramil- itary, the Schutzbund, was about 80–90,000 strong but poorly armed and minimally trained. Its violence was almost always reactive, concerned only to defend the city’s most proletarian areas. Unlike the two fascist paramilitaries it rarely paraded outside its ghettoes. It did not go in for the provocative tac- tics that were universal among fascist movements. Of course, on the ground, shouting and marching often turned into brawling that paid scant attention to distinctions between offense and defense. Yet larger actions were tightly reined in by the party leaders, fearful of “provocations” by their rank and file (Botz 1985). Socialists had had bad experiences. In 1927 two right-wing Frontkämpfer members who had unprovokedly shot two socialist workers were acquitted by a partisan court. A riot ensued, and the Palace of Justice was fired. Ignoring socialist leaders’ pleas for restraint and cooperation in de- fusing the situation, the Christian Social government sent in armed police, who shot dead between eighty-five and ninety of the crowd. The headline of the official mass-circulation newspaper of the Christian Socials shouted “A just judgement.” Christian Socials, German Nationals, Heimwehr, and Nazis all cried Bolshevism! Revolution! But though rank-and-file socialists were now inflamed, the socialist leaders calmed them down, defusing the situation with mere parliamentary protest.

Socialist restraint continued right into 1934, into the teeth of Dollfüss’s repressive measures and violent Heimwehr demonstrations that were intended to turn into a “rolling putsch.” Both sought to provoke the Schutzbund into resistance that the state would then crush (the Heimwehr were also trying to provoke the Nazis to rise). But the socialists now limply abandoned their proclaimed right to self-defense. Almost the entire party leadership

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

232 Fascists

submitted without a fight, to the end offering concessions to Austro-fascist leaders to permit their own survival. In March 1933, when Dollfüss pre- vented parliament from meeting, the Schutzbund was finally ordered to mo- bilize, though in defensive positions. Yet immediately the socialist leader Otto Bauer ordered it to stand down again, as a gesture of goodwill. The government responded by ordering its dissolution. At the end, in February 1934, Richard Bernaschek, the Schutzbund leader in the city of Linz, did start a local insurrection against a police raid. This spread immediately and spontaneously through socialist organizations in various parts of the coun- try. But the rising was against the expressed orders of the party leadership, described contemptuously by Bernaschek as “the brakemen” of socialism. He had telephoned the signal “To Arms!” at the very moment the police were breaking down his door to arrest him. Leaderless, without coordina- tion, untrained to attack troops or even to occupy strategic neutral space, the socialist militias could not survive the onslaught of regular troops, po- lice, and Heimwehr formations. They had been successfully provoked into a belated, disorganized rising. And revealing the pacific nature of inter- war socialism, this was the greatest proletarian resistance to fascism we find anywhere outside Spain.

Later, in exile, Bauer rued his mistake: In March 1933, he said, the Socialist Party should have ordered a general strike and offensive action – as the Linz program had proclaimed. “We were then still stupid enough to trust Dollfüss’ promise. . . . It was an error, the most fatal of our errors.” In Austria, as in all other countries, it was not the socialists but the two fascist movements who honored violence. The Heimwehr was proud of its paramilitary aggression, though leaders did sometimes recoil from rank- and-file excesses. The Nazis proudly proclaimed “storm troop terror” and “ruthless violence against bestial terror.” And as we find in every country, the imbalance in commitment to violence was reflected in the casualties. Among the 859 dead or seriously wounded during the civil strife from 1918 to 1934 we find the usual 2 to 1 ratio of socialist to fascist victims (Botz 1982: 303; Bukey 1986: 120–37).

Quite contrary to the right’s claims, Austrian socialists were basically democrats. In contrast, the two nationalist camps were at most only “acci- dental” democrats (to use the Spanish expression discussed in Chapter 9). They were democrats for only as long as they could stay in power by demo- cratic means. But they would not yield power to socialists. Instead, they chose authoritarian and fascist options. Even in the 1920s there were many authoritarians in the Christian Social party and in the Catholic Church. From the mid-1920s Christian Social governments were encroaching on

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

Austro-Fascists, Austrian Nazis 233

constitutional rights, purging socialists from the army and administration, engaging in selective repression, cooperating with the Heimwehr. The army’s main function became suppressing strikes. Then Nazism in the army was purged. By the mid-1930s the army was a reliable arm of Austro-fascism – though from 1936 it was infiltrated again by Nazis (Stülpfarrer 1989: 194–5). As the Depression brought economic crisis and as the Christian Socials and the German Nationalists faced pressure from fascists, both broke with democracy. Some leaders and activists went directly into the two fascist movements, others pressured their own movements to the right.

They need not have done so. They might have sought a grand demo- cratic alliance with the socialists. This would have involved concessions on the staffing and role of the armed forces and police, plus Keynesian con- cessions to alleviate the Great Depression. Or they might have turned their repression against the fascists and attempted to restore the quasi-democratic status quo of the mid-1920s. The police and army may not have con- sented to suppress the Heimwehr (they did half-suppress the Nazis in 1934, though they would have refused to do so in 1938). But since these were the Christian Socials’ own repressive agencies, this reveals only how the regime had become permeated with authoritarian sentiments. Or they might simply have gone ahead with a minority government and be prepared for further elections. Pauley (1981: 80) cannot argue that the Nazis could attain only 25 percent of the vote and yet also argue that Dolfüss could move only further to the right (if no alliance with the socialists could be obtained). Some apologists for the Dollfüss and Schüschnigg regimes argue that they suppressed the socialists to introduce a “temporary authoritarianism,” to give a breathing space to stand up to Nazism. This is unconvincing: It is bizarre to defend democracy by suppressing the largest group of democrats. No; men such as Dollfüss and Schüschnigg preferred authoritarianism, and in the crunch they preferred fascists to democratic socialists – that is why they themselves became fascist fellow-travelers and why they used the armed power of the state to repress democrats.

A study of the city of Linz, in Upper Austria, which was Hitler’s hometown, reinforces this judgment. Through the 1920s Linz seemed a model of compromise democracy. This partly resulted from constitutional arrangements: The city had a socialist administration, yet got its revenue from the provincial government of Upper Austria, which was Christian Social. There has been undue focus on Vienna, whose city had the constitutional status of a province and so could raise its own taxes and avoid compromise with conservatives. But in Linz, as in other cities, to avoid complete break- down the two administrations had to cooperate and compromise. Even into

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

234 Fascists

the first days of the Dollfüss regime a few Christian Social and even German National leaders resisted its encroaching authoritarianism. When the break came in Linz, it first came in the Catholic Church as the local bishop, a long- term authoritarian, banned political activity by his more conciliatory clergy. Then came the collapse of the main grassroots organization of the Social Christians, the Catholic People’s Association, which was now torn apart by dispute and was somewhat redundant in an authoritarian regime. The Upper Austrian Christian Socials were brought into authoritarian line by the regime by the time Bernaschek launched his desperate resistance (Bukey 1986: esp. 39–74, 112–19). Some conservatives were committed to demo- cratic conciliation, but for most this had been short-lived and “accidental” – not principled.

As in other countries, Austrian conservatives had embraced fascism and reached for their guns too early. A class theory of their unseemly haste would have to center on their desire to maintain capitalist profit, not prop- erty per se. They resisted reform rather than revolution, since they were threatened only with reform. They reacted with hostility to almost every demonstration, they distorted the “violence” of socialist programs, they themselves perpetrated far more violence and with far more enjoyment. Of course, they felt vulnerable and threatened. They had been the ruling elite of a major power until 1918. They had been scared by the insurrectionary movements of 1918, though had managed to regain power. They had views similar to their German counterparts (discussed in the previous chapter). They felt that the state must possess powers of public order over and above those of a parliament, which could captured by the “mass armies” of civil society. Viewing the failure of German conservatives, they tried to bolster their own power with a mass movement, Austro-fascism. They might have succeeded, as Franco and Salazar did. It was essentially Hitler’s greater success next door that undermined them. Once again, democracy was not stably institutionalized. In a crisis the right had other options. They embraced them for substantially class reasons, as Marxists argue. They fully intended their corporatist state to repress the left and to augur a more “harmonious” capitalism. Austro-fascism was certainly capitalist-biased. Yet that is not all Austrian fascism was.

the appeal of nation-statism

Entwined with its capitalist bias was a second motive, more dominant in the populist wing of Austro-fascism and dominating Austrian Nazism. Here the genuine preference for fascism over democracy had more nation-statist

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

Austro-Fascists, Austrian Nazis 235

sources. These fascists preferred an authoritarian, mass-mobilized, one- party state embodying the “racially pure” nation, cleansed of “aliens” and “traitors.” They were not greatly interested one way or the other in capi- talism. They had nothing of importance to say about capitalism beyond the cleansing of alien elements from its two contending classes, “Bolsheviks” from the ranks of labor and “Jews” from capital. Indeed, these two were often fused into a singular composite enemy, “Judeo-Bolshevism.” They proudly proclaimed the superiority of this brutal vision to the conciliation and com- promise that is democracy’s essence. They were predominantly young and well educated at a time when fascism was sweeping adjacent countries. Thus they believed extreme, cleansing, transcendent nation-statism was the com- ing idea of the age. They also inflected their nation-statism with the racial anti-Semitism that was growing in their region of Europe.

Both a procapitalist bias and a more populist nation-statism permeated both movements, though capitalist bias increasingly dominated the leader- ship of Austro-fascism and nation-statism always predominated in Nazism. Once Austro-fascism was in power, the tensions between the two motiva- tions began to blow it apart. Once Mussolini could no longer protect Austria from Germany, and once Hitler applied economic pressure, the Nazis could exploit its frailty and even infiltrate the regime, stealing away most of its mil- itants. By the time of the German “invasion” the Austrian administration was hopelessly divided and the army stood aside, evincing clear pro-Nazi sympathies, unwilling to put its formal monopoly of military power at the service of the state. Until about 1936 administration and army had moved to embrace Austro-fascism. When that decayed, so did they. Hitler was as- tonished by the warmth of his reception and by the ease with which the Austrian Nazis seized most provincial administrations before German troops arrived anywhere near them (Pauley 1981: 216–17). The Nazi seizure of power lessened the capitalist bias and increased cleansing nation-statism.

The macro-causes of Austrian fascism have proved to be quite similar to those operating in other cases discussed so far. A military crisis (here a catastrophic defeat plus postwar border skirmishes) coupled with continuing economic crisis (continuing recession and class conflict) made fascist ide- ology seem plausible and generated its political support base (paramilitaries plus constituencies supporting nation-statism and class transcendence). Two Austrian peculiarities then made this a very distinctive blend of fascism. First, since there were two different nation-state ideals (a small Austria and a big Germany), there were two rival fascisms. Austro-fascism was the small option, more corporatist and old regime, Nazism was the big option, more radical. Since the old regime had survived the disasters of 1918 in fairly

P1: KaD/IVO P2: JRT 0521831318c06.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 4:31

236 Fascists

good shape, it could merge into Austro-fascism to take control of the coun- try. Indeed, it might have ruled as long as the Franco or Salazar regimes. But, second, the German Big Brother who lived next door ensured the tri- umph of big Germany and therefore of Nazism. This explanation combines ideological, economic, military, and political power relations, though in a distinctive overall configuration. In particular, paramilitarism played a dif- ferent and lesser role here in the seizure of power. Both fascisms mobilized paramilitaries. But the Nazis mobilized them against the military power of the state in 1934 and were flattened; while the success of the two “coups,” of Austro-fascists in 1934 and Nazis in 1938, was also guaranteed by the military power of a state.

Austrians were to commit many atrocities before losing the war. But this was not the final dénouement, since Allied myth making pardoned most of them. There were few Austrian war crimes trials. The wages of sin proved to be a life of ease in one of the wealthiest and seemingly most harmonious countries of the world. The close postwar cooperation between Socialists and Christian Socials owed something to the legacy of fascist corporatism. Perhaps it owed something else to a guilty shared secret – “if we do not hang together, we will surely hang separately.”

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

7

The Hungarian Family of Authoritarians

introduction to eastern europe

Most discussions of fascism concentrate on Italy and Germany (occasionally extended to include its Austrian Ostmark). Yet no analysis can be complete without Eastern Europe where fascism diffused widely – not only as a distinct movement, but also as a corrosive radical force within more conservative au- thoritarian regimes. For authoritarians here remained through the interwar period as a fractious family whose reactionary, corporatist, and fascist mem- bers struggled noisily for overall dominance. Here also economies were less developed and old regimes survived well. Here most states and nations also had problematic boundaries, encouraging rival versions of organic national- ism. How different were these Eastern families? Might we consider them as late economic development strategies, as resistance to exploitation by more advanced countries, or as the product of local ethnic rivalries? Would we here find the same core fascist constituencies? I answer these questions with chapters on Hungary and Romania, the countries with the most significant fascist movements.

Both movements were large. The Hungarian Arrow Cross movement1

had around 250,000 members during 1939–40, 2.7 percent of the national population (Szöllösi-Janze 1989: 128–33). The Romanian Legion of the Archangel Saint Michael (sometimes called the Iron Guard) had 272,000 members in 1937 and 300,000 to 500,000 in 1941 – 1.5 to 2.8 percent of the Romanian population (Heinen 1986: 382, 454; Ioanid 1990: 72). These are higher percentages than the 1.3 percent attained by German Nazism and the 1.0 percent by the Italian PNF before their seizures of power. Both movements also achieved large votes in elections. The Romanian party was officially credited with 16 percent of the vote in 1937, despite government harassment and result fixing. The chief of police later confessed

237

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

238 Fascists

its real vote was nearer 25 percent; while other extreme nationalist and anti- Semitic parties received almost another 25 percent (Ioanid 1990: 69). The Arrow Cross coalition did receive 25 percent in the fairly genuine Hungarian election of 1939, while other parties took the combined “radical rightist” vote well over 50 percent. Since only Hungarian men over age twenty-six and women over thirty could vote, and young people were more fascist, these percentages must understate their popular support. Both movements were thus large and they were clearly fascist in ideology and organization, deploying the usual fascist paramilitaries and ceremonials, forcing many of their rivals to don similar clothing.

Both fascist movements acquired brief governmental power only during the war, yet they also penetrated and influenced other interwar and wartime governments. Since fascists surged later in Eastern Europe, governing elites could learn from Italian and German experience how to keep fascists at bay by alternately repressing them and stealing their ideas – a strategy they explained to British diplomats (whose reports to London have been edited by Vago 1975). This helped to contain self-proclaimed fascism, yet it meant that from the mid-1930s these countries’ regimes were pervaded by fascist ideas and practices, blended into more conservative authoritarianism. It also meant that “true” fascists here never learned much opportunism since old regimes were not as keen to enter into conspiracies with them. Instead, fascists largely remained outside power, as “radical” uncompromising fascists.

The two countries thus become crucial to any general understanding of fascism. They differed from each other in three important respects. First, Hungary was (along with Austria) the biggest loser from World War I, ced- ing 68 percent of its territories and 59 percent of its population. Romania, the main acquirer of those territories and people (plus gains from other losers, Austria, Russia, and Bulgaria), was easily the biggest winner. Second, their rural class structures differed greatly. The Hungarian “gentry” class kept its political power after World War I, and so land reform was minimal. Yet Romania had few large estates, and fewer still after postwar land reforms directed mainly against ethnic minorities. Hungary had a powerful land- lord class, Romania a potentially powerful peasant class. Third, Hungary had hitherto been one of the more tolerant countries toward Jews, who had supposedly enjoyed a prewar “Golden Age,” while Romania had been the most anti-Semitic country in Europe, the only one still denying Jews citizenship in 1918. This should restrain us from making any simple gener- alizations concerning the impact of world war, reactionary landlords (both discussed in Chapter 2), or traditional anti-Semitism on fascism. But the two countries were similar in some other important respects. They were

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

The Hungarian Family of Authoritarians 239

neighbors, less developed countries, and lesser powers. They enable us to broaden our understanding of fascism.

Yet these two fascisms have not been taken seriously. Their history was poorly recorded, then distorted over forty years of communist historiogra- phy that dismissed fascists as “criminal,” “depraved,” “lumpen,” and “petty bourgeois,” marginal to the country, supposedly its only significant source of anti-Semitism (e.g., Lackó 1969; Ránki 1980). The fall of communism has not yet produced a blossoming of local research. Hungarians and Romanians remain understandably reluctant to confront the possibility that fascists and anti-Semites had been close to the mainstream of national life during their countries’ last experiment with democracy. So explaining these fascisms is not easy. The scarcity of good data seems to have persuaded some histori- ans of Hungary to take the easiest explanatory route, embracing traditional class theory. Hungarian fascism, they say, is essentially petty bourgeois. This has not been quite so true of Romania, where Eugene Weber (1966a) long ago demonstrated its cross-class support. And even in Hungary we find dissenters. The English businessman John Keyser reported to the British Foreign Office in 1939 that the Arrow Cross was

First, a national movement to regain lost territory . . . secondly, a middle class move- ment which aims at occupying the positions held by the capitalists; and, thirdly, a movement of the masses – both urban and rural – which seeks to destroy capital- ism. Both the second and the third are, of course, included in the first and share an expression of their aims in a common anti-semitism.

He added that the fascists’ popularity had led the government to borrow from their program, a strategy he considered “somewhat dangerous, for it may play straight into their hands” (Vago 1975: 354). The research now available confirms Keyser more than it does petty bourgeois theory. Berend (1998: 142–3) summarizes it. He does not quite abandon all the traditional class theory I discussed in Chapter 1, for he notes the presence in East Euro- pean fascism of “lumpen intelligentsia and uprooted people from whatever social strata.” But he does also perceive that the fascist parties of Hungary and Romania (and also Croatia and Slovakia) “manifested a highly populist, peasant and working class character.” Szöllösi-Janze (1989) has concluded not dissimilarly. He wields the available Hungarian data to conclude that Hungarian fascism was a popular movement of the oppressed masses led by excluded elites. This is correct as far as it goes. But we must also go beyond class, to note the way that the state, sectoral, and ethnic conflicts entwined with class to generate the core constituencies of Hungarian and Romanian fascism.

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

240 Fascists

the hungarian narrative

Hopes for stable liberal democracy in the new rump state of Hungary were shattered quickly, in 1919–20. An insurgent communist-socialist govern- ment led by Bela Kun had attempted to recover some of the territories lost through war and to defy the Entente’s desire to impose harsh peace terms. But the leftists were defeated by Romanian and other foreign troops and finished off by Hungarian rightist “White” militias declaiming what they called the “Szeged Idea” from their base, the frontier town of Szeged. The Szeged Idea advocated violence directed against a “Judeo-Bolshevik” en- emy, a notion borrowed from the White forces of the Russian Civil War and here given plausibility by the fact that twenty of Kun’s twenty-six min- isters and vice-ministers were Jews. The Whites promptly massacred large numbers of leftists and Jews and drafted others into coercive “labor service units” to build roads (these units were revived to maltreat Jews during World War II). But the Szeged ideal was vague in its positive ideals. It embodied an organic nationalism (Hungary was neither east nor west, and so promised a “Third Way,” but for Magyars alone) and an unspecific call for a “strong” state. The combination was potentially fascist, and some of its adherents borrowed in the 1920s from Italian models to develop what was called a “gentleman’s fascism,” organic nationalism and a top-down, nonmobilizing populism and limited corporatism.

The core of these protofascist movements lay among the “Heroes Associ- ation,” a movement of military veterans and refugees from the “lost territo- ries” taken from Hungary by the Entente under the 1920 Treaty of Trianon. It is said that the refugees were mainly displaced army and civil service per- sonnel who now formed the core of an “imperial revisionist” movement seeking to recover the lost territories. Refugees formed 5 percent of the Hungarian population but supposedly over half of the counterrevolutionary paramilitaries. Between a third and a half are said to have been former army officers, mostly young. But some detachments were formed from students (especially medical students) of whom it is said about a third were refugees. These statements do not seem to rest on much data. Bela Kun’s defeat then emasculated the left, leading to an emigration of thousands of left and liberal intellectuals, especially Jewish ones. The old regime could demilitarize and institute a semi-parliamentary regime. We have a few data for the parlia- mentary deputies who then inherited the rightist leadership. Refugees were overrepresented among all parties, but most so in the far rightist party (the KNEP) – with a ratio of 6.9 (almost seven times overrepresented), dou- ble the ratio of 3.3 among centrist deputies. Refugee deputies were also

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

The Hungarian Family of Authoritarians 241

younger and better educated (Braham 1981: chap. 1; Mócsy 1983: 126–9, 137–8, 146, 172–4).

The rightist victory in the civil war enabled the old regime to recover most of the power lost in 1918 and to refresh itself with a more radical rightist generation of young military veterans and refugees. Hungary re- mained a monarchy, though without a monarch, since there was no viable claimant to the throne. Executive powers were exercised by a regent, Admiral Horthy (an admiral without a navy, since the much-reduced rump state was landlocked!). The executive parts of the state remained largely in place. This was a semi-authoritarian regime, in the sense defined in Chapter 1, since an elected parliament and Horthy and his executive both possessed autonomous powers. But only a minority had the vote, and in the countryside balloting was open and subject to corruption and strong-arm tactics, wielded es- pecially by old regime landlords. The communist party was banned and there was considerable censorship. A numerus clausus (maximum quota) was introduced in 1920 that restricted the number of Jews who could at- tend university to 6 percent of the student population – the first anti-Semitic legislation in postwar Europe. Horthy himself was essentially a conservative wobbling rightward with the times. But he did formally endorse the Szeged Idea and British diplomats reported that his conversation was dominated by hatred of Jews, communists, and the peace treaties (Vago 1975: 174). Yet he was no mobilizer of the masses and his policies were cautious. During the 1920s he and Prime Minister Bethlen professed their desire to move toward western democracy – lamenting only that the country was not yet ready for it. They did make some attempts to move toward the center, and from 1926 the radical Szeged rightists were marginalized. In 1928 the numerus clausus provisions applying to universities were modified, though the numbers of Jews who could be enrolled as students remained limited (Sakmyster 1994; Ságvári 1997: 406; Berend 1998: 140–2).

But old regime strength also prevented genuine land reform. The power of reactionary landlords remained intact and agrarian populism remained muted. There was no equivalent here to the large Romanian National Peasant Party, and socialism was also weak. Thus there seemed little chance that Hungary’s parliament might become genuinely independent of the executive and the old regime. The radical right also benefited from the popularity of imperial revisionism. Though since 1867 Hungary had in ef- fect been an imperial nation, ruling over half the Habsburg Empire, this domination had been short-lived, and so Hungarian nationalism still em- bodied a romanticized liberation struggle credo, the product of a long battle against the Turks and the Habsburgs. As in Serbia this history had produced a

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

242 Fascists

nationalism that we might think was actually rather imperialist – after all, they were dominating other ethnic groups – but which for the locals seemed a kind of liberation theology. The imperium now lost, Magyars (like Serbs later) claimed they wanted not Empire but “freedom.” Every day, Hungarian schoolchildren chanted their version of the Pledge of Allegiance, the Magyar Creed:

I believe in one God, I believe in one Fatherland, I believe in one divine eternal Truth, I believe in the Resurrection of Hungary. Hungary dismembered is no country. Hungary united is Heaven. Amen.

Rightist pressures, exacerbated by the onset of the Great Depression, led Horthy to restrict the suffrage, to limit civil liberties, to purge leftists and Jews from the public sector, and (to buy off the refugees) to expand uni- versity places and civil service jobs. His regime moved right in the early 1930s to become close to what I termed in Chapter 2 as “semi-reactionary authoritarian,” dominated by landowners and the upper civil service and military, alternating clientelism, patronage, and repression to keep the masses passive (Szöllosi-Janze 1989: 101; Sakmyster 1994). The drift rightward was to continue through the interwar period.

Defeat and Trianon had also brought massive economic disruption. Living standards plummeted. Horthy and centrists pinned their hopes on the steady, if unspectacular improvement in the economy during the 1920s: By 1929 GNP per capita was 14 percent higher than it had been in 1913 (Bairoch 1976: 297). As elsewhere in an Eastern Europe being influenced by theories of later development, the methods chosen were mildly nationalist. Tariffs were enacted in 1925 and the first attempts were made at import- substitution policies. But then the Great Depression struck, exacerbating discontent. Since the socialist left was so weak, solutions to the Depression took a rightist autarchic and nationalist direction, as happened elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Import substitution was furthered, protecting domestic in- dustry at the expense of agriculture and creating a state-industry alliance that prevented structural economic change and reinforced archaic practices ben- efiting old regime classes under a thin veneer of corporatism (Aldcroft and Morewood 1995: 58–95; Berend 1998: 234–65). For a time this increased the influence of Italian fascism on the right.

The heavy burden of Hungarian foreign debt was eased by a French loan. But this came with the much resented condition that the regime abandon

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

The Hungarian Family of Authoritarians 243

all attempts to revise the peace treaties. The treaties involved guarantees for the rights of minorities, which in rump Hungary largely meant Jews. Ag- grieved persons could petition the League of Nations in Geneva for redress against their government. Since petitioning was intermittently occurring through Eastern Europe, the issue of ethnic, especially Jewish, rights became a live issue, headlined in newspapers and politicians’ speeches. Interpreted by nationalists as “foreign interference,” it further politicized anti-Jewish sentiment: The Jews seemed allied to foreign powers imposing their terms on poor, weak Hungary. Since these Powers were also “capitalist,” pop- ulists could add a class gloss to the blame: Hungary was being exploited by foreign – western and Jewish – capital. Thus imperial revisionism fused into a “proletarian” sense of the Magyar nation. Populist protest began to take radical rightist and anti-Semitic forms, led (it is said; there are no data) by lower civil servants, teachers, and the military, with refugees again promi- nent. This made some also susceptible to Nazism. In this drift rightward economic, geopolitical, and more diffuse nationalist and statist currents are not easy to disentangle.

In 1932 many feared social unrest, especially in the countryside, which was suffering disastrously from the Depression. Horthy, under pressure, moved further to the right by appointing as premier General Gömbös, an old friend, the key Szeged man and organizer of “White Terror,” and noted anti-Semite. He moved steadily toward fascism. He declared violence to be “an acceptable means of statecraft . . . to shape the course of history, not in the interest of a narrow clique, but of an entire nation.” He now embraced corporatist solutions to national unity and moved closer to Mussolini. Af- ter Hitler’s coup, he promised Göring he would introduce totalitarianism and he wrote to Hitler describing himself as “a fellow racist.” He declared that his government would “secure our own national civilization based on our own special racial peculiarities and upon Christian moral principles.” Yet his conception of fascism was mainly top-down corporatism – “the Hitlerism of the better classes,” said the British ambassador. He and his al- lies feared genuine fascists stirring up the masses from below and this fear bound them to Horthy and the old regime. Szollösi-Janze characterizes his government as “radical new right,” centered on a radicalized bureaucracy and army, wielding a top-down single party, basing formal legitimacy on the masses but careful not actually to mobilize them. His sudden death in 1936 thwarted a likely coup abolishing parliament altogether (Berend 1998: 308–11). The regime remained mostly semi-reactionary authoritar- ian. Parliament endured, but more power was shifting into a radicalizing executive.

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

244 Fascists

By then the Depression was receding. Yet the economy grew only slowly through the 1930s, while agriculture stagnated. The recovery was then led by rising military expenditures, which was as in Germany a boost to an authoritarian Keynesian approach to the economy. Hungary was also being drawn into the expanding German sphere of influence by the offer of what were initially very favorable terms of trade. The liberal powers and Jews were blamed for Hungarian backwardness, Nazi Germany praised as Hungary’s friend. Economics and geopolitics remained closely entwined. In 1938 the Anschluss brought the Nazis into Austria next door, while the humbling of Czechoslovakia enabled Hitler to restore to Hungary its former territories in Slovakia. Revisionists saw they had a German ally. As Nazi influence mounted, parliament kept going but the executive half of the state split. Horthy’s semi-reactionary authoritarians controlled the police and the inte- rior and agriculture ministries, but pro-Nazi corporatists colonized finance, industry, and defense (Szöllösi-Janze 1989: 97). Under German influence, anti-Semitism was growing, and in 1938 the far-rightists secured discrimi- natory laws against Jews (Mendelsohn 1983: chap. 2). When Major Ferenc Szálasi managed to unite most of the small fascist parties, many radical offi- cers and civil servants joined him. The executive state was now split three ways, among semi-reactionary authoritarians, corporatists, and fascists. A succession of more “moderate” premiers (the term is a relative one) period- ically banned the fascists. Szálasi himself was arrested three times. Without the war, the outcome of such rivalries was far from clear. A peacetime di- alectic between fascism and more conservative forms of authoritarianism might have had alternative outcomes.

The war greatly changed the resonance of the various political options. Yet even during the war the regime did not simply radicalize into fascism. Horthy was induced by geography, Hitler’s willingness to see Hungary’s territories restored, and his own fierce anticommunism into joining the Axis Powers. He accommodated to German hegemony while preserving some freedom of action. His main bargaining card with Hitler was that the Germans preferred his more orderly regime to the local, unruly fascists. In return for the alliance, Hitler returned most of the “lost territories” in 1940 (which also brought back more minorities into the realm). While the Arrow Cross languished, intermittently persecuted by the regime, other radical el- ements in the government introduced laws banning Jews from elite occu- pations and property ownership. Many thousands were deported in labor battalions abroad, not to return. Most of the Holocaust in Hungary was the work of Hungarian radical rightists. Yet Horthy resisted German demands to implement fully the Final Solution until March 1944, when German troops

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

The Hungarian Family of Authoritarians 245

took over the country. In October the SS and Szálasi engineered a coup, leading to a brief fascist Arrow Cross regime. The Red Army arrived in January 1945, overwhelming and then executing Szálasi and his colleagues. Wartime events are discussed more fully in my forthcoming volume.

This brief narrative permits us to perceive five broad interwar trends. (1) Economic discontent generated populist protest movements, includ-

ing radical rightism. Yet the rightist drift persisted through both bad times and good, and so cannot be simply attributed to the state of the economy.

(2) After the civil war Hungary lacked much of a left and instead had a radicalizing old regime. Popular protest against exploitation was increasingly expressed by radical rightists, including fascists. But since the left was so weak, it would be implausible to attribute the continuing surge rightward to a desire by capitalists or others to repress the left. It already had been emasculated.

(3) Statist ideals of development surged through the period, yet statists re- mained split between alternative rightist ideals. The regime eventually stole fascist clothes while repressing actual fascists. Yet the fascists were gathering strength.

(4) Organic nationalism was rather distinctive, focused overwhelmingly on Jews, the only significant, supposedly “hostile” minority left in the coun- try. Hungary had been formerly thought of as “good for the Jews,” with- out pogroms. Many Jews were killed in the explosion of 1919–20, as fear of “Judeo-Bolshevism” swept the right. Anti-Semitism then continued to bubble, though it exploded again only in the late 1930s. It seems unrelated to the general state of the economy.

(5) Geopolitics pressured Hungarian governments toward allying with other revisionist powers against the liberal powers that had imposed Trianon. Hitler’s successes meant that Hungarian revisionists came to favor a German alliance, and some of them were thus seduced into Nazism.

The conjunction of these trends boosted fascism, but unevenly. Though there was an enduring political crisis and a persistent drift toward more authoritarian solutions in the interwar period, the fascist outcome was more contingent, and so needs detailed explanation. Let us turn first to the fascist movement itself. What did fascists believe in, and who were they?

the ideology of the arrow cross movement

Szálasi was unfortunately given to turgid homilies rather than punchy slo- gans. It is not easy to make the next paragraphs readable. Fascism, he said, would “turn together the moral, spiritual and material interest of the I

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

246 Fascists

and the Us.” The moral principle, he said, was Christian, the spiritual was “Hungarism,” that is, nationalism, and the material principle was National Socialism. Szalasi argued that each was necessary, yet any single idea or principle had to be restrained from excesses. Thus if nationalism was not restrained by socialism, it led to chauvinism, imperialism, and war. If social- ism was not restrained by nationalism, it led to unending class conflict or “state capitalism” on the Soviet model. National Socialism could transcend such conflict, its “organic” state and its party elite providing “a third fac- tor of production” – adding to capital and labor a collective “intelligence” or “planning.” Szálasi’s “socialism” was distinctly productivist. It combined defense of “the worker as the builder of the nation,” with attacks on finance capital and state planning to abolish unemployment. “Work was the basis of material life,” unemployment was “material death.” The new order would be corporatist, militarist, and statist: “all aspects of social life subordinated to the government . . . an active, and brutally realistic etatism.” There was considerable Italian influence here, though there was also a distinctive Hungarian emphasis on the army, the “messiah which could force the coun- try on the true road.”

The third, spiritual principle of “Hungarism” expressed “the most perfect totality of the nation.” Magyars, “the only Turanian people of occidental culture,” could uniquely mediate between eastern and western civilizations. Along with the Germans and Japanese, they were destined to be one of the three “ruling peoples” of the world. Their “armed nation” would bring a “Pax Hungarica” to the Danube basin and a “workpeace” to the “working classes” (defined oddly as peasants, workers, intelligentsia, soldiers, women, and youth). But Hungary must recover, by force if necessary, the lost terri- tories. There had been earlier attempts at “total social organization” made by the military, the church, and capitalism. Hungarian fascism would com- plete the totalizing work they had begun. The military would now support Hungarism – since its values were quite similar. But the church and capi- talism could be expected to oppose it.

Szálasi denied being an intolerant nationalist, claiming that Hungarism implied “conationalism.” But this was undercut by his liking for racial the- ories and his anti-Semitism. He encouraged his followers to collect skulls to confirm the biological superiority of the Turanian race. Though he in- sisted he was “a-Semitic,” not anti-Semitic, this meant that he believed in a Hungary “free of Jews.” He also argued that Magyars were econom- ically exploited by Jews, who must be expropriated and encouraged to emigrate. Though Szálasi did not talk of “elimination” (the code word for mass murder), he said the Jewish question was the “only concrete question”

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

The Hungarian Family of Authoritarians 247

facing the movement. And like Hitler, he equated Judaism with all his main enemies: “communism” or “Marxism,” “freemasonry,” “finance capital” or “bankocracy” or “plutocracy” or “the gold standard,” and “liberalism” or “the liberal democracies” or “parliamentarism.” Considering himself a good Catholic, he argued that the Old Testament showed “how God despised the Jews,” while the New Testament was “the sanctification of God’s contempt” (quotations from Weber 1964: 157–64; Szöllösi-Janze 1989: 220–250; Janos 1982: 272–6; Karsai 1998: 103–4).

Szálasi’s fascists built on ideas that were fairly conventional on the Hungarian right – organic “liberationist” nationalism, “the third way,” and Christian/nationalist anti-Semitism. They fused these with ideas drawn from both Mussolini and Hitler. From Italy they adapted corporatism plus Corradini’s notion of a “proletarian nationalism” dedicated to throwing off the yoke of foreign exploitation. From Nazism they worked up Magyar populism into a more developed Volksgemeinschaft, made anti-Semitism more racial and blended it into anti-Bolshevism. Szalasi’s own respect for the armed forces made for less of a conflict between Arrow Cross paramilitarism and the military power of the state, and he seemed sometimes more saccharine, sometimes more pragmatic than many fascist leaders. Some of his followers were more menacing, yet paramilitarism was not as important in Hungary as in the other four main fascist countries. The Arrow Cross demonstrated, marched, and sometimes brawled, but they seem to have gone no further until the war years. This seems to have been the main deviation from the normal blend of elements we have come to recognize as fascist.

This was the formal movement ideology. It would be nice to know how much of it was accepted by the ordinary rank-and-file fascist, but the data seem wholly lacking. I am compelled to turn straightaway to what kinds of people fascists were. And even on this, we don’t know very much.

who were the fascists?

Our data are not as good as for other countries studied so far, forcing us to rely more on the qualitative judgments of contemporaries. But fascists were certainly youthful. British diplomatic reports continually emphasized this while fascism appeared first in the universities and among young soldiers. Though the movement aged, its leaders remained younger than other po- litical elites ( Janos 1982: 282–4). More than one generation was involved. For Szálasi and most of the early radical rightists, combat in the war and civil war was the formative experience, reinforced by the university environ- ment of the early 1920s. The early core thus combined “front” and “home”

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

248 Fascists

generations. But after stagnation there was rapid expansion in the late 1930s among young men lacking any experience of war. Again, fascism was more the ideology of a period than of a single generation.

Observers and historians of Hungarian fascism have neglected gender. I have found no good data on Arrow Cross women, though this does not mean they were absent, except as leaders. There were female auxiliary groups and supporters, though I have found no data on who they were.

The data on class are also very limited. In the light of this, many have fallen back on the conventional wisdom of “petty bourgeois” theory (Nagy-Talavera 1970: 152–4, 287; Janos 1982: 270–1; Vago 1987: 308– 15). Yet the one purportedly authoritative source does not confirm this view. Deak (1966) writes that a former Arrow Cross minister gave him de- tails of all members in 1937 and 1940. According to this source, in 1937 some 50 percent of members were industrial workers (a ratio of 1.86), in 1940 some 41 percent (1.50), a substantial overrepresentation of workers.2

Peasants and farm workers combined provided only 8 percent (0.27) and 13 percent of the party (0.44) – decided underrepresentation. The civil- ian middle class was also underrepresented, providing 12 and 19 percent of the two samples (ratios of around 0.40 and 0.60, respectively), while army officers comprised a very large 17 percent of the 1937 members (phenome- nally overrepresented; 1940 figure not given). This would indicate an urban proletarian-military fascism – different from fascist movements we have seen in other countries so far. But we need more data before we accept what may be a source of dubious provenance.

We have no more data on ordinary fascist members, but a little on fascist leaders, presented in Appendix Table 7.1. Row 1 of this table details the leadership in 101 small rural communities. Almost half were small-holding peasants, seemingly rather poor. Most of the other leaders were small traders, artisans, and workers, in descending order of importance. Given that most leaders were literate, and most landless peasants were not, the rural parties may have been quite popularly based. Fascism may have attracted peasants for economic reasons. Governments had failed to do much to alleviate the Depression’s collapse in farm prices. Since the German Nazis seemed to have successfully combated the Depression, many peasants believed fascism might also work in Hungary – so reported British diplomats. But there was more to it than that.

Row 2 of the table details middling-level leaders in larger towns and cities. These were predictably from more urban and bourgeois backgrounds. Almost half were independent professionals. Those from the biggest cities were overwhelmingly professionals plus government employees. The main

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

The Hungarian Family of Authoritarians 249

professions were medicine, then the law. Szöllösi-Janze issues a familiar caution: Since public sector employees and the military were banned from being officials of fascist parties, their real level of covert participation in the Arrow Cross must have been higher. Most scholars would add civil servants, officers, and students (too urban to be in the first sample, too young to be in the others) to the groups overrepresented in these samples.

We have data on the national parliamentary deputies of various parties. Hungary had been an imperial country, junior partner to Austria, effectively running half the Habsburg Empire. In the early 1920s most politicians were still very much drawn from the old regime – landlords, establishment pro- fessionals, and bureaucrats who were members of the gentry estate. They were local notables delivering the votes of their dependents – typical patron- client “conservative” and “liberal” regime parties of the period. Yet this old regime had been destabilized by defeat in war, by a 50 percent reduction in territories that made the country more urban and less controllable by notables and by enraged refugees. Several would-be mass parties emerged – small socialist and peasant parties, plus rightist “National Radicals” drifting toward fascism. If we combine the National Radical and fascist parliamen- tary candidates and ministers of the interwar period, we find that they were 68 to 76 percent commoners, compared with only 19 percent commoners among the government parties. As Appendix Table 7.1 shows, the latter re- mained dominated by landowners, civil servants, and professionals (mainly lawyers), with only a handful of small-holding peasants and no one from industry at all. In contrast half the fascists were in the public sector or pro- fessionals (doctors, lawyers, army officers, and teachers), while the other half were drawn quite widely, from peasants, petty bourgeoisie, and a few workers (Batkay 1982: 42–5, 51–3, 64; Janos 1982: 282–4).

But we face a complication. As across most of Eastern Europe, class and ethnicity were entwined. In Hungary this most affected the middle class and Jews and Germans (of whom there were nearly two million). Whereas civil servants, landowners, and professionals were overwhelmingly Magyar or German, commerce and industry were dominated by other foreigners, especially by Jews. Only by understanding the links between Jews, ethnic Germans, and Magyars can we understand Hungarian fascism.

The Germans were mostly descendants of “Swabians,” plus a few Un- garndeutsche, or “Zipser” refugees from Slovakia (which Trianon transferred from Hungary to the new state of Czechoslovakia). They had been orig- inally encouraged to settle in the country centuries ago so as to develop agriculture, commerce, and industry. During the nineteenth century many had shifted over to the higher-status professions and to the public sector,

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

250 Fascists

especially the army. They had become largely Magyarized. Yet the rise of the German Empire had rekindled their German ethnic pride, espe- cially among those trained in German or Austrian universities or military academies (Szelenyi 1998: part 3). The rise of modern Germany had in- creased the influence of Germany over Hungary, with Swabians at the helm ( Janos 1970: 220–4; 1982: 282–4; Rothschild 1974: 308; Mendelsohn 1983: 113; Szöllösi-Janze 1989: 130–1, 159–63). The Swabians were now rather proud to be Hungarians and Germans. Many admired Hitler’s successes and saw him as assisting the modernization of Central Europe. They became ambivalent about which state they wanted to serve, Hungary or Germany. Many Germans solved the dilemma by joining the Nazi-leaning radical right, where they became prominent. In interwar Hungarian cabinets only 30 percent of radical rightists – including some Arrow Cross men – had names indicating Magyar lineage, compared with 88 percent among liberal and conservative ministers. Almost all the remaining names were German. The Arrow Cross seems to have become concerned with this, since it dou- bled its proportion of Magyar-named candidates at the 1939 election. But its National Council, ruling the country in 1944–5, reverted to being only 30 percent Magyar-named. Both Szálasi and Gömbös were part German. Some interpret this as part of a broader tendency for fascist leaders to be of peripheral ethnicity. Hitler was an Austrian, the Romanian leader Corneliu Codreanu was the son of immigrants (the father probably of Polish origin, the mother from a German family from Bukovina), and the Slovak leaders Jozef Tiso and Vojtech Tuka had first spoken Magyar. I am skeptical. In Hungary there were more direct reasons for Swabian fascism.

Before World War I Hungarians had not seemed particularly anti-Semitic. The notion that this was a “Golden Age” for Jews is somewhat undercut by the fact that casual anti-Semitism was, as elsewhere else in Europe, buttressed by Christianity. But the newer European current of political anti-Semitism was weak. Hungarians had acquired political control over half the Habsburg Empire only in 1867. Aware of their minority numbers in that half, Magyar nationalists had not gone the organic route. They had espoused the doctrine of “ethnic balance,” needing all the support they could get from other mi- norities who were not associated with rival states. They also seemed content to rule the state – there were plenty of pickings from their new dominion – and to let others dominate capitalism. Jews were allies in both regards (Karady 1993). This meant that Jews were offered an “assimilationist contract.” Jews would be integrated into citizenship and protected from persecution. In re- turn they would assimilate, Magyarize, and put their economic resources in the service of the Hungarian state. If they went further and baptized, they

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

The Hungarian Family of Authoritarians 251

could even work in the state sector. But by and large the effect was to create a “dual market system”: Jews were entrepreneurs, Magyars staffed the state. And in the census of 1910, 76 percent of Jews said Magyar was their mother tongue, many had Magyarized their names, and some were in the forefront of attacks against “ethnic aliens” (such as Romanians or Serbs). Assimilation was well under way (Karady 1997).

This was threatened by the settlement of 1918. Magyars so dominated their new rump state that they had no need of cosmopolitan allies. This was their organic state, yet it was also greatly threatened from outside. The sup- posed triad of the Bela Kun regime – the Soviet Union, domestic Bolsheviks, and Jews – produced the atrocities of 1919. In possession of only a weak state, Magyars needed to strengthen it with strategies of economic develop- ment. Yet the economy was controlled by cosmopolitan Jews, not Magyars. Jews became the main enemy. Nationalists now reversed their former toler- ant policy, aiming for “dissimilation,” separating the Jews from the nation. The 1920s saw a flood of anti-Jewish invective, permeating the literary elite as well as the pamphleteers (Ozsvath 1997). In this switch we see the im- portance of geopolitics to nationalism. One geopolitical configuration had generated the notion of an ethnically balanced state; another generated the notion of a state committed to cleansing nationalism.

By 1930 there were only just over half a million Jews, 5.1 percent of the national population and declining. But they were highly concentrated. Some 20 percent were in Budapest, and 40 percent of those were in Budapest’s trade, commerce, and finance. An extraordinary 80 percent of owners (and 44% of white-collar workers) in the financial sector were Jewish. So were 53 percent of owners and 48 percent of white-collar workers in trade. Jews comprised 38 percent of mine owners (and 21% of mining white-collar workers) and 12 percent of manufacturing owners (and 39% of white-collar workers in industry). Jews madeup 62 percent of all employers in commerce with more than twenty workers, and 47 percent of such industrial employ- ers. These are extraordinary figures. Half the entire realm of capitalism in Hungary – big and small – was Jewish. Finance capital was astonishingly four-fifths Jewish. Some of the most privileged professions were also fairly Jewish. Of doctors, 60 percent were Jewish, lawyers 51 percent, journalists 34 percent, engineers 30 percent. Jews were only slightly overrepresented in the universities as a whole, since only 2 percent of the public sector was Jewish. But Jews comprised only 7 percent of industrial workers, 2.5 percent of transport workers, and 0.3 percent of the agricultural population (figures from Szöllösi-Janze 1989: 58–60). As Mendelsohn (1983: 92) observes: “The Jews, for better or worse, were totally identified with capitalist, bourgeois,

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

252 Fascists

Westernized, urban Hungary. And they did not win the admiration of the many enemies of capitalism and of the city.”

Such divisions led to mixed ethnic-class tensions, exploitable by populists inveighing against “foreign,” that is, Jewish “exploitation.” The divisions also generated differing views of modern economic development: Magyars and Germans were more statist, since it was their state. Jews and other cap- italists were more market- and internationally oriented – for this was their own social experience. These two contrasts, involving nation and state, set the stage for the growth of fascism among Magyars and Germans seeking a strong nation-statism to defend them against “alien exploitation.”

But let us turn more directly to the question of the class composition of fascism. Explanations here often start off in straightforward materialist terms. Fascism is explained as resulting from “middle class proletarianization” and “academic overproduction” ( Janos 1970: 210–11; Nagy-Talavera 1970: 69; Rothschild 1974: 178, 308; Vago 1975: 320; 1987: 286). It is argued that employment prospects could not keep up with university expansion. Thus students and overcrowded professions exploded in protest. Since most were from middle-class homes, the protest was rightist, not leftist. The large num- bers and better prospects of Jewish students turned student protest toward anti-Semitic fascism, said the British diplomats (Vago 1975). Jewish domi- nance over better jobs turned the middle class anti-Semitic, says Rothschild (1974: 196). Was this true?

“Overproduction” is most plausible immediately after the war, when Magyar civil servants, officers, and students came flooding back as refugees to the reduced prospects of the rump state; it might also be plausible in the Great Depression. Yet overproduction could not explain the period of fascism’s greatest growth, in the late 1930s, when the economy was recov- ering (Barany 1971). However, the recovery was boosted by Nazi Germany, now the main customer for Hungarian agricultural produce. Fascists argued that the Nazis had saved Hungary from the “parasitical tyranny of Jewish finance capitalism.” Thus though economic collapse may have early fueled Hungarian fascism, it was economic growth, more than depression, that helped to generate fascism as a mass movement.

Does the “overproduction” thesis explain the growth of extreme organic nationalism aimed against Jews? For the most part, no. As in Austria – and again with the exception of students and some professions – fascists came from occupations and sectors with fewest Jews. Middle-class fascists were most likely to come from the civil service and the army, where there were almost no Jews. In fact, Horthy had quite early placated rightists by purg- ing liberal and Jewish civil servants and teachers, expanding the universities

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

The Hungarian Family of Authoritarians 253

and schools, and maintaining a bloated civil service largely barred to Jews. Public sector economic discontent had grown as budgetary pressures tight- ened during the Depression, but then they eased. Yet extreme rightists were always grossly overrepresented in the public sector, while the schools and universities increasingly taught ultranationalism and so generated young fas- cists. Short-term economic motives do not seem to have dominated this fascism.

Army veterans had been the vanguard of early fascist tendencies, and the army remained the most important source of Hungarian fascism. Contem- poraries suggested that 40 to 50 percent of the army was profascist by the late 1930s ( John Keyser went as high as 80 to 90%). Sometimes they re- ferred to “officers,” sometimes they implied that the ordinary soldiers were also fascist. They always reported that younger officers or soldiers were the most attracted. Regular army personnel may have been supplemented by “Lumpenguardists,” irregular rightist paramilitary formations of former sol- diers who turned toward fascism. I have found no details of these, however. There was little Jewish competition nor serious economic deprivation in the military, which was expanding throughout the 1930s. Other influences must have nourished military fascism. In Hungary the normal resonance of rather orderly, disciplined, top-down far rightism among the armed forces seems to have been greater than elsewhere. The officer corps was also re- cruited disproportionately from the usual nation-statist constituency: from civil servants and the free professions, not industry or commerce. And it had a high proportion of Swabian Germans, including twenty-one out of the twenty-seven generals in 1941 ( Janos 1982: 253). Thus the army became a Mitteleuropa wedge, blending German, Austrian, and Magyar traditions with a more modern Nazi-German militarism. During the war the army remained pro-Nazi, anticommunist and strongly anti-Semitic. Though Horthy wished to emulate the Romanian government and to switch to the Allied side in 1944, he believed the army would not countenance this. In the end the Hungarian army drew short of complete complicity in the Holocaust, yet in the war it proved to be Hitler’s “last satellite” (Gosztony 1985; Szöllösi-Janze 1989: 194–201; Ránki 1971: 69).

Anti-Semitism in the areas of fascist strength was thus directed not in- ward against Jewish competition but outward against Jewish domination of finance and trade – against both Budapest monied interests and small- scale rural trading and money lending. This was buttressed by anticapital- ism among workers and poor peasants. To this stereotype was once again paradoxically added its apparent opposite: the Jew as socialist. Though so- cialism was relatively weak, it had attracted much of a generation of young

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

254 Fascists

bourgeois Jews at the beginning of the century. Socialist leaders had been more Jewish than in any other country. Some 40 to 77 percent of various samples of Hungarian socialist leaders, from Bela Kun’s regime onward, were Jewish ( Janos 1982: 177; Mendelsohn 1983: 95). The bourgeoisie hated the memory of Bela Kun for class reasons; many younger workers, little exposed to socialism, may have thought of Kun as just an alien Jew.

As in Austria, there were exceptions. The universities and some profes- sions had many Jews and fascists. The universities were hotbeds of anti- Semitism. Students rioted several times, demanding quotas on Jewish en- trants. Under their pressure the government had imposed quotas in 1920 and then lifted them in 1928. In any case, 13 percent Jews in the universities was not exactly a “swamping” level, destroying Christians’ job prospects. And whereas the Magyar and German students came from and were later going to the state/professional/landowning sectors, the Jews were predomi- nantly commercial in origins and destinations. They were more on different career trajectories than direct economic rivals. It was probably more their cultures that differed, making coexistence difficult.

But what about those few jobs where the different ethnic groups did in- tersect, among some of the liberal professions? Was fascism here a response to overproduction, proletarianization, and a Jewish material “threat”? Kovács (1991) suggests not: Engineers and medics were in prospering professions; they were not an academic proletariat. In the early years of the century they had been drawn leftward, where “modern” ideas were assumed to lie. But after the Kun debacle their professional associations turned toward the vision of modernity offered by the extreme right. In 1937 all the twenty- three engineers elected to parliament represented fascist parties. Kovács sees fascism as flowing from their “technocratic” (engineers) and “biomedical” (doctors) professional ideologies. The former linked scientific progress to the state, the latter to the race-nation. In contrast, she says, most lawyers continued to support the regime parties because their practices depended on capitalism (and, I might add, on the old regime). Though there were fascist lawyers, they constituted a far smaller proportion of their profession than the fascist medics and engineers did of theirs. And though there were many Jewish doctors, Kovács argues that medical fascists were interested less in economic competition than in inserting anti-Semitism into a broader nation-statist ideology.

Thus “overproduction,” direct Jewish occupational rivalry, and other forms of economic deprivation played some part in the rise of fascism, while the Great Depression played a large part in one particular period. But in any case materialist motivations came heavily entwined with ethnicity.

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

The Hungarian Family of Authoritarians 255

Fascism appeared to be more the product of a sectoral conflict between Magyar/German nation-statism and a supposedly international and Jewish capitalism. To this was added a class/ethnic conflict that ranged Magyar workers and peasants against “alien” capitalists. The first conflict helped form the whole of the Hungarian radical right, the second was more specific to fascism.

fascist voters

The 1939 electoral data enable us to get closer to worker and peasant sup- port (results in Lackó 1969; Ránki 1980; Vago 1987: 306–10; Szöllösi-Janze 1989: 153–65). The Arrow Cross coalition drew 25 percent of the national vote. But it did best in the “red belt” industrial suburbs outside Budapest. Allied with a small quasi-fascist party, there it received 42 percent of the vote. It also did well in mining communities and poorer agricultural areas. Budapest city districts with more workers gave more votes to the fascists. The rise in their Arrow Cross vote was also proportionate to the decline in the Socialist vote: Fascism was stealing socialist voters. Indeed, the banned Communist Party instructed its members to vote for the Arrow Cross, which it declared to be the most proworker party. The Socialist vote remained high- est in the older proletarian ghettos. Newer working-class areas were more vulnerable. Szöllösi-Janze suggests that younger workers were more recep- tive, though there is no direct evidence on age and voting. Deak (1966: 396–7) observes that the socialist unions recruited relatively privileged and skilled workers in well-established industries, their sectionalism alienat- ing other workers who could then be recruited by populist, anti-Semitic movements.

Indeed, the Arrow Cross was in many ways genuinely leftist. Its claim to transcend class politics was not undermined by capitalist biases found fur- ther west. It maintained a stronger antifeudal, anticapitalist stance than any fascist party we have yet analyzed ( Janos 1982: 287). True, it rarely attacked capitalism head-on, preferring to denounce “adjectival capitalisms”: that is, “foreign,” “finance,” and (especially) “Jewish” capitalism. But these at- tacks included demands for redistribution of property. A League of Nations financial adviser reported in 1938 that the fascist program was

to put the conduct of affairs into the hands of men who are uncorrupted by wealth or by the political game . . . to take finance and industry out of the hands of the Jews, thus providing jobs for the educated unemployed, split up the big estates and give land to the landless peasant, and make rearmament the cardinal point in the Government’s programme.

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

256 Fascists

This representative of fiscal orthodoxy did not add that the fascists por- trayed rearmament in quasi-Keynesian terms, as economy-boosting and job-creating, developing a rival nation-statist view of economic develop- ment. Observers sometimes claimed that the Arrow Cross became the final resting place of ex-communists. The British ambassador improbably re- ported that 60 percent of its followers had earlier followed Bela Kun (Vago 1975: 320–1, 265, 308, 215). But the Arrow Cross sat on the left in the chamber and organized strikes, most prominently a large miners’ strike in 1940. Remember that the socialists and communists had been crushed in 1919 and remained weak. Horthy had allowed socialists to organize in the towns if they remained moderate and stayed out of the countryside. In fact, there were socialist deputies in parliament throughout the war, even when the Nazis were controlling much of Hungary. At the same time Horthy had ruthlessly repressed the communist party. As he intended, this dual policy factionalized the left. One radical faction joined the Arrow Cross en masse, advocating populist violence plus syndicalist planning (Wessely 1991). Yet it may be that a substantial organized working-class presence among Hungary’s fascists made it more like an “ordinary” mass party, increasing electoral at the expense of paramilitary organization.

Within the middle class, areas with many civil servants also had a higher fascist vote, in contrast to areas with most traders and independent artisans (these were also the most Jewish areas). Districts with more ethnic Germans were more fascist. The socialist and liberal vote held up best in the more Jewish areas, suggesting that Jews supported the traditional left. The gov- ernment party did best in the most bourgeois areas and those with most civil servants.

Region also figured somewhat. Though the Arrow Cross vote spread across most of the core provinces of the country, it was lower in the far north and in the southwest. This may have been because these borders were less “threatened,” since neither Austria nor Czechoslovakia were perceived as the real obstacles to imperial revisionism. But there were certainly fewer Magyar refugees and fewer Jews in these regions around which extreme nationalism might mobilize.

Though such electoral data are not so detailed as in the German studies, they indicate that Hungarian fascism appealed most to industrial workers, then to poorer peasants. Fascism was also fiercely competing with other rightists for the public sector. Hungarian fascism seems to have had a nation- statist bourgeois leadership mobilizing a proletarian electoral base against “foreign exploiters.”

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

The Hungarian Family of Authoritarians 257

conclusions

Fascists seized power in Hungary only when it was too late, in October 1944. Other members of the authoritarian family kept them at bay, though only by stealing so many fascist clothes that it becomes difficult to distinguish who was truly a fascist. Thanks to the civil war, the old regime was able to reacquire power but with a radical wing. The civil war also ended the power of the left and serious, overt class conflict. Old regime conservatives here were not panicked into an alliance with fascists. Radical rightism, including strains of fascism, appealed for more nation-statist reasons that initially combined territorial revisionism with late development statism. But as organic nationalist and Nazi influence grew, an alien enemy was also identified within Hungary. Radical nationalists including fascists focused on Jews, who they plausibly connected to cosmopolitan capitalism and (less plausibly) to international Bolshevism. Thus much of the agenda of a rather Nazi-leaning fascism was eventually adopted by a large part of the entire Hungarian family of authoritarians.

Since I found only limited evidence on the fascists, no judgment on them can be definitive. The better-evidenced Romanian case clarifies some of these issues. Yet three broad Magyar trends have emerged. Two were as in other countries: Fascism was a movement of two separate generations of young men, and it was led by a variant of the usual bourgeois “nation- statist” core constituency. This time, however, it had a stronger military and a weaker paramilitary component. This was mainly because the old regime survived so well. This was from early on a rather “official” and “statist” fascism, with a greater respect for existing authority structures than other fascist movements. I need not detail once again my explanation of these two core constituencies of support – that fascism was the coming idea of this age of crisis in countries where democracy was not securely institution- alized, appealing most to the young, the highly educated, and those with close ties to the nation and/or the state. Of course, “true” fascists never attained majority support in Hungary nor did they come into power in any viable way. Yet boosted by late development statism, imperial revisionism turned into a more “proletarian” sense of foreign exploitation. Influenced greatly in the 1930s by Nazi Germany, Hungarian authoritarian rightists were busy stealing fascist clothes while repressing self-declared fascists. Or- ganic nationalism had also emerged in the postwar period, aimed at a singular Jewish enemy, turning the Hungarian right toward Nazism. Hitler’s expan- sion had then reinforced this. By wartime nation-statist elites were fascist fellow-travelers.

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

258 Fascists

Yet the third characteristic of Hungarian fascism differed from Italian fascism or Nazism: Its mass support was rather proletarian. The Arrow Cross did more than appeal to workers outside the core “proletarian ghettos” (as other successful fascisms managed to do). It also penetrated inside the pro- letarian ghetto, in the capital and in some rural areas. This owed much to the weakness of socialism. Devastated by its revolutionary overambition in 1918, then by repression and Horthy’s clever tactics, socialists and commu- nists could not offer plausible leadership to the oppressed. Fascists filled the gap. They attacked the corruption and wealth of the old regime and they attacked exploitation by finance, foreign, and Jewish capital. They praised productive workers, supported some of their struggles, and demanded full employment – all amid a modernism alternative to that offered by socialists. This was linked to a “proletarian” foreign policy: Poor, dependent Hungary was being exploited by the plutocratic finance-capitalist liberal powers. And since the ruling class spent much time imprisoning them, fascists were forced willy-nilly toward a proletarian rather than a capitalist bias. The- ories attributing fascism to the desire of the propertied classes to repress labor by “reaching for the gun” simply do not apply to Hungary. But then, Hungarian fascism, with less of a paramilitary presence than other fascisms, also offered fewer guns.

Nonetheless, there must have been some tension between “top-down” elitism, statism, and militarism and “bottom-up” proletarianism. This was eased by a more specific cement binding together nation-statists and the proletariat into a more Nazi-like fascism: anti-Semitism. As in Austria and (we see below) Romania, Jews could be plausibly labeled as the enemies of both the nation-state and the proletariat. To the fascists Jews seemed an important ally of the old regime and foreign and finance capitalism. Ethnic conflict was thus reinforced by a sectoral conflict: Statism opposed indus- trial and finance capitalism supposedly oriented to foreign and Jewish, rather than national, goals. This capitalism had recently brought enormous suffer- ings to the people; relief was now being brought by National Socialism, as could be seen in Germany. Jews did not loom quite so large for workers. Yet Jewish dominance over credit and trade encouraged a materially mo- tivated anti-Semitism among poor peasants and (probably less frequently) among urban renters and consumers. Direct class conflict could be iden- tified between many miners and industrial workers and their Jewish em- ployers. And it was in anti-Semitism that Magyar organic nationalism took off into murderous ethnic-political cleansing, as we see in my forthcoming volume.

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

The Hungarian Family of Authoritarians 259

Socialist theories of class conflict have appealed to far more workers than have fascist ones. Yet in the absence of effective socialism, the three-pronged fascist theory of class conflict – that finance, foreign, and Jewish capital exploited workers – seemed plausible in some interwar countries. And in politics, minimal but resonant plausibility – never some higher standard of truth – rules.

P1: KaD/INL P2: JRT/JZW/KCY 0521831318c07.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 5:2

260

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

8

The Romanian Family of Authoritarians

introduction: background

I delineated the overall contours of Romanian fascism in my introduction to the previous chapter. Here I introduce Romania the country, the most economically backward and the politically newest country I analyze in this book. Modern Romania had emerged only in 1861 as a union between Moldavia and Wallachia (itself composed of the provinces of Oltenia and Muntenia), just wrested from the retreating Ottoman Empire. World War I then brought an extraordinary bonanza to this small country, as can be seen in Map 8.1.

Tempted by territorial bribes from the Entente, Romania had declared war on the Central Powers in 1915. The payoff in the Peace Treaties was immense: the province of Bukovina gained from Austria, Transylvania and parts of the Crisana-Banat from Hungary, Bessarabia from Russia, and Dobruja from Bulgaria. This more than doubled Romania’s territories and population, while non-Romanians rose to 30 percent of total pop- ulation (despite large-scale emigration of minorities back to their “home- lands”). Ethnicity was now more politically relevant and more entwined with class, since the lower and rural classes of the new territories tended to be Romanian, while the upper and urban classes were mostly drawn from formerly ruling nationalities (especially Magyars and Germans) plus Jews. Non-Romanians – mainly Jews, Hungarians, and Germans – owned the majority of manufacturing and commercial enterprises, and a large major- ity of the bigger ones. Jews alone, 4 percent of the total population, owned 40 percent of the commerce and credit and 28 percent of the industrial- artisanal sector. They were a quarter of the only liberal professions open to them, physicians, pharmacists, and veterinarians. The Romanian mid- dle class dominated only the public sector and the nonscientific professions

261

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

262 Fascists

Map 8.1. Romania.

(Ianciu 1996: 65–76). This made it understandable that an organic form of nationalism should appear among the state-dependent and “humanis- tic” middle class, proclaiming Romania a “proletarian nation,” “exploited” by foreigners (especially Jews) at home, “threatened” by revisionist powers along its borders.

But would anyone listen to them? The army and the state, composed of monarchy and notable politicians, had eventually emerged triumphant from a difficult war. The Orthodox Church was loyal. Only the foreign landlords were now gone. We cannot quite call this an “old regime,” since it had ruled only for half a century. But the ruling elite was quite well entrenched, mobilizing a mild nationalism that they hoped to continue controlling from above. In this backward country nationalism was mostly an urban affair. Few of the peasant masses at first identified with the nation. Their concerns were more parochial and subsistence-minded. They did hope the postwar state would materially improve their lives and they welcomed the initial land reforms. Yet the Romanian economy needed greater agricultural productiv- ity through increased investment. Land reform made this less likely, since it proliferated small peasant holdings. This also increased the birthrate beyond

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

The Romanian Family of Authoritarians 263

what the agricultural practices of family farming could sustain. Many poor peasants were forced to turn from wheat, the main export crop, to maize, a labor-intensive subsistence crop. Poverty, disease, and subsistence remained the lot of most Romanian families. GNP per capita grew a paltry 7 percent between 1913 and 1938 (Bairoch 1976: 297). The infant mortality rate – a good indicator of rural poverty – slightly worsened after 1930, though aver- age life expectancy had improved from prewar levels. No longer controlled by landlords in most areas, peasants might begin to listen to radical political solutions to remedy their dire straits.

Romania was formally a liberal democracy. Under Entente pressure, Romania had conferred the suffrage on all adults, including Jews, becom- ing the last European state to grant Jews citizen rights. Yet alongside par- liament, the king retained considerable executive powers, including the right to choose ministers and to control the police and army. Thus he and notable politicians, conservatives, and liberals ruled through the 1920s with the usual semi-authoritarian blend of elections, patronage, corrup- tion, and selective repression of extremists (including fascists). This was cynically called “government by rotation,” seen as corrupt and ineffective. With liberalism ineffective and socialism seen as foreign, the way was open for the fascist “third way.” Yet the government did offer a nationalist eco- nomic policy, “by ourselves alone,” a mildly statist strategy of late develop- ment, centering on protective tariffs, described by their main architect, the economist Manoilescu, as the “wonder weapon” of economic nationalism. This was coupled with an attempt at forcible assimilation of minorities and “Romanianizing” public institutions, especially education, street signs, and business advertising. Since this involved taking away rights from hitherto privileged minorities, protest and some imperialist revisionism appeared among them, provoking organicist backlashes among Romanians. Thus were dozens of Magyars killed when troops fired on their protest meet- ing in Transylvania in 1919. Even Romanian conservatives and liberals were pursuing mildly nation-statist goals in the early interwar period.

Being urban modernizers, the government also favored industrial more than agricultural development, and they used oil revenues (the country’s one great economic asset) to boost industrial development and to restrain im- ports. The revenues also fueled corruption. When agriculture stagnated, the peasants gave the National Peasant Party, an “out” party not as yet involved in corruption, a landslide victory in 1928. The NPP was committed to freer trade, social protection for peasants and workers, and more democracy, less corruption. Its best-known leaders also called for ethnic and religious tol- eration, though anti-Semitism was not absent from the party. It represented

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

264 Fascists

the main chance for harnessing the majority peasants to a progressive liberal democracy, one that might even have encouraged ethnic toleration. The king, however, was deeply suspicious of the reformist tendencies of his new government. And 1928 was a bad year. The Great Depression destroyed the credibility of the NPP government (as happened to many governments during the Depression), and it never fully recovered. Since industry pro- duced mainly for the domestic market, and the main export industry was oil, industry was not too badly hit by the Depression. By 1933 production levels had returned to those of 1929. Agriculture was worse hit. Peasant incomes declined about 58 percent during this period. Fearing unrest, the state restructured peasant debts – the last major pro-peasant act performed by interwar governments. But Romanian politicians drew the lesson from the Great Depression that industrial protection worked (oil apart). They strengthened import substitution policies with an explicitly anti-imperialist and “proletarian” cast: Western exploitation kept Romania poor, therefore bar western imports. By 1938 Romania was 80 percent self-sufficient in industrial products. Though its major foreign customer became Germany, it was not so subjected to German economic dominance as Hungary, being farther away. Employment and power utilized in industry had risen about 50 percent since 1929 – well above the growth of the world economy. This had been achieved by increasing the state sector, restraining consumption, and starving agriculture of investment (Berend and Ranki 1974; Chirot 1978; Verdery 1983: 278–86; Ronnas 1984: 37, 116–122, 241; Aldcroft and Morewood 1995: chaps. 3 and 4; Berend 1998).

Government was now by increasingly authoritarian coalitions among notables and nationalists, supported and manipulated by King Carol. “I do not care for elections,” he bluntly told a British journalist. He had to put up with them through the 1930s, though, acquiring more powers for the executive, which acquired tinges of semi-reactionary authoritarianism, and then of Italian corporatism. From the late 1930s Carol and then his successor the dictator General Antonescu also felt compelled to steal more of the clothes of Romania’s own fascist movement (Zach and Zach 1998: 809–15). The entrenched political power of the executive part of the state, plus the economic pressures of the Great Depression, provided most of Romania’s initial drift toward authoritarianism.

Thus in the interwar period it was the mainly non-Romanian industrial and commercial bourgeoisie, plus the Romanian state sector, that were doing best, followed by industrial workers, with peasants lagging. We might thus expect “normal class conflict,” exacerbated by the Great Depression, to set peasants and perhaps workers against a bourgeoisie protected by the state and the king. But ethnic-political conflict intervened to restructure collective

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

The Romanian Family of Authoritarians 265

senses of exploitation. It is relevant that the greatest interwar success story was in education, a key infrastructure of ideological power. Interwar literacy rates doubled. This had the effect of increasing ethnic consciousness, since shared literacy in the Romanian language heightened national identity and receptivity to nationalist ideology. This was especially likely since, as in most other countries, the teachers, journalists, and the compilers of dictionaries and grammarbooks tended to be nationalists. Social movements claiming Romanians were a “proletarian nation” exploited by foreigners attracted more followers, especially from the young and newly educated.

the ideology of the legion of the archangel michael

The Romanian variant of fascism was essentially homegrown, though it borrowed a little from both Nazism and Italian fascism. Its leader or “cap- tain” was Corneliu Codreanu, born in 1899 in a small Moldavian border town to a German mother and a teacher father who, although originally Polish, became an active Romanian nationalist. Codreanu was educated at military academy and Jassy University and qualified for the law. At Jassy he came under the influence of the famous nationalist professor, A. C. Cuza, the founder of a far rightist movement renamed in 1925 as the League of National Christian Defense (the LANC). Cuza espoused an extreme anti-Semitism deduced from organic nationalism. The nation must be one, purged of all non-Romanian elements. The Jews were the greatest danger – they were “dangerous parasites,” a “bastard nation, degenerate, sterile, with- out land, who cannot form a complete and productive social organism.” They must be “eliminated,” a word of unclear meaning, but certainly including mass deportations abroad, expropriation of their property, and banning their participation in public life. In the early 1920s this was as extreme as what anyone was saying in Europe. But Cuza was a tradition- alist. Though he adopted the swastika as his symbol before Hitler did, its four corners were emblazoned with words adding up to a tradition- alist slogan: “One country, one law, one people, one king” (Ianciu 1996: 186–96).

But Cuza was a professor, not a man of action. It was this that both- ered the young Codreanu, who broke from Cuza in 1927 to create his own movement, the Legion of the Archangel Michael (which he had initially formed within the LANC as its youth movement). In turn this gener- ated the Iron Guard (open to all ages) in 1930. From then on the two organizations were virtually synonymous. I simplify by referring to them both as “the Legion.” Codreanu’s main disagreement with Cuza was over tactics. Codreanu wished to engage in a planned campaign of violence,

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

266 Fascists

directed initially against Jews. Anti-Semitism utterly dominates the autobi- ography he addressed to his legionaries in 1936 (Codreanu 1990). But his anti-Semitism was of a particular kind. He always denounced Jews as rich exploiters – they were parasites, leeches, and so on, dominating industry, banking, and trade, “squeezing” the Romanians into abject poverty and dependency. Even in Bessarabia, where he also denounced Jews as “com- munists” (this had been a Russian province before 1918), he also denounced them as Shylocks. His seems to be almost entirely a “proletarian” type of anti-Semitism – though he does not use the term – in which Romanians are the oppressed proletariat, Jews the capitalists. His desire for more “ac- tion” than Cuza would countenance came from his discovery that provoca- tive demonstrations against rich Jews, plus consequent “defensive” violence against the police chiefs and administrators who protected Jews and repressed local discontent, brought considerable support from the local population. Indeed, juries acquitted him of murder and intimidation during the 1920s because they also hated corrupt politicians and brutal police chiefs. Bad experience with the authorities made him see politicians as mere lackeys of the Jews – being literally “bought” by their bribes – again a view more normally associated with “proletarian” leftist movements than rightist ones. This led him to the revolutionary view that the entire political system must be overthrown – except for the monarchy (for which institution he retained a reverence conditioned by his view of its historic role in liberating the na- tion). But in the climate of the early 1920s, and with the aid of the military values inculcated by his cadet school background, such actions and views led him to provocative paramilitarism against the state as well as enemies in civil society – and this led to fascism.

His autobiography includes his principal political pronouncements. His first major political statement, his “Creed of National Christian Socialism” of 1920, began and ended thus:

I believe in one and undivided Romanian State . . . the holder of all Romanians and only of Romanians, lover of work, honor and in fear of God . . . giver of equal rights, both civil and political, to men and women; protector of the family . . . supporter of social harmony through minimizing of class differences, nationalizing factories (the property of all workers) and distributing the land among all the ploughmen. by restricting class divisions. . . . I await the resurrection of national conscience even in the most humble shepherd and the descent of the educated into the midst of the tired, to strengthen and help them in true brotherhood, the foundation of Romania of tomorrow. Amen.

The creed also included details of economic redistribution between the classes, plus support for the monarchy and Orthodox Church. It was a

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

The Romanian Family of Authoritarians 267

somewhat statist, very leftist, and deeply religious form of organic national- ism. The individual was subject to the nation and the nation was subordinate only to God. Many of Codreanu’s later pronouncements appear less political. The 1927 Program of the Legion paradoxically declared itself not a “politi- cal” or “party” program at all but “a program for a new man.” The wrongs of politicians and the “infection” of Judaic influence require new men. For “man’s reform . . . the Legion will be more a school and an army than a po- litical party,” to create the “spiritual and moral atmosphere” amid which a “hero in the warlike sense” can be molded from the Romanian character. He then listed the qualities of this hero, making the legion sound more like a militant religious sect than a political party. He also laid down eight “eth- ical norms of legionary life,” proceeding from such generalities as “moral purity” and “enthusiasm” to such fascist-sounding values as “faith, work, order, hierarchy, discipline,” and “deeds not words.” The legion, he averred, was not only a “logical system . . . it is a living faith.” But this faith was also militaristic: “[I]t will be a constant call to battle, the appeal to bravery, the stirring up of the warlike qualities of our race.” Like Hitler, Codreanu did not much elaborate his statism beyond the leadership principle. This he deduced from his organic nationalism. A united nation can have one single will, or “state of spirit,” and its leader can perfectly express this. Indeed, he claims, this cannot be “dictatorship,” where the dictator imposes his will over the people. Where the people and chief have a single will, the state is no more than an “elevated national conscience.” The leader will select an elite chosen by their fitness to rule. He opposed democracy, therefore, as divid- ing and ruining the nation – do soldiers elect their best generals? he asked. Democracy also permitted Jews equality and becomes enslaved to bankers (Codreanu 1990: 15–17, 219–22, 226, 231, 242–3, 304–10; cf. Ianciu 1996: 199–200).

Though unfortunately there is little evidence available on the beliefs of ordinary militants and members, the legion was well organized to socialize its members in such values. It consisted of a network of “nests” garbed in paramilitary trappings. Nest leaders had to cultivate an “aristocracy of virtue” in their militants, following six golden rules: disciplined loyalty, work, silence, self-education, mutual aid, and honor. These would prepare legionaries for self-defense, sacrifice, and martyrdom – “the blood of all us must flow” in a struggle between good and evil. The “New Man” must “overcome the evil within himself and within his men” and then “defeat the powers of evil and crush the clique of evil-doers.” He must “do battle and win over the enemies of our Fatherland, his battle and victory having to extend even beyond the material world into the realm of invisible enemies,

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

268 Fascists

the powers of evil.” He must separate “good” Romanians from the “chaff,” to whom no mercy must be shown.

The emphasis was more on moral activism than violence or weapons training. This was a distinctive paramilitary that for a long time wielded little organized violence. Codreanu’s charismatic authority kept serious vi- olence within tight political limits. Individual acts of public provocation were all that was required. This would draw forth repression from the local authorities, exposing the ties between rich Jews, bankers, and politicians and bringing mass support. Up to his own murder in 1938, the legion was reported as having killed only eleven persons, almost all prominent politi- cians and policemen, while taking losses of 501 at the hands of the police. The notion of “defensive violence,” which we saw the Nazi SA trying to put about in Chapter 4, was here rather more genuine – though still a delib- erate tactic. And this violence, unlike that of other fascist movements, was also aimed at the state – though usually by individual fascists at individual officials. And not violence but the uniformed, singing procession was the most common sighting most Romanians had of the legionaries until quite late in the legion’s development. From the very beginning the legionaries also labored hard on their own collective construction projects, building first their own headquarters, then rural development projects. The legion was very effective in caging its members through such everyday practices that were hard, time-consuming, and socially solidifying. Whatever the le- gion lacked in numbers, it thus made up in commitment. It was especially effective in winning elections, when its members could flood into a single constituency, without funds, behaving quite unlike any other party by sleep- ing rough among the amazed peasantry whose votes they were cultivating. This was populism in practice. It was also committing the Legion primarily to an electoral route to power. But until rather later they were less effective at a national election, when their resources were more stretched.

Legionary propaganda usually left vague the future form of the state. The legion considered itself a liberator, a cleanser, bringing a new man and na- tion more than a new state form. In this respect it resembled Nazism more than Italian fascism. Yet its religiosity and its peasantism was distinctively Romanian. Codreanu believed the Romanian “soul” was rooted in the “cosmic singularity” of a nation who were “the only orthodox Latins, the only Latin orthodox,” embodying true “Christian purity” (this was mainly taken from Cuza and other nationalists). The real soul lay not among cos- mopolitan elites but in the peasantry, who for centuries had practiced an uncorrupted form of direct democracy in local village assemblies. Peasant soil and peasant culture were primary to the nation, blood and race were

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

The Romanian Family of Authoritarians 269

secondary (until Nazi and SS influence was felt during the war). Thus Codreanu was quite happy to admit into the legion those he described as “Macedonian-Romanians,” living in the newly acquired southeast. For they, too, had been oppressed for centuries and could now be peacefully assimilated into the nation. Style, rhetoric, and cultic practices were pro- foundly religious – for example, the wearing of bags of soil around the neck to symbolize the earth of the forefathers. The legion made little reference to the doctrines of Orthodox christianity, yet its rituals drew heavily on Orthodox ones. The legion’s religious title derived from an icon Codreanu had acquired of the patron saint of Romania, St. Michael, vanquishing Lucifer. In iconography and songs the legion was St. Michael, while Lucifer combined communism, capitalism, and Judaism. Legionaries wore a white cross on their green uniforms; some also wore swastikas. Other fascist move- ments gave themselves religious titles – the Arrow Cross Movement and the Belgian Christus Rex (which was disowned by the Catholic Church). All claimed religious credentials, but only the legion really resembled a church. In rural areas it even deployed “miracles” as part of its appeal.

The legion argued that foreign oppressors had degraded the pure Romanian peasant soul, and that Jews continued to do so. Many Romanians readily accepted this. Casual anti-Semitism was not specific to the legion but a general characteristic of the country. The political right specialized in it, but the center and even liberals were also influenced. Though they some- times denounced violent anti-Semitism, their goal of “Romanianizing” the economy involved displacing foreigners from dominance of the private sec- tor. The doctrine of “by ourselves alone” involved legislation as early as 1934 introducing quotas and bans aimed at minorities. The law of 1934 obliged all enterprises to employ 80 percent Romanians and have at least 50 percent Romanians on their boards. The chairman must also be Romanian. Though this law applied to all minorities, implementing it proved very difficult among the Germans and Magyars. In the areas where they lived, there were few Romanians to fill such positions. From 1937 the antiminority legisla- tion increased rapidly, justified by the slogan “Romania for the Romanians.” Jews continued to feel its main thrust. And though the rise of Hitler and the expansion of Nazi Germany did influence this development, its main and initial thrust was Romanian (Mendelsohn 1983: chap. 4; Ancel 1993: 215; Ianciu 1996: 76–7, 280–306).

The diary of Emil Dorian, a Jewish doctor, records many instances of Romanians taking out life’s frustrations on the “Kikes.” Many bizarre ru- mors circulated about Jews, and even the government pandered to them. A legislative ban on Jews hiring young maids, he says, derived from a rumor

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

270 Fascists

that Jews were organizing a white-slave trade. Here Dorian extracts humor from one incident:

A scene on the streetcar. A Jew stands up and offers his seat to an old man. “I’m not going to take a seat that has been occupied by a kike,” the old man

announces fiercely. Another Gentile, standing near the old man, asks him: “You don’t want to sit

down?” “I certainly don’t.” The second Gentile takes the seat offered by the Jew. After two minutes he gets

up again. “There, you can sit down now,” he addresses the old man, “the seat has been Romanianized.” (Dorian 1982: 289–90)

The content of anti-Semitism varied a little between provinces. Kaftan- wearing Orthodox Jews played economic pariah roles in Northern Moldavia and Bessarabia and were denounced as “alien” exploiters of the peasants. Bessarabian Jews were also suspected of having Bolshevik sen- timents. “Judeo-Bolsheviks” were the ostensible targets of pogroms from 1919 onward. Indeed, the small Romanian Communist Party was sub- stantially foreign and Jewish. Of the twenty-four leading party delegates in 1931, only nine were ethnic Romanians. Six were Jews, and there were four Hungarians, three Ukrainians, and two Bulgarians (Treptow et al. 1996: 422). Most southern Jews resided in the capital, almost all the rest in southern Moldavia, and they were resented for their dominance of the private sector – they were “capitalist exploiters.” The highly Magyarized Transylvanian Jews were resented economically and identified as collab- orators with the Magyar enemy (which had sparked off the first student anti-Semitic riots of the 1920s). The common fear of these apparently con- tradictory labels was that Jews were essentially antinational in two senses. First, they sided with foreign enemies of Romania. Second, as either cap- italists or Bolsheviks they fomented class conflict, thus dividing the na- tion. There were also more traditional sources of anti-Semitism, especially Christian ones, but the Romanian right also linked these to nationalism. The Jews were “the killers of Christ” and so “the enemies of the Christian nation.” As Ianciu (1996: 318) puts it, “Anti-semitism in Romania was above all a primordial component of nationalism, and in nationalist milieux the Jews were perceived as a foreign entity, menacing the homogeneity and even the existence of the Romanian people.” The more Romanians es- poused nationalism, the more their marked casual anti-Semitism became politically charged, usable by fascism.

All that really distinguished legionary anti-Semitism amid this rising tide was that it was inserted into a more general fascist-Christian vision of the

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

The Romanian Family of Authoritarians 271

state that legitimated paramilitary provocative violence and eventual rebel- lion. Crainic, a prominent legionary theorist, offered an “ethnocratic state” founded on “Romanian soil, blood, soul and faith.” This state was superior to “the democratic state,” which was a mere “registration office” counting population numbers “without racial or religious distinction.” He singled out Jews as “a permanent danger for every national state” but added, that “any unassimilated member of a minority, active in the organism of the state, is an element of dissolution and ruin . . . it is a vital necessity for Romania to be an exclusively ethnocratic state.” Thus he called for the “purification” of Romanian society by the “elimination” of foreign elements. Another le- gionary intellectual, Banea, added, “The Jews . . . cannot be persecuted on a racial or religious basis – only on the basis of the danger they repre- sent to the state.” Codreanu himself demanded “desperate defense” against Jewish “invasion” and “infiltration.” “A dirty Jewish nest” dominated the cities, spreading “an infection of Judaic culture caricature.” Defense involved spreading “death and mercy” to the “Jewish wasp nests.” The language was often violent, involving demands for cleansing, especially of deportation: “the Jews to Palestine.” During World War II the Vichy Embassy in Bucharest reported back to Paris that legionary anti-Semitism was wilder and more cruel than that of the Nazis themselves and that Codreanu had fa- vored a mixture of extermination and expulsion. However, it was really only after World War II began (after Codreanu’s death) that this mixture became the actual policy of the legion, rather than rhetorical flourish. This moral descent is discussed in my forthcoming volume (for the above, my principal sources are the autobiographies of the two legionary leaders, Sima 1967 and Codreanu 1990; see also Weber 1964: 165–8; Webster 1986; Fischer-Galati 1989; Veiga 1989: 128–38; Ioanid 1990: 60, 116–31; Volovici 1991: 93–6; Niessen 1995: 275; Ianciu 1996: 201–5; 1998: 14–17, 72).

These were legionary variations on standard themes of Central and East- ern European fascism: cleansing nationalism and anti-Semitism, a claim to transcend class and party conflict, a paramilitary elitism, and authoritarian statism. But Romanian fascism also had three distinctive traits. First, its for- eign policy was pacific, since Romania had all the territories it could cope with. This is one reason why it was not all that statist. Second, it was religious, preoccupied with personal moral reform, very contemptuous of material- ism. We find it difficult to make sense of its antirationalism, its denunciation of political programs, its celebration of “the Romanian soul,” its impre- cise slogans and excessive use of song, its “doctrine of the act,” combining moralism and violence. Its resonant rituals gave legionaries a high degree of emotional comradeship, tenacity, and often even willingness to accept

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

272 Fascists

martyrdom. Third, it evinced strong “proletarian nationalism,” identifying the enemy as class exploiters allied to revisionist powers, whose fifth column was headed by Jews. How did such ideas take a hold in Romania? I first consider the legionaries themselves, then their broader appeal.

who were the legionaries?

As always, these fascists were young and predominantly male. British diplo- mats confirmed what the fascists said themselves – that the movement “swept” the country’s young men. Weber describes it as “a crusade of ado- lescents” (Weber 1966b: 514, 519; Sturdza 1968: 102; Vago 1975, 1987: 286–97). First surfacing in the universities, the legion continued to recruit many students and schoolchildren. Codreanu says that in the legionary “ex- cursions,” those who rode on horseback around their leader were mostly aged twenty-five to thirty, while the “foot soldiers” were largely students. Young soldiers were present, though far less prominent than in Hungary. Legionary leaders remained younger than other political elites, and mili- tants remained younger still. Legionary average age in both 1927 and 1942 was twenty-seven to twenty-eight. The Vichy Embassy reported that by wartime the legion was “composed almost exclusively of young people” and was never rich in experienced politicians (Ianciu 1998: 72). Repression had contributed to this since many experienced older leaders were mur- dered, jailed, or exiled by the authorities, while a few fought and died for Franco in the Spanish Civil War.

Legionaries were so young that there were soon not very many military veterans. Codreanu managed to join in one World War I battle before being discovered and packed off to military school as too young for the front. For him, as for his first followers, the war was extraordinarily significant: the first great feat of arms by modern Romanians. The nationalist euphoria of the age cohort then infected the universities of the early 1920s where the “front” and “home” generations eagerly discussed nation-statist remedies to social problems. Then a lull during the rise of the National Peasant Party, then rapid legionary expansion through the 1930s, first in the countryside, then the towns, again mostly among the young, born after the world war was over. Men around the age of thirty, then rising to forty, were through the 1930s teaching the young the virtues of a somewhat naive form of fascism, lacking the hard edge of real military or armed paramilitary violence.

But the legion also organized women. Three of the thirty-four party cells of 1933 were women’s groups, called “citadels,” and women consti- tuted 8 percent of members at this time. They formed 10 percent of the

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

The Romanian Family of Authoritarians 273

842 members attending a party work camp in 1936 (the males are analyzed in Appendix Table 8.1, row 2); “children” added a further 6 percent, through day care arrangements. The women divided about equally into housewives and students, with one hairdresser (Heinen 1986: 385–7). There were no major women leaders, yet photos of the legionaries’ 1941 insurrection show that the armed insurgents included a smattering of young women and chil- dren (Veiga 1989: 265; Ioanid 1990: 72). That women and children should actually fight appears unique among fascist movements. Work camps and ideology also combined family and feminist themes in an unusual way for the period. Codreanu’s creed had proclaimed a kind of fascist feminism: The movement was the “giver of equal rights . . . to men and women” and the “protector of the family.” This was the first element in Romanian fascism that might be considered “progressive.” There are others. It is not clear why this was a less-gendered movement than most, though this was a new nation without great traditional baggage and a movement without much military experience, whose mysticism probably restrained machismo.

The legion began in the cities, where it was first led by ex-officers and university students – making it very middle-class, though some detect arti- sans as well. It quickly attracted a circle of intellectuals and then spread down into the secondary schools. This milieu generated romantic peasantism:

On the one hand, the modern Rumania of the cities, of comfort and well-being, of material civilization, of the West, of industry and the machine, of the opposition between bourgeois and proletarian, is at bottom a foreign Rumania. On the other hand, the Rumania of the villages, the Rumania of the Rumanians, the Rumania of the spiritual, autochthonous configuration that has preserved this nation on this earth in forms that have remained almost unchanged from the time of Darius . . . No! The real opposition of the social tendencies in this generation is not the opposition between dictatorship and democracy . . . nor the opposition between bourgeoisie and proletariat, because the bourgeoisie as well as the proletariat are not for the most part Rumanian. The real opposition . . . [is] between the two Rumanias. (Quoted by Ioanid 1990: 149–50)

Several legionary leaders were the sons of leading prefects and policemen and often had the experience of being maltreated by their fathers’ colleagues. Others were the sons of peasants or of priests and teachers in rural areas (Weber 1966b: 569; Heinen 1986: 383; Veiga 1989: chap. 4). Verdery (1983) suggests from oral histories that middling Transylvanian peasants saw higher education leading to professional or public employment as the route to the advancement of their elder sons. This might enable the father to leave the farm intact to the second son. The elder son tended to imbibe nation- statism as he advanced through this career, while idealizing the peasantry

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

274 Fascists

and the soil from which he had sprung. Of course, in Romanian universities a claim to peasant origins may have had the same social cachet as working- class origins had among student radicals in the 1960s. Some students may have fabricated their peasant origins. But it was a milieu likely to generate a peasantist fascism.

Though many of these early fascists seem upwardly mobile, materialist “overproduction” explanations of early fascism are nonetheless common. The war is said to have produced unemployable ex-soldiers and swelled stu- dent numbers who could not be absorbed into middle-class occupations. There was little point in graduating, and few did so – supposedly only 8 percent during the period 1921–32 (I find this hard to believe). Rootless displaced persons, denied upward mobility, chronically dissatisfied, were the fascist recruits (say, Weber 1966b: 514; Barbu 1980; and Vago 1987: 286). I am very skeptical of all this. Romania had its territories dou- bled by the peace treaties. Magyar, Austro-German, Russian, and Bulgarian civil servants and officers had fled the country. Opportunities for educated Romanians in the public sector were greater than in any other European country. If students left the university before graduation, perhaps they could find employment without it (as Vago 1987: 287, suggests). Things became difficult in the inflated public sector during the Great Depression, when wage cuts and casualization were introduced. But there was recovery from 1935, when the great fascist surge began. Observers referred to the legionar- ies as the “best” of their generation, not as a lumpenbourgeoisie. The Polish vice-consul, lamenting the effects of the ferocious 1938 persecution of the legion, wrote, “The movement is no longer dominated by the university and other idealistic youth or by an intellectual elite” (Watts 1993: 186).

It should be disconcerting to the “overproduction” thesis that Hungary probably had the worst middle-class job prospects, Romania the best – yet both produced fascism among those most affected, students and public sec- tor workers. This must shake the notion that fascism was a response to middle-class deprivation. Instead, it seems a response of the highly educated and the public sector, whatever their prospects. Fascism was now the com- ing ideology, supposed capable of solving the problems of modern society. Since it argued that salvation would come from a strong nation-state, it especially appealed to those located at the heart of the nation-state. Since in Romania only the peasantry could constitute the body of the nation, and at least some of its leaders were upwardly mobile from peasant milieux, fascism would also probably be peasantist. Fascism made apparent sense of this generation’s sustained social experience, not just of recent slump (or boom).

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

The Romanian Family of Authoritarians 275

Nor were the officers deprived. Romania had demobilized less of its army than most countries (since it was surrounded by countries wanting their territories back). There were no contemporary references to hordes of rootless soldiers (unlike postwar Germany or Hungary). Ex-officers fig- ured in fascism’s first phase. By the 1930s the military had settled down and few soldiers were legionaries. Yet as war approached and as King Carol became unpopular, with Russian, Hungarian, and German pressure on the borders, there was a second military drift rightward. Few soldiers were for- mal members of the Legion, yet wartime governments doubted the loyalty of officers and conscripts, permeated (they believed) by legionary sympa- thies (Vago 1987: 300; Watts 1993: 242, 284, 296). When the legion joined Carol’s government in 1940, its cabinet members included two generals. Fascism resonated among soldiers and militarism resonated in fascism. Codreanu modeled his legion (and its name) on a romanticized version of his own military training: “The order, the discipline, the hierarchy in- culcated into my blood at a tender age, constituted, alongside the feeling of soldierly dignity, the guideline for my whole existence.” Another le- gionary wrote: “Yes, military dictatorship. That is, a dictatorship of authen- tically Rumanian blood, a dictatorship of the soldier’s discipline and morale, a dictatorship of heroic spirituality” (Ioanid 1990: 134, 114). As usual it was not a materially deprived military that leaned toward fascism, just the military.

We have details of several leadership cadres during the 1930s. Half the leaders mentioned in one 1937 list were reserve or ex-officers (serving officers could not hold such an open position), with the remainder spread around diverse middle-class occupations. This is the only list containing any capitalists – one industrialist and one bank director. In other years, most leaders were teachers and professors, Romanian Orthodox priests, and lawyers. The Iron Guard parliamentary candidates of 1937 were 98 percent professional, led by priests (33%) and teachers (31%). Other parties retained more traditional notable leadership: 40 percent of all members of parliament were lawyers and 18 percent were large landowners (Ioanid 1990: 39, 70–2). The first row of Appendix Table 8.1 analyzes a list of urban legionary leaders put on trial in 1934 for the assassination of a former prime minister. Over a third were students, a quarter were in public employment (half being teachers) and a quarter were professionals (mostly journalists, priests, and officers).

This is middle-class leadership, but of a distinctive type. There were many Orthodox clergy attracted by the legion’s religiosity (Nagy-Talavera 1970: 287). Priests figure in almost all lists of legionaries, especially in rural areas.

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

276 Fascists

The Orthodox Church was now the “established” church of the country, but in the nineteenth century it had come to symbolize the oppressed nation and was now sympathetic to proletarian nationalism – including anti-Semitism, expressed here by the patriarch himself:

most of the Jews . . . lived in easy circumstances, monopolizing all the riches of the country, commerce, houses, towns, etc. With the acme of refinement they insti- gated and cultivated the germ of social corruption and other ills; and had acquired the monopoly of the press which, with obviously foreign aid carried out a sinister campaign against the very soul of Roumania. . . . Large number of Jews . . . came over like a flood during the war and after it, and had thus begun to endanger the very existence of all Roumanians and Christians. . . . The fate of the poor Roumanian people from which the Jews squeezed out even the marrow from the bones made one weep with pity. To defend oneself was a national and patriotic duty and was not anti-semitism.

He suggested coercive deportation, resettling Jews in Africa, Australia, Asia, or “some other island” (Vago 1975: 235ff. ).

Codreanu says that initially most priests were hostile, but from the mid- 1930s many welcomed the legion into their villages and agreed to consecrate its banners and parades (Vago 1975: 209; Veiga 1989: 264; Ioanid 1990: 71, 139–48). Lawyers were also overrepresented among some lists of leaders. The legal profession was bloated – which might conceivably be remedied by the expulsion of Jewish lawyers (as the legion proposed). But up to half of the fascist lawyers were actually government officials – bringing us to the most overrepresented middle-class group, public employees. As elsewhere, public employees were banned from fascist membership, though here it seems not to have been a deterrent. A network of “secret militancy” assisted the legion in town halls and police stations through the country. The state was deeply split (Veiga 1989: 125–6) – yet another dual state. The British embassy reported that the judiciary and the police favored the legion throughout the 1930s (Vago 1975: 181, 191, 209). Something more than just hard times was driving public employees toward fascism.

Heinen (1986: 458) says that the legionary core was “the state-oriented middle strata.” Sugar (1971: 150–3) stresses the importance of soldiers, civil servants, teachers, university professors, and the clergy in all Habsburg “suc- cessor state” fascisms. He says this indicated strong links across the whole region between fascism and “overbloated” bureaucratic states, ultranation- alist schools, “corporative-Christian” churches, and military veterans. We have observed the same core constituency in all European fascisms, though Romania does seem to have been its peak. Adding together civil servants, state-employed teachers, and half the lawyers would account for between

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

The Romanian Family of Authoritarians 277

25 and 50 percent of the persons in all of the legionary lists, except for the rather proletarian insurrectionaries of 1941 (see below). Public employees made up under 10 percent of Romania’s labor force. By contrast, the le- gion contained few from the productive bourgeoisie or petty bourgeoisie: entrepreneurs, managers and private sector white-collar workers, and petty traders (though artisans occasionally appear). Once again we see a fascism that was deeply statist in its core constituency.

The legion was also receiving widespread support among intellectuals. There was already much racial anti-Semitism among the country’s intelli- gentsia, who often saw the Jew and the Romanian nation as diametrically op- posed. The distinction between the Romanian “productive classes” and the “dirty business world,” dominated by “usurious,” “banking,” “vagabond” Jewish capital was common, as was the solution – a Romania “disbur- dened” or “disinfected” of Jews. The legion borrowed all this, but gave anti-Semitism a place in a broader national struggle against Soviet commu- nism and western exploitation. As in other countries, fascists were quick to exploit modern propaganda techniques. In legionary iconography the symbols of Judaism were carefully chosen: “first came the rabbi, the occult force, next the banker and then the journalist” (Volovici 1991: 66).

As fascism spread, more prominent intellectuals were attracted. Mihai Manoilescu was one of the most famous economists of the century. The scion of a wealthy family, he was director of the Central Bank and Minister of Industry in several interwar cabinets. Originally a liberal, he developed Romania’s tariff and import-substitution policies, as explained in his book The Theory of Protection and International Trade (1931). He founded a political party, the National Corporatist League, in 1933 and explained its philosophy in The Century of Corporatism (1934). There he famously proclaimed, “The twentieth century will be the century of corporatism just as the nineteenth was the century of liberalism.” “The nineteenth century knew the eco- nomic solidarity of class. The twentieth will know the economic solidarity of nations” (a rather simplified sentiment that many contemporary sociolo- gists now seem to be repeating). Drawing on German and Italian rightists, Manoilescu argued that the poorer nations of the European periphery could achieve freedom and development by a state-directed “pure and integral” corporatism, a “planned work of engineering,” authoritatively regulating all social conflict. This would inaugurate what he called “the socialism of the nations.” “Artificial and temporary” nineteenth-century class conflicts would be transcended by a nationalist transformation of “the scales of moral and social values.” Corporatism would eventually integrate “all the spiritual, moral and material forces of the nation.”

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

278 Fascists

Manoilescu continued to move rightward, as did his small party. His 1936 book The Single Party abandoned this rather innocent view of cor- poratism. Now corporatism “must be held in tutelage . . . [by] the single party” since “the biological necessity which orders every people to orga- nize its life in its entirety implies the idea of singularity in the political body of supreme power.” His main references now were to Alfred Rosenberg and Carl Schmitt (by now a Nazi), and he also quoted Mussolini, Hitler, Goebbels, and Salazar. It is unclear whether Manoilescu actually joined the legion, but all now saw him as its supporter. In 1940 he expounded a “new traditionalism” and a “return to ancestral truths”: “[H]ierarchy, union and love among brothers of the same blood and creed” would lead to a new era of “totalitarian nationalism.” He proposed the “Romanization” of cap- ital against “Jewish power” and “foreign capital” (Volovici 1991: 159–62; Heinen 1986: 180–2).1 He was now a fascist. For a time he had an uncer- tain relationship to the legion itself, since he was the Foreign Minister who bore the odium of having signed the 1940 treaty by which Hitler stripped Romania of most of its territorial gains of 1918. Yet in early 1941 he was ap- pointed to head the legionary government’s new “Economic General Staff ” (Ianciu 1998: 108).

The most prominent Romanian literary intellectual was Mircea Eliade, the theorist of comparative religion (who later had a distinguished career in the United States). In 1934 he was endorsing “Romanianism,” “the desire to have an organic, unitary, ethnic and equitable state.” By 1936 he was markedly less equitable: “[W]e are waiting for a nationalist Romania, frenzied and chauvinistic, armed and rigorous, pitiless and vengeful.” The next year he published “Why I Believe in the Victory of the Legionary Movement”:

While the aim of all contemporary revolutions is the winning of power by a social class or by a person, the supreme target of the Legionary revolution, is, as the Captain has said, the salvation of the people, the reconciliation of the Romanian people with God. That is why the sense of the Legionary movement will lead not only to the restoration of the virtues of our people, to a valorous, dignified and powerful Romania; it will also create a new man attuned to a new type of life in Europe. (Volovici 1991: 85; Eliade’s own emphasis).

After the 1939 German invasion of Poland, a friend remarked in his diary, “Mircea more Germanophile, more anti-French and antisemitic than ever. He says of Romania ‘Better a German protectorate than a Romania invaded by the Yids’ ” (Ianciu 1998: 17). Eliade’s many admirers in the west have tactfully ignored his fascism.

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

The Romanian Family of Authoritarians 279

Emil Cioran, also a very prominent Romanian writer, was more extreme in his views. Much influenced by Nazism, he announced:

Hostility to foreigners is so characteristic of Romanian national feeling that the two will always be inseparable. The first national reaction of the Romanian is not pride in the destiny of Romania, or a sentiment of glory . . . [as in] French patriotism, but revolt against foreigners, often aired as a swear word, and sometimes crystallized in a durable hatred. . . . We have lived under foreigners for 1,000 years; not to hate them and not to eliminate them would demonstrate an absence of national instinct.

What was needed was a “national revolution,” whose violent cleansing mission Cioran spelled out with relish:

An unfettering of irrational forces, of fanaticism and violence, the imperialist ful- fillment of the national destiny. All means are legitimate when a people opens a road for itself in the world. Terror, crime, bestiality and perfidy are base and im- moral only in decadence, when they defend a vacuum of content; if, on the other hand, they help in the ascension of a people, they are virtues. All triumphs are moral. . . . Romania needs exaltation reaching fanaticism. . . . The fanaticization of Romania is the transfiguration of Romania. (Volovici 1991: 128)

Fascism seems to have attracted more intellectuals in Romania than any- where else. It acquired much of “The Generation of 1922,” a group of literary students who became prominent men of letters. Eliade and Cioran became the best-known fascists among them. Two of the group did not join and have left descriptions of the others’ conversion. Sebastien did not join because he was a Jew. He spoke of his erstwhile friends joining as “a religious conversion.” Eugen Ionesco did not join because he was cultur- ally more French than Romanian. Later he wrote a great play about his friends, though without ever mentioning fascism or Romania. In Rhinoceros (1960) the inhabitants of an apparently French small town turn absurdly into rhinoceroses. This surrealist change is willed by the mutants themselves, sim- ply because they wish to conform to the herd. Their only explanation for their decision is through banalities such as, “We must move with the times!” In 1970 Ionescu confirmed that his satire had been aimed at his former friends in Romania: “the professors, the students, the intellectuals became Nazis, Iron Guardists, one after the other . . . To begin with, they were not Nazis . . . one of our friends would say ‘I don’t agree with them, though on certain points, I recognize what they say, like, for example, the Jews’ etc. And that, that was the signal. Three weeks later, or two months later, this man became a Nazi. He engaged gear, he admitted all, he became a rhinoceros.” (Ianciu 1998: 14–17). Vacuous slogans of modernity still dominate politics, of course, but they now tend to be centrist – Bill Clinton’s “bridge to the

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

280 Fascists

twenty-first century,” Tony Blair’s “new” everything. Fascists ran well with such banalities in the interwar period.

During the period 1934–7 the legion was also maturing into respectabil- ity, beginning to attract society figures such as the diplomat Prince Michel Sturdza and the general Gheorghe Cantacuzino-Granicerul. Governments were beginning to steal its clothes and attempting to “Romanianize” the economy by setting quotas for the employment of Jews and other foreigners in all branches of the economy. Negotiations were even opened between the Legion and the National Peasant Party to seek a common socially pro- gressive political program. Its leader, Iuliu Maniu, was a defense witness in Codreanu’s trial in 1938. Its influence among the intelligentsia gave fascism a powerful subterranean influence among the governing class as a whole. Such governments became increasingly drawn toward fascist ideas, even while repressing actual fascists.

Yet the legion also became increasingly populist. Its activism cen- tered on the so-called Excursions among the People shown in Map 8.2. Codreanu’s successor, Horia Sima, a professor of literature from the border Banat province, describes these in his memoirs (1967: 33, 199–205). The first excursions were mostly into the rural heart of the country. No one was allowed any official rank in the movement until he had participated in excursions. Some of the legion’s “nests” became work camps sponsoring ru- ral development projects. Youth labor camps emerged sporadically through Central Europe during the 1930s. Idealistic urban young people would go out to repair rural roads, schools, and churches. The legionaries turned such idealism toward the politics of practical fascism. Their camps were staffed by students and persons with middle-class and artisanal skills – the first postwar student cohort grown up. One church-building project involved 636 peo- ple, of whom 69 percent were local peasants, 11 percent were workers, 8 percent artisans, 5 percent students, and 4 percent professionals and civil servants.2 The nonlocals in another camp were fairly equally divided be- tween students, professionals, and workers. Appendix Table 8.1, row 2, gives details of nonlocals in a larger work camp. Here a third were students, a quarter were in public employment, and there were clusters of profession- als, workers, and peasants. Peasants contrasted government projects run by corrupt notables with the idealism of these young men and women. What seems like romantic rhetoric had a practical presence. These fascists were do-gooders, to their own evident self-satisfaction. They took themselves seriously.

The second excursionary phase occurred in 1936–7, under the slogan “Let us go down among the workers,” shifting the focus to the urban

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

The Romanian Family of Authoritarians 281

working class. Romanian socialism was weak, reaching its electoral peak of 6 percent in 1931 and then declining. It was stunted by being associated with Jews and with the Comintern – which supported Russian claims to Bessarabia. Fascism was able to steal much of its constituency. As in Hungary, socialism ceded even some working class “ghettos” to fascism (though here the data are more patchy). In 1938 the Bucharest Legionary Workers’ Corps had 8,000 members, with a “death squad” of 3,000. It has been suggested (though I have seen no actual evidence) that these members were especially recruited from the armaments industry and transport (especially taxis, public tramways, and railways) and that most were newly urbanized peasants (Weber 1966a: 548–9; Heinen 1986: 395–6; Vago 1987: 309; Ioanid 1990: 71, 169).

This proletarian fascism had a strong sense of its enemy as “foreign” and “Jewish.” Dorian (1982: 126) believed it might soon be disappointed:

The workers and the peasantry rallied round it in the belief that their complaints would be redressed when capitalism disappeared, unaware that when the Iron Guard spoke of “exploiters” they merely meant . . . the Jews.

Some communist historians have claimed that the legion depended on subsidies from capitalists, but this is improbable. Most capitalists were Jews or foreigners. The legion received some money from Germany (less than its anti-Semitic and protofascist rival, the LANC) and some from pro-German capitalists. Other regime groups, including King Carol on one occasion, helped out when attempting to use the legion for their own purposes. But funding was overwhelmingly by the party faithful (Heinen 1986: 337–41; Watts 1993). The legion’s corporatist slogans of harmony between the pro- ducing classes might have been attractive to capitalists had they been more threatened by socialism, but the rest of the upper class favored more con- servative authoritarianism. Throughout its short and bloody life the legion was alternately used and suppressed by ruling elites who had learned lessons from Mussolini’s and Hitler’s coups.

legionary voters: nation-statist constituencies

The legion formed a front party, “All for the Country” (TPT), to con- test the election of 1937. It formed a tactical alliance with the liberal and communist parties, all out of power. Together they attacked regime “cor- ruption,” conveniently personified by King Carol’s own moral laxity. His close relations with a wealthy court camarilla and a Jewish mistress were pub- lic knowledge. Sima said that Codreanu had identified three exploiters of the masses – first the communist, then the Jew, finally the “dirty politician”

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

282 Fascists

(1967: 44). The legion was adept at modern electoral propaganda, specializ- ing in lurid cartoons depicting communists, Jews, and politicians as dragons, monsters, devils, or spiders, engaged in battle with the Archangel Michael, usually drawn with Codreanu’s handsome features. As legionaries marched through the country, they sang:

The country calls on us, O Christian brothers, To fight and free it from the many leeches, Perversions that are sprawling in palaces, The yids who’re robbing us of our riches. (Volovici 1991: 174–5)

Note the connection between religion and class-cum-ethnic exploitation. Such techniques paid off. Sturdza (1968: 103) attributes his party’s success

at the polls of 1937 to legionary idealism and its promise to cleanse the country’s “corruptions and impurities”:

They entered the villages in orderly formations, assembled before the local churches, knelt down and prayed, then rose and sang. The peasants looked with love and ad- miration at these young men who did not pester them with the bombastic speeches of the professional politicians but contented themselves with fervent prayers and songs of faith and heroism that everybody understood and approved.

Though Sturdza lays it on a bit thick, such self-presentation probably did have some effect. They did live simply and were not corrupt, they were being beaten by the police, one half of their message was one of piety and progress, while the other half was hatred for alien oppressors. The main reasons for not voting for them were probably their naivete and lack of political experience and influence. The legion was not a part of influential patronage networks. Corruption had its political payoff.

Most interpretations of who voted for the legion have relied on Weber’s (1966a) analysis of the votes cast in most of Romania’s counties (e.g., Barbu 1980; Veiga 1989: 105–21; Ioanid 1990: 64). Weber noted that the legion had first “gone to the people” in poor areas with historic “free villages” where peasants were relatively free to organize. This is where he believes the legionary vote was concentrated – in the poorest, most backward counties of the country. Yet, using fuller data, Heinen (1986: 403–14) demonstrates the reverse: positive ecological correlations between the legionary vote and literacy (r = .27) and radio ownership (r = .22), and a negative correlation with the infant mortality rate (r = −.19). He also notes that eleven of the twenty-two most industrialized counties were legionary strongholds, as were ten of the twenty most forested counties, in which large-scale lumber industries operated. On balance he believes the legion attracted votes from

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

The Romanian Family of Authoritarians 283

Map 8.2. Romania: counties of fascist strength.

more socially and economically developed areas. It was the legion’s main rival on the right, the PNC (authoritarian nationalist and anti-Semitic, but not fascist), that did better in backward peasant regions. The legion had first grown by taking votes in more advanced rural areas from the PNC’s predecessors, the LANC and other anti-Semitic parties. Yet Heinen finds no relationship between the fascist vote and the density of the population or the road network. The relationship between fascism and level of development is positive but weak.

To better understand the social base of the fascist vote we must return to Map 8.2. We see that the legionary vote came in three regional clusters. The first was in the center-north: The province of Bukovina (next to Poland) voted disproportionately for the legion, as did adjacent counties on all three sides in Northern Moldavia, Transylvania, and Maramures. This had been the area of strength for the LANC while Codreanu was still within it. All of its ten parliamentary deputies elected in 1926 (including Codreanu’s father) came from the center-north. The second cluster was in the center-west, encompassing much of the Banat and Crisana-Maramures and the west- erly part of Transylvania. The third cluster was in the southeast, straddling

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

284 Fascists

southeastern Moldavia and northeastern Muntenia, including the capital city, Bucharest (which voted 22% for the legion). Northern parts of this cluster had also seen the highest legionary votes in the legion’s first elec- tions, in 1931 and 1932 (Codreanu 1990: 299, 321). There were no isolated legionary counties. They came in clusters.

The clustering followed historic provincial boundaries, and so this some- what depresses linear correlations with indices of development, such as those of Heinen (we see the same depressing effect in Spain in the next chapter). The vote of two provinces plus the capital can actually account for Heinen’s economic correlations. The legion’s highest provincial vote, 24 percent, was in fairly prosperous Bukovina, while Bucharest was the most prosperous of all. One very poor province, Bessarabia, voted only 5 percent fascist. Take away these three and the correlation between fascism and economic de- velopment disappears altogether. Over the remaining fifty-seven counties fascist voting was unrelated to per capita sugar consumption, radios per capita, electricity consumption per capita, the infant mortality rate, and percentage working in agriculture. Level of development does not explain much. Other variables must have affected the fascist vote.

One explanation of the clustering might be legionary organization. Since the legion had little access to radio or major newspapers, it could not reach the whole country at once. It had to rely on networks of nests, marches, “excursions,” work camps, and the local word of mouth and leafleting that accompanied them. When a nest exceeded its limit of sixteen persons, it formed another nest, and then another, so that nests gradually spread along lines of communication. Or a work camp set up by immigrant legionaries would recruit locals to form their own nests. Map 8.2 shows a relation between earlier proselytizing and the fascist vote. Most of the regional vote clusters, outside the far southeast, had been early centers of legionary activity. Most of the southern swath deviated, having seen few excursions. Of course, the legion chose where to proselytize according to where it thought it would find a receptive audience.

Two different types of receptivity seem revealed by the map: areas of distinctive ethnic mixes and fairly industrialized areas (ethnic and economic data from Institul Central de Statistica 1939–40). The confusing effects of ethnicity prove to be the main factor depressing the correlation of the fas- cist vote with economic development. Fascism was supported by ethnic Romanians, rather than by the minorities – Germans, Magyars, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Szeklers, gypsies, or Jews. Where there were few Romanians, we find few fascist voters. In only two of the nineteen counties where Romanians were under 50 percent of the population did the legion get a

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

The Romanian Family of Authoritarians 285

(slightly) above average vote, and overall in these nineteen they averaged less that half the average national vote. Nonetheless, the ten legionary strongholds (i.e. receiving 25% or more of the vote) had an average of only 62 percent Romanians, compared with a national average of 72 percent. Thus the legion tended to get most votes in counties where there were siz- able numbers of both Romanians and minority ethnicities whom Romanian nationalists thought “threatened” them.

Heinen found no significant correlation between the fascist vote and local Jewish numbers. Jews lived mostly in the north plus Bucharest. They com- prised 4 percent of the national population, only 3 percent in Transylvania, 2 percent in Muntenia, under 1 percent in Oltenia and Dobrogea. But they were 12 percent in Bucharest, 11 percent in Bukovina, and 7 percent in Bessarabia. In these areas they were also urban: 14 percent of the popu- lation of Romanian cities, 30 percent of Bukovinan cities, 27 percent of Bessarabian, 23 percent of Moldovian (mostly in northern Moldavia), 12 percent in Bucharest, and 10 percent in Transylvanian cities (mostly in the north). They dominated credit and commerce – 70 to 80 percent of this sector in Bukovina, Bessarabia, and some cities in northern Moldavia and Mamures. Yet fascism was not mostly northern. And in the north, the provinces with the most Jews – Bukovina, Bessarabia, and most of north- ern Moldavia – represented the two extremes of fascist support: high in Bukovina, low in the other two. These areas shared long traditions of anti- Semitism, including pogroms. They also had many Romanians (and nonfas- cist Bessarabia had more Romanians). Why was fascism strong in Bukovina but weak in Bessarabia and northern Moldavia? Fascism could not have simply pitted Romanians against Jews.

Though Romanian fascists did see Jews as a “threat,” fascists mostly thrived in areas where there was also a second ethnic enemy associated with a formerly ruling power: Magyars in formerly Hungarian provinces and Germans in areas formerly part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The “Austro-Germans” mainly inhabited the cities of Eastern Bukovina, of Arad in the Banat, and of Nasaud in northeastern Transylvania. These cities had Germans, substantial Jewish communities, and Romanian nationalists mo- bilizing the nearby peasants. The result was a relatively high fascist vote.

Livezeanu (1995: chaps. 2 and 3) shows that from 1918 Bukovinan anti- Semitism fused with a newer Romanian nationalism directed against the former Austro-German rulers, who had imposed their language on the state. As the Austrian armies surrendered, nationalists seized local govern- ment institutions, demanding that Romania refuse to insert minority rights in the Constitution (as the Allies were demanding). The nationalists failed in

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

286 Fascists

this goal, but they did secure control of local administration and they ended German and Jewish domination of public education. Professionals, the army, and Orthodox priests now launched a drive to teach and use the Romanian language in public institutions. This was the usual nation-statist core con- stituency of fascism ranged against former “oppressors,” Jews and Germans. Historic anti-semitism thus fused with a new nation-statism, encouraging fascism. Indeed, local anti-Semitic (LANC and PNC) movements began to don fascist trappings in order to compete with the legion (Vago 1975: 167).

But not all the German speakers of Romania were perceived as enemies. The largely non fascist east of Transylvania contained “Saxons,” mostly rural communities who had migrated from Germany centuries ago. Near them resided another long-settled and “unthreatening” rural minority, the Szeklers, an ethnic group of unknown origins. Since neither had been linked in the past to an oppressor state, their relations with Romanian nationalists were now quite cordial. Neither minority endorsed irredentism, neither was felt to be exploiting Romanians. Romanian nationalists said Szeklers were “submerged” former Romanians and were potentially assimilable to the nation. Romanians and Saxons had compromised on the grant of some local communal autonomy within an uncontested Romanian state. Local Romanian farmers also attributed their prosperity partly to Saxon farmers teaching them more advanced farming techniques (Verdery 1983; Ronnas 1984: 127). In these areas Romanian nationalists were moderates, few be- coming fascists. Szekler counties were extremely unlikely to vote for the legion. Saxons did eventually become a little more receptive to German Nazi influences as war approached, propelling some toward the legion, and during the war into the SS.

The other main ethnic “threat” came from the formerly ruling Magyars. In western Transylvania, Maramures, and the Crisana-Banat, Romanians had been serfs to Magyar landowners for centuries. Here many Magyars supported the revisionist border claims of Hungary. Thus local nationalists urged aggressive Romanization of the schools and a unitary nation-state (Livezeanu 1995: chap. 4). This conflict went back to the eighteenth cen- tury. The center of Romanian resistance to the Habsburg attempt to im- pose the “Uniate Church” on Transylvania had then been in the counties of Hunedora, Alba, and Sibiu (Verdery 1983: 118).3 Map 8.2 shows that these counties were now disproportionately fascist. Heinen found a nega- tive correlation across Transylvania between the fascist vote and the size of the local Uniate congregation (r = −.38) – a fascinating historical residue. Maramures had witnessed early legionary and anti-Semitic disturbances, its capital containing the largest proportion of Yiddish-speakers in Transylvania

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

The Romanian Family of Authoritarians 287

(Livezeanu 1995: 290–5). It also had as many Hungarians as Romanians. Note the low fascist vote in two Hungarian border counties, Salaj and Satu Mare. Neither had many Jews, while Romanians formed less than 25 percent of their urban populations.

Thus the legion thrived on direct confrontation between a large Romanian population and two predominantly urban ethnic “enemies,” one Jewish, the other a formerly ruling nationality. There it could blend nation- alism and anti-Semitism into fascism. So Bessarabia was not fertile fascist soil. It lacked not Jews or anti-Semitism (it had both in abundance) but other ethnic enemies. True, this had been a Russian province before the war, almost declared again for the Soviets in 1918 and which fell again to the Soviets in 1940, provoking Romanian nationalist outrage. But here the local Romanian bourgeoisie was not very nationalist. Most of it spoke Russian and associated the Romanian language with the local “backward” peas- antry. It now preferred Romania to the Soviet Union, though for obvious class rather than nationalist reasons. Since the few communists were dis- proportionately Jewish, this fueled anti-Semitism. But the local Romanian bourgeoisie actually wanted more provincial autonomy and stronger ties with the neighboring province of Moldavia (the two shared a common history) rather than with the whole Romanian nation-state. Thus nation- statism remained stunted among Bessarabia’s Romanians. They supported the anti-Semitic LANC and PNC but not fascism (Shapiro 1974: map 1). This was also true in northern Moldavia. The LANC/PNC vote across Romania was correlated to the proportion of Jews in the population (r = 0.23; it had been 0.46 in 1933). In both of these areas bourgeois fears of the Soviet Union also made them suspicious of the “revolutionary” legion – which communists were rumored to be infiltrating. It was the broader fascist ideology of the legion that attracted or deterred, and its anti-Semitism was connected to a broader conception of the proletarian nation-state.

But this argument works only for the two fascist clusters in the north and the west. The southeast cluster was more solidly Romanian: Here only Covurlui had many Jews (almost 10%), and none had significant other mi- norities. Tulcea had Russians and Bulgarians but few Jews; while the capital had many Jews, but few of other minorities. A second theme, statism, was probably more important in the capital and the industrial regions. The most advanced industry was clustered in Bucharest and Brasov and most of the oil industry was in Prahova, both benefiting from import-substitution poli- cies and favoring statist doctrine (Ronnas 1984: 118–20). Weber (1966a: 110–11) says that two rural fascist-leaning counties (Putna and Covurlui) contained many of the historic “free villages,” able in the 1930s to organize

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

288 Fascists

local resistance against forestry and lumber companies (though two other such counties he names did not offer the legion much support). These were among the poorer legionary counties – as were the southern Wallachian counties, Dolj, Teleorman, and Vlasca, which he says had old traditions of peasant socialism. There were few Jews in any of these southern coun- ties. Here the legion emphasized a third theme, a class struggle between poor peasants and distant “alien” capital – a variant form of proletarian nationalism.

It may seem a little ad hoc to identify three distinct regionally specific reasons for voting fascist. Additionally, these data do not permit certainty. Romanian counties were large, some containing varied economic and ethnic conditions. The legion nowhere officially got more than 36 percent of a county’s vote. It is hazardous to guess which local subgroups voted for it, but probable that it “swept” no large subgroup anywhere. Nonetheless, my analysis tends to suggest that some parts of the country might support fascism as extreme nationalism. Where local Romanian nationalists faced the “threats” of Jews plus a ruling national minority, many looked favorably on fascism. In other parts of the country many supported fascism more as defense of the peasant proletariat, as extreme statism, or as the defense required for a “proletarian” nation to withstand foreign exploitation. Class was very important in Romanian fascism, but filtered through the legion’s proletarian nation-statism.

fascist end-game

The electoral results were bad news both for democracy and for King Carol (Shapiro 1974). The shift toward fascism was unmistakable – indeed, it con- tinued the drift rightward under way since 1929. The National Peasants retained 20 percent of the vote, but they were not as prodemocratic or as multicultural as they once had been. The other quasi-democratic and ethnic minority parties could muster only another 10 percent. Carol’s own semi- authoritarian government bloc got 36 percent, the largest political bloc but still too small to form a new ministry. What happened next was not in- evitable. Carol could have moved back in the direction of a more liberal democracy and formed a coalition between these groupings. But he was no democrat and had no wish to. Thus he had to bend to the right – though there he had to face the hostility of the legion. After complex secret negotia- tions (including an apparent attempt to assume command of the legion!), he invited the rival far-rightist and anti-Semitic National Christian Party (with only 9% of the vote) to lead the government. He hoped that it could govern

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

The Romanian Family of Authoritarians 289

with the support of the former regime parties and a few others, without too many changes. However, the National Christians had been borrow- ing legionary clothes, and the new government declared for a pro-German foreign policy, corporatism, and “Romania for the Romanians.” It now extended previous legislation to completely ban Jewish and other minority participation in public and professional life. Romanians were moving toward organicist solutions but not very violent ones.

Yet the new government parties lacked authority and sought to do a deal with the legion. Carol was alarmed, fearing their joint power might be turned against himself. He dissolved parliament, assumed total power, and turned violently against the legion. There was no immediate paramilitary resistance. Fourteen leaders, including Codreanu, were arrested, given long prison sentences for sedition, and then summarily strangled in November 1938 – with the incredible cover story that they had died while attempting to escape. The paramilitary weakness of this movement had been exposed. While individual fascists had been put up to assassinate Jews and officials, the assumption was that other fascists could carry on organizing openly and electorally. Now that the regime was thoroughly authoritarian, however, it could change the rules of the game and wipe out the fascist leadership at a stroke. It did not wipe out fascism, however. Indeed, Codreanu now became the Christian/fascist martyr, influential even after his death. The legion went underground, assassinating the prime minister responsible for the killings in September 1939 (the fourth serving or former prime minister it had murdered). Around 400 leading legionaries and their families were summarily executed in retaliation, many of their bodies being strung up in the streets on lampposts. We have data on many of these leaders: They were professionals (especially lawyers), priests, teachers, and other public employees. Other urban militants fled to Germany and were interned. Stu- dents formed the largest group of the internees, followed by the usual pro- fessionals and public employees, though with some workers as well (rows 2 and 4 of Appendix Table 8.1). It was in response to this second repres- sion that the underground legion adopted real organized, collective, violent paramilitarism.

Carol had erected a semi-reactionary authoritarian regime with some corporatist pretensions, but he attempted to maintain a neutral foreign pol- icy. By 1940 he was under considerable German pressure. With revisionist powers for neighbors (one of them the communist USSR), Romania needed an alliance with either Germany or the liberal powers. France was no more, Britain might not survive much longer. Carol became willy-nilly Hitler’s ally, the Romanian economy was reoriented toward supplying Germany,

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

290 Fascists

and the numerous Germans now working in Romania increased the influ- ence of fascism. Carol became more corporatist. He formed a one-party regime, the “Party of the Nation,” drew the legion into it, and intensi- fied anti-Jewish legislation (this and the ensuing policies of deportation and liquidation are discussed in my forthcoming volume).

But Hitler double-crossed him. The treaty between Hitler and Stalin, plus Hitler’s pro-Hungarian policy, resulted in Romania losing northern Bukovina and Bessarabia to the USSR and northern Transylvania to Hungary. With the king’s policies in ruins, General Antonescu forced his abdication and established himself as dictator. He was no lover of Germany but believed that Germany would win the war and hoped Hitler would eventually give him back Transylvania. Since Antonescu had little track record, Hitler did not yet know whether to trust him. So for a while the shrewd general ruled jointly with the fascists. The new leader of the legion, Horia Sima (a friend of Himmler), became vice-president of the council, and legionaries held five ministries, most of the directorships of the min- istries, and forty-five of the forty-six regional prefectures (indicative of their strength in the public sector throughout the country). We know the prior occupations of forty of these legionary prefects. Nineteen had been lawyer civil servants, twelve had been professors, six had been army officers, and the remaining three were other professionals (Ioanid 1990: 201–2). The le- gion also continued to attract young and educated militants: Over 18,000 secondary school students and over 1,100 teachers were active in it in 1941. The legion showed special interest in trade-school students and apprentices. With the suppression of the Communist Party, the legion also monopolized workers’ organization. The Legionary Worker Corps was active in most enterprises, and it organized at least one major mining strike (Ioanid 1990: 72; Hitchins 1994: 461).

General Antonescu is sometimes described as a fascist. His prior record had revealed only an effective soldier, honest but repressive and fiercely anticommunist. Though now formally endorsing a corporatist authoritar- ianism, his ultimate loyalty was to existing institutions, not a new fascist order (Watts 1993: 275). He was essentially a semi-reactionary authoritar- ian, stealing some corporatist and fascist clothes so as to appear to move with the times. His main substantial link to the fascists was his primi- tive nationalism, revealed when he addressed his Council of Ministers in April 1941:

We have to inspire Romanians with hatred against the enemies of the nation. This is how I grew up, with hatred against the Turks, the kikes and the Hungarians. This sentiment of hatred against the enemies of the nation must be pushed to the ultimate extremes. I take responsibility for this. (Braham 1998: 15)

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

The Romanian Family of Authoritarians 291

But this was not a harmonious family of fascists. Antonescu became alarmed by the radicalism and new collective violence of his legionary allies, and by the rumored movement of communists into the legion. In November 1940 he was enraged when legionaries murdered sixty-five politicians being held in prison. The reports of the Vichy Embassy in Bucharest give ample testi- mony of the struggle under way between Antonescu and his vice-premier Sima. Antonescu would call for “calm and order,” Sima for further “deeds of prowess.” Sima was infiltrating the ministries, the universities, the hospi- tals, and especially the “Commission on Romanianization” with legionary “committees of surveillance,” and he was adding legionary auxiliary police to the police forces in order forcibly to “purify” the nation. Antonescu was trying to subordinate all these legionaries to men loyal to himself. Yet Antonescu was yielding ground on policy, promulgating measures of pro- letarian nationalism, encouraging equality of wages and salaries, attacking capitalist “speculators,” and, especially, cleansing the country of its Jews. The French diplomats perceived a “revolutionary” situation leading to a complete stagnation and anarchy of government. This, they said, alarmed re- spectable politicians and churchmen, encouraging “communistic” legionar- ies, the mass of whose members they believed were now recruited from “the lowest classes,” keen for plunder from Jews and other rich “traitors” (Ianciu 1998: 73–84, 91–2).

It could not last. An attempted legionary coup followed in January 1941. Himmler sympathized but Hitler supported Antonescu, believing he could better control the country and so ensure the safe flow of Romania’s oil to the German war machine. Legionaries briefly held most public buildings in Bucharest. They attempted unsuccessfully to assassinate Antonescu. The British legation sent home a long list of army units reported to have defected, but the French Embassy was more skeptical and accurate in its observations. Antonescu had summoned the legionary prefects to Bucharest and took over their regional administrations in their absence. He was a respected general and he had ensured the loyalty of key army units around the capital. Had King Carol still ruled, the outcome might have been different. But this army, despite some disunity, stood and fought. In such circumstances military power can almost always defeat paramilitary power – especially one with only recent familiarity with military tactics as the legion. After some delay, Antonescu deployed loyal army units to overwhelm the insurgents – delaying until the legionaries’ violence had discredited them in the eyes of the Germans. The new German envoy Manfred von Killinger clearly brought with him orders from Hitler to suppress the revolt, and German troops paraded a show of force to intimidate the legionaries (Ancel 1993: 228–31; Ianciu 1998: 111–20). Some 250 legionaries were killed, 9,000

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

292 Fascists

arrested. Students had led the demonstrations that began the insurrection, though those arrested were predominantly proletarian, with the remainder scattered among the usual nation-statist middle class (row 4 of Appendix Table 8.1).

The legionaries had learned the same bitter lesson as the Arrow Cross: The Nazi regime preferred orderly semi-reactionary and corporatist author- itarians to unruly fascists. The legion hung on through further persecution, managing to infiltrate many government agencies until allowed to reap- pear and to participate openly in the Final Solution. As the fortunes of war shifted, so did Antonescu, eventually becoming an ally of the invading Soviets. The legion rebeled again, seizing control of the western part of the country, committing its own little Final Solution until overwhelmed by the Red Army. The legionary life of violence – by them, against them – seemed over.

The postwar communist government proved surprisingly sparing. Antonescu and some fascist collaborators were executed, but the Ceausescu regime later used many ex-legionaries and exhibited pronounced legionary symptoms: extreme ethnic nationalism, forcible eugenicism, and peasant worship. Student fascism briefly reappeared in the aftermath of communist collapse, in the early 1990s. But the strong state is for the moment discred- ited and there are virtually no Jews left in the country. Only the presence of a substantial Magyar minority causes concern of a revival of organic Romanian nationalism. But perhaps at long last Romanian fascism may now be finished.

conclusion

We have witnessed a broadly familiar story in interwar Romania: surging authoritarian statism and organic nationalism. Yet those responsible were a little different. Here ruling elites were not old, but they had survived the war intact. By radicalizing a little in nationalist and statist directions they could remain in power. State military power (narrowly) held firm against fas- cist paramilitary power. A king and a general sawed off the fascist threat from below. Though I identified elements of the usual “ruling-class con- spiracy” against democracy, this one sought to evade not only democracy but also fascism. And though I identified fascists as the core of this surge, Romanian fascists were distinctive. There were actually two main fascist core constituencies. The first was the usual “nation-statist” ideology and con- stituency of leaders and militants – though here adding many priests. But the legion also had a rather proletarian ideology and base, among poor peasants

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

The Romanian Family of Authoritarians 293

and industrial workers – though not across all regions of the country. Thus Romanian fascism was not a movement of the bourgeoisie in general or of the petty bourgeoisie in particular. Had they not suffered disabling repres- sion, fascists might have won majority support from the electorate. Their tactics were more electoral than paramilitary, since until very late the legion’s violence was rather individual and primarily intended to provoke limited repression from the state, which would then generate more popular support.

Yet the legion’s base seems an odd alliance between disparate groups. What brought them together? The legion first profited and then suffered from political elites’ failure to solve the country’s pressing problems. In 1918 Romanians had got vast new territories and the promise of a mod- ern democracy. Yet the reality was that it was a desperately poor country and a ramshackle collection of provincial institutions. Political cement was provided by a governing old regime, strengthened by war victory, of patron- client “notable parties” and a monarchy, dispensing state offices and develop- ment projects to their clients. In the interwar period such semi-authoritarian methods were showing signs of strain everywhere, undermined by increas- ing density of communication, assailed by modernizing ideologies, espe- cially fascism. The Great Depression revealed these regimes’ incapacity to alleviate distress, especially in agriculture. And as in some other countries, resentment took ethnic as well as class forms.

The king and most of the notables consistently preferred a less rather than a more democratic solution to Romania’s problems. They were thus com- plicit in the drift toward nation-statist authoritarianism – as similar groupings were in just about every interwar country of Eastern and Southern Europe. Yet they did not assist fascists into power. Instead, they themselves em- braced some of the fascist vision, partly as a sincere attempt to become more “modern” but partly opportunistically, in order to preserve their own rule by greater force. Though fascists themselves were manipulated and purged, fascism then partially triumphed as King Carol and Marshal Antonescu borrowed corporatist and fascist trappings to become, in effect, “fascist fellow-travelers.”

The central fascist message was for a new, clean, modern beginning by an organic nation-state. This embodied a bit of the usual message of class transcendence: “Knock their heads together” with paramilitary violence and then use corporatist institutions to achieve national harmony. But the class emphasis here differed from more westerly Europe. “Bolsheviks” were too weak to much threaten national harmony – except in the form of Russian imperialism in Bessarabia. Domestically, the greater threat seemed to be “foreign” capitalist exploitation of the nation. Exploitation seemed

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

294 Fascists

centered on a foreign economic elite, especially Jews – and Carol, a “Ger- man” monarch with a Jewish mistress and a “foreign” court camarilla, could not eventually avoid being identified with it. The conjoining of “foreigness,” “corruption,” and “exploitation” was the weakness of this regime, allowing fascism to almost overcome it. But fascism chose more of an electoral than a paramilitary route to power, until too late. Since the regime retained its military power predominance, it survived by force.

The towns, the ostensibly democratic institutions, and the capital thus had an ambiguous position in the new nation-state: supposedly represent- ing the modern future of the nation, yet also its foreign, its cosmopolitan, its corrupting antithesis. Livezeanu (1990; cf. Nagy-Talavera 1970: 258–60) argues that an essentially rural nationalism, articulated by students from rural backgrounds, was now directed against the capital, its monarch, its elites, its productive bourgeoisie, and its Jews. Peasants and the sons of peasants would destroy their power and make Romania into an organic nation-state. This seems exaggerated. More peasants remained loyal to parties that were more democratic than the legion, though the legion did acquire consider- able rural support. Yet fascism was not exclusively rural. It resonated in the state sector and the army and also became popular among industrial work- ers. Socialism was weak and “foreign.” But capitalism was Jewish, German, Magyar, and Greek, borrowing French capital. Romanian workers, espe- cially those around the capital, had benefited from statist policies. They sup- ported the nation-state but not capitalism. Capitalists were alien Jews. As it took over from the socialists, the legion became the only viable collective organization open to workers. Workers imbibed fascism as part of collective bargaining.

Into all this we can fit the distinctive strength of anti-Semitism in Romania. Nationalists could harness a radical populism to anti-Semitism. But only the legion was at first adding a broader, supposedly progressive, and modernizing vision: a fuller sense of nationhood, to be wrested from the totality of its exploiting enemies, based on a vision of the potentiality of the Romanian soul rooted in the past but combined with a fascist vision of the future. Thus, as we saw in the voting data, fascist support depended on the combined presence of local nation-statists plus ethnic aliens connected to exploitative foreign powers. Jewish “exploitation” inspired anti-Semitism, but was insufficient to generate fascism. This depended on the plausibility of a more total vision, of a proletarian nation “threatened” by exploiting ethnicities and nations.

For all the disparate class groupings – nation-statist middle class, workers, and peasants – anti-Semitism played a large role in generating support for

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

The Romanian Family of Authoritarians 295

Romanian fascism, for reasons that are more materialistic and “proletarian” than in the case of German Nazism. Jews were believed to be exploiting the Romanian nation. Thus fascist anti-Semitism resonated among those who considered themselves to be the exploited core of the Romanian nation- state. The legion spoke for Romania as a “proletarian nation.” But its op- pressors, though supposedly “foreign,” were not primarily abroad. Fascists’ mission was at home: Cleanse the alien oppressors, strengthen the borders, and so achieve national purity, integration, and progress. My forthcom- ing volume on ethnic cleansing shows just how far Romanian fascists and fellow-travelers went.

P1: JRT/JZW/FTZ/LCR P2: KaD 0521831318c08.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:33

296

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

9

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians

Spain differed from the countries discussed above, though not from some of the other countries of the center, east, and south of Europe. The whole family of Spanish authoritarians – semi-authoritarians, semi-reactionaries, corporatists, and fascists – stood united against democrats and leftists. But uniquely in Europe the latter did not cave in but stood and fought. Their bloody three-year civil war ended in massive political (rather than ethnic) cleansing by the victors and then in the longest-lived rightist authoritarian regime in Europe, enduring until General Franco died in his bed in 1975. Thus Spain saw a broader-based and longer-lived authoritarianism, coming to power after both authoritarians and democrats had chosen sides, not only in elections, but also on the battlefield. As a result, we perceive certain things more clearly in Spain.

From the 1880s until 1923 Spain had been “semi-authoritarian,” as de- fined in Chapter 2, with both parliamentary and executive autonomous powers coexisting side by side. There were elections under a restricted fran- chise but the king could remove ministers, initiate legislation, and declare martial law. Despite its multiethnicity, the country was also highly central- ized. The system of el turno pacifico (“peaceful change”) gave the monarch distinctive powers to alternate Conservative and Liberal ministries at will. When he decided on a change, the local political bosses (the caciques) were told that executive patronage would shift to the opposition. This under- mined the democratic half of the state, since the caciques, eager to continue swilling at the trough, duly switched their allegiance, ensuring the oppo- sition’s victory – usually with a low turnout and a third of seats uncon- tested (Tusell Gómez 1976). But el turno was eventually undermined in the more advanced regions by expanding industrialization, literacy, and suffrage, all encouraging political mobilization independently of the caciques. So- cialism and anarcho-syndicalism stirred the proletariat; regional autonomy

297

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

298 Fascists

movements appeared among Catalans and Basques; modernizing centrist ideologies stirred the middle class. From about 1910 onward some politi- cians on right, center, and left alike were offering genuine principles and programs, inching toward real liberal democracy.

Yet twice movement toward democracy was stifled. In 1923 General Primo de Rivera marched in his troops and began a corporatist-leaning dictatorship. He fell in 1930 and next year a democratic republic was inaugurated, with liberal and social democratic objectives, granting sig- nificant regional autonomies. But the republic lasted only five years be- fore a military rebellion led into the civil war. By its end 300,000 to 400,000 Spaniards lay dead, almost half of them murdered in cold blood, the victims of the last and most violent of the interwar struggles be- tween liberal democracy and authoritarian rightism. The subsequent Franco regime (though it changed through time) can be broadly labeled as a mix- ture of semi-reactionary and corporatist authoritarian, highly repressive and keeping its numerous fascists leashed yet apparently contented. It fal- tered only when Franco himself faltered, in old age. But Spanish democ- racy was safely secured only in 1981 after another attempted army coup fizzled out.

This chapter pursues two main sets of questions. Who in 1923 and espe- cially in 1936 killed off the moves toward democracy, and why? And why did Spain move along the rightist continuum identified in Chapter 2 – but only to an authoritarianism that was able to domesticate its fascists?

background: capitalism and the nation-state in spain

We must begin with the economic and political background. Economically, Spain (along with Portugal) was the most backward country in Western Europe. Industry lagged and few Spanish goods could compete internation- ally. Neutrality in World War I allowed some export-led growth, but this ended in postwar recession followed by very slow growth. With little foreign trade, Spain did not suffer all that much in the Great Depression. Things got much worse in the small export sectors, especially Asturian coal and Valencian agricultural produce, and in backward agriculture, still employ- ing 45 percent of the labor force. Employers in these sectors sought lower labor costs, intensifying conflict. Continued slow growth frustrated hopes for modernization. Spaniards expected life to improve, yet this occurred painfully slowly and not at all in many agricultural areas. Class tensions in- creased. As we see below, class conflict was very important in the failure of Spanish democracy.

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 299

Map 9.1. Regions and provinces of Spain.

But in Spain (see Map 9.1) economic and class tensions always came en- twined with regional-national ones. The economy varied greatly by region, probably more so than in any other country considered here. In agriculture most farms in the north were run by small independent or lease-holding peasants. Running in an arc across the north, these were very poor in Galicia in the northeast, just making out across the Castillian center, and more pros- perous along the Catalan and Valencian Mediterranean littoral. Peasant own- ers and leaseholders tended to favor centrist politics, while dwarf-holders and laborers could be more radical. Yet all could be pushed rightward where the Catholic Church was strong (in the center), leftward where it was weaker (along the Mediterranean). But in the south, in Andalucia and Extramadura and in parts of Castile west of Madrid, 40 percent of land belonged to large (250+ hectares) latifundio estates. Two-thirds of the population were com- pletely landless and in desperate economic circumstances. Some 40 percent of all landless farm workers depended on harvest-time contracts for their very survival (though some sailed annually to Cuba to participate in a sec- ond harvesting, on sugar cane plantations). Most southern landlords were absentee owners living in the towns.

Absent intransigent landlords, transparent economic exploitation and la- borer control of the everyday life of the village are precisely the sociological conditions ensuring that there would be violent, community-reinforced

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

300 Fascists

class conflict across the south – as strong as anywhere in Europe. Thus, amid many local and regional variations (too complex to enumerate here), we can perceive a north-south divide – peasant centrism in the north, class insurrectionism in the south.

Region also mattered greatly in industry, which had come late and un- evenly to Spain. Industry had mostly grown in peripheral regions that pos- sessed distinct regional cultures resisting the historic political domination of Castile and its capital Madrid. There were textiles in Catalonia and Valencia, mining in the Asturias, iron and steel and some banking in the Basque country. Though not overall a very industrialized country, Spanish industry was highly concentrated, fostering intense local “proletarian ghet- tos” and class struggles. In certain parts of Spain arose a threatening, even seemingly a revolutionary working-class movement, as extreme as any in Europe. Here perhaps upper classes had good reasons to fear and perhaps to lash out with their own extremism. But such confrontation was regional more than national. Development in these regions had also brought a large, more modern contingent of the middle class, not usually leftist but often liberal and secular, concerned to throw off the old regime yoke. This com- bination of progressives lay behind what Map 9.2 reveals below: Southern agriculture, Catalonia, and the Asturias were the main republican regions in elections.

Regionalism was not sufficiently strong to persuade many workers to support autonomy movements (which tended to be rather bourgeois). Class ideologies had diffused among workers before the great growth of regional sentiments. But there were strong indirect effects of region on class politics. Much of the core industrial proletariat gravitated (as in other countries) toward socialism. Yet Catalan workers and southern agricultural laborers felt oppressed by a distant state and could conceive of life without it. Indeed, the Spanish state was mainly a repressive presence for the lower classes, especially in these regions and sectors. Workers here became more attracted by the anarcho-syndicalist vision of a general strike, ignoring the state, that would eventually destroy both capitalism and the state. Until the 1930s anarcho-syndicalism also attracted numerous unskilled workers, especially outside heavy industry. Thus though Spanish economic structure nurtured intense agrarian and industrial class struggle, the labor movement was divided between socialists and anarcho-syndicalists, each with distinct regional bases, neither a truly national movement. This was to weaken the Spanish left – and the Second Republic.

In contrast to its late capitalism, Spain had a very old state, though it was also regionally uneven. The cacique-ridden parliamentary side I have

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 301

mentioned already. The executive part of the state rested on three pillars: the Catholic Church, the army, and the Bourbon monarchy. Catholicism was in practice the state religion. Had not this church and state together “Christianized half the world”? El Escorial, outside Madrid, symbolizes their relationship: The great palace of Philip II is wrapped around the dome of a massive church, the altar clearly visible from his bed. The church re- mained deeply embedded across the more agrarian parts of Spain, especially among the peasants and middle class of Castile and Léon. In some other areas it was weakly implanted, except among old regime elements. There peas- ant insurrections had included intermittent killings of priests. The church’s uneven implantation and bitter experience tended to make it rather reac- tionary, suspicious of modernity, of “Social Catholicism,” of trade unions, and of democracy (Lannon 1987: 55–65, 183–94). The old regime could mobilize considerable ideological power through the church, but varying by region and at the political cost of provoking an opposing alliance between traditional anticlericalism and more modern secularism.

The army was large and important but also somewhat regional. Most officers were from the somewhat poor provincial bourgeoisie of Castile, Léon, and the south. More than any other European army, it recruited the sons of its own officers and noncommissioned officers, bringing them young into military academies, with barely any teenage, let alone adult, experience. Franco entered at age fourteen. It was a caste, though one with a class bias that was now growing. Though its nineteenth-century roots had been liberal, its broad martial law powers were increasingly deployed in defense of the propertied classes (Ballbé 1983; Alpert 1989: 51–2). Since the governments of this poor country could not adequately maintain the large armed forces conferred by its imperial history, military disasters ensued. In 1898–9 Spain’s global empire disintegrated after a brief one-sided war with the United States, and in 1921 in the last remaining colony a Spanish army was cut to pieces by Moroccan tribesmen at the battle of Anual. On both occasions the army and politicians traded the blame, opening up a split between the civilian and military state. The officer “generation of 1898” began to abandon traditional liberalism and conservatism to flirt with modern statist ideologies (Busquets 1984: 94–111, 155–7; Ben-Ami 1983: 66–72; Gomez-Navarro 1991: 313–20). Deprived of its empire, the army became a garrison army in Spain itself, plus Morocco. But this was a professional army, and Spain stayed out of World War I. Thus Spain had few discharged young male veterans and the paramilitary ideals they espoused. Military statism remained conservative, top-down even when modernized, unaffected by popular paramilitarism or fascism.

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

302 Fascists

The Bourbon monarchy was the weakest of the three executive pillars. Alfonso XIII was widely blamed for the defeat at Anual. He was sidelined by General Primo de Rivera and exiled in 1931. The monarchy had been persistently challenged, and not only by liberals and democrats. The most monarchist province, Navarre, actually supported the rival “Carlist” dynasty, thus splitting Spanish monarchists. Spanish statism would not take a very monarchist track.

Since the core of all three pillars lay in the backward regions and insti- tutions, the state was not modern. In some ways it resembled the typical premodern European state: a court, an army, and a church, with very little in the way of permanent administration. Its tax base was primitive, its edu- cational, health, and communications infrastructures rudimentary. It could repress and it was considered reasonably legitimate, but it could not get things done – that is, its infrastructural power was weak. Ideologically, it looked backward, to the Golden Age of Philip II for its nationalist myth of Hispanidad, Spain’s historic mission to the world. Indeed, it often confronted more modern enemies – bourgeois-centered autonomy movements in the advanced provinces and the international ideologies of liberalism, socialism, and anarchism. Nonetheless, the old regime did receive some more modern support from Catalan industrialists and Basque bankers, threatened by ag- gressive local proletariats and so also favoring organic (always in Spain called “integral”) unity against regionalism.

Though this old state was decaying and divisions were opening within it, its decline was very gradual. It had stabilized in the 1880s after a period of regime changes and Carlist dynastic wars. Military disasters were far away and Spain remained neutral during World War I. Unlike all the other states considered so far, there was no external threat to the country, the regime was very old, and there was no sudden loss of legitimacy. A more conservative and infrastructurally weak form of twentieth-century statism than in the countries examined so far might survive the crises of the period. Indeed, most scholars have noted that the durability of the old regime was the most important reason that genuine fascism was relatively weak in Spain.

Spanish “nationalism” was even more distinctive.1 As a very old state Spain had no contested borders with other countries, except in Africa. There were no territorial revisionists, no enraged refugees (unless we count the Africanistas we encounter later). Relations with France and Portugal were entirely peaceful (a characteristic of neighbors in the European northwest, not the center, east, and south), and Spain kept clear of the Great War. Thus many have said that nationalism was weak because the country faced little

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 303

foreign threat. Payne (1962: 1), for example, argues that Spanish fascists (like those elsewhere) would have thrived on international conflict yet could stir little up. This is where I disagree. It is true that most Spaniards had the good sense to accept their geopolitical decline, and nationalists (including fascists) showed little aggression toward other nations. Nonetheless, Spain faced considerable internal divisions, and as we have seen in other countries organic nationalism tended to thrive as much on these as on foreign conflict. Thus the Spanish right – as in other countries – did come to mobilize a mass “integral” (organic) nationalism against supposed internationalist and separatist “enemies” within. Spanish nationalism was strong, but it was do- mestically not internationally oriented. It was also resolutely political and cultural rather than ethnic. Indeed, it was regional separatists who stressed ethnicity. Organic nationalists would come to support political rather than ethnic cleansing, since they saw their enemies as presenting an essentially political (separatist and leftist) threat.

Thus a quick tour of the country has revealed pronounced but regionally varied lower class insurgence confronting a conservative, regionally rooted three-pillared state and old regime, still intact, if infrastructurally weak, be- ginning to decay, and generating a domestically oriented nationalism. Thus the Spanish right lacked not modern nationalism but a modern version of statism – and so it eventually got a more reactionary state than fascism, com- mitted to violent political but not ethnic cleansing. But only a little of this had surfaced at the time of Spain’s first twentieth-century encounter with authoritarianism.

the rise and fall of general primo de rivera

The background to the coup of General Primo de Rivera lay in the “Bolshevik Triennium,” three years of class conflict (1918–20) involving mass strikes and occupations similar in those occurring in many European countries at this time. However, here the conflict was infused with the distinctive fondness of Spanish insurgents for small arms and homemade bombs. The most aggressive were anarcho-syndicalist CNT union pistoleros, gunning down about fifty Barcelona employers, officials, and moderate trade unionists in 1920 alone (Morego 1922). Since the army was ineffective against individual killings, employers also helped to organize volunteer mili- tias and violent rightist unions, the most important of which were known as the Sindicatos Libres (free unions).

The Libres were in a sense the first stirrings of Spanish fascism. These unions were led by Catholic, conservative, and Carlist (Navarre was nearby) workers, fed up with anarchism, anticlericalism, and unproductive leftist

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

304 Fascists

“maximalism.” They became more violent and more like “yellow unions,” as they received employer subsidies to break strikes. For several years they matched the CNT in assaults and assassinations. They recruited most effec- tively outside the “proletarian ghettos” of heavy industry and large textiles – among groups such as those who specialized in textile trades; railroad, gas, and electricity employees; barbers; carters; cafe, bar, and kitchen workers; bakers; milkmen; masons; carpenters; leather workers; graphic artists; and glass workers. A list of twenty-three Libres “martyrs” killed in the 1920s reveals three metallurgists, three glaziers, three typesetters, two cooks, two bank employees, one baker, one trucker, and eight from the textile dyers’ union (Winston 1985: 178–87). In their violence and roots among work- ers outside the core proletarian ghettos, the Libres resembled fascist worker movements of the period, though their ideology was not so developed or coherent.

And 1920 proved to be their high point. Most of the CNT terrorists were killed, swinging power in the CNT to moderates, especially in Barcelona it- self. The reformist socialist UGT unions also began to expand at the CNT’s expense. The number of days lost in strikes dropped in 1921 and remained under half the 1920 level in the next three years, the last ones of the semi-parliamentary regime. More strikes concerned wages and working conditions, and more were won by employers (Payne 1970: 44–61; Ben- Ami 1983: 8–14, 34–40; Carmona 1989: 467–8, 495–6; Martin 1990: 226– 30). Barcelona was, after all, a modern industrial city in which the power of a legitimate state remained firm. Most workers realized that guerrilla action against it was futile. The violence of the Libres was no longer needed and they declined. The economy recovered and real wages rose. The parliament (the Cortes), though factionalized and corrupt, also showed signs of liber- alism. In late 1922 the cabinet announced a program of electoral reform, compulsory arbitration and profit-sharing in industry, army reform, and an end to the Moroccan War. Genuine democracy seemed around a couple of corners.

Yet this seemed to alarm many conservatives. The caciques opposed elec- toral reform, the employers opposed labor conciliation, and the army felt its own corporate interests threatened (Boyd 1979: 276). They resorted to military power and Primo marched in his troops. The church was not in- volved, the king dithered, but there was financial support from big business. The coup was greeted with enthusiasm by well-dressed crowds and the stock market rose. This was predominantly a class-based coup, though actually ac- complished through an army pursuing its own corporate interests. Together those elites possessing economic and military power killed off the first at- tempt at democracy.

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 305

Some scholars advance an even stronger class explanation, saying that the coup was necessary to protect class interests. “A revolution from above to avoid one from below,” says Ben-Ami (1983: 45–7, 77–87, 401). Gomez- Navarro (1991: 487–90) argues that late economic development had desta- bilized the old regime, “requiring” a more modern authoritarianism based on the two most efficient institutions, the army and state bureaucracy. But the trouble with this functionalist class explanation is that Primo’s coup had occurred not when revolution threatened but when reform was being cau- tiously aired by bourgeois liberals. Though rightists claimed that they were averting social chaos, violence and strikes were actually diminishing. Once again in interwar Europe, rightists were reaching for the gun too early, with a touch of hysteria – “panic-stricken” (Boyd 1979: 116–40) with an “obses- sive fear of revolution” (Gonzalez Hernandez 1990: 129). Even Ben-Ami (1983: 8–14) agrees, quoting a contemporary jibe:

. . . the muse of fear, the diligent companion of the conservative classes, [generates] . . . madrigals and ballads in tribute to social order. Social order before anything else! Everything should be sacrificed on the altar of social order.

So there does remain the puzzle with which we have become familiar in this book. Why were conservatives so fearful, reaching for the gun so early? Were they irrational or playing safe rather than sorry? Were they really opposing not revolution but reformist democracy of the Northwestern European variety? Since conservatives displayed similar fears during the much better- documented republic, I delay my answer.

For a while Primo satisfied his supporters. He abolished the Cortes and replaced civil governors with military captains-general. He repressed re- gionalists and the CNT and rejected agrarian reform. But he had an unex- pected side. As a military modernizer he was drawn toward fascism. He told Mussolini that “your figure is not only Italian, but global. You are the apostle of the campaign that Europe has embarked upon against disintegration and anarchy.” Primo acted on his fascist sympathies. He replaced the Cortes with a corporatist assembly in which sat a single tame party, the Unión Patriotica. He embarked on autarchic economic development programs. A more radi- cal influence from fascism was syndicalism, and he offered the socialist UGT unions an equal role in compulsory labor arbitration (while he repressed the CNT). The socialists accepted, and by 1929 the scheme covered almost half the industrial work force, and the labor courts were finding more often against employers than workers. Strikes fell. Primo’s finance minister was Calvo Sotelo, widely read, attracted by fascist notions of the corporate state, even attempting to tax the rich to finance welfare programs (Ben-Ami 1983; Rial 1986). He was seeking to increase the state’s infrastructural capacity and

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

306 Fascists

to redistribute power resources minimally among classes who would allow themselves to be incorporated into the regime. All this amounted not to fascism but to an idiosyncratic blend of semi-reactionary and corporatist authoritarianism.

Top-down corporatism weakened the chances for fascism from below. Since Primo had repressed the anarcho-syndicalists and tamed the socialists, the Libres were irrelevant and they declined terminally. But his own UP party and his tame National Assembly were also top-down organizations, unable to actually mobilize the peasants and middle class whom they mostly “represented” (see Appendix Table 9.2, row 6, and Gomez-Navarro 1991: 207–304, 499–506). Lack of mobilized support was unfortunate for Primo, since his quirky policies had multiplied his enemies. The church and capi- talists had come to oppose most of his innovations. He mishandled a fiscal crisis and had to seek military economies, which alienated his own soldiers. His erstwhile allies forced his resignation. But it was hastily done – as coups against generals who have command of troops tend to be. There was no agreement about what regime would replace him. Many of the power bro- kers refused to have back the unpopular king, and they couldn’t agree on an alternative authoritarian regime. Massive popular demonstrations erupted in the power vacuum, and in response a democratic republic was proclaimed by centrist politicians. The army could not move against such insurgence led by such moderates. Primo had made the old regime unexpectedly split apart, making a new one possible. The second democratic experiment, bolder and more radical than the first, began.

the second republic: the overall political problem

The republic began with high hopes, yet has received the worst form of historical censure – the judgment that it was doomed from beginning to end. The memoirs of the conservative politician José Maria Gil Robles (1968) assert that the republic remained trapped between the inexorable extremism of left and right, with democracy becoming unviable and authoritarianism inevitable. The historians Thomas (1977), Robinson (1970), Seco (1971), Juliá (1984), and Payne (1993) tend to agree. Linz (1978) accuses all the parties of valuing their own ends over democratic means. These writers distribute blame fairly even-handedly, though some blame the left more (e.g., Payne and Robinson), others the right ( Jackson 1965; Montero 1977; Preston 1978). Who is correct?

Historical and comparative sociology would suggest one preliminary point. The movement for democracy has never been merely “procedural,” seeking only a particular method of government. It has also had a substantive

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 307

purpose. Popular movements became interested in parliaments only in order to make substantive gains from old regimes. In the seventeenth, eighteenth, and early nineteenth centuries, they had fought against taxes and military conscription. In the late nineteenth century, they had added demands for education, welfare, and rights for workers. A redistribution of power and re- sources from dominant to middling and lower classes, from despotic central states to the provinces and regions, and from men to women has been the whole point of “rule by the people” in the modern era. Liberal democracy thus also concerns shifts in real power resources, which constitutions then guarantee.

Thus if liberal institutions failed to deliver any redistribution of power and resources, in no country would popular movements have continued to support them. In the countries of the northwest, when pressed hard, old regimes had conceded both democratic institutions and some redistri- bution of resources. Most Spaniards expected the brand-new republic to deliver reforms. But the Spanish old regime was neither shaken by crisis nor yet greatly pressured or reformed. Its previous political ruler had un- expectedly fallen. Yet when the mass demonstrations died away, most of the executive half remained controlled by the same “old regime” as be- fore, and many caciques remained in the parliamentary half. Popular move- ments, centrist politicians, and the old regime executive differed in their expectations. Republican legislators found that the executive (backed by the right) did not implement their laws, and this pushed reformists leftward; other centrists then became alarmed by the threat that popular pressures posed to social order. Centrists – who provided the key swing voters – became ambivalent, wanting reform and stability. If a center-right alliance gained control of both executive and legislature and refused reforms, the left might then revolt. If a center-left alliance gained control of “both states,” the right might revolt. If each side controlled part of the state, chaos might ensue. Unfortunately, the republic oscillated through all three scenarios.

Whatever the failings of the republic, to be chronicled later, it had one great success. In Catalonia class conflict declined, employers accepted con- ciliation, and the church accepted compromise with secular modernity. The Catalan regional assembly, unlike the Madrid Cortes, did not polarize. From 1933 the broadly based center-left Esquerra Party formed the regional gov- ernment, while the conservative Lliga acted rather like a “loyal opposi- tion” (Molas 1973: 344–8; Barrull Pelegrı́ 1986: 342–5). Here the center held, hammering out an autonomy deal with Madrid that faltered only when a centralizing rightist integralismo government appeared in Madrid in 1934. Anarchist numbers halved. True, landlords appealed to Madrid against

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

308 Fascists

rural tenancy reforms enacted by the Esquerra, while its industrialists and the church favored Franco in 1936. But, left to itself, and with goodwill in Madrid, Catalonia compromised. The most advanced region of Spain, hitherto racked by class confrontation, was embracing liberal democratic practices. So was the Basque region, whose church was also quite liberal and whose dominant conservative party, the PNV, declared for the republic in 1936. Both regions saw that a center-left alliance in Madrid would grant more regional rights than would the integralismo right. So this is the first asymmetry – the left certainly favored more regional democracy than the right did. And the consequence was to defuse further the possibility that ethnic tensions might escalate into something worse.

There were three different governments during the republic. During 1931–33 Spain was governed by a center-left coalition. Then electoral gains brought a center-right coalition, until the election of February 1936 brought in the center-left “Popular Front.” This lasted only until July, when a mili- tary revolt ushered in civil war. All three governments had to be coalitions because there were dozens of parties. Though these were varied and change- able, they tended to group around five broad political tendencies. Some- where close to 10 percent of Spaniards supported the anarcho-syndicalist left – and so rarely voted at all. About 20 percent supported the socialist (and communist) left, 20 percent the left Republicans, 30 percent the right Republicans, and 20 percent the antirepublican right – these last two per- centages being reversed from 1933 onward. But included across most of this spectrum were close to 10 percent (mostly from Catalonia and the Basque country) who were primarily interested not in “left-right” politics but in greater regional autonomy. Though these broad tendencies had a fairly sta- ble overall voting strength, the electoral system did not accurately reflect this. Small shifts in voting led to big changes in seats in the Cortes, as we see in Table 9.1.2

We see that the Cortes shifted substantially to the right in 1933 and to the left in 1936. Yet no single tendency could dominate for long: The republic required compromise between many of its parties and it failed when this collapsed.

What social constituencies were mobilized by the parties? There were, first, striking regional patterns of voting, as we see in Map 9.2.

We see that the republican/socialist vote was concentrated heavily in the south, Catalonia, and the Asturias, the main areas of class confrontation in agriculture and industry. The Levante, Galicia, and the Basque seaboard were evenly divided. Castile and Leon were heavily rightist, though the city of Madrid was republican/socialist. We see the dual effects of regions with

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 309

Table 9.1. National Elections in the Second Spanish Republic, Number of Seats Won by Main Political Groupings

Party grouping 1931 1933 1936

Socialists/Communists 118 63 119 Left Republicans 110 36 125 Catalan and Basque regionalists 53 56 58 Right Republicans 164 113 30 Antirepublican right 25 180 142

Note: No political classification of the many Spanish parties can be wholly authoritative. I have omitted five to ten deputies in each Cortes who were especially difficult to classify. Sources: Varela Dı́az 1978: 33, 69–74; Irwin 1991: 269; Tusell Gómez et al. 1993: II; supplemented by Montero 1988 for help in grouping the parties.

Map 9.2. How the Spanish provinces voted in the elections of 1933 and 1936.

differing levels of class conflict and regions with varying political distance from the old Castilian church and state. There were no “threatened border” areas turning rightist, only peripheral center-opposing regions turning left- ist, sometimes cross-cutting, sometimes reinforcing the class composition of those regions.

But we lack national ecological studies of voting comparable to those of the Weimar Republic. We must fall back on an assortment of local ecological

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

310 Fascists

studies. The main ones are of Madrid (Tusell Gómez 1970), Alicante (Garcı́a Andreu 1985), Aragon province (Germán Zubero 1984), Zaragoza (Germán Zubero et al. 1980), Logroño (Bermejo Martin 1984), Lleida, in Catalonia (Mir 1985; Barrull Pelegrı́ 1986), and Catalonia as a whole (Vilanova 1986). These studies show that social class was usually strongly related to voting. Almost all districts dominated by urban workers, rural laborers, and poorer farmers voted more leftist. Many of them also had the distinctive patterns of low turnout that indicated the presence of substantial support for anarcho-syndicalism. Yet “left” in this context did not merely mean socialist or anarcho-syndicalist. Outside the main urban-industrial and latifundio “proletarian ghettos,” working-class neighborhoods were as likely to vote for the middle-class–led left Republicans as for the socialists. And es- pecially in the backward cacique areas, between one-quarter and one-half of working-class people voted for the right. Working-class women, especially if working themselves (most often as servants, influenced by their conservative employers), voted more rightist, as did workers in more religious districts, and as did older workers. People in the service sector and in the so-called liberal professions also voted more rightist.

Thus, on the one hand, Spain contained straightforward class politics. There was here no significant fascist or populist movement confusing this relationship by providing core constituencies that transcended class across the country as a whole. On the other hand, economic sector, religion, gen- der, age, and especially region and religion also had effects that in some places might rival class effects and that, if added together, were nationally as important as class. Political movements had to try to appeal to all, or at least most, of these sources of social identity. I now move across the polit- ical spectrum, from left to right, discussing groups’ bases of support, their policies, their violence, and their responsibility for the fall of the republic. Then, for the rightists (who are my main concern in this book), I address their roles on the front lines of the civil war.

anarcho-syndicalism

Spain’s two labor movements hated capitalism, but they also hated each other. Since anarcho-syndicalists wanted to abolish the state, they also hated the republic. Lacking a political party, their main organization was the CNT union federation. This was highly decentralized, able to intensively mobilize many local communities but with a weak national presence. Its membership was fluid and difficult to estimate, but by the mid-1930s it was probably just over a million – 13 percent of the labor force, about the same as the

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 311

socialist UGT (with Catholic and Communist unions organizing a further 2% each). Catalonia provided 30 percent of its members, Andalucia and Valencia 15 percent each. Support centered on rural laborers in Andalucia, Catalan, and Valencian textiles and construction, and peasant dwarf-holders around Zaragoza. Heavy industry was underrepresented. Only 5 percent of members were white-collar workers and 5 percent were women – though the latter is misleading since far more women were active in its communal activities. This was therefore an overwhelmingly proletarian movement, and most of the leading militants were workers. We glimpse this, for example, in a police roundup of Logroño activists – a painter-decorator, a garage me- chanic, a lathe operator, a caretaker, a cobbler, a barber, two metal workers, a bricklayer, a day laborer, a blacksmith, and a salesman (Bermejo Martin 1984: 253).

Yet the movement was split between more moderate syndicalist trade unionists and younger, more urban, and more violent anarchists led by a distinct organization, the FAI. In 1933 the FAI took control of the CNT when the syndicalists split over whether to collaborate with the repub- lic. But their coup was poorly timed. The incoming rightist government promptly imprisoned or exiled them. Their 1936 pardon by the Popular Front government gave the two CNT factions just enough time for a rec- onciliation before the military rising struck (Tuñón de Lara 1972: 718–19, 785–9, 873–81; Guinea 1978: 96ff.; Bar 1981; Vega 1987; Kelsey 1991; Fraser 1994: 542–52). So during the republic the movement was rather disorganized – perhaps as anarchists should be!

But the CNT did call repeatedly for a revolutionary general strike. The rhetoric of FAI pamphlets was especially inflammatory, advocating “revo- lutionary gymnastics,” violent uprisings to train workers for the eventual revolution, sung in the language of violent political cleansing:

Death to the police! Death to the soldiers, sons of our class, who have taken up arms against us! Death to the sly bourgeois gentlemen of feudal capitalism! Death to the wretched spongers, to the priests, to the politicians of all stripes! If today you do not rise up strong and pitilessly, tomorrow they will kill you without forgiveness or quarter! Harden your hearts in the moment of combat, take up arms. Overthrow the churches, convents, barracks, fortresses, prisons, town halls and slums! (Ramı́rez Jiménez 1969: 106)

Such rhetoric must have seemed terrifying – especially to clerics, the one exposed, defenseless group among the “enemies” named above. In Spanish history clerics had long been victims in popular insurrections. But the CNT’s enemies exaggerated the reality behind the rhetoric. The authorities

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

312 Fascists

routinely claimed to have discovered plots and arms caches, and the press would print highly exaggerated alarmist stories. These “plots” were then used to justify repression.

Let us examine what the CNT actually did. It declared three “general strikes” during the republic: in January 1932, January 1933, and December 1933, yet these had ambiguous aims, revolutionary intent entwining with more limited protest demonstrations. Most militants were content to occupy factories or land and to demonstrate noisily in the streets. However, a few went much further, cutting communications, occupying public buildings, destroying government records, or even firing at civil guards barracks or bombing the odd building. The few deaths resulted more by accident than design. The rhetoric of the movement as a whole tended to be the opposite of murderous. Indeed, it was often naively idealistic – as in one village’s revolution:

All citizens are informed that the regime of libertarian communism is hereby estab- lished and, as a result, the use of money is abolished. The revolutionary committee announces that everybody can obtain all the products which they need from the shops but that they should take good care not to remove a greater quantity than that necessary for their normal daily requirements. (Kelsey 1991: 96)

All three insurrections were pitiful failures. Scattered CNT bands rose up, usually in more remote villages or in workers’ districts of towns, occupied them for a day or so, and ran away when attacked by the police. These were not revolutions, though some intended them as such.

Most other CNT actions began as ordinary labor disputes. But since employers were hostile and the CNT devalued collective bargaining, nego- tiations were often perfunctory. Then the CNT would attempt coercion, mobilizing hostile crowds and blocking roads. Sometimes this worked. If it didn’t, vandalism and occasional acts of arson or explosions would occur. If the police or Civil Guard intervened, barricades and handguns might appear. Workers in some industries could acquire dynamite, and that might produce deaths. Yet the violence had limits. The militants cared little about prop- erty, but violence against persons was rarely premeditated (despite anarchist rhetoric). They were also badly armed. The CNT did not form paramili- taries, did not train, uniform, or build arms depots. These were agitators. True, most had done military service and some had access to old rifles and pistols. But these were better for shooting rabbits than Civil Guards, and when they fired, most of these shots were into the air. What the newspapers reported as “continuous firing” for an hour or more would oddly bring no casualties.

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 313

Let us try to estimate the deaths. Linz (1978), using data collected by Malefakis, began the attempt to quantify deaths in political conflicts during the republic. He reached a grand total of just under 2,000, which he ac- knowledged was “an approximation, subject to revision, probably upward.” My own calculation, based only on the secondary sources listed for this chapter, reached 2,500 – probably still an underestimate. Some 1,500 of these were killed in a single event, the 1934 insurrection in the Asturias (discussed below, when I come to the socialists). The remaining 1,000 were killed in about 100 separate incidents scattered across Spain. But I attempted this rather crude data collection because previous research using primary sources did not attempt to establish one vital fact: who killed whom. I can- not be sure of this in all cases and for all persons. But I can usually distinguish among “leftists,” “rightists,” and the police or military authorities – though “leftist” (and to a lesser extent “rightist”) victims must have often included people who were actually marginal to the dispute (such as children). I have also attempted to distinguish between the anarcho-syndicalists and the so- cialists/communists (sometimes measured rather crudely by whether the incident took place in a socialist or anarchist stronghold). As the “fascists” became prominent, I also distinguish them, as well as other rightist civil- ians. I was unable to identify either the victims or perpetrators of about 150 killings, and I have removed twenty-nine bystanders and a handful of centrist politicians from the calculations of the dead. Data on the remaining 812 political murders are given in Table 9.2.

Perhaps the first point to make concerns what is absent from this table: ethnic actors. There were only a handful of Catalans, Basques, or Carlists kill- ing or being killed by their “Spanish” opponents. This was overwhelmingly political cleansing, along orthodox left/right lines, even if this was some- times exacerbated by regional conflicts.

Table 9.2. Perpetrators and Victims of Political Murders during the Second Republic

Victims

Anarcho- Socialists/ Military/ Perpetrators syndicalists Communists Rightists Fascists Police Total

Anarcho-syndicalists 1 4 20 18 70 113 Socialists/Communists 2 0 42 56 61 171 Rightists 4 19 0 0 0 23 Fascists 10 75 0 0 0 85 Military/Police 252 177 0 1 0 430

Total 269 275 62 75 131 812

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

314 Fascists

The table shows that most deadly violence occurred between the po- lice/military and the left. Fascists got in on the act in 1935 and early 1936, when there were also some other rightist victims and a handful of other rightist perpetrators (almost all Carlists). But the police and military were not really neutrals. They were the core of the old regime state, part of the Spanish right – as their participation in the 1936 rising was to demon- strate. And they were more far deadly than the left: They were 3.3 times more likely to be killers than killed, whereas the socialists and communists were 1.6 times and the anarcho-syndicalists were 2.4 times more likely to be victims. Violence was not evenhanded: Far more was aimed at the left than by the left, and most of it was by state agencies, not by more “popular” forces. Thus I reject some previous interpretations of murderous violence during the republic. Linz gives an “evenhanded” account. Payne (1993: 360–4) puts most of the blame on the left because of the upsurge in killings that occurred during late 1934 and more particularly in 1936, under the Popular Front government. But it was leftists who were disproportionately killed. Blaming the victim seems a little tough.

The CNT were the most victimized. When they frontally attacked em- ployers and the state, the retaliation was far more lethal. Thus by 1935 anarcho-syndicalism was in trouble, many militants dead, most leaders in jail, the rest arguing acrimoniously. Objectively, they did not now imperil the social order. Talk of a “revolutionary threat” from them was now un- reasonable. The CNT may have done more to undermine the republic by refusing to help along its reforms. It did not participate in labor conciliation, land reform, or elections because as one militant later reminisced,

Those of us who didn’t believe in politics simply laughed. We knew that politics was nothing more than that – politics. Under the republic, under any political system, we workers would remain slaves of our bit of earth, of our work. (Fraser 1994: 97)

In 1933 CNT abstention may have given the result to the center-right. But in 1936 the frightened CNT leaders abandoned abstention, and enough anarcho-syndicalists voted for the Popular Front to tip over a closely con- tested election (Cancela 1987: 144–5, 194–7, 260–75). CNT militants were now also cooperating with socialists and communists (Balcells 1971; Forner Muñoz 1982). But it was too late. CNT hostility was a major cause of the republic’s failure. Indeed, some anarcho-syndicalists welcomed that failure: It would allow them to begin “the revolution.”

Above all, anarcho-syndicalism was counterproductive. Uncoordinated local risings without paramilitary organization inevitably brought defeat,

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 315

unless the police and army would refuse to fire. So did the belief that taking on everyone else at once would bring victory. Their violence, and espe- cially their rhetorical violence, seemed to vindicate rightist horror-stories, alienating the bourgeoisie, middle peasantry, and many workers – especially women, the elderly, or the more religious. Anarcho-syndicalist tactics might, from their own perspective, have been justified if they could have actually made a revolution. But amid a divided labor movement, their main effect was to increase the strength, extremism, and moral fervor of authoritarian rightism. Beside that accomplishment must pall all our sympathy with their sufferings, all our admiration for their bravery and irrepressible optimism.

socialism

Since Spain had only a small communist party (until the civil war), the major leftist party (then as now) was the socialist PSOE. The PSOE had 60,000 to 80,000 members, its core being skilled industrial workers enlarged by a recent influx of agricultural workers. Socialism was thus also a predominantly proletarian movement – though most of its leaders were drawn from the 15 to 25 percent of the movement who were nonmanual workers. Most of its Cortes deputies were teachers and writers, though there were more workers than among other parties’ deputies (Appendix Table 9.1, row 9). Party leaders in the Seville party were employed persons of all classes, mostly white-collar workers (Appendix Table 9.2). Its youth movement became large and ultraleftist – and socialist voters were younger than those of other parties. Fewer women than men voted for the party, and women’s sections provided only 10 percent of members (Contreras 1981: 84–112; Aubert 1987: 181–2; Palomares Ibáñez 1988). The socialist unions were federated into the much larger UGT, which surged to a million members in 1932, over 80 percent being manual workers (Guinea 1978: 38, 96, 401; Contreras 1981: 108–9). Socialists also organized casas del pueblo across Spain: local social, educational, and mutual benefit societies important in solidifying the “proletarian ghettos” of the more advanced regions.

Socialist leaders mixed reformism with evolutionary Marxism, adding a distinctive Spanish dose of “moral” socialism. Most started with positive expectations of reform from the republic. The 1931 election made the PSOE the largest single party in the Cortes, and its three ministers in the center-left government – Largo Caballero, Indalecio Prieto, and Fernando De Los Rı́os – proved effective reformers. Even the party’s orthodox Marxist faction argued that the party should cooperate, for the bourgeois revolution must be completed before the proletarian one could begin. Like some other

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

316 Fascists

socialist parties of the period, the party did not rate “bourgeois democracy” highly as a goal and was formally committed to “revolution” – though apparently one without much violence. The first two years of the republic saw co-operation between Republican and Socialist leaders. The new labor conciliation committees, the Jurados Mixtos, spread in areas of socialist strength, while labor reforms added to UGT membership (Carmona 1989: 408; Bosch 1993).

Yet two problems rapidly became evident. First, the government’s re- forming decrees and laws encouraged workers and poor peasants to demand yet more, exacerbating tendencies toward direct action. The balance of lo- cal political and military power seemed to be shifting, with the apparent weakening of caciquismo and repression. Strikes and land occupations grew. These relied on weight of numbers rather than highly organized violence and were aimed usually not at “revolution” but at reforms that would secure basic material adequacy (Bosch 1993). But they were breaches of public or- der. Second, the Republican-Socialist coalition did not even control the entire state, let alone the country. The crucial Ministry of the Interior – the heart of the old regime executive in domestic affairs – was staffed by conservative republicans. This was not accidental. As in many democratiz- ing regimes care was taken to make appointments here that would keep the army and police happy. But (as is also normal) they also tended to ap- point conservative provincial administrators – in Spain the civil governors – willing to marshal emergency powers against leftists. Calvo Sotelo observed in 1935 that the republic had ruled for only twenty-three days without any emergency powers (this, for him, was an argument in favor of its abolition). Labor legislation was especially patchily implemented. The infrastructural weakness of the Spanish state was worsened by its internal political divisions. In areas controlled by landlords and the church, leftists were aptly taunted “Go Eat Republic!” For in such regions the republic was just talk. A few local socialist administrations were able to ensure reform (Collier 1987), but leftists complained that legislation was not being implemented over much of the country.

The year 1933 was a bad one for the republic.3 It began with CNT risings, climaxing in the terrible massacre of villagers in Casas Viejas, Andalucia. The whole cabinet (including the Socialist ministers) at first expressed satis- faction that a seemingly violent insurrection had been suppressed. As infor- mation spread that the Casas Viejas bloodshed had actually been perpetrated by the Civil Guard on orders from the provincial administration, leftists denounced their leaders’ participation in “state terrorism.” The socialist agricultural union led southern land occupations that Juliá (1989: 25) says

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 317

began a “trade union invasion of the political sphere,” too attuned to the turbulent rhythms of mass strikes to allow the formation of responsible pol- itics. As the center-left coalition weakened, the republic ceased to deliver reform. In the summer employers’ associations stopped cooperating with the government and demanded the repeal of recent reforms. Caballero, the Minister of Labor, was already receiving delegations of workers protesting that reforms were not being implemented. In August his rhetoric lurched leftward: If reform was impossible, he declared, socialists must abandon bourgeois democracy.

Events in Germany, Portugal, and especially in Catholic Austria (much publicized in Spain) were influencing socialists. To protect reform, said some socialists, the “fascism” taking over the Spanish right must be met with force. This was a kind of mirror-image of the reactions we saw in the last two chapters in the cases of Hungary and Romania. There it was the right that felt that it had to head off fascism with force. Of course, the Spanish right was not fascist. But nor had been Salazar, nor Dollfüss when first in power, nor the German governments during 1930–2. Spaniards could perceive a European-wide pattern, beginning with reactionary authoritar- ianism, ending in fascism. They were already experiencing coercion from landowners, employers, and civil governors – loudly supported by rightists in the Cortes. Thus it seemed plausible that Spain was also drifting toward fascism. Indeed, when the center-right won the November election (for rea- sons given below), the new government veered further right, repealing some reforms, watering down others. Not all its actions were regressive. But from May 1934 the government began dismantling the agrarian reform and its hard-line Interior Minister and civil governors began dissolving leftist local administrations and associations. In June a strike by the socialist agricultural union was met with 7,000 arrests and many prison sentences. The right now controlled both states, blocking reform – some said the right was even poised for the abolition of democracy, though this was probably not so.

Caballero now argued that if the republic was undoing even his mild re- forms, revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat was the answer. Juliá (1983) sees the Caballero “revolutionaries” as merely frustrated corporatists, seeking and now denied influence within the state for labor unions. Yet gen- uine revolutionaries were now appearing on Caballero’s left, especially in the youth movement. The killings perpetrated by socialists (as we see in Table 9.2) now escalated, involving small clandestine organization among leftist army and police personnel, though still not trained paramilitaries. Though reformists maintained their majorities on the PSOE executive, they could not carry the UGT or the youth movement. Socialist debates were

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

318 Fascists

saturated with Marxist rhetoric of class struggle in which the moral high ground was occupied by the left. In this rhetoric each class was assigned its own political party. The “party of the proletariat” should not ally with “bourgeois parties.” Yet in many parts of Spain the supposedly “bourgeois” left Republicans attracted as many workers’ votes as did the socialists (many workers also voted for the right). But appeals to other classes, or to nonclass identities such as region, religion, or gender, were denounced as “oppor- tunist deviation.” With only 20 percent of Spaniards voting socialist, such appeals were actually essential (as Tuñón de Lara 1985: 151 observes). The left Republican leader Azaña drily reminded his socialist allies: “The country will not second an insurrection, because four-fifths of it is not socialist.”

Probably most socialist supporters remained reformist. UGT members continued their involvement in the Jurados Mixtos; socialists cheered loudly at Azaña’s mass meetings when he would fervently ask for utter respect for the Constitution; and moderate socialists usually got more votes than extremists (moderate candidates also got more votes on the right). Yet the party was badly split, and the actions of the new center-right government assisted the far left. In September 1934 the whole left (socialist, communist, and small Trotskyist parties) declared unacceptable the rumored entry of the antidemocratic CEDA party into the center-right cabinet. Socialist ranks closed around this demand. The reformist Prieto was even asked by the party to organize a future rising. He was supposed to contact sympathetic soldiers, though it seems he did not. He did acquire some arms already procured by the Azaña government to help Portuguese rebels. This could have been the first step toward organized paramilitarism. But his goal seems to have been merely tactical: to use threats to dissuade the president from admitting CEDA to the cabinet. It didn’t work: In October CEDA ministers did join the cabinet.

The UGT responded by declaring a general strike. Many thought this the prelude to revolution. As we observed in other countries, however, left- ists talked a good revolution, but did not actually do it. UGT leaders had obligingly given the government twenty-four hours’ notice of the strike, to encourage conciliation. Instead, it gave the government time to imprison them. Most of those remaining free spent their efforts trying to restrain a rank-and-file whose expectations their rhetoric had brought onto the streets ( Juliá 1984). The weakened agricultural union could contribute little in the countryside. Some Catalan workers rose, though they were not supported by the CNT or UGT, and the main rising was launched by the regionalist Esquerra government, appalled at the entry of the integralismo CEDA to the government. Perhaps seeking to forestall moves from the Catalan left

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 319

(which was allegedly now drilling worker detachments), the Esquerra de- clared Catalan independence. Some have argued this was merely a bargaining counter in the agrarian dispute still raging with Madrid, others that it was an invitation to Madrid to bring in the troops. At any rate the Esquerra surrendered soon after sighting army detachments. Fifty people had been killed in Catalonia.

Only the northern Asturias region saw a determined insurrection, the first in Western Europe since the Paris Commune of 1871. It was launched and coordinated by miners, and must be understood in terms of the spatial defensive control that miners can secure over their own isolated occupa- tional communities. Their unions had supported legislation on mine safety, accident compensation, working conditions, and pensions. Yet the employ- ers had blocked this on the grounds of costs. The Depression pressured employers into layoffs, lockouts, and looser safety standards – emboldened by the shift in government. Since the CNT and communists were recruit- ing among the angry miners, the UGT radicalized to compete. A common front was set up between them – one of the few genuine “Popular Fronts” in Spain during these years. The insurgents seized the mines, factories, and some public buildings, acquiring weapons from surrendering police and munitions factories. They controlled the mining valleys but failed to take the main buildings of Oviedo, the provincial capital. Like leftists right across Europe, they lacked the planning and the drilling that is necessary for offensive warfare, even of this rudimentary type. They despised and ne- glected military power. They were able to doggedly defend their territory against police and regional troops, but the arrival of 26,000 soldiers, many experienced in Moroccan counterinsurgency, brought overwhelming odds (Aguado Sanchez 1972; Preston 1978: 127–8; Shubert 1987).

After two weeks the rising collapsed. Some 1,500 people lay dead. The authorities had killed about 1,200, just over half in the fighting, the rest in a wave of retribution at the end. The insurgents killed 281 police and sol- diers and about 40 civilians, including 29 priests, murdered in cold blood. The center-right government made the repression national, focusing on the CNT, whose role had actually been marginal, egged on by press ex- aggerations of the events. However, the legal forms of martial law were observed and there were few murders. Some 20,000 leftists and regionalists were imprisoned, including most of the CNT, UGT, and PSOE executives. The casas del pueblo and local unions were closed. Over 10 percent of Spain’s mayors were replaced by executive decree. Even Azaña was charged with complicity, though the Cortes would not proceed with the charges. Had the right been determinedly authoritarian, it could now have dissolved the

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

320 Fascists

republic. Had it contained much “radical” populism or fascism, the retribu- tion might have been more murderous. But the main goal was to overturn reform – in an orderly, legal way. Control over both states and a defeated left gave it the ability to do this within republican institutions.

The October uprising was not a revolution. It lacked leadership and coordination except in the Asturias. Elsewhere youthful militants, misled by their own naivetey and Caballero’s rhetoric, had launched themselves into the streets, lacking organization, arms, or mass support, to be quickly rounded up – much like a CNT “revolution.” The Asturias differed, but even there workers lacked offensive military power. Its end was inevitable if unsupported elsewhere. Prieto admitted that “we are going to deserve a catastrophe because of our stupidity,” and leftists now urged restraint. The number of violent strikes was decreasing, and CNT, UGT, and communist unions began to cooperate (Balcells 1971; Forner Muñoz 1982). Calvo Sotelo confided days before the military rising that the chances of a leftist insurrection had plummeted over the past year (Payne 1993: 352).

Violence remained in the youth movement and in a small-scale street war now beginning with the fascist Falange and the Carlists. This accounts for most of the killings perpetrated by socialists and communists, detailed in Table 9.2. By the end of 1935 small groups of socialists, communists, and anarcho-syndicalists were beginning to form ad hoc armed groups. But these remained rudimentary. The socialist movement was not remotely prepared for the revolutionary resistance it would soon be required to mount. The UGT response to the military rising was only a call for a general strike. Military power would supposedly be combated by withholding economic power.

So socialist responsibility for the collapse of the republic was threefold. First, its class- and revolution-saturated ideology hindered perception of a political reality in which class consciousness was only one among several important sources of social identity. Thus it alienated the uncommitted. Marxism told the socialist party it alone represented the proletariat, and the party avoided principled political alliances and appeals to other groups, which was actually necessary to defend the republic. Individual reformists did tradeoffs with “bourgeois” republicans but could not carry the party with them or flourish political principles to compete with the dominant high-minded Marxism. This was not a peculiar weakness of Spanish so- cialists, since many socialist movements of the time falsely believed they had the only key to modernity. In fact, high-minded Marxism probably also prevented the left from organizing any real paramilitary violence. Sec- ond, the party was badly split after 1933, preventing any coherent strategy

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 321

vis-à-vis the republic or the Depression, as well as the ability to discipline its own supporters (Preston 1978; Juliá 1989; Macarro Vera 1989). It also prevented its reformists from formally joining the “Popular Front” govern- ment in 1936. Third, an ultraleftist minority, occupying crucial party power positions, turned anti-Republican, alienating many centrists. In 1936 the reformists were regaining control but too late. These socialist weaknesses helped to foment an ongoing military conspiracy.

Yet I doubt that the party was as devoted to socialist ends over democratic means as Linz, Payne, or Robinson suggest. The reformist wing remained willing to compromise to keep a centrist government alive; Besteiro’s Marxist faction supported the “bourgeois phase” of revolution. The Caballerist, ultraleft, and youth movements bear more direct responsibility, of a type we have witnessed throughout Europe. They helped to undermine the republic by rhetorical insurrectionism, but they did not actually threaten it. Many knew this, on the right and in the army. Rightist leaders repeatedly discussed military intervention with the generals, who told them that neither the army nor the public would be very supportive. Their solution might be to provoke a leftist uprising that would fail. The CEDA leader, Gil Robles, was later candid:

I asked myself this question: “I can give Spain three months of tranquillity if I do not enter the government. If we enter will the revolution break out? Better that it does so before it is well repaired, before it defeats us.” This is what we did, we precipitated the movement, met it and implacably smashed it from within the government.

Since real politics (especially in a crisis) are messy, emotional, and unpre- dictable, I doubt that the right was actually as cleverly Machiavellian as Gil Robles is here implying. Yet rightist plots were more organized than leftist ones. And they involved the determined mobilization of military power. The responsibility was not symmetrically distributed – as we see clearly below when we deal with the right.

the republican center

The Republican parties of the center had to be the fulcrum of any demo- cratic compromise, and their maneuverings did cause both changes of gov- ernment. They were indeed moderates – no movement of the center con- tributed to the political killings outlined in Table 9.2, nor did they organize any serious violence, nor did they contribute much to the military insur- rection. When the time came, much of the center did stand by the republic.

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

322 Fascists

What was unique to Spain (among the cases discussed in this book) was that most “bourgeois” centrists did not defect from democracy. They stood and fought for it.

This was often termed the “Bourgeois Republic” or sometimes “The Republic of the Intellectuals,” since these seemed to dominate the republi- can parties. The most prominent writers of the age participated – Miguel de Unamuno, José Ortega y Gasset, and Salvador de Madariaga. The main center-left party, Azaña’s Acción Republicana, had 140 original sponsors, of whom 112 were writers or professors. Journals, clubs, and masonic lodges emerged to claim their republic – just as in the French Revolution (Espı́n 1980: 39, 288–92; Aubert 1987; Marco 1988: 171–5; Alvarez Rey 1993). Indeed, the tradition of militant secular liberalism begun by American and French revolutionaries lived on in the democratic zeal of these intellectu- als. In this country, most intellectuals – in reaction against the church and the old regime – went more for a reforming democracy than for author- itarianism, let alone fascism. Galvanized by the disasters of 1898, which they often encountered while students, they believed in rescuing Spain by “Europeanizing” it (Marco 1988: 100–2).

Data on the social backgrounds of party leaders are given in rows 4–6 and 8 of Appendix Table 9.1 and in rows 7–9 of Appendix Table 9.2 (cf. the lo- cal studies of Tusell Gómez 1970; Bermejo Martin 1984; Germán Zubero 1984; and Cancela 1987). Apart from left republicans in rural areas, the center parties were dominated by professionals, followed by public employ- ees and property owners. Seville leaders (detailed in Appendix Table 9.2) spread right across the middle class: Professionals were best represented, then commercial personnel, with businessmen represented in the center-right, white-collar workers in the center-left. The major professions contributed distinctive politics. Schoolteachers spread across the whole left, but were most important among the socialists and the left Republicans (the Radical- Socialists, as in France). Doctors and veterinarians spread right across the center, lawyers across this spectrum and the antirepublican right as well. We also know that most lawyers voted center-right in the Supreme Court election of 1933 (in which they could vote). Officers were mostly rightists, agronomists and priests wholehearted rightists. University professors and journalists provided leaders in all parties.

In these details we catch glimpses of “two” states. One was civilian and service-oriented. It tended to be secular and center-left. The other was mil- itary, clerical, and order-oriented. It tended to be old regime and rightist. There were very few workers among any of these party leaders, and only left republican leaders included many white-collar workers. Big businessmen

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 323

were few, small businessmen participated locally. Though these were mostly “bourgeois notable” parties, their secularism, modernizing stance, and mod- eration on class issues also brought them votes in the more secular middle- and working-class areas.

But for much of the center-left, class issues mattered less than anticler- icalism and antimilitarism (Espı́n 1980: 106–12, 293–6; Farré 1985). This seems to have been the main reason why such activists would not defect to the right, as in other countries. Any potential class solidarity between “bourgeois” liberals and conservatives was undermined by their fundamental disagreements on military and religious matters. Yet it had the consequence of pushing more traditional military and religious conservatives rightward. In Spain the chasm opened up right across the center, rather than pushing most of the center to the right. But in the Cortes Unamuno accurately predicted the consequences:

In this chamber there are too many professors. Whenever the army has transgressed, they form an anti-militarist party; whenever the clergy has transgressed, they form an anti-clerical party. Our children, our grandchildren, will encounter an anti- academic party in Spain. (Aubert 1987: 186)

Some blame the left republicans for provoking the church into attacking democracy (e.g., Payne 1970). Yet this seems exaggerated. The church was already reactionary, and the republic’s laws were no more extreme than those already passed in other Catholic countries (Jackson 1965: 48). As elsewhere, the republicans were separating church and state, proclaiming religious tol- eration and declaring that the state had no official religion. The state would cease financing the secular clergy after two years, and the religious orders would have to register their property, keeping only what was necessary for their functions. The Constitution forced the expulsion of the Jesuits (as in other countries) unless they forswore their unconditional oath of obedience to the Pope (which they would not do). More provocative was banning the orders from teaching except to train priests. But the main problem was that the legislation was presented rapidly and aggressively against a reactionary church, which saw republicans as being in alliance with the more violent anticlericalism of the far left.

The Pope was no problem. He sought compromise and forced the res- ignation of the intransigent primate, Cardinal Segura. Yet the Spanish hi- erarchy followed its primate’s lead and told lay pressure groups to intensify opposition to the republic. Their provocations were mirrored by Azaña, who seemed to delight in the conflict, proclaiming in the Cortes that “Spain has ceased to be Catholic,” adding – like a Robespierre or a St. Just – “Let no

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

324 Fascists

one say to me that this is contrary to liberty, for it is a question of public health.” He certainly failed to appreciate the effect of his rhetoric on ordi- nary devout Catholics of all classes (Payne 1970: 92, 1993: 82–3). It drove them (especially women and the elderly) and the center-right parties fur- ther to the right. As we see below, the church provided the soul of Spanish authoritarian rightism.

The main factions in the center-left coalitions tended to focus on differ- ent policy areas. On class issues, the socialists were more extreme yet also more responsible, at least in the industrial sector, since these issues mattered enormously to it. But though the center favored class conciliation, it lacked real interest and would back down if faced with employer opposition. On agrarian issues neither was much interested, since neither had grown up in the countryside or was used to representing it (Heywood 1990: 139–43). On religion some socialists lacked real interest. Thus policy was rarely supported wholeheartedly by the whole coalition if opposition was encountered in the Cortes or inside the state administration. The failure to prosecute policy, more than a lack of belief in democracy, proved the Achilles heel of the center-left alliance.4

The center-right had a different weakness. Inheriting the traditions of el turno, its main concern was office and patronage. The largest group was the Radical Party, staffed by notable lawyers rather than intellectuals, with middling farmer and industrial and commercial middle-class activists. It ini- tially drew broad support, including some organized workers. Unlike the PSOE and the CEDA, it lacked a solid regional base of support. Origi- nally liberal and anticlerical, it had drifted rightward to embrace a populism strong on rhetoric, vague on policy. Its leaders appealed for reforms for todos los españoles and el pueblo (their populist use of “the people” was borrowed by republicans and socialists during the civil war) but offered no formula by which class and regional differences might be settled. Though it had attracted support from all classes, it became more bourgeois. The Radicals now drifted rightward again, partly pushed by an influx of moderate monar- chists, conservative on class issues. The party’s most liberal faction now quit and joined Azaña (Manjón 1976: 192–201, 252ff., 403–8, 589–600, 611–14, 681; Bermejo Martin 1984: 453–4; Townson 1988: 65–7).

The Radicals’ consequent move out of the center-left coalition precipi- tated the 1933 election. The result made them the leading party in the new center-right government, seeking to revise the Constitution to better pro- tect order and property. The repressive Interior Minister during 1934 was a Radical. But the Radicals were also opportunists, believing (like many modern parties) that access to power and influence is more important than

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 325

declaiming abstract principles. In a republic of too many principles such pragmatism might help democracy, since this center party would compro- mise with almost anyone who would offer it cabinet posts. But corruption is the temptation of such a party and scandals surfaced in 1934 to break it. Its support began hemorrhaging in late 1934; it was decimated in the 1936 election. This was important in the coming to power of the Popular Front.

The Radicals differed from the right parties, among whom “principles” – property, order, hierarchy, religion, the integrity of Spain – were overabun- dant. Yet the two could unite in casualness over democracy itself. Access to power and conservative principles could both be elevated over democ- racy. This Achilles heel of the center-right led it to endorse appeals to the army during 1936. The center-left may have been ineffectual in pursuing reforms and defending the republic, but it tended to believe in the republic and it kept its popular support. The center-right was losing votes right- ward and became ambivalent about the republic. Its more rightist factions joined in the appeals to the military to destroy the republic.5 A more limited hollowing-out of the center-right than in the Weimar Republic helped to undermine the Spanish Republic.

the right

Yet the major political partner of the military rising was Spanish conser- vatism. Ambivalent about the popular new republic, conservatives had done badly in the first elections. El Debate, the major conservative newspaper, then urged: “We must all defend Spain and ourselves and our material and spiritual goods, our convictions . . . the conservation of property, hier- archy in society and in work.” It thus advocated what became known as “accidentalism”: Any constitution was less important than (“accidental to”) these political goals. Democracy would be accepted as “the lesser evil” if it pursued conservatism. Yet conservatives realized that they had no immedi- ate alternative to join the electoral process with greater vigor, attempting mass mobilization through modern political parties. A few were flirting with fascism or nurturing military conspiracies, but most knew that for the mo- ment electoralism was the only game in town (Preston 1978: chap. 2; 1986: 111–26; Alvarez Rey 1993: 448).

Let us go through the various components of Spanish conservatism. The Spanish capitalist class was one of its bastions, and much of it bore some responsibility for the fall of the republic. Outside agriculture, employers faced demands for reform, not revolution, but they nonetheless strongly

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

326 Fascists

resisted, believing reform threatened their property rights. Their statements were stamped by a “reactionary provincialism” that Cabrera believes reflects an “agrarianization of the Spanish bourgeoisie.” Faced with labor discon- tent, many were content to rely on legal repression by bringing in the civil governors, the police, the Civil Guard, and the army. This was how about a third of the killings recorded in Table 9.2 occurred. Pressured by the Depression, employers then collaborated from 1933 with the center-right government to weaken the Jurados Mixtos. These were brought back inside the Interior Ministry, where they found more often for the employers. Em- ployer intransigence was stiffened in 1936 by the Popular Front’s election victory, by its incoherent economic policy, and by a strike wave to raise wages and reduce hours. Many now believed they could not afford the re- public (Cabrera 1983: 251–86; Carmona 1989: part 3; Macarro Vera 1989; Tusell Gómez et al. 1993).

But few industrialists or financiers were political activists. Though this makes it difficult to judge most capitalists’ views, they would probably have preferred a semi-authoritarian “law and order” republic (such as the pre- Primo regimes or the regime of 1934 and 1935) to a military dictatorship. Businessmen were more common in the center-right parties than in the antirepublican right (Appendix Table 9.2). Some capitalists did bankroll the “accidentalist” CEDA and the traditionalist and overtly authoritarian Acción Española and Renovación Española (Montero 1977; Cabrera 1983: 307–12; Morodo 1985: 48–52; Preston 1986). Yet subsidies to the fascist Falange declined once its radicalism became evident, though they increased again in the months immediately before the military rising. Though many eventually supported military intervention, few were privy to the conspiracy (Payne 1962: 61–2; Preston 1978: chap. 7). Industrialists and financiers did not themselves kill the republic, though their contribution was negative.

Latifundistas were more obvious accessories. Rentiers residing in Seville were most active in far-right antirepublican parties (Appendix Table 9.2, rows 1 and 2). Almost everywhere landowners opposed unions, the Jurados Mixtos, and indeed all Republican reforms. If pushed hard in the more prosperous or small peasant areas, most hirers of labor would yield (Bosch 1993). But bigger landlords, especially in the south, were more intransi- gent. Their associations encouraged them to refuse to work their lands (to starve the workers into submission) rather than agree to higher wages or limitations on hiring freedoms. About a third of the killings in Table 9.2 resulted from their calling in the authorities to repress unrest. Much of southern agriculture was in ferment. Land seizures were endemic, and many

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 327

politicians realized that only major land reform could stop them. But this was not easy. Neither the state nor the church possessed lands that could be redistributed. Since the southern bourgeoisie had bought into land in the late nineteenth century, the problem could not be blamed simply on “reac- tionary feudalism.” It concerned thoroughly contemporary class relations. The state, small and underfinanced, could not compensate landlords. South- ern conflict could be solved only by a strong state – either by repression of the laborers or by land reform forced on landowners.

The republic had started with good intentions. Caballero extended leg- islation on accidents, inspection, and conciliation to the agrarian sector and banned the import of scabs from other districts. Wages rose while the Depression was reducing prices, which tended to alienate even small farmers hiring labor. Leasehold reform was also contemplated, though only Catalonia possessed a large tenant organization capable of pressuring this. But the south dominated the agrarian question (Malefakis 1970; Tuñón de Lara 1985: 210–218). The first center-left government promised radical reform and floated reports and bills to achieve it. But rightists and farm- ers opposed them so strongly that centrists wavered. Nor was it easy to draft proposals geared mainly to the south that would also work in other regions. Unfortunately, center-left attention focused elsewhere, the Re- publicans on anticlericalism, the Socialists on urban-industrial class con- flict. Of 470 deputies, only 189 participated in the crucial agrarian vote. Then the rise of the FNTT, the socialist agricultural union, put pressure on the socialists for action. But the most interested groups were the reac- tionary Agrarian Party and the anarcho-syndicalists – both hostile to the republic.

Thus the first agrarian reform was botched. It allowed confiscations from over 80,000 small to middling farmers as well as latifundistas. In order of pri- ority, those receiving land would be the genuinely landless, two-year mem- bers of agrarian workers’ societies (mainly UGT), owners with less than ten hectares, and finally renters or sharecroppers farming under ten hectares (though small six-year tenants could acquire their land). This created many inequities. Neither left Republicans nor socialists seriously worked at de- taching the small peasants from the landowners or the church. The law was then patchily implemented, often by hostile civil governors and local admin- istrations. Most 1933 strikes and land seizures protested failure to implement the legislation.

The election of 1933 brought in the center-right government led by the Radicals, supported by CEDA and the Agrarians (the landlord party).

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

328 Fascists

Landlords were now inside the government, neutralizing reform pressures coming from CEDA’s small Social Christian wing. The Radicals seemed uninterested and most CEDA deputies joined the Agrarians in blocking all proposals made by the Social Christian Agriculture Minister. The Socialist Party was under pressure from the FNTT to declare for agrarian revolu- tion, not reform. The Agrarian Law was scrapped and southern ferment intensified.

The 1936 victory of the Popular Front meant that agrarian reform was pushed energetically forward. Azaña and socialists both realized this was the only way to stave off social chaos. Five percent of all Spanish croplands were redistributed amid popular pressure for more. Landowners realized that the government would not send in troops to repress further land occupations (in which socialist mayors were participating). They now lacked legitimate military power. If I were an Andalucian absentee landowner seeking to preserve my fine and civilized way of life, I might indeed have turned to the generals at this point. But the problem (as we also found with Italian landowners) is how these landowners persuaded others to fight for their interests. Were others “agrarianized,” and why?

It is not easy to test whether Spanish conservatism was agrarianized. It had been traditionally tied to the three state pillars – monarchy, army, and church – and these all had their roots in the countryside plus the older administrative towns. But monarchy split them into different parties supporting different dynasties. The army was sympathetic, and concerns about order and security clearly had a last resort – a military coup. But the army was something of a separate caste, at arm’s length, politically burned by Primo’s coup and then by later abortive coup plots, now wary of more. The Catholic Church was to be the active unifier, mass mobilizer, and provider of moral fervor. Conservatives were Christianized more than agrarianized.

The church was deeply antirepublican, fearing anticlerical reforms, with nightmares of a revival of nineteenth-century priest killing that the anar- chists seemed to encourage (unfortunately, its own intransigence helped to guarantee this). Its influence permeated the right. Most conservative nota- bles emphasized their Christian identity and were also involved in Catholic pressure groups – of fathers, mothers, women’s and youth organizations, as- sociations of publicists, educators, health workers, and so on. In Valladolid, for example, organizations located in the leftist Casa Del Pueblo had 6,000 members, under half the numbers organized from the Casa Social Católica. The Catholic consumer coops and educational and medical benefit societies were much larger than their socialist rivals (Palomares Ibáñez 1988: 58–77,

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 329

123). Nationally, the Catholic unions grew to 10 percent of the com- bined socialist and anarcho-syndicalist unions, not massive but a mobilizable force.

Let us consider the conservative parties, beginning with the more main- stream ones. Among the most important early ones was Acción Popular (AP), which was socially surprisingly diverse. Seville members in 1932 (de- tailed in Appendix Table 9.2, row 3) were drawn right across the class struc- ture, though overrepresenting all middling groups. In Zamora, 26 percent of AP members were workers, artisans, or servants, 8 percent were peasants, 16 percent were white-collar, 13 percent were professionals, 18 percent were priests, and 19 percent were entrepreneurs and traders. Of two rural locals, one was 70 percent farmer and 20 percent worker (mostly farm workers), the other was more diverse, with entrepreneurs and workers the largest groups. The church was central to recruiting lower- and middling-class members – as it was in the large women’s section (Mateos Rodrı́guez 1993). It was the church that most fundamentally secured cross-class support for Spanish conservatism.

In early 1933 most of the conservative parties coalesced into the CEDA (Spanish Confederation of Autonomous Rightists). This soon claimed 735,000 members, which (if true) made it easily the biggest party in Spain. It was also (unofficially) the most influential party in the 1936 military coup. CEDA national and regional leaders were professionals and substan- tial property owners, with bankers and clerics prominent in some regions. Lower down, their composition broadened out among the middle classes: Of seventy-seven local committee members throughout Spain, 33 percent were professionals, 20 percent public employees, 13 percent businessmen, 9 percent white-collar, 9 percent landlords/farmers, and 12 percent were workers (Appendix Table 9.1, row 4). The large CEDA youth movement, the JAP, is said to have been dominated by middle-class students, though there are no actual figures.

As significant as class, however, were religion, gender, and farming. The Madrid branch said that its members were 45 percent women, unparalleled among contemporary parties (Payne 1993: 168), while in most provinces farming families provides the bulk of members. The church was very im- portant in mobilizing both women and farmers, both highly involved in church attendance or organization. CEDA stressed the restoration of church privileges above all else. Many CEDA locals were avowedly confessional, emerging out of Catholic lay organizations – with more members than the local labor unions (for Murcia, see Moreno Fernandez 1987; for Salamanca,

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

330 Fascists

Vincent 1989: 83). The Catholic farmers’ association was the largest CEDA affiliate, centered in Castile. Its organizers sought to recruit respected com- munity worthies of all classes, focusing on those active in religious and charitable affairs (Castillo 1979).

CEDA did not neglect material interests. It emphasized the common landlord and capitalist and petty bourgeois commitment to property rights. In its peasant core it emphasized the common sectoral interest peasants, and landowners shared in high food prices and cheap wages (Montero 1977: 419–49). But class and sectoral interests were interpreted within a broader moral order, centered on an ideology of integral nationalism, guarantee- ing order and security, which claimed to “transcend and suppress” class and regional conflict and disorder. Its Social Christian wing’s social con- cern for the poor was ideologically important in election appeals, though its practical influence on CEDA policy was not great. Care was taken with social labels. The terms “labrador” (technically, ploughman) and “agricul- tor” (husbandman or farmer), often concealing an absentee rentier, con- veyed a dual sense of someone of worth and substance who also got his hands dirty. In CEDA records these terms make it difficult to identify ac- tivists’ exact class location – as was the intention. Though CEDA branches were often dominated by the old regime, in more religious areas of the countryside and older administrative towns of the Castillian center, it at- tracted votes from all classes. Thus the party could mobilize broadly outside the “proletarian ghettos,” the secular bourgeoisie, and regional autonomy movements.

CEDA remained ideologically “accidentalist” about democracy. This was partly to avoid constitutional argument between its disparate main factions – Christian Democrats, caciques, and authoritarians (Tusell Gómez 1974). CEDA discussed constitutions more in terms of “tactical possibilities” than principles, with democracy often seen merely as “the lesser evil” (Montero 1988: 17; Preston 1986: 111–26). The constitution was less important than (“accidental to”) the goals it served – a belief shared by many on the left, of course. CEDA insisted that the republic revise its constitution regard- ing church-state relations, then it broadened the conditions. Provided the republic secured order, property, church rights, class harmony, and the in- tegrity of Spain, then CEDA would accept democracy. If not, it was not spelt out, but most understood it meant a regime installed by the mili- tary. Yet CEDA was patient, prepared to wait at least until the republic’s fourth anniversary (December 1935), after which a simple Cortes major- ity would be sufficient to amend the constitution. The CEDA leader Gil Robles preferred a constitutional outcome since he had staked his leadership

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 331

on the parliamentary route. Yet even he hedged his bets. In December 1933 he declaimed:

today I will facilitate the formation of center governments; tomorrow when the time comes, I will demand power and I will carry out a reform of the Constitution. If we do not receive power, if events show that a right-wing evolution of politics is not possible, the Republic will pay the consequences. This is not a threat but a warning.

By October 1935, his “warning” was tinged by fascism:

We must found a new state, purge the fatherland of judaising freemasons. . . . We must proceed to a new state and this imposes duties and sacrifices. What does it matter if we have to shed blood! . . . We need full power and this is what we demand. . . . To realise this ideal we are not going to waste time with archaic forms. Democracy is not an end but a means to the conquest of the new state. When the time comes, either parliament submits or we will eliminate it. (Preston 1978: 98, 48)

Except for a distinctive Catholic obsession with freemasonry, this could be a speech of Hitler or Mussolini.

Thus republicans and socialists began to call CEDA “fascist,” declaring unacceptable its entry into coalition governments. CEDA was not fascist. It supported traditional state institutions and specifically rejected paramili- tarism. CEDA was actually as varied as the Socialist Party, but with a differ- ence – this church-centered party was more disciplined. Republicans tried to split CEDA by luring its “left” into a coalition government – which would have been an excellent solution for the survival of a democratic re- public. But their efforts failed: CEDA “leftists” believed that they could not survive on their own, outside the protective mantle of a party whose core was not fascist but reactionary authoritarian Catholicism. But for social- ists, republicans, and regional autonomists the difference between fascism and reactionary authoritarianism was insignificant. They knew that CEDA would reverse republican reforms, repress their movements, and imprison them. They were less interested in the motive – fascist or merely Catholic reactionary – than the likely deed. “Fascist” became the standard word used by the European left and center-left for authoritarians who wished to imprison them. In other countries such people often did become real fascists – and laggard Spain was aware of this. As a card-carrying sociol- ogist, committed to terminological precision, I do not call CEDA “fas- cist,” but its opponents were (in a very personal sense) perhaps entitled to do so.

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

332 Fascists

Once in control of the two states, in late 1934, CEDA revealed semi- authoritarian leanings, for it spearheaded the legal repression after the Oc- tober rising. Yet this backfired, alienating uncommitted centrists (Montero 1977: II, 124ff.). When the scandal-ridden Radicals began to collapse, the CEDA leader Gil Robles assumed that (as leader of the largest party in the governing coalition) he would be asked to form the next government. But fear of CEDA “fascism” was so widespread that President Zamora refused, declaring an election instead. CEDA, still confident, mounted an aggressive election campaign denouncing its opponents as immoral traitors to the na- tion. This alienated some conservative republican and regional parties, who revoked their alliance with CEDA. In the election this brought the Popular Front an extra 5 percent of votes. Frightened anarcho-syndicalists, voting for the first time, probably brought more. Combined, their weight cost CEDA the election. In the near future it could not attain its goals through democracy or legal means.

Compromise was difficult for CEDA, the ultraright, and the church be- cause of their tendency to demonize their opponents. Their newspapers, pamphlets, and speeches persistently invoked a reconquista. This resonant word refers back to the historic wresting back of medieval Spain from Islam. Now modern Spain was to be forcibly wrested back from what CEDA termed the “Anti-España” of atheistic socialists, anarchists, and republicans, alien to the integral (i.e., organic) nation. The republic had brought di- visions, deaths, and anarchy. CEDA election posters declared, “To vote for the Republic is to vote for Civil War.” Spain must be saved from “Marxists, Masons and Separatists [occasionally also Jews], serving the in- terests of international foreigners. They are not Spaniards!” The church weighed in, labeling this a “moral” not a political struggle, between “con- struction and destruction; between the Spain of ancient traditions, religious principles and the conservation of society and the anti-Spain of demolition, church burning and . . . revolution.” Its “Crusade of Prayer and Penance” urged prayers, offerings, and penance for the defeat of “those against Christ [who] have unfurled the banner of destruction and hatred . . . the enemies, apostates of their religion and of their birthplace.” In the 1936 election the Catholic press for the first time denounced conservative Republicans as un-Christian (Vincent 1989: 80–6; Montero 1977; Bermejo Martin 1984; Lannon 1984; cf. Alvarez Chillida 1992; Alvarez Rey 1993: 334–6). This was a decisive moment, the throwing of the weight of the church behind an exclusionary organic nationalism, prefiguring its description of the mili- tary rising as a “crusade against anti-Spain.” Amid such powerful ideological pressure, it was difficult for many Spaniards to relate the rival party programs

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 333

to their own private interests in a calculated way. It was also difficult for capitalists outside southern agriculture to relate them to their interests in retaining their property or generating profits. Ideological power was being mobilized to considerable effect, turning more intransigent Catholics’ sense of economic power and interest. True, the purpose of all this rhetoric was to win a democratic election. But what if they lost it? Could they consent to being governed by people they had just described as alien enemies and traitors?

Rightist nationalism was thus much more coherent and more dangerous in its combination of hate and morality than was its statism. Its statism was truly “accidentalist,” since the right did not know what kind of authoritar- ian state it wanted. A few CEDA militants were drawn toward a somewhat fascist mixture of repression and the transcendent “third way” of order, hier- archy, and harmony. Its youth movement, the JAP, adopted fascist trappings, including mass mobilization, street violence, and adulation of “The Leader” (Montero 1977: I, 621ff., II, 81ff. and 248ff.; Preston 1986: 63–8). But no single tendency dominated everywhere. In the Seville party there was less fascism than a return to caciquismo (Alvarez Rey 1993). The JAP adopted an appropriately half-baked fascist salute – raising the right arm halfway and bending it at the elbow back across the chest. Try it – it feels too wimpish to be fascist, a fascism of the closet, ashamed to quite come out. Nor were there yet many rightist paramilitaries. Some JAP groups called for them, but the CEDA leadership did not permit this. Except for the Carlist levies and the small Falange, the right looked to the army for force. CEDA did not need a blueprint for a future society; a military pronunciamento would suffice. CEDA accidentalism finally applied even to itself. Once the army rose, CEDA disappeared: The time for parties was over. CEDA personnel simply moved over into the new regime. They had been the main political destroyer of Spanish democracy. Their “accidentalist” trajectory toward this was far more damaging than the supposedly “revolutionary” trajectory of the anarcho-syndicalists or socialists.

To their right, and overlapping with CEDA’s own right wing, were those styling themselves as “traditionalist” parties, who openly rejected the republic and democracy – the Agrarians and most of the Alfonsine and Carlist monarchists. However, through the republic they increasingly em- braced more modern authoritarian corporatist ideas that the pressure group Renovación Española was advocating. On the far right the lines separating the authoritarian family members were blurring. They had distinct regional and religious cores. Their leaders were usually landowners, lawyers, priests, and officers, but they could mobilize local cross-class communities of the

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

334 Fascists

faithful, whom they appealed to as “persons of moral reliability, profoundly Catholic, in love with patriotic traditions.” Sympathetic workers were styled “Catholic, worthy and honorable.” The high moral tone of these ultras was one of their attractions, appealing especially to students (Alvarez Rey 1993: 307–11). The Carlists offered a somewhat uneasy combination of populist local democracy and top-down monarchist corporatism. They dominated Navarre, with only pockets of support elsewhere. Since they recognized the legitimacy of neither Republic nor its main alternative, a Bourbon monar- chy, they had no inhibitions against organizing their own armed violence. They formed Carlist paramilitaries, arming and drilling for an eventual up- rising. By 1936 they alone, of all political movements, could firmly secure military control of their heartlands. Their contribution in terms of mili- tary power to the collapse of the republic was thus as great as their limited numbers would allow.

fascists

There were not many true fascists in Spain – until the civil war began. The existing authoritarian institutions of the Spanish old regime were too powerful to leave much space for a movement with a new theory of author- itarianism. Instead, new theories were blended into the old institutions. But not all were absorbed.

The dominant fascist group was the Falange, spouting a rather Italianate type of fascism. But it had an unusual and charismatic young leader, José Antonio Primo de Rivera (the ex-dictator’s son), who was killed by re- publicans in the first days of the civil war. His poetic and sentimental style, squeamishness, and political innocence typified the kind of “moral fas- cist” who rarely survived at the top of fascist movements. The Falange did not reach 2 percent of the national vote and before 1936 had fewer than 10,000 members. Since no sudden crisis had engulfed the state, reactionary authoritarianism remained entrenched, borrowing corporatist ideas, cramp- ing the space for populist fascism. Conservatives could rely on the army and Civil Guard rather than unreliable street fighters. Things changed somewhat in 1936 as the Falange grew rapidly to 20,000 to 25,000 members by the out- break of the civil war, partly because the military conspirators wanted civilian allies to increase their legitimacy. By October the Falange provided 43,000 of the 65,000 volunteer militiamen to the Nationalist cause – the Carlists providing most of the rest (Casas de Vega 1974). Political polarization had heightened the allure of paramilitary fascism, especially for the young.

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 335

Though we have little data on the fascists, it is generally assumed they were “petty bourgeois” (as were many of the smaller fascist parties of Europe). Their vote was largest in the most affluent and rightist districts, but since they almost never received 5 percent of the vote, we cannot close in on actual fascist voters through ecological studies. Suarez Cortina (1981: 157) has limited data for the Asturias indicating leaders who were teach- ers, lawyers, businessmen, and petty traders but able to mobilize student and Catholic worker support. He guesses their vote was highest in petty bourgeois districts. Details on 1,103 members in Madrid province survive. As everywhere, these fascists were young, 60 to 70 percent being under twenty-one. A surprising 55 percent were workers, which may be mislead- ing, since there were probably another 1,000 to 2,000 local fascist students not recorded on this list (students could not officially join any party if under twenty-one). And the Falange was usually at its strongest in university cities (Payne 1965: 45, 63, 68–70, 81–3, 225–6; 1980: 423–6). In Cádiz the newly formed Falange immediately recruited twenty students and eighty workers, disillusioned with the performance of all the republic’s parties (Cancela 1987: 222). In Seville, students formed the core, aided by skilled workers then by hotel sector workers and some service sector white-collar workers (Alvarez Rey 1993: 385–92). Since the Catholic-authoritarian right already mobi- lized the mass support that in countries such as Germany and Italy went to fascism, the Falange may have mobilized only those who usually provided the hard-core paramilitary fascists – younger hotheads, with students and workers from outside the proletarian ghettos prominent.

These fascists were not at first very effective. Until spring 1934 the Falange was in an unusual situation for a fascist party: Though advocating violence, it was inflicting less killing than it suffered. Over the next two years its own pistoleros evened things up (see Table 9.2). During 1936 it concentrated its violence in the major cities, especially Madrid – doing damage to the republic out of all proportion to its size, augmenting the fear that public order had collapsed.

But the Popular Front electoral victory of 1936 led to desperate measures on the right. As conservatives conspired with generals, and as CEDA mil- itants began defecting from their pragmatic leaders, the Falange expanded greatly. It is said (on the basis of little actual data) that this was among the educated middle classes of towns in Castile and Léon, then among small farmers and the entire middle classes (Blinkhorn 1987: 335–9). CEDA lead- ers claimed that 15,000 of its JAP youth members joined the Falange during the spring, and most of the Nationalist militants interviewed in old age by

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

336 Fascists

Fraser were recent converts from CEDA and JAP. They were socially rather varied – several small farmers, a print worker, a lawyer, a student – but they were all from strongly Catholic backgrounds, despairing of CEDA “cowardice” in the face of the “disorder” and “anti-Christian” goals of the republic. They tended to describe their enemies as “Bolsheviks.” Some, like this farmer, espoused radical social-Christianity:

It meant redistributing part of the wealth of the country in a new, more just manner; it meant that everyone would have to work – but work in harmony together; it was pure evangelism, the doctrine of Jesus Christ that everyone should live better, not that some should be well-off and others poor. (Fraser 1994: 87)

The petty bourgeois stereotype of the Falange seems oversimplified, mainly because region and religion also mattered. The Falange was rather ambiva- lent about religion, yet it was in the more rightist and religious provinces – Castile, Léon, and Navarre, especially – that the attractions of authoritari- anism and fascism increased among all social groups who were not insulated by strong leftist organization (and relatively few were in these regions). That is surely how we must interpret the mass response in these core regions to the voluntary enlistment program of the Falangist and Nationalist militias only months later. Some regions allowed fascism to recruit more broadly among the classes, but this was not a fascist movement that could plausibly claim to transcend class on its own merits. What mattered above all almost throughout the Spanish political spectrum was the entwined triad of class, region, and religion.

military power, military front lines

But Franco never depended on votes, parties, or mass movements. Nor had Primo before him. They led army revolts. Thus we must analyze the specific organization of the military to ask how the state lost its monopoly of military power. As noted earlier, the officer corps was ingrown, half its recruits the sons of officers, half from the genteel but rather poor provincial middle class – both mostly from Castile and Léon. Thus the officers were attracted to modernized conservatism in the form of integral nationalism. Officers’ corporate caste interests also tended to turn them against the republic. There were too many of them for the reduced military needs of the country, bringing conflict with civilian governments seeking to keep salaries low, to retard promotion, and to stint modernization. The army thus contrasted

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 337

military virtue with civilian vice. A rebel general summed this up in his memoirs:

The army . . . had developed a distinctive psychological state: believing itself alone in an immense desert, the sole possessor of truth amid thousands of erring compatriots; the only source of justice and honor, the only patriot; and this exaltation of a particular egoism logically led it to impose its opinions on others by all means, despotically, dictatorially, declaring war on the state. (Kindelan n.d.: 188)

The center-left governments worsened the conflict, cutting budgets and creating a state paramilitary, the Republican Assault Guard, controlled by civilian authorities, to replace the army’s public order role. This was the only paramilitary force on which republicans could rely in 1936. Center-left governments then tried to protect themselves from a coup by promoting officers loyal to the republic, which was obviously a deviation from strict meritocracy. This carried the short-term downside of completing the trans- formation of corporate caste interests into principled ideology – authoritar- ian technocratic modernity versus corrupt civilian democracy (Boyd 1979: 19–43, 276; Espı́n 1980: 183–201; Busquets 1984; Alpert 1989; Gomez- Navarro 1991: 313–20). But until the church demanded the moral support and the intolerance of all true Spaniards, army ideology remained a little caste-like, discontented, hostile to republicanism, but fearing that it was isolated. It remained reluctantly “loyal.” The army then rebelled as its own interests became entwined with statist and corporatist political principles and Christian and nationalist morality.

These values had also acquired a harder edge during Spain’s dirty Moroc- can war, when it was defending sacred España against a “barbarous” anti- Christian foe. Franco played a major role in developing the more modern and murderous tactics that produced eventual victory in Morocco for the Army of Africa. He was then summoned by the center-right government in 1934 to more counterinsurgency, leading units of the Army of Africa in the suppression of the Asturias insurrection. He described this action in half-Moroccan terms, declaring: “[T]his is a frontier war against socialism, communism and whatever attacks civilization in order to replace it with bar- barism” (Preston 1993: 105). He was to prove equally ruthless during the civil war. Very noticeable in July 1936, in the first days of the rising, was the more ruthless determination of rebel officers compared with Republican loyalist officers. The rebels were much more likely to shoot immediately or to have executed their superior officers if they sensed opposition. African- istas, officers who had served for long periods in Morocco, were prominent among them. I have tried to quantify this in Table 9.3.

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

338 Fascists

Table 9.3. Africanistas among the Military Elite of the Civil War

African service

Civil war allegiance −5 years 5 years + (Africanistas) Unclear Total Republican 13 5 1 19 Nationalist 5 39 2 46

Total 18 44 3 65

Note: The sample is of general officers listed by Suero Roca (1975, 1981) or indexed in Thomas (1977) whose service records were clear from the sources used in this chapter. Of my sample, sixty saw their main service in the army, three in the navy, and two in the air force. Almost all served at least briefly in Africa. This research could be greatly strengthened by utilizing the actual service files of the officer corps.

The table shows clearly the overrepresentation of Africanistas among the nationalist rebels: 87 percent of rebel generals were Africanistas, compared with only 26 percent of Republican generals. To some extent this was because the Republic had sought to “exile” rightist generals to Morocco and the Canary Isles. But the experience in Africa had also fueled their sense of moral hatred of alien enemies, outside and inside Spain.

As soon as the Popular Front won the election of 1936, preparations for a military rising began. During 1931–3 the right had conducted its cam- paign within the Cortes and state administration. From 1934 legal repression within parliamentary forms had sufficed. Now it turned to its other, military option. Before even leaving office Gil Robles asked the president to declare martial law and the generals to intervene. Though Franco showed some interest, the president refused and most senior officers said the army was not ready. From March there were consultations between generals, monarchists, and CEDA politicians. Gil Robles felt it proper to keep in the background. Yet he admits he collaborated “with moral stimulus, with secret orders for collaboration, and even with economic assistance, taken in appreciable quan- tities from the party’s electoral funds.” He tried to mediate the conspirators’ disagreements over a postcoup constitution and he instructed CEDA mem- bers to be prepared to join the army rather than form paramilitaries (1968: 719, 728–30, 798–802). But he played no part in the civil war or the Franco regime.

In April 1936 the conspirators recognized General Mola as the clandes- tine commander of the coming uprising, though Franco was seen as the most effective rebel general. Mola and Franco tried hard to avoid Primo’s error: They knew that the political goals of the coup should be clarified beforehand. Yet this proved impossible. Only some of the conspirators were

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 339

monarchists (and they were divided between Alfonsines and Carlists); some wanted a corporatist dictatorship and some wanted only a semi-authoritarian republic. They could agree only to proclaim a military rising to rescue Spain from its “enemies,” making no mention of any constitution. Its form was truly “accidental” to the real, substantive goal: to overthrow democracy by authoritarianism, any authoritarianism, and to cleanse the land of political enemies. Franco was quick to fashion a corporatist dictatorship once the fortuitous deaths of Mola and others left him in command. He then used fascists in his regime, and sometimes spouted fascism, insofar as his politi- cal needs dictated. But the rising knew more about the anti-España it was attacking than about the political constitution of the true España.

Mass preparation came from a semi-secret military society, the UME, claiming 3,436 officers (one-fourth of the active officer corps), plus 1,843 retired officers and 2,131 NCOs. Its Republican counterpart, the UMRA, had only about 200 officers, more NCOs and Assault Guard po- lice, mostly in Madrid. Their main deed was the assassination in early July of the Renovación Española leader (and former minister of Primo de Rivera) Calvo de Sotelo, a much-respected figure on the right. For some rightists this was a genuine last straw, for others it was the pretext – for the plot had actually been maturing for some months. The military rising began. In the event one-quarter of the officer corps remained loyal to the republic, while two-thirds declared for the rising. The Civil Guard divided similarly, but most of the small new Republican Assault Guard stayed loyal to the republic.

Map 9.3 reveals the initial front lines of the civil war, in which patterns of military and political logistics were entwined. The initial division into two Spains, Nationalist (i.e., rebel) and Republican, partly reflects prior areas of leftist or rightist political strength, partly areas of army strength. The repub- lic predictably held Catalonia, Valencia, and Madrid itself, plus radical rural areas in the center-north. They recruited most of their socialist and anarchist militias from these areas. The Nationalist political heartland was in the rest of Castile and Léon, which contributed more than their share of army re- cruits, though fewer Falangist volunteers. Madrid was split, since it included a disproportionate share of both the rich and the working class. It was also the seat of the old state and the new republic. It declared for the republic, with the considerable aid of the main units of the Republican Assault Guard. Catalan cultural ideology and industrialism had reinforced one another to generate leftism among workers and liberal republicanism among the middle classes, both suspicious of rightist centralization. Barcelona became a revo- lutionary bastion during the civil war. Down the coast the secular, moderate autonomy sentiments of Valencia converted into moderate republicanism.

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

340 Fascists

Map 9.3. Civil war: initial areas of control, July 1936.

In Andalucia the leftists were predictably far more numerous, but they were swiftly defeated by Franco’s invading Army of Africa. The region provided less than its share of Nationalist volunteers and very few Falangists.6 Up the west, where Extramadura meets Old Castile, Catholicism and Francoism strengthened. In the northwest, in Galicia, Catholicism and caciques were undercut by mild regionalism to produce moderate support for Franco. It provided many Nationalist army recruits but few Falangist volunteers. In the Asturias, badly scarred by 1934, sides seem to have been mainly cho- sen by class: Most workers opted for the republic, the bourgeoisie for the Nationalists. Basque elites wavered. They distrusted the left, yet since the republic offered regional autonomy most supported it. Yet in neighboring Navarre regionalism went rightist, since it was Catholic and Carlist and had secured regional concessions from the Nationalists. It raised proportion- ately the most Falangist volunteers, as well as most of the Carlist militias (Blinkhorn 1975; Payne 1980: 427–8).

Consider in particular the variations we find in a single but very large class fraction, small peasant proprietors. In general, their collective economic associations saw republican and socialist parties as favoring laborers and urban consumers at their expense. In Castile, Léon, and some other areas the church had also been able to implant some of the economic infrastructures

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 341

of “Social Catholicism” – credit banks, coops to provide machinery and marketing services, and professional and social organizations. Increasingly, the church and its lay notables provided leadership for all social initiatives. Thus schools, women’s increasing religiosity, newspapers, and local political parties steered Catholic peasants into hostility to secular republicanism and socialism (Montero 1977; Castillo 1979; Perez Diaz 1991: 47–9, 96–100, 177). These peasants had made up much of the mass membership of the dictator Primo de Rivera’s tame party. In the 1930s they were the backbone of the CEDA. In 1936 they fatefully swung behind Franco – providing the single greatest refutation that the Nationalist side was simply a front for the bourgeoisie. Yet similar poor-to-middling peasant proprietors in the Levante drifted toward different politics. Here economic class interests and social Catholicism were undermined by anticlericalism and anti-Castillian regional sentiments. These peasants had mostly voted Republican and now they declared for the republic. Neither region’s peasants were extremists within their camp, but they were in different camps. So too were the agrar- ian classes of Catalonia and the Basque country (Republican) versus those of Navarre (Carlist, then Nationalist). In these cases regional-religious conflicts, more than agrarian relations of production, determined the side chosen (see the essays by Blinkhorn, Fusi, and Jones in Preston 1984). Conservative Catholics were crucial to Primo and Franco. Primo’s failure had pushed many into flirting with corporatist and fascist ideas. Then Franco’s ability to claim a “holy crusade” was critical not only to winning the civil war, but also to the subsequent stability of his regime (Lannon 1984: 35–58; 1987: 203–34; Morodo 1985: 21–39, 52–7).

The army was not sufficiently caste-like to be uninfluenced by any of this. Officers and especially the rank and file were affected by the sentiments of the areas in which they were stationed. In the more solidly conservative areas, when the officers rose up, their troops obeyed them, and the few army loyalists and Republican street fighters were quickly suppressed. The cities of Zaragoza and Oviedo were exceptional. There a core of determined military rebels seized control before large popular forces could mobilize. But where the rebels quickly faced hostile, armed local crowds, many officers and men (and whole units of the Assault Guard) declared for the republic rather than attack the crowds. But the stance of the soldiers, and especially the officer corps, also mattered. Without the loyalist military minority supporting the republic, the rising would have been a mere coup, successfully taking over the government within days. But without the backing of most of the officer corps, the coup would have fizzled out just as rapidly. Across the south local army and Civil Guard detachments grimly defended their barracks against

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

342 Fascists

the majority leftist sentiment, spearheaded by enthusiastic but untrained Republican armed crowds, secure in the knowledge that Franco’s Army of Africa, easily the most effective fighting force, would soon arrive to support them. This army then swiftly conquered the south.

Though Falangist, Carlist, and other popular levies quickly added half- trained numbers to the Nationalist side (as anarchist and socialist militias did to the republic), the initial rebellion half-succeeded only because of its military core – and it half-failed only because the republic had its own troops (Fraser 1994: 106–13). The military was now the epicenter of Spanish authoritarian rightism. Its superior military organization (aided by fascist Italy and Germany, outweighing the Soviet contribution to the republic) was decisive in eventually winning the war. Though the republic’s territories were more advanced and so contained a much larger population and resource base, its ability to organize this into a concentrated military striking force was inferior. The rebels had an army, equipped, supplied, and with a unified command structure – precisely the resources of military power that the republic now lacked. Wars, even civil wars, are won by superior military power.

the scale of political cleansing

Once the military rising was under way, both sides sought to cleanse their zones of political opposition. Both developed ideologies legitimating this. The Nationalists proclaimed a Crusade “to cleanse” (limpiar) España of athe- istic, communist, “foreign” anti-España. The Republicans developed a leftist exclusionary organic nationalism, depriving the enemy from true member- ship of the pueblo – the word meaning both people and village, from which the upper classes were absent. Many priests were killed amid massive church desecrations.

We cannot know the exact numbers killed by each side. Estimates have varied considerably. Estimates of total killings by Republicans vary from 20,000 to 75,000, though the lower half of this spectrum seems more plausi- ble. Nationalist killings are generally estimated between 50,000 and 200,000. However, a recent spate of detailed studies of individual provinces enables us to generate a rough estimate. These have documented 75,000 killings by Nationalists across twenty-four provinces and 38,000 by Republicans across twenty-two provinces. Between them they cover most of the killing in most of Spain’s fifty provinces (Juliá 1999: tables 1 and 3). Increase both figures by a third and we might reach very rough approximations of the total killings of both sides across Spain. Of course, more Republicans probably died during

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 343

forced labor and were not counted, and about 165,000 Republicans fled into foreign exile, fearing a similar fate. Nationalists probably exacted two to three times the vengeance over unarmed persons that Republicans did. Of course, they won, and so were in a position to do so.

On the Republican side the civil war began with a terrible burst of priest killing. Over 6,000 clerics were murdered, mostly in the first weeks of the war, mainly in areas controlled by anarchist militias (Moreno 1961: 758–68; de la Cueva 1998). This alone was significant in turning a military rising into a holy crusade. Nationalist atrocities bunched in two periods, varying somewhat by region. First, as their forces advanced, came the initial “lib- eration” of a district from the republic, followed by systematic killing of captured leftists surrounded by a penumbra of less discriminating butchery and rape. This killing tended to diminish in scale through the war, since leftists increasingly fled as defeat loomed. In Granada rightists murdered an estimated 5,000 persons, in batches over several months, virtually all in cold blood, driven to the cemetery at night and shot, without trial – including the poet Federico Garcı́a Lorca. The leading executioner in Granada, Ruiz Alonso, is generally portrayed as a downwardly mobile psychopath with a private vendetta against the republic. Yet this is probably to misunderstand him. His vendetta sprang originally from principle: A printer, he had refused to join a leftist union. From this political stance flowed his downward mo- bility, since he was blacklisted from employment by the union. This led him to activism in rightist unions and eventually to murderous political cleansing (Gibson 1979). Lacking biographical details of other perpetrators, we can only guess whether his combination of ideological zeal and savage hatred of the enemy was typical.

Second came the long reprisals after the war, mass shootings, forced labor under appalling conditions, systematic maltreatment, and malnutri- tion of Republican prisoners. Under Franco’s “Law of Responsibilities” in February 1939, mere support for the republic expressed after 1934, mem- bership of Republican organizations or masonic lodges, and even “serious passivity” became crimes. Republicans, leftists, Catalan autonomists, and others could expect only a cursory trial and arbitrary justice. Some 23,000 Republicans were officially executed by the Franco regime after the war ended. Franco had to sign all the death sentences and almost invariably did so. In March 1943 the Minister of the Interior admitted to there still being 75,000 political prisoners, not including forced labor battalions and those in military prisons. Some 45 percent of the state budget of 1946 was devoted to the police, the Civil Guard, and the army. Such a budget was required by a regime engaged in half-paranoid, half-vengeful overkill. No other regime

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

344 Fascists

in Europe – not even Hitler’s – killed as high a proportion of its political (nonethnic) enemies.

We know something of the motivation of the man ultimately responsible. Franco’s faith in hierarchy and authority was absolute, his anticommunism was paranoid, his methods were permeated by his experiences in savage colonial warfare. He believed, against all the evidence, that the 1934 rising had been planned and executed in detail by Soviet agents. Thereafter he believed the Republican left was awash with Soviet gold and money stolen from the propertied classes in 1934. In 1937 he declared to a French jour- nalist: “[O]ur war is not a civil war. . . . but a Crusade. . . . Yes, our war is a religious war. We . . . are soldiers of God and we are not fighting against men but against atheism and materialism.” This was denying basic humanity to his political enemies. He reneged on deals made through foreign negotia- tors to exchange prisoners of war, instead handing over common criminals. As the Republican resistance collapsed in 1939 Franco told advisers that a negotiated peace was out of the question “because the criminals and their victims cannot live side-by-side.” Those who shared Franco’s obsession with “enemies” – such as the Prime Ministers Carrero Blanco and the butcher of Malaga, Arias Navarro – also favored continuing the repression (Preston 1995: 16, 104–5, 114, 146, 225–7, 290, 315–6, 436, 527, 549). Franco was committed to more extreme political cleansing than were Mussolini or Himmler because his politics incorporated religious and quasi-racial el- ements. They could view “Bolsheviks” as compatriots – if they recanted. But Franco’s España was purer politically. By 1940 few Spaniards wanted to restart the civil war. The republic had lost. Franco could have been much more conciliatory; indeed, this would have helped the recovery of the coun- try. But he saw good against evil, and evil must die.

Some Nationalists objected to the scale and savagery of the killings. Op- position was especially voiced by traditionalist officers. General Kinderlán believed the repression was destroying the prestige of the army. Colonel Yagüe, who defended the savagery of his own troops during the civil war, afterward argued for conciliation. Opposition was unexpectedly voiced by Heinrich Himmler, visiting Spain in 1940. Taken aback by the executions and overflowing prisons, he commented that it made more sense to incor- porate working-class militants into the new order rather than to annihilate them (Preston 1993: 392, 449). He did not seem to realize that working- class militants were to Franco what Jews were to himself. Franco was to refuse Hitler’s and Himmler’s repeated requests to hand over Spanish Jews, but toward leftists he was merciless. This is the difference between political and ethnic cleansing.

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 345

the franco regime

Historians and sociologists of Spain have long argued over how to label the Franco regime and how much power Franco and the various regime “fam- ilies” possessed (e.g., Miguel 1975; Giner 1977; Jerez Mir 1982; Chueca 1983; Fusi 1985; Preston 1990: chaps. 4–6; 1993). But broad brush strokes will suffice here. By September 1936 the sudden deaths of his main rivals left Franco as undisputed head of state, Generalissimo and Caudillo,7 of the Nationalist forces. Running a three-year war followed by sustained repres- sion of the losers gave him institutionalized infrastructures of personal rule lacked by most other interwar dictators. Stability was maintained by stay- ing out of World War II – perhaps a result of his own good sense, more probably due to Hitler’s refusal to pay the price in French North African territories he demanded for his alliance (see Preston 1993: chap. 15). His regime never had a formal constitution, which allowed Franco to rule for over three decades as an arbitrary absolutist ruler, dividing and ruling among the diverse “families” who had won the civil war. He never allowed any one of them complete power, dismissed ministers who argued with each other, allowed compliant ministers administrative autonomy and longevity, and kept Council of Ministers’ meetings to administrative rather than to political agendas. His own style appeared lazy, distrustful of change, without vision. The regime could drift without goals beyond keeping its families in power and its enemies repressed. Since the families also shared many values, including the desire to keep on swilling at the trough, the balancing act was not all that difficult.

It is usual to distinguish three main “families”: the army, the Falange and Catholics – some scholars subdivide the last family into the church, traditionalists/Carlists, and/or monarchists. Franco recognized that he de- pended on the army for military power and on the church for ideological power. The ministries of state were dominated by generals and colonels, the education ministry was dominated by Catholics, the labor ministry was shared between Catholics and the Falange, and the Carlists got control over Navarre plus the national Justice Ministry until 1973. The High Command collectively discussed only military, not political matters, and Franco kept it on a shoestring budget. In 1939 Franco incorporated Falange and Carlist volunteers into the officer corps to weaken its solidarity and as a specific counterweight to monarchist officers. He dangled before monarchists the possibility that a king might eventually succeed himself (which did indeed happen), but indefinitely postponed making any actual succession arrange- ments. The church did have a strong collective life, but it did not usually

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

346 Fascists

interfere directly in the state. Instead, its influence was more diffuse, ex- pressed through the strong religiosity of many conservatives.

He felt less at ease with some of the Falangists. They had been neces- sary during the war and shortly thereafter, providing much-needed popular mobilization. They provided him with most of his regime trappings from 1937, when the Falange was fused with the Carlists into a single party with an incredibly long and uninformative title. Abbreviated F.E.T. y de las Jons, it was popularly referred to as just the Movimiento – a “movement” whose character could not be defined. While the tide of war was turning toward Hitler and Mussolini, Falange ideology was prominent, accepted by Franco as the rhetoric of the future. Nonetheless, Franco ruthlessly repressed the more populist falangists and from about 1947 falangists were relegated to visible but subordinate positions, running unions without power, welfare programs without money, and an agricultural ministry without power. The binding together of the families was through shared interests, overlapping values, and top-down corporatist structures headed by a decidedly reac- tionary despot. Thus I label this regime as a mixture of two of the categories presented in Chapter 2 – as semi-reactionary and corporatist authoritarian.

The regime was also profoundly class-based. It was recruited dispro- portionately from the upper classes and the most highly educated, and it severely repressed all independent lower class organization. Yet curiously, not industrialists, bankers, nor even landowners played much collective role in the regime. And their goals smacked more of reactionary rentiers than profit-seeking capitalists. Their property rights were oversecured by fero- cious repression of labor. Then they mildly and ineffectually opposed the subsequent policy of integrating workers into the corporate state through Falange unions. They seemed satisfied to draw rent from their property and from state office and patronage rather than pursue rational profit-seeking capitalism. This suited Franco, who was interested in capitalism as order, not capitalism as economic development. Spain stagnated under his policies of “barracks autarchy,” its people remained poverty-stricken, its bourgeois officers, fascists, and other regime favorites given sinecures on the boards of public and private companies. Capitalist technocrats remained ignored until the rise of the Catholic Opus Dei organization in the 1960s. Spain eventu- ally modernized more because it was in Western Europe than because of any efforts by the regime. The European Economic Community and Vatican II were eventually great liberalizing influences. As the church backed away from Franco, the regime lost its soul. The officer corps and the Falange re- mained loyal until after his death, preventing insurrection – which much of the country dreaded anyway, fearing another civil war. But in the Western

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 347

Europe of 1975 most Spanish elites of right and left alike knew that a mod- ern regime had to be a liberal democracy. The cautious way into this was through a restored but constitutional Bourbon monarchy. King Juan Carlos, confronted in 1981 by a military coup carried out in his name, dithered for some hours. He is reputed to have called Valerie Giscard d’Estaing, the French president, for advice. Giscard is supposed to have asked him whether he wanted to be the last of the Bourbon kings of Europe. If not, choose democracy, he said. Juan Carlos repudiated the coup, which quickly collapsed.

conclusion

This chapter asked two main pairs of questions. The first was: Who killed Spanish democracy, and why? We saw that a controversy has raged over whether there was a joint extremism of left and right that doomed the republic. The answer must be “yes” in southern agriculture and at an im- portant moment in Asturias. Southern landlord intransigence was mirrored by insurrectionist, land-hungry laborers. For both, possession of the land mattered more than any constitution. Compromise land reform was possible only if imposed from outside. Since the landlords controlled the regional state, they could sit tight. Since the laborers controlled the villages, they could seize the land if no state repression followed. This indeed became the situation under the Popular Front in early 1936. Similarly, in 1934 Asturian miners had briefly believed they also had the local power to seize their region. These were quasi-revolutionary situations in which class con- flict was becoming unmanageable by only local police forces. The south needed sustained deployment of the Civil Guards, plus strategic garrisons of regular army units; the Asturias needed divisions of regular troops. Had this constituted the whole of Spain, we could conclude that attempted revolu- tion, civil war, and massive political cleansing were all mainly escalations of class struggle. Economic power relations would have ultimately determined political outcomes.

But elsewhere in the country class intransigence was neither symmetrical nor unbridgeable. Neither most industrial capitalists nor unions, landlords, peasants, and rural laborers in other regions were hell-bent on class victory at any cost. Most employers favored “law and order” Republicanism, only semi-authoritarian at most. The majority of organized workers supported reformist varieties of Republicanism, socialism, and syndicalism. Compro- mises among these class forces did occur, in the Jurados Mixtos, in land reform, and in national and local coalition government. Thus economic

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

348 Fascists

class conflict across Spain as a whole – though somewhat destabilizing – did not dictate the fall of the republic, still less the mass killings that followed.

Indeed, the gravediggers of the republic did not have the symmetry con- ferred by the dialectic of class struggle. The left remained more deeply split on means and constitutions. Most of its leaders were reformists, but there were also influential revolutionaries. Most militant workers and peasants (even perhaps in the south) appeared to want reform. They greeted the re- public by disproportionately joining unions with reformist leaders. Most of their strikes and occupations with political goals were aimed at securing the implementation and completion of Republican reforms. And only a handful on the left were so despairing of democratic institutions that they turned to paramilitarism before the civil war began. As among the left throughout Europe, their violence was more that of rhetoric, plus demonstrations and marching crowds with a fringe ready to break windows and noses. The Republican center also favored reform and it more uniformly supported parliamentarism.

These groups, with the grudging consent of most employers and union members, might have forced through a substantive reform program that would have assuaged popular discontent and saved the republic. That they failed was partly their own fault. The left was divided and irresponsible, encouraging wild rhetoric and some violence among its rank and file. In the divisions ideological power played a key role. Marxism and anarcho- syndicalism appeared powerful theories of modernity, coming with great intellectual authority, making pragmatists seem less principled, more “cor- rupt.” Yet these theories were inappropriate in the ways they were applied to Spanish class relations and counterproductive for those who espoused them. The center-left may have been too zealous and imprudent in pursu- ing its ideological goals of a secular state and a civilian-controlled military – though these were (in comparative terms) normal modernizing goals. Left and center-left also had different priorities, failing to support each other adequately against opposition entrenched especially in the executive “half ” of the state. On the center-right clientelist traditions of el turno lessened commitment to liberal democracy, bringing the stench of corruption and its own collapse. All of these ghastly mistakes were not accidental but deeply rooted in these leftist and centrist political movements. But they were still mistakes, since few of those involved deliberately aimed at killing democracy.

Things differed on the right. Traditionalist and corporatist rightists and the few fascists persistently sought executive powers incompatible with re- publican democracy. The much more numerous CEDA “accidentalists” had no such clear-cut goal, being deeply divided on constitutional issues. But

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 349

these diverse factions were more respectful of hierarchy and more deter- mined to retain the privileges of the old order. Thus accidentalists and ultras joined forces to oppose the republic’s substantive reforms, using their con- trol over state executive agencies to block implementation of legislation. Finally, faced with the Popular Front government plus direct action from workers and peasants, they sought to destroy the republic by military might and replace it with an authoritarian one.

In this class economic interests were important. They first sought to defend property relations with mildly semi-authoritarian “law and order” measures, including enhanced executive powers and the routine deployment of state paramilitaries. But they were also deeply entwined with ideological, political, and military power. The right was enormously assisted by a reac- tionary church, which had its own material and ideal interests and whose ideological power was the greatest source of the right’s mass popularity. This increased their sense of moral outrage and helped to persuade them that there were higher-order goals than constitutions or political pragma- tism. They also used the political power of the state’s executive arm through predominant old regime control of the police, interior ministry, and prefects. They then escalated further, turning toward their “last resort” of a decidedly nondemocratic alliance with a military caste. This caste was authoritarian, favoring repression of class and regional discontents and with its own vested interests. Thus the majority of conservatives eventually invoked a military power that shared many of their values.

Those who “evenhandedly” blame left and right ignore the obvious dis- parity in military power between the two sides. Assuming that political bias is not the explanation for this, it must be part of the general neglect in the human sciences of military power relations. We must understand that there are very different levels of “violence” involved in power struggles. The re- public contained the normal strife and struggle of democracies faced with severe crisis: turbulent elections, crowds, and demonstrations; the pressure of strikes, occupations, and lockouts accompanied by some physical intim- idation; and backstage pressure to deploy police, strike-breakers, and goon squads (on both sides). The main contending parties tried these techniques and on occasion they all bent the rules of democratic and constitutional procedures. This was symmetrical struggle by left and right alike, intermit- tently turning into physical violence, mainly directed at class purposes. But none of this destroyed the republic. It tended to reinforce the morale of one’s own core support but alienate enough moderates to tip elections to the other side. This level of violence was electorally counterproductive – which is how democracies are supposed to operate.

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

350 Fascists

The republic fell before a qualitatively different level of violence. It fell in over one-half of Spain at the hands of a military revolt, and it was driven out of the rest of the country by a better organized, more professional army, aided by the armed forces of the two major fascist powers. Leftist talk of comradeship, struggle, force, and revolution paled beside rightist military organization. I find it bizarre that Payne (1993: 383–4) spends the last pages of his book, which sum up the overall causes of the fall of the republic, detailing the verbal aggression of its main defender, Manuel Azaña. Can he not distinguish between political rhetoric and artillery barrages as forms of violence? In the last instance, which actually arrived during 1936–9, rightist military power prevailed, overthrowing a democratic republic (more turbulent than most, but indubitably a democracy), bringing mass murder, and installing a repressive thirty-year dictatorship.

My second pair of questions concerned the victorious regime. Why did it take the form of a fairly harmonious collaboration between reactionary and corporatist authoritarians, and why were the fascists so well domes- ticated by Franco? Much of the answer is not hard to find and has been given many times before. The Spanish old regime suffered very little dislo- cation in the twentieth century. Though its three pillars – church, army, and monarchy – were in some decline, and the monarchy was decidedly shaky, the national territories were not remotely threatened, governments stayed out of European wars, and even the Depression was not really a “great” one. A move against liberal democracy would probably take conservative, even reactionary forms. There was insufficient crisis to open up space for a radi- cal right capable of attracting popular forces for a mass-mobilizing fascism. When fascism did suddenly expand greatly in 1936, its principal adherents came from the conservative right. There were very few socialists-turned- fascists in Spain. But this meant that the right had little mass mobilizing power (except on Sundays and holy days). To overthrow democracy thus required the army, which itself also favored more conservative, orderly, and top-down methods of rule than fascism.

This alliance was then welded further together, and acquired a little more “bottom-up” fascist mobilization, by the decision to fight a war against the republican-leftist government. We see the importance of the right’s common commitment to order and hierarchy in the fact that they stayed much more united than did the Republican side. There was virtually no fratricide among the Nationalists during the civil war, unlike on the Republican side. After the war, the institutions of Franco’s undisputed authority were already in place, and he took care to let the various regime “families” share at the trough. Again, the regime kept neutral in the 1940s and experienced no

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

The Spanish Family of Authoritarians 351

severe crises, though there was persistent stagnation. There was nowhere else for the fascists to go, except out of power and then perhaps to prison. They were domesticated by military and political power and economic inducement – and by the fact that their ideologies overlapped considerably, anyway. Thus the Spanish right developed a largely reactionary and limited, not a modern and ambitious, “statism” as the solution to social crisis. But its organic nationalism was quite as fierce as any we have witnessed, save in the area of anti-Semitism. It came to endorse large-scale political cleansing. It is sobering to realize that had not other old regimes been weakened by the crises surrounding World War I, and had not their successor authoritarian regimes not been first dislocated by the economic crises and the advance of the Axis Powers during the 1930s and then destroyed by World War II, then Franco-type regimes might have dragged on comfortably, disastrously, and repressively for decades through much of Europe.

One major puzzle remains. It is the usual one, given a different twist in Spain because this was such a “successful” authoritarian regime, one that survived for almost forty years. This was a country of very pronounced class conflict, one in which the resort to authoritarianism had particularly overt class motives on the part of the propertied classes. Yet from the point of view of rational capitalist profit taking, this was disastrous. The combination of Franco’s reaction, repression, and corporatism spelled economic and social decline over a long period. We would have to be very pessimistic indeed about the Second Republic to suppose that its survival beyond 1936 would have had a worse outcome for the bourgeoisie than Franco’s regime brought. If anyone actually benefited from Franco’s regime, it was his family and personal networks (and later the Bourbon family and connections) and some in the church, the military, the Falange, and the landowning class. But the beneficiaries did not include Spanish capitalists or the middle class in general. Instead of preserving western civilization, the regime effectively excluded Spain from it for over a generation, except for the sight of sun- baked Europeans lying on its beaches. Perhaps the sight proved too much for the regime. In Franco’s last years his regime abandoned all vestiges of fascism and waited for him to die. This was, in Payne’s (1998) words, “defascification from within.”

Though I do not claim to be certain of my answer to the puzzle, the special circumstances of Spanish agriculture, riven by class conflict and with landowners well entrenched in the old regime state, did partially “agrar- ianize” Spanish capitalism. Thus the Spanish bourgeoisie exaggerated the threat to their property and elevated this fear above the calculative pursuit of profit. But they were more substantially encouraged in their overreaction

P1: KaD/JZI P2: IRP/KaD/JZN QC: JRT 0521831318c09.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 1:51

352 Fascists

by a minority of the country’s leftists and by the powers exercised by two of the three pillars of the old regime state. For the church and the army had better founded fears concerning their own privileges. The combination was an ideological power movement able to convince very many capitalists – and indeed persons of all social classes fearing disorder and insecurity – to define opponents as enemies and traitors and to see salvation as coming through a military power able to impose a transcendent organic nationalism. Once again, it was a gigantic mistake that rightists made, this time letting in not fascism but a reactionary corporatist dictator who greatly harmed their material interests. Nor was it only a “mistake,” since it led many of them to the commission of great evil. But that is what humans do when they are confronted by complex, entwined, imploding crises concerning several sources of social power at once – as the twentieth century so amply demonstrates.

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

10

Conclusion

Fascists, Dead and Alive

I first summarize my explanation of the rise of fascism. Then I ask whether fascism is just history or whether it may return to haunt the world again. Are all the fascists dead ones?

dead fascists

I offered a two-part explanation of the rise of fascism. The first part concerns the forward surge of a broader family of authoritarian rightists who swept into power across one-half of interwar Europe, plus a few swaths in the rest of the world. In Europe the surge carried regimes further across the spectrum I identified in Chapter 2, from semi-authoritarianism to semi-reactionary and thence to corporatist. A few then went further, to fascism.

Authoritarian rightism was a response to both general problems of moder- nity and particular social crises left by World War I. Modernization was consciously pursued by most authoritarians: industrial growth and restruc- turing, more science and economic planning, more national integration, a more ambitious state, and more political mobilization of the masses. After some initial hesitation, most rightists embraced most of the modernist pack- age while rejecting democratic mass mobilization. However, their embrace was also pressured by a series of crises – economic, military, political, and ideological – brought on or exacerbated by the war. Without these crises, and without the war itself, there would have been no major authoritarian surge, and fascism would have remained a series of sects and coteries rather than a mass movement.

Serious economic crises came at war’s end and then again as the Great Depression struck in 1929. In between, in the mid-1920s, came lesser in- flation crises. Yet few interwar economies were ever very buoyant. Since governments were now expected to have economic policies to ameliorate

353

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

354 Fascists

hardship, economic crises destabilized governments. “Old regimes” also feared the secular economic trend of the period, since many members lived as rentiers from the profits of the least modern parts of the econ- omy. Modernity and crisis-induced restructuring might be their nemesis. Ruling regimes, especially “old” ones, felt they had to do something.

The war produced military crisis, defeat for some, and dislocation plus sudden demobilization for all. Crisis was felt more severely in the center and east of the continent, which contained most of the defeated powers. But military crisis also endured where “revisionists” continued to challenge the terms of the peace treaties and to seek restoration of “lost territories.” Em- bittered refugees and aggressive nationalist movements kept the pot stirred. Would revisionists triumph in Austria, Germany, and Hungary, would the many new successor regimes of the vanquished multinational empires sur- vive, would France or Romania keep their territorial gains, would Serbia keep its Yugoslav dominance? Then military crisis became more general, as a second world war loomed and as the threat and influence of revisionist Nazi Germany grew.

The political crisis was distinct to the center, east, and south of the con- tinent. The northwest had already stabilized liberal regimes before 1914. Its governments and electorates confronted the economic and military crises with orderly changes of government leaving unchanged the basic constitu- tion of liberal democracy. Yet the center, east, and south were at this very time attempting a transition toward liberal democratic parliaments while leaving many old regime state powers intact. There crisis was confronted by dual states, half liberal democratic, half authoritarian. Since old regime conservatives usually controlled the executive part of the state, including its military and police, they had the option of using repression to solve crisis – reducing or overturning the power of the state’s parliamentary half. Indeed, the war had enhanced the resonance of militarism, while a short postwar burst of class conflict had normalized the deployment of troops in civil strife. Yet most of the right felt that repression was no longer sufficient to main- tain rule in the modern era. It was also necessary to undercut democracy with alternative ways of mobilizing the masses. Conservatives responded differently in the two halves of Europe. In the northwest the dominance of liberal institutions pushed conservatives toward building more populist political parties playing according to the rules of electoral democracy. But in the center, east, and south, conservatives launched coups by their executive half of the state linked to more mobilizing authoritarian movements. Let me emphasize: Fascism was not a crisis of liberalism, since institutionalized liberalism weathered all these crises without serious destabilization. Fascism

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

Conclusion: Fascists, Dead and Alive 355

was a product of a sudden, half-baked attempt at liberalization amid social crises.

These crises were exacerbated by an ideological crisis. On the right, though only in one half of Europe, this became a sense that modernity was desirable but dangerous, that liberalism was corrupt or disorderly, that socialism meant chaos, that secularism threatened moral absolutes – and so cumulatively that civilization needed rescuing before modernization could proceed further. So there emerged a more authoritarian rightist view of modernity, emphasizing a more top-down populist nationalism, develop- mental statism, order, and hierarchy. Such values began to circulate widely, especially among young moralists – middle-class youth in high schools, uni- versities, and military academies, as well as in “established” churches that leaned toward nationalism or statism anyway. So across one-half of the more developed world occurred a conservative political offensive by the proper- tied classes, led by an old regime wielding state repression while sponsoring mass political parties with nationalist and statist ideologies. This insurgent authoritarian rightism was not purely reactionary (as Mayer 1981 suggests), since it wielded novel visions of modernity.

Nor was it merely a class strategy, explicable in straightforwardly func- tional Marxian terms. It was not even the most economically rational strat- egy available to the possessing classes. These had two alternative economic motives: “property defense” and “profit maximization.” The early post- war burst of class struggle might threaten private property, so might some later Spanish revolutionaries, so might too close a proximity to the Soviet Union. But there was no general fundamental threat to property looming across Europe after about 1921. The revolutionary left had been defeated. Most of the rightist offensive thus occurred after any serious revolutionary threat from below had died away. During the relevant period no deter- mined property defense was necessary. “Profit maximization” is more likely a motive, though it is also more complex. It is less zero-sum, since it is not necessarily the case that for one side to gain, the other must lose. It is also more difficult to calculate alternative profits. Some leftist governments and the pressures of the Great Depression led to a squeeze on profits, and it might make some short-term sense for capitalists to redress the balance by forcing labor bear more of the costs – thus to repress labor. But political elites in the countries of the northwest and beyond were devising much better strategies of profit maximization – corporate liberalism in the United States, social democratic compromise in Scandinavia, splitting the Labour Party in Britain. The first of these policies may have benefited both sides in the class war, the second certainly did, while the third probably benefited

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

356 Fascists

only capitalists. These were effective democratic strategies to protect the survival and profitability of capitalism – and this was the primary goal of the northwest’s leading economist, Keynes.

Why were the possessing classes so hypersensitive to opposition from the left that they reached for the authoritarian gun so quickly, when neither property nor profits were much threatened? I found five reasons for their overreactions, ranging over all the sources of social power.

(1) The last decades had revealed that revolution was a real possibility in modern societies. The prospect appeared now to be receding, but property owners could not be certain of this. One version of the “security dilemma” stressed by recent political scientists suggests that people may overreact to a threat that is “life-threatening” even if the threat has a low probability of be- ing realized. The chance of a Bolshevik Revolution occurring in Germany after 1922 might be low, but German capitalists might overreact to leftists on the principle “better safe than sorry.” For the political right, “certainty,” “safety,” and “order” were linked values.

(2) A particular class fraction had greater reason to fear. The property rights of agrarian landlords were more vulnerable. Land reform was consid- ered desirable through much of interwar Europe; there was also some direct threat to them from below in several countries; and their hold on old regime states would probably not last much longer. For the moment, however, they still possessed unusual executive political power, especially through officer corps and ministries of the interior. Cacique patronage systems also still con- ferred on them a certain parliamentary strength in relatively backward areas. For them “certainty” of possession could be ensured through a combina- tion of repression and disproportionate political power within the propertied classes as a whole. Why risk uncertainty when property preservation could be guaranteed through authoritarian rightism? Note, however, that whereas the old regime’s own motivation was economically rational, that of their allies among the possessing classes was probably not. They were being led by the nose by the political and military power of the old regime, especially agrarian landlords.

(3) Some military officer corps reasoned similarly. Their caste-like au- tonomy, linked to the old regime, was threatened by demands for civilian control over the military by liberals and the left. Their budgets were threat- ened. Some officer corps were used to staging coups, others were not, but the appearance of more military-minded rightist movements seemed to offer them succor.

(4) Some churches reasoned similarly. They faced leftist secularism threat- ening their own property and wealth, plus their control over education,

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

Conclusion: Fascists, Dead and Alive 357

marriage, and other social practices. They were also part of the old regime and their stress on “order” and “hierarchy” also carried a more diffuse ideo- logical power among the community of the faithful, especially in more rural areas. These possessors of ideological power favored authoritarian rightism to protect their own material and moral interests.

(5) “Order” and “threat” were not merely problems of domestic class relations but also of geopolitics. These made some ethnic, religious, or political minorities seem especially threatening because linked to foreign powers. The right characteristically fused together supposed domestic and foreign “enemies” – leftists were seen as (Russian) “Bolsheviks” and “Judeo- Bolsheviks”; foreign, finance, and Jewish capital and liberal separatists and so on were all seen as both domestic and foreign threats.

Combined, these fears worsened the overall sense of threat. As threats became more diffuse, they seemed more vaguely threatening, so the response was to “root them out,” “stifle them at source.” So goals were displaced away from a narrow instrumental rationality calculating about economic interest to a broader “value rationality” in the sense of Max Weber’s use of the term. Order, safety, security, hierarchy, the sacred rather than the secular, national rather than class interest become the primary slogans, while the enemy was demeaned, even demonized, as the antithesis of all these values, unworthy of democratic or (in extreme cases) of humane treatment. What might have begun as the economically motivated behaviour of propertied classes was displaced through the mediation of others’ sense of threat onto far more diffuse goals of nationalism and statism. Thus the propertied classes (even perhaps agrarian landlords) did not pursue the most instrumentally rational course of action. The ensuing authoritarian rightism then developed its own economic rationality by pioneering statist economic policies useful both for late development and for combating depression. But the search for order, hierarchy, and risk avoidance made most rightists lower their sights below what countries in the northwest were beginning to accomplish with increased capacity for democratic mobilization.

So though class struggle played a substantial part in the surge of the au- thoritarian rightist family, we must also link it in our explanation to politi- cal, military, and ideological power relations. When multiple crises generate multiple goals among collective actors who overlap and intersect in complex ways, ensuing actions rarely follow narrow interest group rationality. This led authoritarian rightist regimes into dangerous areas that threatened their own survival. Relying on a more militarized and more sacred nation-state “threatened” by domestic-foreign enemies had dangerous consequences. It made war more likely, and modern total warfare produces far more losers

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

358 Fascists

than winners. Some of these regimes provoked wars with the potential to destroy them all. This actually happened in 1945. Endorsing rightist au- thoritarian values also made them vulnerable to being outflanked by more radical rightists.

Enter the fascists. We reach the second part of the explanation as fascists piggy-backed on top of all this. They would not have grown large with- out war-induced crises faced by dual states and panicking old regimes and possessing classes generating nation-statist values. Fascists did not grow large where crises came without dual states and panicking old regimes, in the northwest of the continent. Fascists were nurtured among the authoritarian rightists and continued to have close family relations with them. As in all families, their relationships could involve love or hatred. Thus the second part of the explanation involves explaining which occurred, and where.

I have emphasized that fascists were distinctive. Neither their organiza- tion nor their values allowed them to be simply a vehicle for class interests. Organizationally, they were unlike other authoritarians, for they were a “bottom-up” movement, not a top-down one. And they were driven in “radical” directions by their own core values: They believed in a paramili- tary, transcendent, and cleansing nation-statism. Fascism was not committed to the existing state nor to its military arm but sought to revolutionize them, “knock class heads together,” cleanse the nation of its enemies, and so tran- scend class and political conflict. Since they saw themselves as a “popular” movement, they were not averse to elections as a strategy of coming to power. Most fought elections vigorously, pioneering mass electoral tech- niques of ideological manipulation. Only in Italy, where they came very rapidly to power, was electioneering not a central part of fascist activity. Unlike the more conservative authoritarian rightists, fascists could not use the power of the state to manipulate and fix elections (until after they came to power). Though fascists did not believe in democracy, it was vital to their success.

But electoralism sat alongside a second form of popular struggle. Their activist core consisted of voluntary paramilitary formations committed to organized street violence. This had three purposes. It was “provocative,” intended to produce a violent reaction from its political rivals. This would enable fascists to declare that their own violence was “self-defense.” Second, it would repress enemies, since fascist paramilitarism conferred logistical su- periority in street warfare, enabling them to bring “order” to the streets. It was hoped that both “self-defense” and “success” would bring more support and legitimacy to the notion that fascist “orderly violence” could end so- cial chaos. This was then further exploited electorally. Third, paramilitarism

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

Conclusion: Fascists, Dead and Alive 359

could in the last resort launch a coup – provided the army was also immo- bilized (since most fascists knew that their paramilitarism was inferior to the military power of the state).

Such paramilitary activism brought distinctive recruits and distinctive val- ues to the movement. The first cohort of recruits, without whom fascism would never have got off the ground, consisted largely of young military veterans transmitting wartime values of comradeship, hierarchy, and vio- lence into a peacetime political movement. In this respect fascism as a mass movement would never have surged beyond being a coterie of intellectuals without World War I. Indeed, fascist activists remained cross-class gangs of young men for whom the combination of demonstrating, marching, and brawling had a special attraction. Hence they were disproportionately stu- dents, cadets, athletes, and young working-class roughnecks (who are also well represented among the perpetrators of atrocities in my forthcoming volume on ethnic cleansing). Fascism also reflected modernization impacts on young people: the liberation of young males from family discipline, and of young females from much of the burden of childbirth, the growth of organized sports, and the growth of professions requiring extensive further or higher education, especially the profession of war. Scholars of fascism (or indeed of the twentieth century in general) have paid insufficient attention to these age-cohort effects that contributed to the emergence of a general feature of the twentieth century, the cult of youth. Fascism was the first great political manifestation of this cult.

Bottom-up nationalism and statism were fascist values everywhere, drawing distinctive core constituencies of popular support. Fascism res- onated especially among embittered refugees, “threatened border” regions, state employees (especially including armed forces), state-owned or state- protected industries, and churches that saw themselves as “the soul of the nation” or “the morality of the state.” As class theorists have observed, fascism would not have surged without the prior surge in class conflict, and not surged so much without the Bolshevik Revolution. But it does not follow – as class theorists have argued – that fascists represented only one side in this class struggle or indeed any single class at all. Their core constituen- cies reflected the appeal of the goal of transcending that struggle. Fascism tended to appeal neither to the organized working class nor to persons from the middle or upper classes who were directly confronted by organized la- bor. Instead, it appealed more to those on the margins of such conflict, persons of all classes and various sectors, in smaller or newer industries and the service sector, persons likely to cry “a plague on both your houses.” The fascist core, especially fascist militants, rested preponderantly on macho

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

360 Fascists

youth receptive to paramilitarism and on social environments receptive to the message of either extreme nation-statism or class transcendence.

Nonetheless, fascist regimes did not succeed in transcending class. Since they were not actually anticapitalist, they could come to terms with the capitalist class; since they were promilitarist, they could come to terms with the armed forces; and since most of them cared little about religion, they were willing to sign concordats with powerful churches. Thus in practice, and once they neared power, fascist movements became biased on questions of class struggle. They tilted toward the capitalist class, the propertied classes more generally, and the old regime in particular. Yet, of the main fascist values, class transcendence was the one that varied most among the various national movements. Italian fascism was rather conservative and bourgeois in outcome, Romanian became decidedly proletarian.

Since big fascist movements were varied and emerged in rather varied circumstances, it is not so easy to generalize about their rise as it was for the whole family of authoritarian rightists. I first summarize their variations case by case, then move to their overall similarities.

Italian fascism rose and seized power early, in the immediate postwar years when class conflict was only just beginning to decline (and was still raging in agriculture). Thus it had a more direct class component than the other cases. There was an obvious fascist/propertied class alliance, and so Italian fascism can be partially explained in functional Marxist terms: The upper classes turned to fascists to rescue them from class revolution. But the closeness of World War I also made for a more direct military/paramilitary contri- bution to fascism through young male military veterans. One might almost say that paramilitarism was the means and agrarian-led class repression was the goal of Italian fascism. This would be to oversimplify, however, since paramilitarism also brought distinctive recruits and goals. Though not geared to electoralism, Italian fascism’s combination of “self-defense” and success (it did destroy socialist and populari power) increased fascism’s popularity among those valuing social order. Fascism’s broader nation-statist goals were also popular and undermined the will to resist of the old regime and state executive. Geopolitical and political power relations also mattered. Since Italy had largely uncontested borders and was unthreatened from abroad, its nationalism contained little external aggression or racism inside Europe (Africa was a different story).

The Italian state was also dual, and both halves of the state were in weak- ened condition. This made it vulnerable to a coup. Liberal parliamentarism was not directly challenged by fascism, since fascism’s sudden rise occurred between elections. But parliament had been weakened by the traditional

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

Conclusion: Fascists, Dead and Alive 361

hostility of the church and the rapidity of the transition toward full democ- racy. Socialists, Catholic populari, liberals, and conservatives were not yet socialized into the rules of the parliamentary game and failed to form the coalitions that would have best served them and democracy. But since the church had hitherto stood aside from politics and since Italy was charac- terized by uneven economic development, the country also lacked a ho- mogenous old regime. Landowners, big capitalists, the army, and the church could not subvert the transition to democracy with their own conservative authoritarianism. Some were quickly driven toward the fascists (who were often their own sons). There were thus three causes of the triumph of Italian fascism: intense class struggle, postwar paramilitarism, and a weakened old regime.

German Nazism rose later, after a sustained attempt to make Weimar democracy work. Again, the condition of the old regime was extremely important. War defeat had unseated the monarchy and its loyal conservative and national liberal parties, and it had greatly shrunk the armed forces. The old regime could not now rule. As democracy faltered from 1930, conservative authoritarianism had little support outside the state executive itself.

Second, paramilitarism was again important, though its role differed from the case in Italy. Military veterans were important to the first cohort of Nazis and other populist extremists, but they needed reinforcing by later cohorts of Germans who had not fought in the war. From 1928 the Nazis were thriving on the electoral process of the republic, quite unlike Italy. This meant that their paramilitarism was more geared to gaining electoral support and rolling over its enemies in street brawling than to seizing the state.

Third, class conflict, though relevant, was not dominant. It grew dur- ing the Great Depression, but was much less severe than in the immediate postwar period and was insufficient to threaten capitalist property rights. However, there was a squeeze on profits, and one solution would be to repress labor. There was thus some complicity in the Nazi coup by the propertied classes, though much less than in Italy.

Fourth, Nazism was also a popular electoral movement, unlike Italian fascism, making two main mass appeals to the voters. The apparent “class stalemate” during the Depression made Nazi claims to class transcendence appealing, especially since the Nazi movement was the most classless in Germany. Second, its populist nation-statism thrived on Germany’s geopo- litical and ethnic bitterness. A Great Power resenting its loss of territories, sucked into the Central European (formerly Habsburg-centered) tensions of Germanic, Jewish, and Slav peoples, Germany had refugees, “threatened

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

362 Fascists

borders,” and ethnic “enemies” at home and abroad. Organic cleansing na- tionalism had quite broad appeal. Nazism’s statism was limited to Führer worship and militarism. But its nationalism was more intense and racist. Thus Nazi transcendent nation-statism was sufficiently popular to bring it to the brink of power. Its own paramilitarism and the weakness (sometimes the complicity) of the old regime took it over the top. This is a broad explanation entwining ideological, economic, military, and political power relations.

Austrian fascism was divided between two rival fascist movements. Though the monarchy and empire were gone, there was much continuity from pre- war times in the institutions of parliament, the state executive, and the Catholic Church, and the old regime lived on in Christian Social govern- ments. “Austro-fascism” and the Austrian Nazi movement both emerged as rivals out of postwar revisionist paramilitaries and continued to thrive on discontents expressed through the electoral process. Both movements exploited the intensity of Austro-German antipathy toward Slavs and Jews. Austro-fascism was the less populist and radical of the two movements, being more top-down and more procapitalist. It strengthened as the mild semi-authoritarianism of the Christian Socials seemed unable to overcome Austria’s class stalemate, which the Depression helped perpetuate. But the rise of Hitler next door in Germany was the decisive factor. This intensified the appeal of fascism, undermined Austro-fascism, and gave the prize to the Austrian Nazis. The paramilitaries of both parties attempted coups but got into power only with help from the military power of a state (respectively, Austria and Germany). The final result was Anschluss between two Nazi movements, though they had got to power in different ways, and one was vastly more powerful than the other.

Hungarian and Romanian fascisms differed substantially from the others. The two countries had fought on opposite sides in the war, Hungary emerging as a big loser, Romania as a great victor. Yet the contrast was weakened by the ensuing civil war in Hungary, which resulted in the crushing of the Hungar- ian left and allowed the Hungarian old regime to reemerge, if in embittered and radicalized form. Rule was by a dual state composed of the traditional executive and bureaucracy and a parliament dominated by the gentry. Yet the old regime now contained many younger radical rightists, making more populist, revisionist (i.e., demanding the return of “lost territories”), and modern appeals to the country. Romania differed somewhat. Its (mainly foreign) landed gentry had been dispossessed, but this and the great war victory allowed the monarch, bureaucracy, and army to reemerge, as a more nationalist though still corrupt regime. Thus the old regimes survived quite

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

Conclusion: Fascists, Dead and Alive 363

well in both countries, if somewhat radicalized and then destabilized by fur- ther radicals emerging within and around them. The political competition on the right was especially fierce within the universities and military schools and through the electoral process. Large fascist movements only emerged in the mid-1930s, well after the threat from the left had subsided. Thus fascists had no capitalist bias; indeed, they became rather proletarian in their composition. In both cases paramilitarism was used more as an electoral tool than to repress rivals or to seize power. An unequal dance of death ensued, in which military triumphed over paramilitary power, and radicalizing regime authoritarians triumphed over fascists. Only the chaos of the last war years allowed the fascists a brief, doomed victory.

Spanish fascism was different again. Neutral in World War I, Spain’s old regime experienced the least disruption among all my case studies, and so conservative authoritarians, not fascists, dominated. Indeed, this, and not fascism, was the most common outcome across the center, east, and south of the continent. Portugal, Bulgaria, Greece, and the Serb core of Yugoslavia resembled Spain in this respect. The new successor states of the collapsed empires – the three Baltic republics, Poland, and Albania – also moved in crisis only to reactionary or corporatist authoritarianism. Though their po- litical regimes were not “old” but brand new, they had the power and legit- imacy of being “national liberators.” They, not fascists, developed veterans associations and populist parties.

The Spanish old regime did have one weak element, an unpopular monarch, and this let in the military regime of General Primo de Rivera. His failure led to the democratic Third Republic, the breakup of which did eventually produce a sizable fascist movement, complete with hastily formed paramilitaries. But these remained subordinate to the Nationalist army in the civil war and were marginalized under Franco’s regime. His main props were the army, the church, and the “old” propertied classes. His regime is largely explicable in terms of my earlier general explanation of the surge of the authoritarian rightist family.

All these cases differed. To explain them required analysis attuned to local histories and social structures. Nonetheless, through the variety I per- ceive common forces determining the power of fascists. One potential cause actually played relatively little role: the threat from the working-class move- ment. This was not correlated with fascist strength. The threat was probably greatest in Spain, where there was not much fascism. The threat may have seemed substantial (though it had already peaked) in Italy; it seemed sub- stantial though was actually more formal than real in Austria; Germany had a large but mostly moderate labor movement; Romania and Hungary had

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

364 Fascists

negligible lefts by the time fascism loomed – indeed, fascism itself provided their main labor movements. Fascism was to a limited and variable degree supported by the propertied classes to save themselves from labor, but this is not a very powerful general explanation of fascism.

The main attraction of fascism was the intensity of its message. This always brought committed support from mainly young people, willing to give more of their time and energy than were activists in any other po- litical movement. Fascist militancy, always with a paramilitary component, was necessary to fascist success. By their energy and violence, the thousands could hope to both attract and defeat the millions. This militancy centered on the ability to trap young single men within comradely, hierarchical, and violent “cages.” Fascist parties and paramilitaries were almost “total insti- tutions.” Fascism also attracted substantial (though not majority) electoral support, attracted by varying combinations of statism, nationalism, and class transcendence, though less by paramilitarism and cleansing. As we have seen, the first three of my five fascist characteristics had much greater plausibility in the countries that generated large fascist movements.

But the popularity of fascism was also greatly affected by the political strength and stability of old regime conservatism, which (more than liberal or social democracy) was fascism’s main rival. Only weakened and fac- tionalized old regimes let in large fascist movements. United old regimes repressed or subordinated them, weaker ones enabled fascists to find military and political organizing space. World War I provided the space for legiti- mate paramilitarism, initially provided by discontented war veterans. Their values were then transmitted to two further generations of recruits drawn predominantly from among young students, cadets, and workers. Demo- cratic elections provided the second space. Fascists thrived on a three-way electoral struggle, pitting the left against a conservative/liberal center and radicalizing conservatives. Fascists could then swallow up part or all of the radical right while the center was hollowed out and the left repressed. That was how the fascists achieved electoral success.

As they said themselves, fascists were not mere “reactionaries” nor “stooges” of capitalism or anyone else. They offered solutions to the four economic, military, political, and ideological crises of early twentieth- century modernity. They propounded plausible solutions to modern capital- ism’s class struggles and economic crises. They transmitted the values of mass citizen warfare into paramilitarism and aggressive nationalism. They were a product of the transition of dual states toward “rule by the people,” proposing a less liberal and more “organic” version of this rule. Finally, they bridged the ideological schism of modernity. On the one hand lay the tradition

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

Conclusion: Fascists, Dead and Alive 365

of the Enlightenment, “the party of humanity,” that would steadily widen the sphere of reason, freedom, democratic citizenship, and rational plan- ning in human society. On the other hand lay the modernist renewal of Romanticism: the perception that human beings also possessed senti- ments, emotions, souls, and an unconscious and that modern forms of organization – crowds, mass movements, total war, mass media – might encourage these quite as much as it encouraged reason. Fascists claimed to have fused these two aspects of human and mass behavior. We may not like any of their four solutions, but we must take them seriously. Fascists were and remain part of the dark side of modernity.

So fascists were generated in large numbers by postwar crises in ideolog- ical, economic, military, and political power relations to which a transcen- dent nation-statist ideology spearheaded by “popular” paramilitaries offered a plausible solution. Fascism occurred only where rule was by dual states containing weakening “old regime” executives and vibrant but only half- institutionalized democratic parliaments. Dual states with more stable old regimes produced more conservative forms of authoritarianism. Fascism resulted from the process of democratization amid profound war-induced crises. Fascism provided a distinctly statist and militarist version of “rule by the people,” the dominant political ideal of our times. Fully parliamentary regimes (in the northwest) survived all four crises with their institutions intact and fascists as small minorities.

live fascists?

Are there fascists still among us, poised to revive and dominate once more? Will we find such preconditions and consequence again? Or was fascism “European epochal” rather than “generic”? Clearly, some of the causes I identified were not merely conditions specific to the interwar period but re- main perennial possibilities of modern societies. Having identified five char- acteristics as key to fascism – nationalism, statism, transcendence, cleansing, and paramilitarism – we will obviously find some of them scattered around the world, probably in varied combinations. Movements can be more or less fascist. Yet it is doubtful whether comparable movements appearing in the future will call themselves fascist. As a word in usage today, it appears largely as the exclamation “Fascist!” – a term of imprecise abuse hurled at people we do not like. Only a few crackpots and thugs call themselves fascists or Nazis. Since a few Italians and Romanians carry a somewhat romantic view of Mussolini and Codreanu as well-meaning victims, they have styled them- selves “neofascists.” But labels are not necessarily reality. There are currently

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

366 Fascists

movements in the world with more than a passing resemblance to fascism, on which I will spend a few final moments.

Yet there are few in fascism’s original heartland, Europe. Fascism was defeated, its top leaders executed or imprisoned, and many others purged. Liberal democracy and communism triumphed and imposed their orders on Europe. There were no mass veterans’ movements, no politics of territorial revisionism after 1945. There was prolonged economic growth in Western Europe and the institutionalization of quite effective communist authori- tarianism in the East. In the West there was stable democratic competition between broad-based “catch-all” parties of the center-left and center-right. Since the present was clearly superior to the past, fascism withered. For the vast majority of Europeans, fascism still evokes images of evil. In Spain and Portugal corporatist regimes were decaying from within and were gone by 1975, unlamented. From 1989 authoritarianism began departing from the East. Fascism seemed finished.

From the 1970s, however, there seemed to be a bit of a revival in Western Europe. First, on the outer fringes many small but violent self-styled neo- fascist and especially neo-Nazi small groups achieved some prominence. They are historical revisionists (denying the Holocaust) and imitate the style and rituals of traditional fascism. They proclaim allegiance to fascist doctrines: hypernationalism grounded in biological racism, cleansing of alien foreigners, antidemocratic statism, the “third position” (though stated none too convincingly), and violence disguised as a call for “action” rather than words. Most of these small groups meet to some extent four of my five criteria of fascism, though open paramilitarism has not yet emerged. But they are tiny and likely to remain so. They mirror small groups of the far left: highly splintered, without popular support, thriving mainly off each other. They provide sensational copy for journalists and loom larger in the virtual reality of the Internet than in the reality of the street, still less the hustings.

More menacing has been a series of uneven upsurges of new radical rightist parties, usually followed by declines, but on a slightly upward secu- lar curve. At their peaks these parties have so far received between 10 and 27 percent of the electoral votes in a number of countries. Following Ignazi (1997), I distinguish two main types. The first consists of those who style themselves neofascist. They do display some though not all of the five fascist attributes. Yet only two of these neofascist parties have ever achieved elec- toral significance, the Italian MSI and the German NDP, which inherited the two major national traditions of fascism. Other neofascist movements, such as the British BNP and the Dutch CP’86, have remained tiny. But only the MSI reached up to even 10 percent of the vote, and the peak of these neofascist parties was in the 1970s and 1980s (Taggart 1995). The MSI drew

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

Conclusion: Fascists, Dead and Alive 367

disproportionate support (as had interwar Italian fascists), from the service and public sectors and from the more marginal working class (Ferraresi 1998; Weinberg 1998). But both declined during the 1990s. The German NDP declined in the face of the nonfascist Republikaner, and in 1994 Gianfranco Fini renamed the MSI as the National Alliance and declared it not neofascist but postfascist. Under his leadership the party has grown into a major con- servative “system” party, though some party stalwarts are unhappy with this makeover. A rump neofascist MSI splinter group remains, but it has shriv- eled. During the 1990s neofascism retreated to the margins of European politics and is currently insignificant.

Now dominating the extreme right are parties normally termed “pop- ulist” or “radical populist.” Taggart (1995) says they emerged at “the end of the post-war settlement,” responding to problems associated with global- ization and postindustrialism. Ignazi sees them as “postindustrial”: Global- ization, the end of the Cold War, and the decline of the far left and of class conflict created new problems for the populist right to mobilize on. But it is rising immigration into Western Europe that offers the greatest opportunity to such parties during recent decades. The main parties in this group have been Le Pen’s Front National in France, the German Republikaners, the Austrian Freedom Party of Haider, and the Flemish Volksunie and Vlaams Blok. Even more recent has been the rise of radical populist movements in Denmark (the DPP) and Norway (the FrP), receiving 12 to 15 percent of recent votes, and the late Pim Fortuyn’s anti-immigration List in the Netherlands. As yet only Ireland, Portugal, and Spain appear to be entirely immune from such parties. They are now a persistent minority feature of Western European politics.1

Yet on three of the key characteristics of fascism they remain ambiguous. They denounce in very general terms “the system” and “the establishment,” as well as the “sham” of a liberal democracy dominated by establishment parties that they say have lost touch with the real lives of ordinary citizens. But they rarely denounce democracy itself, and their goals are strictly elec- toral. They even sit united as a small bloc in the European Parliament. They are also ambivalent over the state. Since they tend to represent some of the most vulnerable citizens, they want state protection for them, sometimes including welfare state support. They always demand that the state enforces law, order, and traditional morality more toughly – because, they claim, immigrants dominate crime, prostitution, and drug pushing. Yet they resent a state controlled by the big parties, big business, and big unions, and so often say they want the state off their backs. Some even endorse neoliberal policies. In Austria Haider says he wants business radically deregulated, a flat tax rate of 23 percent, and the Austrian civil service cut by two-thirds.

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

368 Fascists

On balance, this sounds closer to the state-hating Republican right in the United States than state-worshiping fascism. Thirdly, their ninisme – neither right nor left – sometimes influenced by the “third position” of neofascism, is rather vague and falls far short of the class transcendence offered by in- terwar fascists. But the main problem here is that the steam has been taken out of such principles by the decline in salience in class struggle. Liberal democracies have successfully institutionalized it. These three ambiguities and weaknesses of principle and policy also make for instability, as either extremists or moderates seek to enforce a more consistent line that then results in splits and expulsions, such as the makeover of the Italian MSI and the disintegration of the German Republikaner in the mid-1990s.

Though the most enduring of these parties do have a full complement of policies, their main attribute is a xenophobic and exclusionary nationalism derived from a single issue: the desire to end recent immigration into Europe (though this is less true of Italy). The enemy is nonwhite, non-Christian or East European, and asylum-seeking immigrants, the mixture varying by country. This does meet my nationalist and cleansing criteria of fascism. It also enables them to connect up to a number of other issues – law and order, moral decline, unemployment, and housing – supposedly posed by immigrants. But their nationalist xenophobia is unlike that of fascists or neo- fascists, since it rarely derives from a general hierarchical theory of collective will, culture, or race identity. Wieviorka (1994) has described this as a shift within racism from a “logic of [hierarchical] inferiorisation” to a “logic of differentiation.” All that is claimed is that immigrants are incompatible with the culture and traditions of France, Germany, Austria, Denmark, and so on, and so should get out or be deported. Some even claim they are the true multiculturalists: All cultures and ethnicities should be free to develop as they choose, but separately. There is no desire to rule over them, or in- deed over any foreigners. They do not support territorial revisionism or aggression toward other nations, as was the case with interwar fascism. In fact, they also claim allegiance to “European civilization,” threatened by a flood of immigrants. Their international bête noire is American imperialism. They themselves are a long way from militarism.

Finally, there are no genuine paramilitaries organized by any of these Western European parties. Shocking though sporadic violence is committed by quite small fringe groups, very loosely organized, composed mainly of poorly educated and unemployed youths, the so-called skinheads, fueled by alcohol, their violence almost entirely aimed at immigrants. The vast majority of those committing offenses against public order are not affiliated with any far-right party or neo-Nazi group. The party leaderships are also

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

Conclusion: Fascists, Dead and Alive 369

unhappy about their violence, considering it a vote-loser. More people show some sympathy for their violence, but these tend to be poorly educated and mostly elderly (Willems 1995; Gress 1998: 238–50).

Surveys show that the rightist populist parties’ core constituency lies among persons seeing themselves betrayed as citizens, supposedly fully en- franchised in their own states but in reality being pushed down by elites, big business, and immigrant newcomers. They tend to be the less educated, less skilled, middle-aged to elderly, small town working-class, small business, and small farming males – different from the core constituencies of classic fas- cism. So their xenophobia is not merely a response to direct job or housing competition from immigrants, nor indeed of any “objective” cultural in- compatibility, nor merely of the prevalence of racism in the society at large. All these are mediated by a sense of betrayal of citizen rights that is especially strong among more disadvantaged citizens (Betz 1994; Wimmer 1997). As Eatwell (2001) notes, their support is more sectoral than class, since they seem to attract the sectors within each class that are most economically threatened today (though “globalization” is too trite a label for the diverse sources of current threats). The Austrian Freedom Party deviates somewhat, having broader-based support deriving from the third great fascist tradition that was not totally destroyed in 1945 (Bailer-Galanda 1998).

But the biggest electoral successes of these parties come when they can enlarge on their limited core constituencies by capturing broader discon- tent with the traditional governing parties. Such “protest voting” appears greatest where there are distinct regional grievances against the capital, as for the Flemish and Austrian parties – and, if we count it, the Italian Northern League. That such protest voting goes to the right and not to the left prob- ably results (outside countries with strong fascist traditions) from the race issue, which leftist parties avoid (sometimes despite the sentiments of their supporters). However, their support does fluctuate considerably, between both districts and points in time. They can achieve very large votes in quite particular places, from Burnley to Antwerp to Carinthia (Eatwell 2001). This is probably a consequence of their dependence on a broad but not deep protest vote that they have the militants to mobilize in only a few places.

Yet their problems mount with success. Their ideological and policy vacuity (outside immigration) then becomes more closely scrutinized and criticized. If they are successful enough to share in coalition governments (as in Austria) or rule local districts (as in Belgium), their performance in office also comes under critical scrutiny. So far, the major system parties have then made a comeback. Austria’s conservative party scored a major electoral

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

370 Fascists

success at the expense of the Freedom Party in 2002. The up and down cycles continue, which lead me to doubt whether they can continue on an upward trajectory. Indeed, if the major parties responded to the upsurge in xenophobia by severely restricting immigration, then support for radical- right parties would probably collapse. This is what happened in the first postwar European case, Britain in the 1960s. Tacit agreement between the Conservative and Labour Parties to restrict further nonwhite immigration ended the electoral threat from the radical right.

The rightist populist parties are nationalist and they support ethnic cleans- ing in the relative mild form of orderly and either voluntary or compulsory deportations. But they are not statist; they are only in the vaguest sense making claims to “transcend” class conflict – and this is no longer a burning issue in Europe – and they have no paramilitaries. Above all, the salience of their major issue, immigration, tends to undercut any general Weltanschau- ung, whether fascist or other. For these reasons they are not seriously fascist under the terms of my definition nor in terms of the definitions I quoted from Nolte, Payne, Eatwell, or Griffin.

I have argued in this book that institutionalized liberal democracy is proof against fascism. Postwar Western Europe has entrenched liberal democracy far too strongly for much support to be offered to neofascists or rightist pop- ulists on grounds more general than the immigration issue. Western Europe has successfully institutionalized the class conflict that helped to generate classic fascism. It is capable of institutionalizing most forms of conflict, just as it did in northwestern Europe in the interwar period. Only immigra- tion raises a potentially intractable issue, for capitalism encourages immigra- tion while liberal democratic or social democratic citizenship can be easily turned toward privileging native-born citizens. This contradiction enables rightist populism to flourish. It can make life unpleasant for immigrants but is unlikely to generate either fascism or any other totalizing ideology. These radical populist parties may be disturbing, but provided that European “system parties” adapt themselves to the changing macro-environment, re- maining responsive to citizen demands, European fascism is defeated, dead and buried.2 After their terrible twentieth century, Europeans can at least take comfort from this.

The ex-communist zone of Greater Europe has its own distinct problems. There liberal democracy has existed for only just over a decade and remains fragile. Authoritarianism lingers on among former communist regimes, and some pockets of ethnic conflict entwine with conflict between states. As we saw, Romania had the biggest interwar fascist movement. Predictably, it has the biggest neofascist movement. The Greater Romanian Party, nationalist

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

Conclusion: Fascists, Dead and Alive 371

and rather statist, tracing back its lineage to the Iron Guard, is neofascist and obtained nearly 30 percent of the vote in 2000. However, this is rare in the region. Hungary, closer to the European Union, does not seem set to recreate its interwar trajectory. Authoritarianism is not openly proclaimed in Eastern Europe; it is denied. Nor is it likely to be openly proclaimed as long as regimes desire entry into the EU or NATO or as long as they desire resources from the EU, the United States, or international financial institutions. Around the fringes of the continent, the EU requirement of democracy for entry has remained influential. Though in a sense we once again have “two Europes,” the western part is now larger, it combines Social, Christian, and liberal democracy, and it is now dominant over the other Europe of dual states.

It is possible to envisage (e.g., in Russia) a future radical rightist movement that would combine elements of nationalism and communism to proudly proclaim extreme nation-statism. This would be much closer to fascism – though almost certainly without the name. Fascism did terrible damage to the region and then took fifty years of abuse from communist regimes. Few will endorse it now.

Across parts of the south of the world statism and nationalism are often more important than in the north. Though dented somewhat by recent neoliberalism, most southern countries accept that states must play a sub- stantial role in promoting their social and economic development. In some of them mass-mobilizing nationalism, usually ethno-nationalism directed at internal minorities assisted by a “homeland” state next door, is reinforced by territorial revisionism and military aggression. Many of these states also have the dual destabilizing form we observed in the interwar period, combining parliamentary institutions and a strong executive power. Militaries play an especially important role across much of the South. Where states weaken and factionalize, paramilitaries also often emerge, especially in Africa.

But these various elements, which all contributed to fascism, are almost never found together. The statism of countries such as Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico did originate in corporatist regimes highly influenced by fascism. Yet even in the heyday of Peron, Vargas, and the PRI they never added paramilitarism or aggressive nationalism, and they sought to incorporate and pacify the masses, not mobilize them. Today their statism has become conservative, a remnant of past import substitution polices plus institution- alized provision of job and business opportunities for clients, tinged in some cases (as in other countries, such as India) by Keynesianism. Many statist regimes are conservative and procapitalist, such as South Korea or Singapore. Military regimes tend to on domestic repression, ethno-nationalists on

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

372 Fascists

monopolizing state resources for their own ethnic group. Few military or ethno-nationalist regimes have serious macro-economic programs. A few do weave statism and populism into developmental rhetoric, but this gen- erates more leftist than rightist populism, as in present-day Latin America (exemplified by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela). The whole fascist package of statism, nationalism, and paramilitarism is absent, as is any ambitious cur- rent theory of society and progress. There is no utopian Third Way, no transcendence.3

Perhaps fascism has come closest to resurrection in surprising, religious garb. Theodemocracy was the term used by the Islamic fundamentalist scholar Madoudi to indicate rule not by priests (which would be theocracy) but by the whole community of the faithful following the precepts of their religion.4 Such populism often has fascist strains, especially in Islamic and Hindu political movements. Some of these strains were historically con- tingent, a product of which Great Powers supported their independence struggles. Arabs and Indians struggled against British and French domina- tion. They did imbibe liberal and socialist anticolonial ideologies from their own oppressors. But they could extend socialism into communism with help from the Soviet Union and China. These were all secular ideologies, hostile or indifferent to Islam and Hinduism.

But the fascist powers, Germany and Italy, were also willing to sup- port their liberation struggles, in order to weaken the liberal empires. But Nazis, fascists, Muslims, and Hindus were also struck by the compatibility of some of their ideas. Middle Eastern and Indian nationalists studied in Berlin and Rome during the interwar period, and some pronounced that their own movements could adapt fascism to their needs. Nazi theorists respected Hinduism as a pure Aryan religion, and the Hindu varna (classical caste) hierarchy also fitted well with fascist elitism. All these movements believed that the state should express the spiritual essence of the people, and all stressed the martial history and spirit of their people. Hindu nationalist theorists emphasize hindu rastra (Hindu nation) and Hindutva (Hinduness), both rather völkisch ideas. Muslim and Hindu nationalists of the 1930s also explicitly adapted fascist organizations, emphasizing hierarchy, discipline, paramilitarism, and segregation of male and female activists. The leaders of the large Hindu nationalist paramilitary, the RSS, often praised fascism and Nazism. Its most prominent theorist, Savarkar Gowalkar, noted of Hitler’s “purging” of the Jews in 1939, “Race pride at its highest has been man- ifested here . . . a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by.” Fascist tendencies were most obvious in the Indian military formations: the Indian Legion in Germany and the Indian army of national liberation,

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

Conclusion: Fascists, Dead and Alive 373

the INA, organized by the Japanese, both fighting the British in World War II.

But they backed the losing side and were destroyed. India was liberated not by them or by fascist-leaning Islamists but by moderate secular Indian and Pakistani movements. In any case, the similarities cannot be pressed too far. These movements found Italian statism exaggerated and were uneasy with Nazi racism, preferring to regard the Hindu nation as a “society” into which others could be assimilated. But in India, Hinduism, the religion of the overwhelming majority, has been bent toward a nation-statism that rivals the secular Indian nationalism proclaimed by the Congress, Socialist, and Communist Parties. Of course, since the Hindu Nationalist BJP party came to power in India in the 1980s, it has imbibed some of the secular moderation of previous governments, while the BJP also advocates neoliberal economic policies. Its opposition to the statism of the Congress Party partly derives from the fact that state patron-client networks favored Congress supporters. Overall, Hindu nationalism offers no distinctive role for the state in secular matters, and it offers only spiritual, not secular transcendence. There is no Third Way in the fascist sense. The paramilitaries remain active, though in recent years the RSS has been outflanked by more radical but less ideological local Hindu paramilitaries. Hindu nationalism does spawn off some fascist tendencies, but it is not really fascism.

The term “Islamic fascism” has recently become widespread, especially among Americans and Israels denouncing the Islamist jihad launched against them. The label is not without foundation. The new jihadis (popularly called “fundamentalists”) do seek to create a monocratic, authoritarian regime that will enforce a utopian Koranic ideal. This regime will create a new form of state and a new man (and woman). Its predominant organization is the paramilitary, taking various but always dominant forms – guerrilla international brigades in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, armed bands of terrorizing enforcers under the Taliban and Iranian Islamists (rather like the SA or SS), and clandestine terrorist networks elsewhere. All this is decidedly fascist.

However, there are also some major deviations. Islamism is not nation- alist. Islam is much wider than any single state or its people – there are currently fifty-four member states of the Islamic Conference. Thus Islamists oppose nationalists and see them as among their deadliest enemies – leaders such as Saddam Hussein and Hosnei Mubarak. In principle, Islamists aim for one giant Muslim state, the caliphate, and that would constitute a kind of pan-nation-state. But almost all acknowledge that this may be an impos- sible ideal. Nor do they have any role for the state except to enforce their

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

374 Fascists

conception of the sharia. We have three actual Islamist regimes as examples. The Taliban was ferocious on cultural matters such as burqas or videos, but had no policies on the economy, health, or education. Afghanistan degen- erated materially under their stewardship. The Sudanese Islamists at their peak in the 1990s offered some development projects, together with at- tacks on Christians and pagans and therefore endless civil war, which also degraded the country. The Iranian ayatollahs were not as destructive, but their economic policies seemed largely unconnected to their policies on moral purity. Al Qaeda has said nothing whatever about economic policies. Jihadis have no principled role for the state or for its people in their doctrine, outside the sacred realm.5 Once again, we do not find the complete fascist package.

It is clear that the term “Islamic fascism” is really just a particular instance of the word “Fascist!” – a term of abuse for our enemies. It is the most power- ful term of abuse in the world today – much stronger than “Communist!” – and so it is understandable that Americans and Israelis, reeling under the impact of terrorism, should deploy it. But neither Islamism nor Hindu na- tionalism is really fascist. This is for a simple reason: Unlike fascism, they really are political religions. They offer a sacred, but not a secular ideology. They most resemble fascism in deploying the means of moral murder, but the transcendence, the state, the nation, and the new man they seek are not this-worldly. We might call this “sacred fascism,” of course, though per- haps it is better to recognize that the human capacity for ferocious violence, cleansing, and totalitarian goals can have diverse sources and forms, to which we should give different labels – fascist, communist, imperialist, religious, ethno-nationalist, and so on.

So it does not seem that fascism, as I and other scholars have defined it, is flourishing in the world today. Fascism was generated by a world-historical moment when mass citizen warfare surfaced alongside mass transitions to- ward democracy amid a global capitalist crisis. Fascism made a not implausi- ble claim to solve these worldly problems in a brave new world in which the nation, the state and even war might be seen as the bearers of progress. That moment has passed. War is now widely reviled (outside the United States and parts of the south of the world) as bringing social regress. Capitalism will always generate crises, while the transition to democracy remains dif- ficult. But compromise blends of capitalism, democracy, and socialism are generally seen as bringing solutions and progress. Major crises will recur. In an increasingly global world, it is less likely that a combination of tran- scendent, cleansing, paramilitary nation-statism will be seen as providing the best solution.

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

Conclusion: Fascists, Dead and Alive 375

However, fascist-leaning movements are most likely to recur in the south of the world if the north, led by the United States, continues besmirching the attractions of mild and democratic nation-statism to the south through their capitalist exploitation, American military imperialism, and widening north- south inequality. Then our descendants may have to cope with new social movements bearing more than a passing resemblance to fascism, mixed in with socialist tinges and with whatever local ideological sources of resistance they can also mobilize – as Islamism provides today. But for now fascists are dead and their resurrection is not imminent. Until now interwar fascism has been not generic but “European epochal” fascism. Its legacy currently lives on mainly in a different type of social movement: ethno-nationalists seeking murderous cleansing. In more recent years it is ethnic, religious, and more single-mindedly nationalist versions of “rule by the people” that have supplanted the more statist and militarist versions offered by fascism. But that story is for another book.

P1: IWV/KCX P2: IWV 0521831318c10.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 23:39

376

P1: GnI/IVO P2: KaD 0521831318apc.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 20, 2004 0:1

A pp

en di

x

A pp

en di

x T

ab le

3. 1:

O cc up

at io

na lB

ac kg

ro un

ds of

It al

ia n

F as

ci st

s (%

)

A gr

ic u lt u ra

l P

u bl

ic W

h it e-

P et

ty Sa

m pl

e L an

dl o rd

s P ea

sa n ts

la bo

re rs

B u si

n es

sm en

P ro

fe ss

io n al

s em

pl oy

ee s

co lla

r bo

u rg

eo is

W o rk

er s

St u de

n ts

N

It al

ia n

la bo

r fo

rc e

31 22

1 1

2 1

12 26

1 P

N F

(F as

ci st

P ar

ty ),

It al

y, 19

21 –

12 24

3 7

6 10

9 16

13 15

1, 64

4 P

N F , U

di n e,

19 22

1 3

– 3

8 c1

8 c1

2 10

25 16

53 9

P N

F , R

eg gi

o E

m ili

a, 19

22 5

7 3

– 13

c8 c8

33 18

+ 2

26 5

S qu

ad ri st

i, B

o lo

gn a

an d

F lo

re n ce

, 4

0 0

3 10

11 13

6 5

46 38

1 ci

ti es

, 19

21 –2

2 S qu

ad ri st

i, B

o lo

gn a

P ro

vi n ce

, 2

13 c2

5 5

2 5

8 5

c2 2

10 28

1 19

22 F as

ci st

“M ar

ty rs

,” It

al y

? 8

? 9

19 5

5 27

27 14

5 M

V SN

pa ra

m ili

ta ri

es , 19

23 –3

3 3

11 –

0 1

29 6

17 18

12 37

4 P

N F

de pu

ti es

, 19

24 4

1 5

6 68

17 2

1 0

0 31

3 C

at h o lic

P P

I pa

rt y

de pu

ti es

, 19

21 3

3 6

5 60

21 3

3 3

0 11

7

S ou

rc es

: R

ow 1:

Sy lo

s L ab

in i,

19 78

: 61

, W

ei ss

, 19

88 :

33 ;

R ow

s 2

an d

6: R

ev el

li 19

87 .

In ro

w 5

pu bl

ic se

ct o r

in cl

u de

s 18

pe r c

en t

m ili

ta ry

, an

d se

lf -e

m pl

oy ed

ar e

al m

o st

en ti re

ly ar

ti sa

n s.

R ow

3: P

re zi

o si

19 80

: ap

pe n di

x 1.

“C le

rk s”

di st

ri bu

te d

50 pe

rc en

t pu

bl ic

, 50

pe rc

en t

pr iv

at e

se ct

o r.

R ow

4: C

av an

do li

19 72

: 13

2– 4.

P u bl

ic an

d pr

iv at

e w

h it e-

co lla

r w

o rk

er s

n o t

se pa

ra te

d in

so u rc

e. I

h av

e di

vi de

d th

em in

to 50

pe rc

en t

pu bl

ic ,

50 pe

rc en

t pr

iv at

e. T

h e

w o rk

er fi gu

r e is

pr o ba

bl y

an u n de

re st

im at

e; se

e te

xt .

R ow

5: Su

zz i V

al li

20 00

: 13

6– 7.

“B ak

er ,”

“m ec

h an

ic ,”

an d

so o n

di vi

de d

50 pe

rc en

t pe

tt y

bo u rg

eo is

, 50

pe rc

en t

w o rk

er s.

R o w

s 6

an d

7: R

ei ch

ar dt

20 02

: 27

9– 81

, 30

6– 7,

34 4.

W o rk

er s

in ag

ri cu

lt u re

an d

in du

st ry

ca n n o t

al w

ay s

be di

st in

gu is

h ed

, w

h ile

fo r

th e

m ar

ty rs

th e

“u pp

er cl

as se

s” ar

e lu

m pe

d to

ge th

er . R

o w s

8 an

d 9:

L in

z 19

76 : 57

–8 .

377

P1: GnI/IVO P2: KaD 0521831318apc.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 20, 2004 0:1

A pp

en di

x T

ab le

4. 1:

O cc up

at io

na lB

ac kg

ro un

ds of

G er

m an

N az

i M

em be

rs (%

)

A gr

ic u lt u ra

l P

u bl

ic W

h it e-

P et

ty D

is tr

ic t

F ar

m er

s la

bo re

rs B

u si

n es

sm en

P ro

fe ss

io n al

s em

pl oy

ee s

co lla

r bo

u rg

eo is

W o rk

er s

O th

er s

N

M u n ic

h , 19

21 1

–1 2

12 14

14 20

28 11

2, 22

2 W

es te

rn R

u h r,

19 25

–6 –1

– 1

5 6

23 9

52 4

69 8

So u th

W es

tp h al

ia , 19

25 –8

1 –

1 7

8 16

25 41

1 67

2 H

an ov

er , 19

25 –3

2 3

– 3

6 5

12 23

39 2

42 7

H an

ov er

-B ru

n sw

ic k,

19 25

–3 3

8 4

2 8

11 12

18 34

2 2,

24 1

W ü rt

te m

be rg

, 19

28 –3

0 5

2 2

6 6

9 26

43 3

4, 09

9 H

es se

-N as

sa u , 19

29 –3

1 7

1 2

7 5

12 22

41 2

9, 77

3 M

ai n ly

B av

ar ia

, 19

23 8

2 2

7 8

13 20

36 5

4, 45

0 G

er m

an y,

19 25

4 0

1+ 4+

13 21

– 19

37 5

23 ,0

00 G

er m

an y,

19 27

6 –

1+ 2+

5 19

– 17

46 3

15 ,9

00 G

er m

an y,

19 29

18 –

1 2

6 15

19 37

3 61

,0 00

G er

m an

y, 19

30 –2

13 –

2 7

6 11

22 36

3 1,

95 4

G er

m an

y, 19

33 9

– 5

7 15

11 22

31 2

3, 31

6 G

er m

an y,

19 37

7 –

3 6

18 17

14 35

1 3,

99 7

S ou

rc es

: R

ow s

1 an

d 8:

M ü h lb

er ge

r 19

87 :

55 ,

66 ,

13 1;

D o u gl

as 19

77 ;

an d

M ad

de n

19 82

b: 42

. In

ro w

1 “o

th er

s” ar

e st

u de

n ts

. R

ow s

2 an

d 4–

7: M

ü h lb

er ge

r 19

91 :

34 ,

77 ;

ro w

s 3

an d

9– 14

: K

at er

19 83

: 24

8– 53

. A

ll ag

ra ri

an o cc

u pa

ti o n s

ar e

co m

bi n ed

in th

es e

ro w

s. In

ro w

s 9

an d

10 lo

w er

pr o fe

ss io

n al

s an

d h ig

h er

m an

ag er

s ar

e cl

as si

fi ed

as w

h it e-

co lla

r.

378

P1: GnI/IVO P2: KaD 0521831318apc.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 20, 2004 0:1

A pp

en di

x T

ab le

4. 2:

O cc up

at io

na lB

ac kg

ro un

ds of

G er

m an

N az

i L

ea de

rs (%

)

P u bl

ic W

h it e-

P et

ty L ev

el o f le

ad er

sh ip

F ar

m er

s B

u si

n es

sm en

P ro

fe ss

io n al

s em

pl oy

ee s

co lla

r bo

u rg

eo is

W o rk

er s

N

R ei

ch sl ei

te r

8 12

16 50

4 4

0 24

G au

le it er

, 19

25 –3

0 0

15 18

45 9

8 7

92 T o p

fu n ct

io n ar

ie s,

19 29

7 5

7 19

16 21

23 24

6 B

ra n ch

le ad

er s,

19 23

–3 1

23 2

7 8

12 26

21 28

5 R

ei ch

C an

di da

te s,

19 28

21 4

13 30

6 8

16 12

6 R

ei ch

C an

di da

te s,

19 30

15 6

14 18

13 14

18 38

0 SA

o ffi

ce rs

, 19

30 –4

8 1

8 11

12 11

47 75

SA o ffi

ce rs

, 19

35 7

6 2

16 41

13 13

95 1

SS o ffi

ce rs

, 19

38 6

1 15

10 31

1 25

1, 89

5

S ou

rc es

: R

o w s

1– 3:

K at

er 19

83 ;

R ow

s 4–

6: M

ü h lb

er ge

r 19

87 :

98 –1

01 ,

10 6.

R ow

4 is

th e

ag gr

eg at

e o f

ei gh

t lo

ca l

br an

ch es

sc at

te re

d th

ro u gh

G er

m an

y. N

o te

th at

h al

f o f

th es

e br

an ch

le ad

er s

co m

e fr

o m

tw o

fa ir

ly ru

ra l br

an ch

es .

R ow

7: M

ü h lb

er ge

r 19

91 :

17 1;

R ow

8: Ja

m in

19 84

: 19

4– 5.

It se

em s

th at

th e

ve ry

la rg

e ca

te go

ry “w

h it e-

co lla

r” in

cl u de

s bo

th pr

o fe

ss io

n al

s an

d m

an ag

er s.

R ow

9: Z

ie gl

er 19

89 :

10 4–

5. T

h es

e ar

e av

er ag

es o f h is

th re

e sa

m pl

es o f o ffi

ce rs

. “O

th er

s” ar

e st

u de

n ts

.

379

P1: GnI/IVO P2: KaD 0521831318apc.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 20, 2004 0:1

A pp

en di

x T

ab le

4. 3:

O cc up

at io

na lB

ac kg

ro un

ds of

G er

m an

S A

an d

S S

R an

k an

d F

ile (%

)

A gr

ic u lt u ra

l P

u bl

ic W

h it e-

P et

ty Sa

m pl

e F ar

m er

s la

bo re

rs B

u si

n es

sm en

P ro

fe ss

io n al

s em

pl oy

ee s

co lla

r bo

u rg

eo is

W o rk

er s

O th

er s

N

SS , pr

e- 19

33 8

2 1

7 5

15 14

41 4

49 6

SS , 19

33 4

2 1

5 4

16 12

53 3

80 2

SA B

er lin

, 19

31 0

0 0

8 3

27 2

54 7

1, 82

4 SA

, 19

29 –3

2 3

0 0

3 7

17 3

58 9

1, 30

6 SA

, 19

33 –4

2 0

0 3

7 15

2 68

3 3,

92 5

SA , 19

31 –4

6 2

1 4

7 7

11 55

7 92

4

S ou

rc es

:R ow

s 1,

2, an

d 6:

M ü h lb

er ge

r 19

91 :1

89 ,1

78 . “

O th

er s”

ar e

st u de

n ts

;R ow

3: B

es se

la n d

Ja m

in 19

79 :1

13 ;r

ow s 4

an d

5: F is

ch er

19 78

:1 38

–9 .

In ro

w 4,

so m

e 5

pe rc

en t

“s al

ar ie

d m

an u al

” cl

as si

fi ed

as pu

bl ic

em pl

oy ee

s, in

ro w

5, so

m e

4 pe

rc en

t.

380

P1: GnI/IVO P2: KaD 0521831318apc.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 20, 2004 0:1

A pp

en di

x T

ab le

4. 4:

O cc up

at io

na lB

ac kg

ro un

ds of

M em

be rs

an d

L ea

de rs

of O

th er

G er

m an

P ol

iti ca

lP ar

tie s

(% )

A gr

ic u lt u ra

l P

u bl

ic W

h it e-

P et

ty L an

dl o rd

s F ar

m er

s la

bo re

rs B

u si

n es

sm en

P ro

fe ss

io n al

s em

pl oy

ee s

co lla

r bo

u rg

eo is

W o rk

er s

O th

er s

N

D N

V P

le ad

er s,

19 27

17 1

1 14

12 34

8 3

3 9

10 6

D N

V P

ca n di

da te

s, 19

24 13

7 15

38 c7

17 c4

0 41

8 D

N V

P , D

ü ss

el do

rf , 19

28 0

1 0

14 9

31 12

21 11

0 17

8 D

N V

P , O

sn ab

ru ck

, 19

28 0

1 0

4 14

39 7

32 2

0 20

2 D

V P

m em

be rs

, 19

19 –3

3 4

7 7

25 1

19 1

5 3,

29 8

SP D

n at

io n al

ex ec

u ti ve

, 18

90 –1

93 3

0 0

0 4

8 4

16 0

63 8

27 SP

D m

em be

rs , 19

30 1

0 1

3 9

4 66

17 70

,0 00

K P

D ce

n tr

al co

m m

it te

e, 19

24 –9

0 0

1 1

4 9

11 1

68 4

91 K

P D

le ad

er sh

ip ca

dr es

, 19

24 –9

0 0

0 2

0 12

11 4

63 6

50 4

K P

D pr

is o n er

s an

d m

ar ty

rs , 19

33 –4

5 0

0 1

0 5

2 7

16 67

1 61

2

S ou

rc es

: R

ow s

1, 3,

an d

4: B

ac h el

le r

19 76

: 32

1– 3,

36 5–

80 ,

45 3–

67 .

“O th

er s”

ar e

w o m

en in

th is

ro w

. W

o m

en ar

e ex

cl u de

d fr

o m

ro w

s 3

an d

4. R

ow 2:

L ie

be 19

56 :

77 .

W h it e-

co lla

r an

d m

an u al

w o rk

er s,

to ta

lin g

11 pe

rc en

t, n o t

se pa

ra te

d in

so u rc

e. R

ow 5:

D ö h n

19 70

: 79

. N

at io

n al

sa m

pl e

o f

m em

be rs

. So

m e

do u bl

e- co

u n ti n g

o f

jo bs

h el

d by

o n e

pe rs

o n . N

in e

pe rc

en t

“w h o le

sa le

rs ”

co u n te

d as

bu si

n es

sm en

(a s

su gg

es te

d by

M ü h lb

er ge

r) . “O

th er

s” ar

e pa

rt y

o ffi

ci al

s. R

ow s

6 an

d 7:

G u tt

sm an

19 81

: 16

0; H

u n t

19 64

: 10

3. “O

th er

s” ar

e w

o m

en o r

h o u se

w iv

es , an

d w

o m

en fo

rm ed

25 pe

rc en

t o f SP

D m

em be

rs h ip

. R

ow s

8 an

d 9:

W eb

er 19

69 : 38

, 27

. A

ll pu

bl ic

em pl

oy ee

s ar

e te

ac h er

s, “o

th er

s” ar

e st

u de

n ts

. In

ro w

9, “o

th er

s” ar

e “p

ro fe

ss io

n al

re vo

lu ti o n ar

ie s.

” R

ow 10

: K

at er

19 83

: 25

3.

381

P1: GnI/IVO P2: KaD 0521831318apc.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 20, 2004 0:1

A pp

en di

x T

ab le

4. 5:

O cc up

at io

na lB

ac kg

ro un

ds of

P ol

iti ca

lA ct iv

is ts

in M

ar bu

rg (%

)

P u bl

ic W

h it e-

P et

ty %

P ar

ti es

B u si

n es

sm en

P ro

fe ss

io n al

s em

pl oy

ee s

co lla

r bo

u rg

eo is

W o rk

er s

O th

er s

N w

o m

en

N az

is , pr

e- 19

33 1

5 16

22 22

16 17

24 6

18 B

o u rg

eo is

pa rt

ie s

6 7

36 6

35 3

6 15

5 16

Sp ec

ia l in

te re

st pa

rt ie

s 3

5 21

11 41

7 12

22 5

11 So

ci al

is t

pa rt

ie s:

SP D

, U

SP D

, K

P D

0 0

10 20

4 63

3 70

7 M

ar bu

rg la

bo r

fo rc

e 13

23 30

20

S ou

rc e:

K o sh

ar 19

86 : 23

8– 9.

“O th

er s”

ar e

ei th

er re

ti re

d o r

h o u se

w iv

es .

St u de

n ts

ex cl

u de

d fr

o m

K o sh

ar ’ s

ta bl

e, bu

t fo

rm ed

55 pe

rc en

t o f th

e lo

ca l N

az i P ar

ty .

A pp

en di

x T

ab le

4. 6:

O cc up

at io

na lB

ac kg

ro un

ds of

G er

m an

R ei

ch st

ag D

ep ut

ie s

(% )

P u bl

ic W

h it e-

P et

ty P ar

ti es

F ar

m er

s B

u si

n es

sm en

P ro

fe ss

io n al

s em

pl oy

ee s

co lla

r bo

u rg

eo is

W o rk

er s

N

N az

is , 19

30 –M

ar ch

19 33

14 8

22 18

9 14

15 72

7 N

az is

, N

ov em

be r

19 33

14 6

17 28

11 15

13 54

7 D

N V

P , 19

19 –3

2 32

10 15

30 5

1 5

– C

at h o lic

C en

te r,

19 19

–3 2

14 10

26 28

9 4

15 17

6

S ou

rc es

: R

ow s

1 an

d 2:

M ü h lb

er ge

r 19

87 :

10 6–

7. T

h o se

w it h

u n cl

ea r

st at

u s

an d

fu ll-

ti m

e pa

rt y

o ffi

ci al

s ar

e ex

cl u de

d. R

ow s

3 an

d 4:

L in

z 19

76 : 63

–6 an

d M

o rs

ey 19

77 : 35

. M

o st

“w o rk

er s”

ar e

o ffi

ci al

s o f C

h ri

st ia

n U

n io

n s.

382

P1: GnI/IVO P2: KaD 0521831318apc.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 20, 2004 0:1

A pp

en di

x T

ab le

6. 1:

O cc up

at io

na lB

ac kg

ro un

ds of

A us

tr ia

n P

ol iti

ca lA

ct iv

is ts

(% )

B u si

n es

s P

u bl

ic W

h it e-

P et

ty P ar

ti es

F ar

m er

s m

an ag

er s

P ro

fe ss

io n al

s em

pl oy

ee s

co lla

r bo

u rg

eo is

W o rk

er s

O th

er s

N

N az

i m

em be

rs , 19

23 –5

0 –

2 11

26 8

44 9

16 7

N ew

N az

i m

em be

rs , 19

26 –3

2 10

0 5

27 18

18 19

4 15

8 N

ew N

az i m

em be

rs , 19

34 –8

11 0

1 14

13 22

35 1

43 8

N az

i ca

n di

da te

s, 19

30 4

1 6

53 17

8 14

0 80

H ei

m w

eh r

(A u st

ro -F

as ci

st )

ca n di

da te

s, 19

30 26

10 7

19 7

20 17

0 90

H ei

m w

eh r

le ad

er s,

19 30

–4 23

22 7

30 –

– 15

2 32

4 H

ei m

w eh

r m

ili ta

n ts

, 19

30 –1

28 –

5 21

3 22

21 1

58 M

ili ta

n t

N az

is 0

0 2

10 29

9 40

10 15

0 M

ili ta

n t

M ar

xi st

s 0

0 0

11 5

2 82

0 66

M ili

ta n t

N az

is , 19

34 3

0 3

7 19

23 –

38 +

7 30

1 M

ili ta

n t

so ci

al is

ts , 19

34 1

0 3

19 14

14 –

48 +

0 45

7 So

ci al

is t

m em

be rs

, 19

29 –

– –

9 12

6 51

23 41

6, 17

0 V

ie n n a

So ci

al is

ts , 19

27 0

2 1

∼1 0

∼1 0

3 74

2 27

4 V

ie n n a

So ci

al is

ts , 19

34 –

– –

16 10

4 48

21 12

2 V

ie n n a

N az

is , 19

38 1

– 5

19 22

9 25

20 26

0 A

u st

ri an

la bo

r fo

rc e,

19 34

11 0

1 11

11 12

54

S ou

rc es

: R

ow 1:

B u ke

y 19

78 :

30 5.

“O th

er s”

ar e

st u de

n ts

. R

ow s

2– 5

an d

16 :

B o tz

19 87

a: 25

8. R

ow s

4 an

d 5

= C

an di

da te

s fo

r U

pp er

an d

L ow

er A

u st

ri a.

N o te

th at

st u de

n ts

co m

pr is

ed 0.

6 pe

rc en

t o f

th e

n at

io n al

la bo

r fo

rc e.

R ow

6: W

ilt sc

h eg

g 19

85 :

27 7–

8. A

gg re

ga te

o f

H ei

m w

eh r

co m

m it te

es an

d ca

n di

da te

s. W

h it e-

co lla

r w

o rk

er s

ar e

co m

bi n ed

w it h

ci vi

l se

rv an

ts ,

an d

se lf -e

m pl

oy ed

w it h

bu si

n es

sm en

. F ar

m er

s ar

e 20

pe rc

en t

pe as

an ts

, 3

pe rc

en t

la n do

w n er

s. L ea

de rs

do n o t

ov er

la p

w it h

th o se

co n ta

in ed

in pr

ev io

u s

ro w

. R

ow 7:

B u ke

y 19

86 : 81

, fr

o m

tw o

H ei

m w

eh r

lis ts

fo r

U pp

er A

u st

ri a.

R ow

s 8

an d

9: B

o tz

19 80

a. N

az is

, so

ci al

is ts

, an

d co

m m

u n is

ts o n

po lic

e fi le

s fo

r vi

o le

n ce

. “O

th er

s” ar

e m

o st

ly st

u de

n ts

. R

ow s

10 an

d 11

: Ja

gs ch

it z

19 75

: 15

0– 1.

M ili

ta n ts

im pr

is o n ed

by D

o llf

ü ss

go ve

rn m

en t

in W

ö lle

rs do

rf co

n ce

n tr

at io

n ca

m p.

So m

e sk

ill ed

, em

pl oy

ed w

o rk

er s

m ay

be w

ro n gl

y cl

as si

fi ed

as se

lf -e

m pl

oy ed

(s ee

te xt

). “O

th er

s” ar

e st

u de

n ts

. R

ow s

12 –1

4: B

o tz

19 83

: 15

6– 7,

25 4.

R ow

12 is

n at

io n al

m em

be rs

h ip

o f

So ci

al is

t P ar

ty .

“O th

er s”

in cl

u de

w o m

en .

R ow

13 is

ar re

st ed

, w

o u n de

d, an

d ki

lle d

de m

o n st

ra to

rs ,

Ju ly

19 27

. P

u bl

ic an

d pr

iv at

e em

pl oy

ee s

n o t

se pa

ra te

d, di

st ri

bu te

d 50

–5 0.

R ow

14 is

th o se

ar re

st ed

af te

r th

e So

ci al

is t

u pr

is in

g o f

F eb

ru ar

y 12

, 19

34 . R

ow 15

: B

o tz

19 88

: 21

8. “O

th er

s” in

cl u de

d h o u se

w iv

es (7

% ),

st u de

n ts

(4 %

), an

d pe

n si

o n er

s (4

% ).

383

P1: GnI/IVO P2: KaD 0521831318apc.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 20, 2004 0:1

384 Appendix

Appendix Table 6.2: Occupational Backgrounds of Political Activists in Linz (%)

Public White- Petty Activists Farmers Professionals employees collar bourgeois Workers Others N

Nazis, 1923–33 0 11 37 24 5 18 3 212 Nazis, 1933–8 1 16 23 14 14 28 4 74 Christian Socials, 20 6 34 5 22 10 5 107

1918–34 German Nationalists, 0 13 31 16 21 4 9 102

1918–34 Socialists, 1918–34 0 4 32 12 9 35 9 130 Communists, 1929–33 0 0 2 8 5 81 5 62 Heimwehr, 1927–31 5 5 41 14 19 11 6 81 Dollfüss fascists, 1934–8 2 3 31 19 15 27 4 126 Linz labor force 3 5 13 20 8 50

Source: Bukey 1986. Bukey does not separate big or small agriculture or business. Labor force percentages are only approximate: I have estimated them from Bukey’s partial data on occupations and sectors. “Others” are housewives, retirees, students, and persons inadequately described.

P1: GnI/IVO P2: KaD 0521831318apc.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 20, 2004 0:1

A pp

en di

x T

ab le

7. 1:

O cc up

at io

na lB

ac kg

ro un

ds of

H un

ga ri an

P ol

iti ca

lA ct iv

is ts

(% )

B u si

n es

s- P

u bl

ic W

h it e-

P et

ty Sa

m pl

e L an

dl o rd

s P ea

sa n ts

m en

P ro

fe ss

io n al

s em

pl oy

ee s

co lla

r bo

u rg

eo is

W o rk

er s

N

F as

ci st

vi lla

ge le

ad er

s, 19

40 –1

0 46

2 6

2 2

19 21

15 0

F as

ci st

ci ty

le ad

er s,

19 40

–1 4

3 4

18 4

5 3

2 43

F as

ci st

ca n di

da te

s, 19

39 12

16 32

16 0

16 8

75 G

ov er

n m

en t

pa rt

y ca

n di

da te

s, 19

39 22

0 20

52 0

0 0

– F as

ci st

le ad

er s,

19 39

–4 5

– 14

24 36

6 12

8 15

7 G

ov er

n m

en t

L ib

er al

-C o n se

rv at

iv e

de pu

ti es

, 19

21 –3

2 –

29 26

35 1

6 0

31 4

G ov

er n m

en t

N at

io n al

-R ad

ic al

de pu

ti es

19 35

–9 –

30 22

35 6

6 –1

34 8

S ou

rc es

: R

ow s

1 an

d 2:

Sz ö ll ö

si -J

an ze

19 89

: 13

6– 47

. “F

as ci

st s”

th ro

u gh

o u t th

is ta

bl e

re fe

rs to

m em

be rs

o f th

e A

rr ow

C ro

ss M

ov em

en t.

“M as

te r

ar ti sa

n s”

ar e

pl ac

ed in

pe tt

y bo

u rg

eo is

ie , o th

er ar

ti sa

n s

in w

o rk

er s.

W h er

e si

ze o f

pe as

an ts

’ la

n dh

o ld

in gs

ar e

in di

ca te

d, th

es e

ar e

n o rm

al ly

ve ry

sm al

l. “W

o rk

er s”

in ro

w 1

in cl

u de

tw o

em pl

oy ed

ga m

ek ee

pe rs

. R

ow s 3

an d

4: Ja

n o s 19

70 : ta

bl e

6. 6.

B ig

an d

sm al

lb u si

n es

sm en

ar e

n o t se

pa ra

te d

in o ri

gi n al

. R

ow s 5–

7: Ja

n o s 19

82 : 28

0– 5.

F as

ci st

le ad

er s

ar e

A rr

ow C

ro ss

ca n di

da te

s an

d de

pu ti es

o f

19 40

an d

N at

io n al

So ci

al is

t M

in is

te rs

an d

N at

io n al

C o u n ci

l m

em be

rs o f

19 44

–5 .

R ow

s 6

an d

7 gi

ve de

ta ils

o f

th e

“g ov

er n m

en t

m ac

h in

e” in

th e

H o u se

o f

R ep

re se

n ta

ti ve

s, fi rs

t in

th e

“L ib

er al

-C o n se

rv at

iv e”

pe ri

o d,

th en

in th

e “N

at io

n al

-R ad

ic al

” pe

ri o d.

Si n ce

Ja n o s

do es

n o t

gi ve

to ta

ls fo

r th

es e

tw o

pe ri

o ds

se pa

ra te

ly ,

m y

pe rc

en ta

ge s

ar e

av er

ag es

o f

th o se

fo r

th re

e ye

ar s

in th

e fi rs

t pe

ri o d

an d

fo r

tw o

ye ar

s in

th e

se co

n d.

B ig

an d

sm al

l ag

ri cu

lt u ra

lp ro

pr ie

to rs

w er

e n o t se

pa ra

te d,

n o r

w er

e bi

g an

d sm

al lb

u si

n es

s. T

h e

ca te

go ry

“j o u rn

al is

ts an

d te

ac h er

s” is

sp lit

eq u al

ly be

tw ee

n pr

o fe

ss io

n al

s an

d pu

bl ic

em pl

oy m

en t.

385

P1: GnI/IVO P2: KaD 0521831318apc.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 20, 2004 0:1

A pp

en di

x T

ab le

8. 1:

O cc up

at io

na lB

ac kg

ro un

ds of

R om

an ia

n F as

ci st

s (%

)

P u bl

ic W

h it e-

P et

ty L eg

io n ar

y gr

o u p

L an

dl o rd

s P ea

sa n ts

B u si

n es

sm en

P ro

fe ss

io n al

s em

pl oy

ee s

co lla

r bo

u rg

eo is

W o rk

er s

St u de

n ts

N

A rr

es te

d, 19

34 1

3 0

25 24

5 2

3 37

73 W

o rk

ca m

p ac

ti vi

st s,

19 36

0 9

2 10

25 8

8 5

33 63

0 Su

rr en

de ri

n g

o r

sh o t,

19 39

0 2

0 48

20 2

7 5

15 38

3 In

su rr

ec ti o n is

ts , 19

41 0

22 0

4 8

6 13

44 2

2, 14

3 In

te rn

ed in

G er

m an

y, 19

42 0

3 –1

20 24

8 7

11 27

24 9

S ou

rc es

:R ow

s1 an

d 2

fr o m

H ei

n en

19 86

:3 86

–9 .R

ow 1

de ta

ils th

o se

ar re

st ed

in co

n n ec

ti o n

w it h

D u ca

as sa

ss in

at io

n .R

ow 2

de ta

ils m

al e

ac ti vi

st si

n C

ar m

en -S

yl va

w o rk

ca m

p. In

al l R

o m

an ia

n da

ta I

h av

e as

si gn

ed “g

ra du

at es

” (o

f h ig

h sc

h o o ls

o r

u n iv

er si

ti es

) w

it h o u t

st at

ed pr

o fe

ss io

n h al

f to

w h it e-

co lla

r, h al

f to

ci vi

l se

rv ic

e. R

ow s

3 an

d 4

fr o m

V ei

ga 19

89 :

26 3–

5. R

ow 3:

L eg

io n ar

ie s,

m ai

n ly

u rb

an ,

su rr

en de

ri n g

to o r

sh o t

by th

e go

ve rn

m en

t in

19 39

. T

ai lo

rs ,

ca rp

en te

rs ,

an d

so o n

as si

gn ed

to se

lf -e

m pl

oy ed

. P

ro fe

ss io

n al

s in

cl u de

13 pe

rc en

t pr

ie st

s. R

ow 4:

L eg

io n ar

ie s

im pr

is o n ed

af te

r th

ei r

fa ile

d in

su rr

ec ti o n

o f 19

41 . R

ow 5:

H ei

n en

19 86

: 45

7. W

eb er

19 66

a: 10

8 gi

ve s

a sl ig

h tl y

di ff er

en t,

le ss

de ta

ile d

ve rs

io n

o f th

e sa

m e

lis t.

386

P1: GnI/IVO P2: KaD 0521831318apc.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 20, 2004 0:1

A pp

en di

x T

ab le

9. 1:

O cc up

at io

na lB

ac kg

ro un

ds of

S pa

ni sh

P ol

iti ca

lA ct iv

is ts

(% )

P u bl

ic W

h it e-

P et

ty P ar

ti es

F ar

m er

s B

u si

n es

sm en

P ro

fe ss

io n al

s em

pl oy

ee s

co lla

r bo

u rg

eo is

W o rk

er s

O th

er s

N

M ad

ri d

F as

ci st

s (F

al an

ge ),

19 36

0 0

10 2

29 2

55 3

1, 10

3 B

as qu

e N

at io

n al

is ts

(P N

V ),

19 31

–6 20

– 5

5+ 11

17 –

36 4

1, 70

0 R

ig h ti st

(C E

D A

) co

m m

it te

es , 19

31 –5

9 6

34 19

9 10

12 0

77 C

E D

A co

m m

it te

es M

u rc

ia , 19

31 –3

17 11

23 12

10 19

5 4

15 1

C en

te r-

ri gh

t (R

ad ic

al )

n at

io n al

de le

ga te

s, 19

32 0

18 44

14 5

13 5

1 47

4 C

en te

r- le

ft (R

ep u bl

ic an

) u rb

an co

m m

it te

es , 19

30 –6

2 –

48 –

15 29

– 5

2 –

R ep

u bl

ic an

ru ra

l co

m m

it te

es , 19

30 –6

41 –

13 –

7 24

13 2

– C

E D

A de

pu ti es

, 19

33 , 19

36 5

3 64

19 2

4 2

0 18

6 C

en te

r de

pu ti es

, 19

33 , 19

36 1

2 68

20 1

6 3

0 54

2 So

ci al

is t

de pu

ti es

, 19

33 , 19

36 1

0 33

23 11

2 28

0 11

1

S ou

rc es

:R ow

1: P ay

n e

19 62

:8 2.

“O th

er s”

ar e

st u de

n ts

.R ow

2: de

P ab

lo 19

95 .G

iv en

im pr

ec is

e to

ta ls ,I

as su

m e

“m o re

th an

20 0”

is 21

0, an

d th

at V

it o ri

a an

d th

e re

st o fA

la va

co n tr

ib u te

d eq

u al

ly to

th ei

r co

m bi

n ed

to ta

l. So

m e

16 pe

rc en

t o ff

ar m

er s w

er e

sm al

lp ro

pr ie

to rs

o r

te n an

ts ,a

n d

4 pe

rc en

t w

er e

la bo

re rs

.B ig

bu si

n es

sm en

ar e

in cl

u de

d w

it h in

pe tt

y bo

u rg

eo is

, h ig

h er

ad m

in is

tr at

o rs

w it h in

pr o fe

ss io

n al

s. R

ow s

3 an

d 8–

10 : M

o n te

ro 19

77 : 44

9. R

ow 3

is m

em be

rs o f

n in

e lo

ca l co

m m

it te

es .

R ow

4: M

o re

n o

F er

n an

de z

19 87

: 15

6. So

m e

50 pe

rc en

t o f fa

rm er

s ar

e sm

al lp

ro pr

ie to

rs ; “o

th er

s” ar

e st

u de

n ts

. R

ow 5:

P ar

ti do

R ep

u bl

ic an

o R

ad ic

al 19

32 : 48

–5 9;

M an

j ó n

19 76

: 59

4. R

ow s

6 an

d 7:

F ar

ré 19

85 :

34 3.

G iv

en in

co m

pl et

e to

ta ls

an d

N s,

I h av

e ca

lc u la

te d

th e

av er

ag e

o f

th e

u rb

an an

d ru

ra l

pa rt

ie s.

T h er

e ar

e n o

se pa

ra te

fi gu

re s

fo r

bi g

o r

sm al

l bu

si n es

s o r

ci vi

l se

rv an

ts .

387

P1: GnI/IVO P2: KaD 0521831318apc.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 20, 2004 0:1

A pp

en di

x T

ab le

9. 2:

O cc up

at io

na lb

ac kg

ro un

ds of

S ev

ill e

(S pa

in )

P ar

ty A

ct iv

is ts

(% )

P et

ty W

h it e-

A rt

is an

s an

d P ar

ti es

L an

dl o rd

s B

u si

n es

sm en

P ro

fe ss

io n al

s bo

u rg

eo is

co lla

r w

o rk

er s

O th

er s

N

A n ti re

pu bl

ic an

fa r

ri gh

t (C

T , R

E )

le ad

er s,

19 31

–6 48

1 38

7 5

1 0

12 8

“A cc

id en

ta lis

t” co

n se

rv at

iv e

(A P

, C

E D

A )

le ad

er s,

19 31

–6 37

6 43

10 1

3 0

78 A

P co

n se

rv at

iv e

m em

be rs

, 19

32 12

12 ?

25 22

15 13

2, 58

5 C

en te

r pa

rt ie

s (P

C , P

L , C

D ),

19 14

–2 3

41 2

46 9

2 0

0 28

3 P

ri m

o de

R iv

er a’

s re

gi m

e pa

rt y

(U P

) le

ad er

s, 19

29 25

11 27

25 11

2 0

33 4

C en

te r-

ri gh

t R

ep u bl

ic an

le ad

er s,

19 31

–6 16

19 34

21 10

0 1

10 1

C en

te r-

ri gh

t R

ad ic

al le

ad er

s, 19

31 –6

8 14

43 16

11 4

4 13

9 C

en te

r- le

ft R

ep u bl

ic an

le ad

er s,

19 31

–6 6

5 28

17 33

7 4

17 4

So ci

al is

t (P

SO E

) le

ad er

s, 19

31 –6

0 12

22 17

34 12

2 54

S ou

rc es

: A

lv ar

ez R

ey 19

93 .

R ow

1: P

ro fe

ss io

n al

s ar

e m

o st

ly la

w ye

rs an

d ar

m y

o ffi

ce rs

; ro

w 2:

pr o fe

ss io

n al

s ar

e m

o st

ly la

w ye

r s ;

ro w

3: th

e qu

al it y

o f

th is

da ta

so u rc

e is

qu es

ti o n ab

le . P

ro fe

ss io

n al

s ar

e pr

es u m

ab ly

cl as

si fi ed

el se

w h er

e. O

th er

s ar

e de

pe nd

ie nt

es .

388

P1: IWV/KAB P2: KaD 0521831318not.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 8:52

Notes

chapter 1

1. The notion that the twentieth century has seen the rise and fall of the state as the bearer of a moral project is the main theme of Perez-Diaz (1993).

2. The reader wishing to know more of my general theory could start with the introductory chapters of the two published volumes of my history of power in society (Mann 1986, 1993).

3. Note that Eatwell (2001) renounces the concept of “rebirth,” which he had earlier used, abusing it as “philosophically banal.” I deal with the rival primordial, perennial, and modern conceptions of the nation in my forthcoming book, chap. 2.

4. I write “large” movements because fascist movements often began among groups who were middle-class (especially students and junior officers). As fascist move- ments grew larger, they tended to broaden their base. Thus in Northwestern Europe where fascist movements remained small, fascism remained dispropor- tionately middle-class. In France, where it eventually grew quite large, it broad- ened as it grew.

5. Homosexuality did intermittently accompany such intense male comradeship, though this remains a poorly documented aspect of fascism. It is well known that the Nazi leaders turned strongly against homosexuals in the Roehm purge of 1934. SS personnel records would sometimes note evidence of homosexuality, implying that the organization could use the member’s sense of vulnerability to get him to undertake “hard” (i.e., murderous) tasks.

chapter 2

1. Gregor anticipates the obvious riposte to this – “what about Germany?” (de- veloped but fascist) – with the bizarre suggestion that “traumatic experiences” of the war and its aftermath meant that Germany “identified herself with the up-and-coming revolutionary countries.”

2. Some fascists did have democratic aspirations, wishing their party to allow rank-and-file representation (Linz 1976: 21). The leader should embody the

389

P1: IWV/KAB P2: KaD 0521831318not.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 8:52

390 Notes to Pages 43–89

“general will” of the movement. But such quasi-democrats lost out within all fascist movements.

3. The distinction was clearly influenced by U.S. foreign policy of the late Cold War period, which distinguished between friendly “authoritarian” govern- ments (some of which were actually extremely nasty) and enemy “totali- tarian” communist governments (some of which were milder than some of the “authoritarian” ones). The decisive criterion was not in reality their de- gree of authoritarianism, but whether the U.S. government (and U.S. big business) defined them as capitalist or communist, and therefore as friend or foe.

4. Payne’s (1980, 1995: 15) distinction between “conservative rightist,” “radi- cal rightist,” and “fascist” resembles mine, his middle category lumping to- gether most of my two intermediate types. Yet he calls “conservative” some who I place in intermediate categories (e.g., Salazar, Smetona, King Carol of Romania).

5. The Baltic states do not fit perfectly into this typology. Since they had no states before 1918 and no monarchs after, their authoritarians were not strictly “reac- tionaries.” Nonetheless, the three came to share other attributes of reactionary regimes. Pats was probably the most moderate. His regime probably straddled the borderline between semi- and reactionary authoritarianism.

6. By now there were few urban-rural differences in mortality rates (unlike the nineteenth century).

7. I have not attempted to measure degrees of democratization or authoritarianism. Measures based on elections and constitutions cope poorly with the often sham institutions of interwar regimes, while most of the east and south did not remain in one position along the continuum.

8. Taking infant mortality rates would narrow the range of historical comparison. The northwestern countries mentioned reached the 1930 rates of Spain and Italy only between 1890 and 1920. Obviously, their party democracies were even more entrenched by then. My other two indices would give intermediate historical ranges (except that the comparable date for agricultural employment in Britain would be pushed back to the 1820s – when there was mass, successful agitation for suffrage extension).

9. Using this term broadly to include presidents elected in the same competitive way as the members of parliament.

10. By this term I mean that the early northwestern property franchises had rarely distinguished between ethnicities. English, Welsh, and Scottish men of property were considered active citizens, and they rarely organized along ethnic lines (see my forthcoming volume).

11. The next three paragraphs are indebted to Balakrishnan (2000). The main works of Schmitt I paraphrase are The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy (1923) and The Concept of the Political (1927). I also acknowledge the help of Dylan Riley in discussions of the crisis of parliamentary liberalism.

12. Spain did not fit this model, since the universities were more divided, influenced by older liberal and sometimes secular traditions, as well as by conservative statism (see Chapter 9).

P1: IWV/KAB P2: KaD 0521831318not.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 8:52

Notes to Pages 106–159 391

chapter 3

1. I have excluded the very large number of “others” from the labor force. They may be schoolchildren (since the census is of those age ten or more). I also exclude the military from both sides of the equation. Friuli was a border province housing large armed forces drawn from outside the province.

2. A large group in the labor force cannot reach as high or as low a ratio as a smaller one. Since manual workers generally formed around half of the labor force, even in an entirely proletarian party their ratio could not much exceed 2.0. Yet the ratio of a small group – such as students – might exceed 20.0. I could have added a standardizing correction factor into these ratios, but the resulting statistic would lack immediate, intuitive meaning. No single statistic can reveal all.

3. This assumes that the category “lavatori dell’industria” also includes service sector manual workers (though seamen are listed separately). If it does not, then the party membership figures would understate the worker contribution.

4. In almost all countries labels such as “artisan” or “craftsman” are ambiguous. Is this person an employed skilled worker or an independent small master, perhaps employing others? Studies of Nazism used to classify Handwerker mainly as the latter, that is, as classic petty bourgeois (e.g., Kater 1983), aiding a lower middle- class theory of fascism. Recent writers (e.g., Mühlberger 1987, 1991) classify most as working-class, aiding a relatively classless theory. The data remain the same; the interpretation changes.

chapter 4

1. The one area of truly awesome U.S. federal government power, its military, was the only part exempted from the Republican attack. In a third country’s election I witnessed, in 1993, Spain’s ruling Socialist Party probably at the last minute managed to cling to power by ringing popular alarm bells that its rather harmless conservative opponent, the PP, secretly nursed Francoite authoritarian intentions. The PP is now the respectable government of democratic Spain, having won the following election.

2. This accounts for the extraordinarily high estimates of female membership in the “bourgeois” parties sometimes given in the literature. Women supposedly constituted 25 percent of the liberal DDP, 47 percent of the ultraconservative DNVP, and 35 to 60 percent of the center-right DVP (Boak 1990). By including the Nazi auxiliary organizations we would also reach large numbers.

3. I thank Ron Rogowski for his generosity in showing me his files on which he constructed his 1977 article on the Gauleiter.

4. My main worry about the representativeness of the samples is that Mühlberger’s (1991) regional samples (perhaps the best data on the NSDAP) do not include any from the east of the country, from either rural Prussia or industrial Saxony.

5. I also share part of Hamilton’s skepticism (1997: 333) regarding Brustein’s meth- ods. His source data are Nazi member file cards. They often record occupations in a desultory way. Of those I have seen for my war criminals sample, I would confidently classify “industrial branch” in only just over half the cases. I am

P1: IWV/KAB P2: KaD 0521831318not.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 8:52

392 Notes to Pages 159–278

puzzled from such source data how Brustein managed to separate workers in “metalwares” (the most Nazi group) from workers in “metal products” (the least Nazi group). To proceed from that classification to the assumption that the per- son’s conception of their own occupational interest would be dominated by the issue of free trade or protectionism also seems quite a leap.

6. Remember, however, that Koshar (1986) has excluded students (who would be predominantly nonproletarian) from his tables, and he tells us that students formed 55 percent of the local Nazi party.

7. Two SA units in rural East Prussia, analyzed by Bessel (1984), differ, dominated by “farmers, young farmers and agricultural supervisors” (35% and 45% of the two units) and “artisans and artisans’ apprentices” (29% and 33%). “Workers” comprised only 12 percent and 8 percent. This encourages Bessel and Jamin (1979) to polemicize against a proletarian interpretation of the SA. But Fischer and Hicks (1980) and Mühlberger (1991: 164–5) have observed that in this easterly region many farm laborers were Slavs, not Germans, unlikely to join the racist SA. Moreover, some “artisans and apprentices” were probably workers. Obviously, there were differences among SA units, since local economies differed. But allowing for both corrections would bring the class composition of the East Prussian SA closer to the SA elsewhere.

8. Jamin’s second sample, of SA leaders who had been purged, had a very low response rate on matters of mobility. Those for whom she was able to collect data did have higher downward mobility. These may have been the real ruffians of the movement – alternatively, perhaps they provided just a biased sample.

chapter 5

1. This is a controversial matter in which I have adopted a middle position between viewing capitalists as either “guilty” or “innocent.” In rough descending order of “guilt,” see Mason 1972; Geary 1983, 1990; Hamilton 1982: 393–419, 428–33; Neebe 1981; and Turner 1985.

chapter 7

1. Hungarian fascism comprised several small parties and groups whose disunity hindered their development. In the late 1930s the Arrow Cross managed to unite most of them under the leadership of Ferenc Szálasi, though small inde- pendent “National Socialist” groups survived into the war period. For the sake of simplicity I refer to the multiple factions of Hungarian fascism as “The Arrow Cross.”

2. If his informant was including tertiary sector workers in this figure, the ratios would decrease to just above parity.

chapter 8

1. Schmitter (1974: 117–23) relies heavily on Manoilescu in his brilliant review of theories of corporatism – his title is borrowed from Manoilescu. But he tactfully downplays Manoilescu’s fascist and anti-Semitic leanings.

P1: IWV/KAB P2: KaD 0521831318not.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 8:52

Notes to Pages 280–345 393

2. Unless otherwise stated, data on legionary groups derive from Heinen 1986: 384–9 and Veiga 1989: 165–6, 262–6. At present no English-language source offers such data.

3. In Romania this church is found only in Transylvania, the residue of a Habs- burg attempt during the eighteenth century to increase Austrian control over Transylvania by merging Catholic and Orthodox doctrines.

chapter 9

I would like to thank the Fundación Juan March for its generosity in supporting a year’s stay at the Instituto Juan March in Madrid, which made possible the research underlying this chapter.

1. The Spanish normally reserve the term “nationalism” for the regional autonomy aspirations, based on a claim to a distinct ethnicity, found especially among Catalans and Basques, but also among some Galicians, Valencians, and others.

2. This resulted from an attempt to avoid single-member constituencies (which might be controlled by caciques) yet to ensure workable governmental majorities. The Constitution provided large multimember constituencies covering a whole province or its capital. A party winning a simple majority in the province or capital got 67 to 80 percent of its seats, while minority lists were guaranteed the remaining ones. Most parties thus tried to form electoral pacts, combining lists of candidates who could thus capture most of the seats. The right accomplished such a pact better in 1933, the left in 1936. Thus both had Cortes majorities greater than any real shift in popular support. A different electoral system might have induced more compromise between the two blocs, strengthening the center. The republic was probably not helped by its electoral laws.

3. My account of the ensuing tragedy on the left depends mostly on balancing the diverging accounts of Juliá 1977; Preston 1978: chaps. 4, 5, and 7; Heywood 1990; and Payne 1993: 189–223.

4. True, the left Republicans and the Socialists reacted badly to their defeat in 1933 and asked the president to call new elections (Payne 1993: 181–2). But this was pique of the moment, soon subsiding. The left Republicans never actually organized against democracy.

5. Payne (1993: 208, 255–6, 381–4) claims that the Radicals and other “centrist liberals” were the only true constitutional democrats. He produces no evidence beyond Azaña’s short-lived negotiations with the president in October 1934 and one statement by its youth movement (“[we are] leftists, democrats and parliamentarians in that order”) to support his exclusion of the left Republicans, while many of his “centrist liberals” favored severe repression of the left. Payne’s account is also soft on CEDA and hard on the socialists (the inverse of Preston’s).

6. Once freed of Francoism, this region returned to its preferred politics. Now the bastions of the Socialist Party (the PSOE) reach down south from Madrid to dominate Andalucia and Extremadura.

7. Usually translated as leader, military leader, or head of state, but also seeking to connect Franco to sacred historical figures such as El Cid and the medieval Kings of Asturias – Christian heroes and martyrs.

P1: IWV/KAB P2: KaD 0521831318not.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 February 19, 2004 8:52

394 Notes to Pages 367–374

chapter 10

1. Italy’s Northern League is sometimes classified along with these, but it is really extreme only in its anti-immigrant stance. See Diamanti 1996.

2. So also say Larsen 1998 and Linz 1998. Eatwell seems to disagree, since he concluded a recent book with the claim that “fascism is on the march again” (1995: 286) – though his own evidence seemed to suggest otherwise.

3. And this is the general conclusion of the various essays contained in Larsen 2001. 4. I treat theodemocracy and India more fully in my forthcoming book. See also

Jaffrelot 1996: 53–62; Gold 1991; Prayer 1991; and Larsen 2001: 749–58. 5. I discuss Islamism and jihadis in my book Incoherent Empire (2003), chaps. 4 and

5; see also the major studies of Roy 1994 and Kepel 2002.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

Bibliography

Abel, T. 1938. Why Hitler Came to Power. New York: Prentice-Hall. Abse, T. 1986. “The rise of Fascism in an industrial city: The case of Livorno 1918–1922.”

In D. Forgacs (ed.), Rethinking Italian Fascism. London: Lawrence & Wishart. . 1996. “Italian workers and Italian Fascism.” In Bessel (ed.), Fascist Italy and Nazi

Germany. Aguado Sanchez, F. 1972. La revolución de octubre 1934. Madrid: San Martin. Aldcroft, D., and S. Morewood 1995. Economic Change in Eastern Europe since 1918. Aldershot,

Hants: Edward Elgar. Alexander, M. S., and H. Graham (eds.) 1989. The French and Spanish Popular Fronts.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Allen, M. 1995. “Engineers and modern managers in the SS: The business administration

main office.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. . 2002. The Business of Genocide: The SS, Slave Labor, and the Concentration Camps.

Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Allen, W. S. 1965. The Nazi Seizure of Power: The Experience of a Single German Town, 1930–

1935. Chicago: Quadrangle. Alpert, M. 1989. “The Spanish army and the Popular Front.” In Alexander and Graham

(eds.), French and Spanish Popular Fronts. Alvarez Chillida, G. 1992. “Nación, tradición e imperio en la extrema derecha española

durante la decada de 1930.” Hispania 52/3. Alvarez Rey, L. 1993. La derecha en la II república: Sevilla, 1931–1936. Seville: Secretariado

de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla. Ancel, J. 1993. “Antonescu and the Jews.” Yad Vashem Studies 23. Ashman, C., and R. Wagman 1988. The Nazi Hunters. New York: Pharos. Aubert, P. 1987. “Los intelectuales en el poder (1931–1933): Del constitucionalismo a la

Constitución.” In M. Tuñón de Lara (ed.), La segunda república España: El primer bienio. Madrid: Siglo XXI.

Augustinos, G. 1977. Conciousness and History: Nationalist Critics of Greek Society, 1897–1914. Boulder, Colo.: East European Quarterly and Columbia University Press.

Bacheller, C. 1976. “Class and conservatism: The changing social structure of the German right, 1900–1928.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Bailer-Galanda, B. 1998. “Old or new right? Juridical denazification and right-wing extrem- ism in Austria since 1945.” In Larsen and Hagtvet (eds.), Modern Europe after Fascism.

395

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

396 Bibliography

Bairoch, P. 1976. “Europe’s gross national product: 1800–1975.” Journal of European Economic History 5.

Balakrishnan, G. 2000. The Enemy: An Intellectual Portrait of Carl Schmitt. London: Verso. Balcells, A. 1971. Crisis económica y agitación social en Cataluña de 1930 a 1936. Barcelona. Ballbé, M. 1983. Orden público y militarismo en la España constitucional. Madrid: Alianza. Bar, A. 1975. “La Confederación Nacional del Trabajo frente a la II República.” In M.

Ramı́rez (ed.), Estudios sobre la II republica española. Madrid: Technos. . 1981. La CNT en los años rojos. Madrid: Akal.

Baldwin, P. 1990, “Social interpretations of Nazism: Renewing a tradition.” Journal of Con- temporary History 25.

Barany, G. 1971. “The dragon’s teeth: The roots of Hungarian fascism.” In Sugar (ed.), Native Fascism.

Barbagli, M. 1982. Educating for Unemployment: Politics, Labour Markets and the School System – Italy, 1859–1923. New York: Columbia University Press.

Barbu, Z. 1980. “Psycho-historical and sociological perspectives on the Iron Guard, the fascist movement in Romania.” In Larsen et al. (eds.), Who Were the Fascists?

Barkai, A. 1990. Nazi Economics. Oxford: Berg. Barrull Pelegrı́, J. 1986. Les comarques de Lleida durant la segona república (1930–1936).

Barcelona: L’Avenç. Ben-Ami, S. 1983. Fascism from Above: The Dictatorship of Primo de Rivera in Spain, 1923–1930.

Oxford: Clarendon. Batkay W. 1982. Authoritarian Politics in a Transitional State: Istvan Bethlen and the Unified Party

in Hungary, 1919–26. New York: Columbia University Press. Berend, I. 1998. Decades of Crisis: Central and Eastern Europe before World War II. Berkeley and

Los Angeles: University of California Press. Berend, I., and G. Ránki. 1979. Economic Development in East-Central Europe in the 19th and

20th Centuries. New York: Columbia University Press. Berezin, M. 1997. Making the Fascist Self. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Bermejo Martin, F. 1984. La IIa república en Logroño: Elecciones y contexto politico. Logroño:

Communidad Autónoma de la Rioja. Bernardini, G. 1989. “The origins and development of racial anti-semitism in fascist Italy.”

In M. Marrus (ed.), The Nazi Holocaust, vol. 4: “The Final Solution” Outside Germany Westport, Conn.: Meckler.

Bessel, R. 1984. Political Violence and the Rise of Nazism. New Haven: Yale Universsity Press. . 1986. “Violence as propaganda: The role of the stormtroopers in the rise of National

Socialism.” In Childers (ed.), The Formation of the Nazi Constituency. . 1988. “The Great War in German memory: The soldiers of the First World War,

demobilization, and Weimar political culture.” German History 6. Bessel, R. (ed.). 1996. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany: Comparisons and Contrasts. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Bessel, R., and M. Jamin. 1979. “Nazis, workers and the uses of quantitative evidence.”

Social History 4. Betz, H.-G. 1994. Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe. London: Macmillan. Binchy, D. A. 1941. Church and State in Fascist Italy. London: Oxford University Press. Birn, R. 1991. “Austrian higher SS and police leaders and their participation in the Holocaust

in the Balkans.” Holocaust and Genocide Studies 6.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

Bibliography 397

Blinkhorn, M. 1975. Carlism and Crisis in Spain 1931–1939. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

. 1987. “The Iberian States.” In D. Mühlberger (ed.), The Social Basis of European Fascist Movements. London: CroomHelm.

. 1990. Fascists and Conservatives. London: Unwin Hyman. Boak, H. 1990. “Women in Weimar Politics.” European History Quarterly 20. Borchardt, K. 1982. Wachstum, Krisen, Handlungsspielraume der Wirtschaftspolitik. Göttingen:

Vandenkoeck & Ruprecht. Bosch, A. 1993. “Sindicalismo, conflictividad y politı́ca.” In Bosch et al. (eds.), Estudios sobre

la segunda república. Valencia: Edicions Alfons el Magnànim. Botz, G. 1980. “Introduction” and “The changing patterns of social support for Austrian

National Socialism (1918–1945).” In Larsen et al. (eds.), Who Were the Fascists? . 1982. “Political violence, its forms and strategies in the First Austrian Republic.”

In W. Mommsen and G. Hirschfeld (eds.), Social Protest, Violence and Terror in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Europe. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

. 1983. Gewalt in der Politik, 2nd ed. Munich: Fink.

. 1985. “Strategies of political violence: Chance events and structural effects as causal factors in the February rising of the Austrian Social Democrats.” In Rabinbach (ed.), Austrian Socialist Experiment.

. 1987a. “Austria.” In D. Mühlberger (ed.), The Social Basis of European Fascist Move- ments. London: CroomHelm.

. 1987b. “The Jews of Vienna from the Anschluss to the Holocaust.” In Oxaal et al. (eds.), Jews, Antisemitism and Culture.

. 1988. Nationalsozialismus in Wien. Wien: DVO. Boyd, C. 1979. Praetorian Politics in Liberal Spain. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina

Press. Bracher, K. D. 1971. The German Dictatorship. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Brademas, J. 1974. Anarcosyndicalismo y revolución en España (1930–1937). Barcelona: Ariel. Braham, R. 1981. The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary, 2 vols. New York:

Columbia University Press. . 1998. Romanian Nationalists and the Holocaust: The Political Exploitation of Unfounded

Rescue Attempts. New York: Columbia University Press. Brooker, P. 1991. The Faces of Fraternalism. Oxford: Clarendon. Broszat, M. 1981. The Hitler State. London: Longman.

. 1987. Hitler and the Collapse of Weimar Germany. Leamington Spa: Berg. Brown, J. 1989. “The Berlin NSDAP in the Kampfzeit.” German History 7. Brubaker, R. 1992. Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard University Press. Brustein, W. 1988. “The political geography of Belgian fascism: The case of rexism.”

American Journal of Sociology 53: 69–70. . 1991. “The ‘Red Menace’ and the rise of Italian Fascism.” American Sociological

Review 56. . 1996. The Logic of Evil: The Social Origins of the Nazi Party, 1925–1933. New Haven,

Conn.: Yale University Press. Bukey, E. 1978. “The Nazi Party in Linz, Austria, 1931–1939: A sociological perspective.”

German Studies Review 1.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

398 Bibliography

. 1986. Hitler’s Hometown: Linz, Austria 1908–1945. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.

. 1989. “Popular opinion in Vienna after the Anschluss.” In Parkinson (ed.), Con- quering the Past.

. 1992. “Nazi rule in Austria.” Austria History Yearbook 23. Burleigh, M. 2000. The Third Reich. New York: Hill & Wang. Busquets, J. 1984. El militar de carrera en España. Barcelona: Ariel. Cabrera, M. 1983. La patronal ante la II república: Organizaciones y etrategia (1931–1936).

Madrid: Siglo Veintuino Editores. Caldwell, L. 1986. “Reproducers of the Nation: Women and the family in Fascist policy.”

In Forgacs (ed.), Rethinking Italian Fascism. Campbell, A. 1998. “The invisible welfare state: Class struggles, the American Legion and the

development of veteran’s benefits in the 20th century United States.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Campbell, B. 1998. The SA Generals and the Rise of Nazism. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.

Campos, M. 1986. El socialismo espanol y la cuestión agrario (1890–1936). Madrid: Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social.

Cancela, D. 1987. La segunda república en Cadiz: Elecciones y partidos politicos. Cadiz: Diputación Provincial.

Caplan, J. 1986. “Speaking the right language: The Nazi party and the civil service vote in the Weimar Republic.” In Childers (ed.), The Formation of the Nazi Constituency.

. 1988. Government Without Administration: State and Civil Service in Weimar and Nazi Germany. Oxford: Clarendon.

Cardoza, A. 1982. Agrarian Elites and Italian Fascism: The Province of Bologna, 1901–1926. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Carmona, Á. 1989. El trabajo industrial en la España contemporánea (1874–1936). Barcelona: Anthropos.

Carsten, F. 1976. “Interpretations of fascism.” In W. Laqueur (ed.), Fascism: A Reader’s Guide. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

. 1977. Fascist Movements in Austria. London: Sage.

. 1980. The Rise of Fascism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Casas de Vega, R. 1974. Los milicias nacionales en la guerra de España. Madrid: Editora Nacional. Castillo, J. J. 1979. Proprietarios muy pobres: Sobre la subordinación politica del pequeño campesino.

Madrid: Ministerio del Agricultura. Cavandoli, R. 1972. Le origini del fascismo a Reggio Emilia. Roma: Editori Riuniti. Ceva, L. 2000. “The Strategy of Fascist Italy: A Premise.” Totalitarian Movements and Political

Religions, issue 2.3. Childers, T. 1983. The Nazi Voter. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

. 1984. “Who, indeed, did vote for Hitler?” Central European History 17: 45–53.

. 1990. “The social language of politics in Germany: The sociology of political discourse in the Weimar Republic.” American Historical Review 95.

. 1991. “The middle classes and National Socialism.” In D. Blackbourn and R. Evans (eds.), The German Bourgeoisie. London: Routledge.

Childers, T. (ed.) 1986. The Formation of the Nazi Constituency, 1919–1933. London: CroomHelm.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

Bibliography 399

Chirot, D. 1978. “Neoliberal and social-democratic theories of development: The Zeletin- Voinea debate concerning Romania’s prospects in the 1920s and its contemporary im- portance.” In K. Jowitt (ed.), Social Change in Romania, 1860–1940. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California.

Chueca, R. 1983. El fascismo en los comienzos del regimen de Franco. Madrid: C.I.S. Clark, M. 1988. “Italian squadrismo and contemporary vigilantism.” European History Quar-

terly 18. Close, D. H. 1984. “The police in the Fourth-of-August Regime.” Journal of the Hellenic

Diaspora 13. Close, D. 1990. “Conservatism, authoritarianism and fascism in Greece, 1915–1945.” In

M. Blinkhorn (ed.), Fascists and Conservatives: The Radical Right and the Establishment in Twentieth-Century Europe. London: Unwin Hyman.

Codreanu, C. 1990. For My Legionaries, 2nd ed. Reedy, W.V.: Liberty Bell. Collier, G. 1987. Socialists of Rural Andalusia. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Collins, R. 1998. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Contreras, M. 1981. El PSOE en la II república. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Socio-

logicas. Corner, P. 1975. Fascism in Ferrara, 1915–1925. London: Oxford University Press. Craig, G. 1994. “The true believer.” New York Review of Books, March 24. Cruz, R. 1984. “La organización del PCE (1920–1934).” Estudios de Historia Social 31.

. 1987. El partido communista de España en la II república. Madrid: Alianza. Dahl, O. 1999. Syndicalism, Fascism and Post-Fascism in Italy 1900–1950. Oslo: Solum Forlag. Dahl, R. 1977. Polyarchy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Deak, I. 1966. “Hungary.” In H. Rogger and E. Weber (eds.), The European Right: A Historical

Profile. Berkeley: University of California Press. . 1992. “Survivors.” New York Review of Books, March 5.

De Felice, R. 1966. Mussolini il fascista: La conquista del potere 1921–25. Turin: Einaudi. . 1974. Mussolini il Duce: Gli anni del consenso 1929–1936. Turin: Einaudi. . 1977. Interpretations of Fascism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. . 1980. “Italian Fascism and the middle classes.” In Larsen et al. (eds.), Who Were the

Fascists? . 1995. Mussolini il rivoluzionario 1883–1920, 2nd ed. Turin: Einaudi.

De Grand, A. 1978. The Italian Nationalist Association and the Rise of Fascism in Italy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

De Grazia, V. 1992. How Fascism Ruled Women: Italy 1922–1945. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

de la Cueva, J. 1998. “Religious persecution, anti-clerical tradition and revolution: Atrocities against the clergy during the Spanish Civil War.” Journal of Contemporary History 33.

Del Boca, A. 1969. The Ethiopian War 1935–1941. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Delzell, C. 1970. Mediterranean Fascism 1919–1945: A Documentary History. London:

Macmillan. De Pablo, Santiago. 1995. Historia del nacionalismo vasco. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Fundacion Sancho

el Sabio. Diamanti, I. 1996. “The Northern League: From regional party to party of government.”

In S. Gundle and S. Parker (eds.), The New Italian Republic. London: Routledge.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

400 Bibliography

Diehl, J. 1977. Paramilitary Politics in Weimar Germany. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.

Döhn, L. 1970. Politik und Interesse: Die Interessenstruktur der Deutschen Volkspartei. Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain.

Dorian, E. 1982. The Quality of Witness: A Romanian Diary 1937–1944. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America.

Douglas, D. M. 1977. “The parent cell: Some computer notes on the composition of the first Nazi Party group in Munich, 1919–21.” Central European History 10.

Downing, B. 1992. The Military Revolution and Political Change: Origins of Democracy and Autocracy in Early Modern Europe. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Dunnage, J. 1997. The Italian Police and the Rise of Fascism. London: Praeger. Eatwell, R. 1995. Fascism, a History. London: Chatto & Windus.

. 1996. “On defining the fascist minimum: The centrality of ideology.” Journal of Political Ideologies 1.

. 2001. “Universal fascism? Approaches and definitions.” In S. U. Larsen (ed.), Fascism outside Europe. New York: Columbia University Press.

Edmondson, C. E. 1978. The Heimwehr and Austrian Politics, 1918–36. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

. 1985. “The Heimwehr and February 1934: Reflections and questions.” In Rabinbach (ed.), Austrian Socialist Experiment.

Elazar, D. 1993. “The making of Italian Fascism: The seizure of power, 1919–1922.” Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Los Angeles.

Eley, G. 1980. Rethinking the German Right. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. . 1983. “What produces fascism: Pre-industrial traditions or a crisis of the capitalist

state?” Politics and Society 12. . 1986. From Unification to Nazism: Reinterpreting the German Past. London: Routledge.

Epelbaum, D. 1990. Alois Brunner: La Haine Irreductible. Paris: Calmann-Levy. Espı́n, E. 1980. Azaña en el poder: El partido de Acción Republicana. Madrid: Centro de Inves-

tigaciones Sociologicas. Falter, J. 1986. Wahlen und Abstimmungen in der Weimarer Republik. Munich: Beck.

. 1991. Hitlers Wähler. Munich: Beck.

. 1993. “Die Jungmitglieder der NSDAP zwischen 1925 und 1933. Ein demographis- ches und soziales Profil.” In W. Krabbe (ed.), Politische Jugend in der Weimarer Republik. Bochum: Universitatsverlag.

. 1998. “Recurring patterns of West German voting behaviour: Continuities and discontinuities 1928 to 1953.” In S. U. Larsen and B. Hagtvet (eds.), Modern Europe after Fascism, 1943–1980s. New York: Columbia University Press.

Falter, J., and H. Bömermann. 1989. “Die Entwicklung der Weimarer Parteien in ihren Hochburgen und die Wahlerfolge der NSDAP.” In H. Best (ed.), Politik und Milieu. St. Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae.

Fargion, L. 1989. “The anti-Jewish policy of the Italian Social Republic (1943–1945).” In Marrus (ed.), The Nazi Holocaust, vol. 4.

Farré, J. 1985. La Izquierda Burguesa en la II república. Madrid: Espas-Calpe. Ferenc, T. 1988. “The Austrians and Slovenia during the Second World War.” In Parkinson

(ed.), Conquering the Past. Ferraresi, F. 1998. “The radical right in postwar Italy.” In Larsen and Hagtvet (eds.), Modern

Europe after Fascism.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

Bibliography 401

Fischer, C. 1978. “The occupational background of the SA’s rank and file membership during the Depression years, 1929 to mid-1934.” In P. Stachura (ed.), The Shaping of the Nazi State. London: CroomHelm.

. 1983. Stormtroopers. London: Allen & Unwin.

. 1991. The German Communists and the Rise of Nazism. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

. 1995. The Rise of the Nazis. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Fischer, C. and C. Hicks. 1980. “Statistics and the historian: The occupational profile of the

SA of the NSDAP.” Social History 5. Fischer-Galati, S. 1971. “Fascism in Romania.” In Sugar (ed.), Native Fascism.

. 1989. “Fascism, communism and the Jewish question in Romania.” In M. Marrus (ed.), The Nazi Holocaust, vol. 4: “The Final Solution” Outside Germany. Westport, Conn.: Meckler.

Flora, P. 1983–87. State, Economy and Society in Western Europe, 1815–1975. Chicago: St. James Press.

Fogarty, M. 1957. Christian Democracy in Western Europe, 1820–1953. London: Routledge. Forgacs, D. 1986. “The Left and Fascism: Problems of definition and strategy.” In Forgacs

(ed.), Rethinking Italian Fascism. Forner Muñoz, S. 1982. Industrialización y movimiento obrero: Alicante 1923–1936. Valencia:

Institución Alfonso el Magnánimo. Francini, M. 1976. Primo dopoguerra a origini del fascismo a Pistoia. Milan: Feltrinelli. Franco Rubio, G. A. 1982. “La contribución de la mujer española a la politica

contemporanea: De la Restauración a la Guerra Civil (1876–1939).” In R. M. Capel Martinez (ed.), Mujer y sociedad en España 1700–1975. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura.

Franzosi, R. 1996. “Mobilization and counter-mobilization processes: From the ‘red years’ (1919–20) to the ‘black years’ (1921–22) in Italy. A new methodological approach to the study of narrative-data.” Unpublished paper, Trinity College, Oxford.

Fraser, R. 1994. Blood of Spain, 2nd ed. London: Pimlico. Friedlaender, S. 1986. “Nazism: Fascism or Totalitarianism?” In C. S. Maier et al. (eds.), The

Rise of the Nazi Regime. Historical Re-assessments. Boulder, Colo.: Westview. . 1997. Nazi Germany and the Jews, vol. 1: The Years of Persecution, 1933–1939. New

York: HarperCollins. Fritzsche, P. 1990. Rehearsals for Fascism: Populism and Political Mobilization in Weimar. Oxford:

Oxford University Press. . 1998. Germans into Nazis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Frye, B. 1985. Liberal Democrats in the Weimar Republic. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Uni- versity Press.

Fusi, J. P. 1985. Franco: Autoritarismo y poder personal. Madrid: El Pais. Gaillard, J. 1990. “The attractions of Fascism for the Church of Rome.” In J. Milfull (ed.),

The Attractions of Fascism. Oxford: Berg. Gallagher, T. 1990. “Conservatism, dictatorship and fascism in Portugal, 1914–45.” In

M. Blinkhorn (ed.), Fasicists and Conservatives: The Radical Right and the Establishment in Twentieth-Century Europe. London: Unwin Hyman.

Gao, Bai. 1997. Economic Ideology and Japanese Industrial Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.

Garcı́a Andreu, M. 1985. Alicante en las elecciones republicanas 1931–1936. Alicante: Univer- sidad de Alicante.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

402 Bibliography

Geary, D. 1983. “The industrial elite and the Nazis in the Weimar Republic.” In P. Stachura (ed.), The Nazi Machtegreifung. London: Allen & Unwin.

. 1990. “Employers, workers and the collapse of the Weimar Republic.” In I. Kershaw (ed.), Weimar: Why Did German Democracy Fail? New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Gentile, E. 1989. Storia del Partito Fascista, 1919–1922. Roma: Laterza. . 1990. “Fascism as political religion.” Journal of Contemporary History . 1996. The Sacralization of Politics in Fascist Italy. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University

Press. . 2000. Fascismo e antifascismo: I partito italiani fra le due guerre. Florence: Le

Monnier. Germán, L., et al. 1980. Elecciones en Zaragoza-Capital durante la II república. Zaragoza: Diputa-

cion Provincial. Germán Zubero, L. 1984. Aragon en la II república. Zaragoza: Institucion Fernando El Catolico. Geyer, M. 1990. “The past as future: The German officer corps as profession.” In G. Cocks

and K. Jarausch (eds.), German Professions, 1800–1950. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gibson, I. 1979. The Assassination of Federico Garćıa Lorca, 2nd ed. London: W. H. Allen. Gil Robles, J. M. 1968. No fue posible la paz. Barcelona: Ariel. Giles, G. 1978. “The rise of the National Socialist Students’ Association and the failure of

political education in the Third Reich.” In P. D. Stachura (ed.), The Shaping of the Nazi State. London: CroomHelm.

. 1983. “National Socialism and the educated elite in the Weimar Republic.” In Stachura (ed.), The Nazi Machtergreifung.

Giner, S. 1977. “Sociologia del franquismo.“ Barcelona, papers, no. 6. Giolitti, G. 1923. Memoirs of My Life. London: Chapman & Dodd. Gold, D. 1991. “Organized Hinduisms: From Vedic truth to Hindu nation.” In M. Marty

and R. Appleby (eds.), Fundamentalisms Observed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gomez-Navarro, J. L. 1991. El Regimen de Primo de Rivera. Madrid: Catedra. Gonzalez-Hernández, M. 1990. Ciudadanı́a y acción: El conservadurismo maurista, 1907–23.

Madrid: Siglo XXI. Gordon, S. 1984. Hitler, Germs and the Jewish Question. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University

Press. Gosztony, P. 1985. “Annual Statistic al Romaniei.” Bucharest: Institut Central de Statistica,

1939–40. Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International. Gregor, A. J. 1979. Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton

University Press. Gregor, J. 1969. The Ideology of Fascism: The Rationale of Totalitarianism. New York: Free Press.

. 2000. “Fascism, Marxism and some considerations concerning classification.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, issue 3.2.

Gress, F. 1998. “Right-wing extremism in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany.” In Larsen and Hagtvet (eds.), Modern Europe after Fascism.

Griffin, R. 1991. The Nature of Fascism. London: Routledge. . 1995. Fascism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. . 2001. “Caught in its own net: Post-war fascism outside Europe.” In Larsen (ed.),

Fascism outside Europe. . 2002. “The primacy of culture: The current growth (or manufacture) of consensus

within fascist studies.” Journal of Contemporary History 37.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

Bibliography 403

Grill, J. 1983. The Nazi Movement in Baden, 1920–1945. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Gruber, H. 1985. “Socialist Party culture and the realities of working class life in Red Vienna.” In Rabinbach (ed.), Austrian Socialist Experiment.

Guinea, J. 1978. Los movimientos obreros y sindicales en España: De 1833 a 1978. Madrid: Iberico Europea de Ediciones.

Gulick, C. 1948. Austria from Habsburg to Hitler, vol. 2: Fascism: Subversion of Democracy. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Guttsman, W. L. 1981. The German Social Democratic Party, 1875–1933. London: Allen & Unwin,

Hagtvet, B. 1980. “The theory of mass society and Weimar.” In Larsen et al. (eds.), Who Were the Fascists?

Hamann, B. 1999. Hitler’s Vienna: A Dictator’s Apprenticeship. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hamilton, R. 1982. Who Voted for Hitler? Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. . 1997. “Review of The Logic of Evil by W. Brustein.” Contemporary Sociology 26.

Hanisch, E. 1989. “Austrian Catholicism: Between accommodation and resistance.” In Parkinson (ed.), Conquering the Past.

Heberle, R. 1964. From Democracy to Nazis. Baton Rouge: University of Louisiana Press. Heilbronner, O. 1990. “The role of Nazi antisemitism in the Nazi Party’s activity and pro-

paganda. A regional historiographical study.” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 38. Heinen, A. 1986. Die Legion “Erzengel Michael” in Rumänien: Soziale Bewegung und politische

Organisation. Munich: Oldenbourg. Helmreich, E. C. 1979. The German Churches under Hitler. Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State

University Press. Herf, J. 1984. Reactionary Modernism. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hesse, S. 1990. “Fascism and the hypertrophy of male adolescence.” In J. Milfull (ed.), The

Attractions of Fascism. Oxford: Berg. Heywood, P. 1990. Marxism and the Failure of Organised Socialism in Spain, 1879–1936.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hitchins, K. 1994. Rumania 1866–1947. Oxford: Clarendon. Hitler, A. 1940. Mein Kampf New York: Reynal & Hitchcock. Hobsbawm, E. 1994. The Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 1914–1991. New York:

Pantheon. Holtfrerich, C.-L. 1990. “Economic policy options and the end of the Weimar Republic.”

In Kershaw (ed.), Weimar. Hughes, H. S. 1967. Consciousness and Society: The Reorientation of European Social Thought.

London: Macgibbon & Kee. Hunt, R. N. 1964. German Social Democracy, 1918–33. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. Huntington, S. P. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century.

Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Ianciu C. 1996. Les juifs en Roumanie (1919–1938): De l’emancipation a la marginalisation.

Paris/Louvain: Peeters. . 1998. La Shoah en Roumanie. Montpellier: Université Paul-Valéry.

Ignazi, P. 1997. “The extreme right in Europe: A survey.” In P. Merkl and L. Weinberg (eds.), The Revival of Right-Wing Extremism in the 1990s. London: Frank Cass.

Ioanid, R. 1990. The Sword of the Archangel. New York: Columbia University Press.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

404 Bibliography

Ionesco, E. 1960. Rhinoceros. New York: S. French. Institutul Central de Statistica. 1939–40. Anuarul Statistic Al României. Bucharest: author. Irwin, W. 1991. The 1933 Cortes Elections. New York: Garland. Jackson, G. 1965. The Spanish Republic and the Civil War 1931–1939. Princeton, N.J.: Prince-

ton University Press. Jaffrelot, C. 1996. The Hindu Nationalist Movement in India. New York: Columbia University

Press. Jagschitz, G. 1975. Vom Justizpalast zum Heldenplatz. Wien: DVO. James, H. 1990. “Economic reasons for the collapse of the Weimar Republic.” In Kershaw

(ed.), Weimar. Jamin, M. 1984. Zwischen den Klassen: Zur Sozialstruktur der SA-Fuhrerschaft. Wuppertal: Peter

Hammer. Jarausch, K. 1990. The Unfree Professions: German Lawyers, Teachers and Engineers, 1900–1950.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. Janos, A. 1970. “The one-party state and social mobilization: East Europe between the

Wars.” In S. Huntington and C. Moore (eds.), Authoritarian Politics in Modern Society. New York: Basic.

. 1982. The Politics of Backwardness in Hungary, 1825–1945. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

. 1989. “The politics of backwardness in Continental Europe, 1780–1945.” World Politics 61.

Jedlicka, L. 1979. “The Austrian Heimwehr.” In G. Mosse (ed.), International Fascism: New Thoughts and New Approaches, 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Jerez Mir, M. 1982. Elites politicas y centros de extracción en España, 1938–1957. Madrid: C.I.S.

Jones, L. 1988. German Liberalism and the Dissolution of the German Party System, 1918–1933. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Jowitt, K. 1971. Revolutionary Breakthroughs and National Development: The Case of Romania, 1944–1965. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Juliá, S. 1977. La izquierda del PSOE (1935–1936). Madrid: Siglo XXI. . 1979. Origenes del frente popular en Espana (1934–1936). Madrid: Siglo XX. . 1983. “Corporativistas obreros y reformadores poĺıticos: Crisis y escisión del PSOE

en la II República.” Studia Histórica 1. . 1984. Madrid, 1931–1934: De la fiesta popular a la lucha de clases. Madrid: Siglo

XXI. . 1989. “The origins and nature of the Spanish Popular Front.” In Alexander and

Graham (eds.), French and Spanish Popular Fronts. . 1990. “Guerra civil como guerra social.” In La iglesia católica y la guerra civil española.

Madrid: Fundación Friedrich Ebert. Juliá, S., et al. 1999. Victimas de la guerra civil. Madrid: Temas de Hoy Historia. Karady, V. 1993. “Antisemitism in twentieth-century Hungary: A socio-historical

overview.” Patterns of Prejudice 27. . 1997. “Identity strategies under duress before and after the Holocaust.” In R.

Braham and A. Pok (eds.), The Holocaust in Hungary: Fifty Years Later. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kallis, A. 2000. “The ‘regime-model’ of fascism: A typology.” European History Quarterly 30.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

Bibliography 405

Karsai, L. 1998. “The last phase of the Hungarian Holocaust: The Szalasi Regime and the Jews.” In R. Braham and S. Miller (eds.), The Nazis’ Last Victims: The Holocaust in Hungary. Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State University Press.

Kater, M. 1975. Studentenschaft und Rechtsradikalismus in Deutschland 1918–1933. Hamburg: Hoffmann & Kampe.

. 1983. The Nazi Party. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Kele, M. 1972. Nazis and Workers. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Kelikian, A. 1986. Town and Country under Fascism: The Transformation of Brescia, 1915–1926.

Oxford: Clarendon. Kelsey, G. 1991. Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State: The CNT in Zaragoza

and Aragon, 1930–1937. Amsterdam: Kluwer. Kepel, G. 2002. Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Kershaw, I. 1990. “Introduction: Perspectives of Weimar’s Failure.” In Kershaw (ed.), Weimar.

. 1991. Hitler. London: Longman.

. 1998. Hitler. 1889–1936: Hubris. New York: Norton.

. 2000. The Nazi Dictatorship, 4th ed. London: Edward Arnold. Kershaw I. (ed.) 1990. Weimar: Why did Weimar Democracy Fail? New York: St. Martin’s Press. Kindelan, A. (Teniente General). n.d. Ejercito y politica. Madrid: Aguilar. Kirk, T. 1996. Nazism and the Working Class in Austria. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Kitchen, M. 1976. Fascism. London: Macmillan. Kluge, U. 1984. Der Österreichische Ständestaat 1934–1938. Vienna: Knight, M. 1952. The German Executive 1890–1933. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University

Press. Knox, M. 1996. “Expansionist zeal, fighting power and staying power in the Italian and

German dictatorships.” In Bessel (ed.), Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Kofas, J. 1983. Authoritarianism in Greece: The Melaxas Regime. New York: Columbia

University Press. Kolb, E. 1979. “Zur Sozialbiographie einer Führungsgruppe der SPD am Anfang der

Weimarer Republik.” In Herkunft und Mandat: Beitrage zur Föhrungsproblematik in der Ar- beiterbewegung. Frankfurt and Cologne: Europaische Verlagsanstalt.

Konrad, H. 1989. “Social democracy’s drift toward nazism before 1938.” In Parkinson (ed.), Conquering the Past.

Koshar, R. 1986. Social Life, Local Politics, and Nazism. Marburg, 1880–1935. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Kovács, M. 1991 “The ideology of illiberalism in the professions: Leftist and rightist radicalism among Hungarian doctors, lawyers and engineers, 1918–45.” European History Quarterly 21.

Kratzenberg, V. 1989. Arbeiter auf dem Weg zu Hitler? Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang. Kühr, H. 1973. Partien und Wahlen im Stadt- und Landkreis Essen in der Zeit der Weimarer

Republik. Düsseldorf: Droste. Lackó, M. 1969. Arrow-Cross Men, National Socialists. 1935–1944. Budapest: Akademiai

Kiado. Lannon, F. 1984. “The church’s crusade against the republic.” In P. Preston (ed.), Revolution

and War in Spain. London: Methuen. . 1987. Privilegio, persecución y profećıa: La iglesia católica en España. 1875–1975. Madrid:

Alianza.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

406 Bibliography

Laqueur, W. (ed.) 1976. Fascism: A Reader’s Guide. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Larsen, S. U. 1998. “Overcoming the past when shaping the future.” In Larsen and Hagtvet, Modern Europe after Fascism.

. 2001. “Was there Fascism outside Europe? Diffusion from Europe and domestic impulses.” In Larsen (ed.), Fascism outside Europe.

Larsen, S. U. (ed.). 2001. Fascism outside Europe. New York: Columbia University Press. Larsen, S. U., and B. Hagtvet (eds.). 1998. Modern Europe after Fascism 1943–1980s. New

York: Columbia University Press. Larsen, S., et al. (eds.). 1980. Who Were the Fascists? Social Roots of European Fascism. Oslo:

Universitetsforlaget. Ledeen M. 1977. The First Duce: D’Annunzio at Fiume. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins

University Press. . 1989. “The evolution of Italian fascist anti-semitism.” In Marrus (ed.), The Nazi

Holocaust, vol. 4. Lee, S. 1987. The European Dictatorships, 1918–1945. London: Methuen. Lewis, J. 1991. Fascism and the Working Class in Austria, 1918–34. Oxford: Berg. Liebe, W. 1956. Die Deutschnationale Volkspartei, 1918–1924. Dusseldorf: Droste. Lindstrom, U. 1985. Fascism in Scandinavia, 1920–1940. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell. Linz, J. 1976. “Some notes toward a comparative study of fascism in sociological historical

perspective.” In W. Laqueur (ed.), Fascisim: A Reader’s Guide. Berkeley: University of California Press.

. 1978. “From great hopes to civil war: The breakdown of democracy in Spain.” In Linz and A. Stepan (eds.), The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Europe. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

. 1980. “Political space and fascism as a late-comer.” In S. U. Larsen et al. (eds.), Who Were the Fascists? Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

. 1998. “Fascism is dead. What legacy did it leave?” In Larsen and Hagtvet (eds.), Modern Europe after Fascism.

Lipset, S. M. 1963. Political Man. London: Heinemann. Luebbert, G. 1991. Liberalism, Fascism or Social Democracy: Social Classes and the Political Origins

of Regimes in Interwar Europe. New York: Oxford University. Press. Livezeanu, I. 1990. “Fascists and conservatives in Romania: Two generations of nationalists.”

In M. Blinkhorn (ed.), Fascists and Conservatives. London: Unwin Hyman. . 1995. Cultural Politics in Greater Romania. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University

Press. Loewenberg, P. 1983. “The psychohistorical origins of the Nazi youth cohort.” In

Loewenberg, Decoding the Past. New York: Knopf. . 1985. “Otto Bauer as an ambivalent party leader.” In Rabinbach (ed.), The Austrian

Social Experiment. Lösche, P. 1992. Die SPD: Klassenpartei – Volkspartei – Quotenpartei. Darmstadt: Wiss.

Buchges. Lyttleton, A. 1982. “Fascism and violence in post-war Italy: Political strategy and social

conflict.” In Mommsen and Hirschfeld (eds.), Social Protest, Violence and Terror. . 1987. The Seizure of Power: Fascism in Italy, 1919–1929. London: Weidenfeld &

Nicolson. . 1996. “The ‘crisis of bourgeois society’ and the origins of Fascism.” In Bessel (ed.),

Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

Bibliography 407

Macarro Vera, J. M. 1989. “Social and economic policies of the Spanish left in theory and in practice.” In Alexander and Graham (eds.), French and Spanish Popular Fronts.

Madden, P. 1982a. “Generational aspects of National Socialism, 1919–1933.” Social Science Quarterly 63.

. 1982b. “Some social characteristics of early Nazi Party members, 1919–23.” Central European History 15.

Maddison, A. 1982. Phases of Capitalist Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maier, C. 1975. Recasting Bourgeois Europe. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Malefakis, E. 1970. Agrarian Reform and Peasant Revolution in Spain. New Haven, Conn.: Yale

University Press. Mallett, R. 2000. The Italian Navy and Fascist Expansionism, 1935–1940. London: Frank

Cass. Manjón, O. 1976. El partido republicano radical 1908–1936. Madrid: Tebas. Mann, M. 1986. The Sources of Social Power, vol. 1: A History from the Beginning to 1760 AD.

New York: Cambridge University Press. . 1988. “The autonomous power of the state: Its origins, mechanisms and results.”

In M. Mann (ed.), States, War and Capitalism. New York: Basil Blackwell. . 1993. The Sources of Social Power, vol. 2: The Rise of Classes and Nation-States, 1760–

1914. New York: Cambridge University Press. . 1995. “Sources of variation in working-class movements in twentieth-century

Europe.” New Left Review, no. 212. . 1997. “The contradictions of continuous revolution.” In I. Kershaw and M. Lewin

(eds.), Stalinism and Nazism: Dictatorship in Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

. 2003. Incoherent Empire. London: Verso.

. Forthcoming. The Darkside of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing.. Manoilescu, M. 1937. Le Parti Unique, 2nd ed. Paris: Alcan.

. 1938. Le Siècle du corporatisme: Doctrine du corporatisme integral et pur, 2nd ed. Paris: Alcan.

Maravall, J. M. 1997. Regimes, Politics, and Markets: Democratization and Economic Change in Southern and Eastern Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marco, J. M. 1988. La inteligencia republicana: Manuel Azaña 1897–1930. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.

Marcuse, P. 1985. “The housing policy of social democracy: Determinants and conse- quences.” In Rabinbach (ed.), Austrian Socialist Experiment.

Marshall, B. 1988. “Politics in academe: Gottingen University and the growing impact of political issues, 1918–33.” European History Quarterly 18.

Martin, B. 1990. The Agony of Modernization: Labor and Industrialization in Spain. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Mason, T. 1972. “The primacy of politics – politics and economics in Nationalist Socialist Germany.” In H. A. Turner (ed.), Nazism and the Third Reich. New York: Quadrangle.

. 1993. Social Policy in the Third Reich. Oxford: Berg.

. 1995. Nazism, Fascism and the Working Class. ed. Jane Caplan. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mateos, Rodrı́guez. 1993. “Formación y desarrollo de la derecha católica an la provincia de Zamora durante la Segunda República.” In J. Tusell et al. (eds.), Estudios sobre la derecha española contemporanea. Madrid: Unea.

Mayer, A. 1981. The Persistence of the Old Regime. London: CroomHelm.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

408 Bibliography

Mayeur J.-M. 1980. Des partis catholiques a la democratie chrétienne, XIXe–XXe siecles. Paris: Colin.

Meaker, G. 1988. “A civil war of words: The ideological impact of the First World War on Spain, 1914–18.” In H. Schmitt (ed.), Neutral Europe between War and Revolution, 1917–19. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Melograni, P. 1965. “Confindustria e fascismo tra il 1919 e il 1925.” Il Nuevo Osservatore 6 (Nov.): 834–73.

. 1972. Gli industriali e Mussolini: Rapporti fra Confindustria e fascismo del 1919 al 1929. Milan: Longanesi.

Mendelsohn, E. 1983. The Jews of East Central Europe between the World Wars. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.

Merkl, P. 1975. Political Violence under the Swastika. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

. 1980. The Making of a Stormtrooper. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Michaelis, M. 1995. “The current debate over fascist racial policy.” In Wistrich and

DellaPergola (eds.), Fascist Antisemitism. Miguel, A. de 1975. Sociologia del franquismo. Barcelona: Euros. Milatz, A. 1965. Walher und Walhen in der Weimarer Republik. Bonn: Bundeszentrale fur

Politische Bildung. Mintz, J. 1982. The Anarchists of Casas Viejas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mir, C. 1985. Lleida (1890–1936): Caciquisme poĺıtic i lluita electoral. Montserrat: l’Abadia de

Montserrat. Misefari, E., and A. Marzotti. 1980. L’Avvento del Fascismo in Calabria. Cosenza: Pellegrini. Mitchell, B. 1993. International Historical Statistics: The Americas 1750–1993. New York:

Grove. . 1995. International Historical Statistics: Africa, Asia, and Oceania 1750–1993 New

York: Grove. . 1998. International Historical Statistics: Europe 1750–1993. New York: Grove.

Mócsy, I. 1983. The Effects of World War I. The Uprooted: Hungarian Refugees and Their Impact on Hungary’s Domestic Politics, 1918–1921. New York: Columbia University Press.

Molas, I. 1973. Lliga Catalana: Un estudi d’estasiologia, 2nd ed. Barcelona: Edicions 62. Molony, J. 1977. The Emergence of Political Catholicism in Italy. London: CroomHelm. Mommsen, H. 1991. “Hitler’s position in the Nazi system.” In Mommsen, From Weimar to

Auschwitz. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Mommsen, W. 1990. “The varieties of the nation state in modern history: Liberal imperalist,

fascist and contemporary notions of nation and nationality.” In M. Mann (ed.), The Rise and Decline of the Nation State. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.

Mommsen, W. J., and G. Hirschfield (eds.) 1982. Social Protest, Violence and Terror in Nineteenth and Twentieth-Century Europe. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Montero, J. R. 1977 La CEDA: El catolicismo social y politico en la II república, 2 vols. Madrid: Ediciones de la Revista de Trabajo.

. 1988. “Las derechas en el sistema de partidos del segundo bienio republicano: Algunos datos introductorios.” In Túñon de Lara (ed.), La II república española.

Moore, B. 1966. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Morego, J. M. F. 1922. Los atendados sociales en España, las teorias, los hechos, estadisticas. Madrid:

Casa Faure.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

Bibliography 409

Moreno, A. M. 1961. Histoŕıa de la persecución en España. Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos.

Moreno Fernandez, L. 1987. Accion popular murciana: La derecha confessional en Murcia durante la II república. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia.

Morodo, R. 1985. Los origines ideologicos del franquismo: Acción Española. Madrid: Alianza. Morsey, R. 1977. Der Untergang des Politischen Katholicizismus. Stuttgart: Belser. Mosse, G. 1964. The Crisis of German Ideology: The Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich. New

York: H. Testig. . 1966. “The genesis of fascism.” Journal of Contemporary History 1. . 1970. Germans and Jews: The Right, the Left and the Search for a Third Force in Pre-Nazi

Germany. New York: H. Testig. . 1999. The Fascist Revolution. New York: Howard Fertig.

Mühlberger, D. (ed.). 1987. The Social Basis of European Fascist Movement. London: CroomHelm.

. 1991. Hitler’s Followers. London: Routledge. Mussolini, B. 1976. The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism. New York: Gordon Press.

Originally published 1932. Myklebust, J. and B. Hagtvet. 1980. “Regional contrasts in the membership base of the

Nosjonal Samlung.” In S. Larsen et al. (eds.), Who Were the Fascists? Social Roots of European Fascism. Oslo: Universitets Farlager.

Nagy-Talavera, N. 1970. The Green Shirts and the Others: A History of Fascism in Hungary and Romania. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institute Press.

Neebe, R. 1981. Grossindustrie, Staat und NSDAP 1930–1933. Gottingen: Vanenhoeck and Rupricht.

Newman, K. 1970. European Democracy between the Wars. London: George Allen & Unwin. Niessen, J. 1995. “Romanian nationalism: An ideology of integration and mobilization.” In

P. Sugar (ed.), Eastern European Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. Washington: American University Press.

Noakes, J. 1971. The Nazi Party in Lower Saxony, 1921–1933. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Noakes, J., and G. Pridham. 1974. Documents on Nazism, 1919–1945. London: Cape. Nolte, E. 1965. Three Faces of Fascism. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. O’Sullivan, N. 1983. Fascism. London: Dent. Oxaal, I., et al. (eds.). 1987. Jews, Antisemitism and Culture in Vienna. London: Routledge. Ozsvath, Z. 1997. “Can words kill? Anti-semitic texts and their impact on the Hungarian

Jewish catastrophe.” In Randolph. Braham and Attila Pók (eds.), The Holocaust in Hungary (New York: East European Managraphs, 1997).

Palomares Ibáñez, J. M. 1988. El socialismo en Castilla. Valladolid: Universidad. Parkinson 1989. “Epilogue.” In Parkinson (ed.), Conquering the Past. Parkinson F. (ed.). 1989. Conquering the Past: Austrian Nazism Yesterday and Today. Detroit,

Mich.: Wayne State University Press. Parming, T. 1975. The Collapse of Liberal Democracy and the Rise of Authoritarianism in Estonia.

Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. Partido Republicano Radical. 1932. Asemblea nacional extraordinaria. Madrid: Imprenta Zolia

Ascasibar. Passchier, N. 1980. “The electoral geography of the Nazi landslide.” In Larsen et al. (eds.),

Who Were the Fascists?

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

410 Bibliography

Passerini, L. 1987. Fascism in Popular Memory: The Cultural Experience of the Turin Working Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Patton, C. 1994. “The myth of moderation: German chemical employer responses to labour conflict, 1914–24.” European History Quarterly 24.

Pauley, B. 1980. “Nazis and Heimwehr Fascists: The struggle for supremacy in Austria, 1918–1938.” In Larsen et al. (eds.), Who Were the Fascists?

. 1981. Hitler and the Forgotten Nazis. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

. 1987. “Political antisemitism in interwar Vienna.” In Oxaal et al. (eds.), Jews, Anti- semitism and Culture.

. 1989. “The Austrian Nazi Party before 1938: Some recent revelations.” In Parkinson (ed.), Conquering the Past.

Paxton, R. 1994. “Radicals.” New York Review of Books, June 23. . 1996. “The uses of fascism.” New York Review of Books, November 28. . 1998. “The five stages of fascism.” Journal of Modern History 70.

Payne, S. 1962. Falange: A History of Spanish Fascism. London: Oxford University Press. . 1970. The Spanish Revolution. New York: Norton. . 1980a. Fascism: Comparison and Definition. Madison: University of Wisconsin

Press. . 1980b. “Social Composition and Regional Strength of the Spanish Falange.” In

S. V. Larsen et al. (eds.), Who Were the Fascists? Social Roots of European Fascism. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

. 1993. Spain’s First Democracy: The Second Republic, 1931–1936. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

. 1995. A History of Fascism, 1914–1945. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Peirats, J. 1971. La CNT en la revolución española, 2nd ed., 3 vols. Paris: Ediciones CNT. Perez Diaz, V. 1991. Structure and Change of Castilian Peasant Communities. New York: Garland.

. 1993. The Return of Civil Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Petersen, J. 1975. “Elettorato e base sociale del fascismo Italiano negli anni venti.” Studi

Storici, anno 16. . 1982. “Violence in Italian fascism, 1919–25.” In Mommsen and Hirschfeld (eds.),

Social Protest, Violence and Terror. Peterson, L. 1983. “A social analysis of KPD supporters: The Hamburg insurrectionaries of

October 1923.” International Review of Social History 28. Peukert, D. 1989. Inside Nazi Germany: Conformity, Opposition, and Racism in Everyday Life.

Trans. R. Deveson. London: Penguin. Polonsky, A. 1975. The Little Dictators: The History of Eastern Europe since 1918. London:

Routledge. Prayer, M. 1991. “Italian fascist regime and nationalist India 1921–1945.” International Studies

28. Preston, P. 1978. The Coming of the Spanish Civil War: Reform, Reaction and Revolution in the

Second Republic. London: Routledge. . 1986. Las derechas españolas en el siglo XX: Autoritismo fascismo y golpismo. Madrid:

Sustema. . 1990. The Politics of Revenge. London: Unwin Hyman. . 1995. Franco: A Biography. London: Fontana.

Preston, P., ed. 1984. Revolution and War in Spain, 1931–1939. London: Methuen.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

Bibliography 411

Preti, L. 1968. “Fascist imperialism and racism.” In R. Sarti (ed.), The Ax Within: Italian Fascism in Action. New York: New Viewpoints.

Preziosi, A. M. 1980. Borghesia e fascismo in Friuli negli anni 1920–1922. Roma: Bonacci. Pridham, G. 1973. Hitler’s Rise to Power: The Nazi Movement in Bavaria, 1929–33. London:

Hart-Davies, McGibbon. Poulantzas, N. 1974. Fascism and Dictatorship. London: New Left Books. Pulzer, P. 1993. “The tradition of Austrian Antisemitism in the nineteenth and twentieth

centuries.” Patterns of Prejudice 27. Rabinbach, A. (ed.). 1985. The Austrian Socialist Experiment: Social Democracy and Austro-

marxism, 1918–1934. Boulder, Colo.: Westview. Ramı́rez Jiménez, M. 1969. Los grupos de presión en la segunda república española. Madrid:

Technos. Ránki, G. 1971. “The Problem of Fascism in Hungary.” In Sugar (ed.), Native Fascism.

. 1980. “The fascist vote in Budapest in 1939.” In Larsen et al., (eds.), Who Were the Fascists?

Rath. J, and C. Schum. 1980. “The Dollfuss-Schusnigg Regime: Fascist or Authoritarian?” In Larsen et al. (eds.), Who Were the Fascists?

Reichardt, S. 2002. Faschistische Kampfbünde. Köln: Böhlau Verlag. Renton, D. 2000. Fascism: Theory and Practice. London: Pluto. Revelli, M. 1987. “Italy.” In D. Mühlberger (ed.), The Social Basis of European Fascist Move-

ments. London: CroomHelm. Rial, J. 1986. Revolution from Above: The Primo de Rivera Dictatorship in Spain, 1923–1930.

Fairfax, Va.: George Mason University Press. Riley, D. 2002. “Hegemony and domination: civil society and regime variation in inter-war

Europe.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles. Roberts, D. 1980. “Petty bourgeois Fascism in Italy: Form and content.” In Larsen et al.

(eds.), Who Were the Fascists? Robinson, R. 1970. The Origins of Franco’s Spain: The Right, the Republic and Revolution,

1931–1936. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. Rogowski, R. 1977. “The Gauleiter and the social origins of Fascism.” Comparative Studies

in Society and History 19. Rokkan, S. 1970. Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Process

of Development. Oslo: Scandinavian University Books. Ronnas, P. 1984. Urbanization in Romania. Stockholm: Economic Research Institute, Stock-

holm School of Economics. Rosenhaft, E. 1982. “The KPD in the Weimar Republic and the problem of terror during

the ‘Third Period,’ 1929–33.” In Mommsen and Hirschfeld (eds.), Social Protest, Violence and Terror.

. 1983. Beating the Fascists? The German Communists and Political Violence 1929–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

. 1987. “The unemployed in the neighbourhood: Social dislocation and political mobilisation in Germany 1929–1933.” In R. Evans and D. Geary (eds.), The German Unemployed: Experiences and Consequences of Mass Unemployment from the Weimar Republic to the Third Reich. London: CroomHelm.

Rothschild, J. 1974. East Central Europe between the Two World Wars. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Roy, O. 1994. The Failure of Political Islam. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

412 Bibliography

Rueschemeyer, D., E. Stephens, and J. Stephens 1992. Capitalist Development and Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ságvári, A. 1997. “Did they do it under orders?” In R. Braham and A Pók (eds.), The Holocaust in Hungary: Fifty Years Later. New York: Columbia University Press.

Sakmyster, T. 1994. Hungary’s Admiral on Horseback: Miklos Horthy 1918–1944. Boulder, Colo.: Colombia University Press.

Saladino, S. 1966. “Italy.” In H. Rogger and E. Weber (eds.), The European Right: A Historical Profile. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Salvatorelli, L. 1923. Nazional-fascismo. Turin: Gobetti. Salvemini, G. 1973. The Origins of Fascism in Italy. New York: Harper & Row. Santacreu Soler, J. M., et al. 1986. “El anarchosindicalismo Alicantino durante la Segunda

República.” In Instituto de Estudios Juan Gil-Albert (ed.), El anarquismo en Alicante (1868– 1945). Alicante: Diputación Provincial.

Sarti, R. 1971. Fascism and the Industrial Leadership in Italy, 1919–1940. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

. 1990. “Italian fascism: Radical politics and conservative goals.” in M. Blinkhorn (ed.), Fascists and Conservatives. London: Unwin Hyman.

Schleunes, K. 1990. The Twisted Road to Auschwitz: Nazi Policy toward German Jews, 1933– 1939, 2nd ed. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press.

Schmidt-Hartmann, E. 1988. “People’s democracy: The emergence of a Czech political concept in the late ninetheenth century.” In S. J. Kirschbaum (ed.), East European History. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.

Schmitt, H. (ed.). 1988. Neutral Europe between War and Revolution, 1917–1923. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Schmitter, P. 1974. “Still the century of corporatism?” Review of Politics. Schneider, W. 1978. Die Deutsche Demokratische Partei in der Weimarer Republik 1924–1930.

Munich: Wilhelm Fink. Schorske, C. 1981. Fin-de-Siècle Vienna: Politics and Culture. New York: Vintage. Schwartz, R. 1989. “Nazi wooing of Austrian Social Democracy between Anschluss and

war.” In Parkinson (ed.), Conquering the Past. Seco, C. 1971. “Introduction” to Gil Robles, Discursos parlamentarios. Madrid: Taurus. Segrè, C. 1987. Italo Balbo: A Fascist Life. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California

Press. Sereny, G. 1995. Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth. London: Macmillan. Seton-Watson, C. 1967. Italy from Liberalism to Fascism. London: Methuen. Seton-Watson, H. 1967. Eastern Europe between the Wars, 1918–1941. New York: Harper. Shapiro, P. 1974. “Prelude to dictatorship in Romania: The National Christian Party in

power, December 1937–February 1938.” Canadian-American Slavic Studies 8. Shubert, A. 1987. The Road to Revolution in Spain. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Siegfried, K. J. 1979. Klerikalfaschismus: Zur Entstehung und Sozialen Funktion des Dollfussregimes

in Österreich. Frankfurt: Lang. Silverman, D. 1988. “National Socialist Economics: The Wirtschaftswunder Reconsidered.”

In B. Eichengreen and T. Hatton (eds.), Interwar Unemployment in International Perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Silvestri, C. 1969. “Storia del fascismo di Trieste dalle origini alla conquista del potere (1919–1922).” In Fascismo, guerra, resistenza, lotte politiche e sociali nel Fruili-Venezia Guilia 1918–1943. Udine: Del Bianco.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

Bibliography 413

Sima, H. 1967. Histoire du mouvement légionnaire. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Dacia. Snowden, F. 1972. “On the social origins of agrarian fascism in Italy.” European Journal of

Sociology 13. . 1989. The Fascist Revolution in Tuscany, 1919–1922. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press. Soucy, R. 1991. “French fascism and the Croix de Feu: A dissenting interpretation.” Journal

of Contemporary History 26, no. 1: 159–88. Southern, D. 1982. “Anti-democratic terror in the Weimar Republic: The Black Reichswehr

and the Feme-murders.” In Mommsen and Hirschfeld (eds.), Social Protest, Violence and Terror.

Speier, H. 1986. German White-Collar Workers and the Rise of Hitler. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Stachura, P. 1975. Nazi Youth in the Weimar Republic. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Clio Books. . 1983a. “German youth, the youth movement and national socialism in the Weimar

Republic.” In Stachura (ed.), The Nazi Machtergreifung. . 1983b. “The Nazis, the bourgeoisie and the workers during the Kampfzeit.” In

Stachura (ed.), The Nazi Machtergreifung. . 1993. “National Socialism and the German proletariat, 1925–1935: Old myths and

new perspectives.” Historical Journal 36. Stachura P. (ed.) 1993c. The Nazi Machtergreifung. London: Allen & Unwin.

. (ed.). 1986. Unemployment and the Great Depression in Weimar Germany. London: Macmillan.

Stadler, K. 1981. “Austria.” In S. Woolf (ed.), European Fascism, 2nd ed. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Steinberg, J. 1986. “Fascism in the Italian South: The case of Calabria.” In Forgacs (ed.), Rethinking Italian Fascism.

Steinhoff, J., et al. 1989. Voices from the Third Reich: An Oral History. New York: De Capo. Stephan, W. 1973. Aufstieg und Verfall des Linksliberalismus 1918–1933. Göttingen: Vanden-

hoeck & Ruprecht. Stephens, J. D. 1989. “Democratic transition and breakdown in Western Europe, 1870–1939:

A test of the Moore thesis.” American Journal of Sociology 94. Sternhell, Z. 1976. “Fascist ideology.” In Laqueur (ed.), Fascism: A Reader’s Guide.

. 1986. Neither Right nor Left: Fascist Ideology in France. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

. 1994. The Birth of Fascist Ideology. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Stühlpfarrer, K. 1989. “Nazism, the Austrians and the military.” In Parkinson (ed.), Con-

quering the Past. Sturdza, P. 1968. The Suicide of Europe: Memoirs of Prince Michel Sturdza, Former Foreign Minister

of Rumania. Belmont, Mass.: Western Islands. Suarez Cortina, M. 1981. El fascismo en Asturias (1931–1937). Madrid: Biblioteca Julia

Somoza. Suero Roca, T. 1975. Los generales de Franco. Barcelona: Bruguera.

. 1981. Militares republicanos de la guerra de España. Barcelona: Peninsula. Sugar, P. 1971a. “Conclusion.” In Sugar (ed.), Native Fascism. Sugar, P. (ed.). 1971b. Native Fascism in the Successor States, 1918–1945. Santa Barbara, Calif.:

Clio Press. Sühl, K. 1988. SPD und öffentlicher Dienst in der Weimarer Republik. Opladen: Westdeutscher.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

414 Bibliography

Sully, M. 1989. “The Waldheim connection.” In Parkinson (ed.), Conquering the Past. Suzzi, Valli R. 2000. “The myth of squadrismo in the fascist regime.” Journal of Contemporary

History 35. Sylos Labini, P. 1978. “Sviluppo economico e classi sociali.” In M. Paci (ed.), Capitalismo e

classi sociali in Italia. Bologna: Il Mulino. Szelenyi, B. 1998. “German Burghers in Sixteenth-Nineteenth Century Hungary.“ Ph.D.

dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Sznajder, M. 1995. “The fascist regime, anti-semitism and the racial laws in Italy.” In Wistrich

and DellaPergola (eds.), Fascist Antisemitism. Szöllösi-Janze, M. 1989. Die Pfeilkreuzlerbewegung in Ungarn. Munich: Oldenbourg. Szymanski, A. 1973. “Fascism, industrialism and socialism: The case of Italy.” Comparative

Studies in Society and History, 15. Taggart, P. 1995. “New populist parties in western Europe.” West European Politics 18. Tapia, A. R. 1990. “La justificacion ideologica del ‘Alzamiento.’ ” In Tapia, Violencia y terror:

Estudios sobre la guerra civil española. Torrejon de Ardoz: Akal. Tasca, A. 1976. The Rise of Italian Fascism, 1919–1922. New York: Gordon Press. Orig-

inally published 1938. This edition, a reprint, was published under the pseudonym A. Rossi.

Therborn, G. 1977. “The rule of capital and the rise of democracy.” New Left Review, no. 103.

Theweleit, K. 1987, 1989. Male Fantasies, 2 vols. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Thomas, H. 1977. The Spanish Civil War. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. Tilly, C. 1975. The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton

University Press. . 1990. Coercion, Capital and European States. Oxford: Blackwell.

Townson, N. 1988. “Algunas consideraciones sobre el proyecto ‘republicano’ del Partido Radical.” In Túñon de Lara (ed.), La II república española.

Treptow, K., et al. 1996. A History of Romania. New York: Columbia University Press. Tuñón de Lara, M. 1972. El movimiento obrero en la historia de España. Madrid: Taurus.

. 1978. Luchas obreras y campesinas del siglo XX: Jaén (1917–1920), Sevilla (1930–1932). Madrid: Siglo XXI.

. 1985. Tres claves de la segunda república. Madrid: Alianza. Tuñon de Lara, M. (ed.). 1988. La II república española: Bienio rectificador y frente popular,

1934–1936. Madrid: Siglo XXI. Turner, H. A. 1985. German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler. New York: Oxford University

Press. Turner, H. A. (ed.). 1984. Hitler – Memoir of a Confidant. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University

Press. Tusell Gómez, J. 1970. La segunda república en Madrid: Elecciones y partidos politicos. Madrid:

Technos. . 1971. Las elecciones del frente popular en España. Madrid: Cuadernos para el Dialogo. . 1974. Historia de la democracia cristiana en España. Madrid: . 1976. Oligarquı́a y caciquismo en Andalucia (1890–1923). Barcelona: Editorial Planeta.

Tusell Gómez, J., et al. 1993. Estudios sobre la derechas espanola contemporanea. Madrid: UNED.

Vago, R. 1987. “Eastern Europe.” In D. Mühlberger, (ed.), The Social Basis of European Fascist Movements. London: CroomHelm.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

Bibliography 415

Vago, R. (ed.) 1975. The Shadow of the Swastika. London: Saxon House. Varela, Dı́az, S. 1978. Partidos y parlamento en la II república española. Madrid: Fundación Juan

March. Vega, E. 1987. Anarquistas y sindicalistas 1931–1936. Valencia: Edicions Alfons el Magnánim. Veiga, F. 1989. La Mistica del Ultranacionalismo. Barcelona: Universitat Autonomia de

Barcelona. Verdery, K. 1983. Transylvanian Villagers: Three Centuries of Political, Economic and Ethnic

Change. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Vilanova, M. 1986. Atlas electoral de Catalunya durant la segona república. Barcelona: Magrana. Vincent, M. 1989. “The Spanish church and the Popular Front: The experience of

Salamanca province.” In Alexander and Graham (eds.), French and Spanish Popular Fronts.

Volovici, L. 1991. Nationalist Ideology and Anti-Semitism: The Case of Romanian Intellectuals in the 1930s. Oxford: Pergamon.

Watts, L. 1993. Romanian Cassandra: Ion Antonescu and the Struggle for Reform, 1916–1941. New York: Columbia University Press.

Weber, E. 1964. Varieties of Fascism. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand. . 1966a. “The Men of the Archangel.” Journal of Contemporary History 1. . 1966b. “Romania.” In H. Rogger and E Weber (eds.), The European Right: A

Historical Profile. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. . 1976. “Revolution? Counterrevolution? What revolution?” In W. Laqueur (ed.),

Fascism: A Reader’s Guide. Weber, H. 1969. Die Wandlung der deutschen Kommunismus, 2 vols. Frankfurt: Europaische

Verlagsanstalt. Webster, A. 1986. “The Romanian Legionary Movement.” Carl Beck Papers, Center for

Russian and East European Sudies, University of Pittsburgh, no. 502. Wegner, B. 1990. The Waffen-SS. Oxford: Blackwell. Weinberg, L. 1998. “The MSI and the fascist heritage in Italy: The persistence of a neo-

fascist party in the post fascist context.” In Larsen and Hagtvet (eds.), Modern Europe after Fascism.

Weiss, L. 1988. Creating Capitalism. Oxford: Blackwell. Weisbrod, B. 1996. “The crisis of bourgeois society in interwar Germany.” In R. Bessel

(ed.), Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany: Comparisons and Contrasts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wessely, A. 1991. “From the labour movement to the Fascist Government: The End of the Road by Lajos Kassák.” In S. Larsen et al. (eds.), Fascism and European Literature. Bern: Peter Lang.

Whiteside, A. 1966. “Austria.” In H. Rogger and E. Weber (eds.), The European Right: A Historical Profile. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Wickham, J. 1983. “Working-class movement and working-class life: Frankfurt am Main during the Weimar Republic.” Social History 8.

Wieviorka, M. 1994. Racisme et xénophobie en europe: Une comparaison internationale. Paris: La Dévouverte.

Willems, H. 1995. “Right-wing extremism, race or youth violence? Explaining violence against foreigners in Germany.” New Community 21:501–23.

Willson, P. 1996. “Women in Fascist Italy.” In Bessel (ed.), Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Wiltschegg, W. 1985. Die Heimwehr. Munich: Oldenbourg.

P1: IWV/KCY P2: KaD 0521831318bib.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 2:3

416 Bibliography

Wimmer, A. 1997. “Explaining racism and xenophobia: A critical review of current research approaches.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 20:17–41.

Winston, C. 1985. Workers and the Right in Spain, 1900–1936. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Wistrich, R., and S. DellaPergola (eds.). 1995. Fascist Antisemitism and the Italian Jews. Jerusalem: Vidal Sassoon International Center.

Wohl, R. 1979. The Generation of 1914. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Yavetz, Z. 1991. “An eyewitness note: Reflections on the Rumanian Iron Guard.” Journal

of Contemporary History 26. Zach, K., and C. Zach. 1998. “Romanian fascism and communist take-over.” In S. U. Larsen

and B. Hagtvet (eds.), Modern Europe after Fascism 1943–1980s. New York: Columbia University Press.

Zamagni, V. 1979–80. “Distribuzione del reddito e classi sociali nell’Italia fra le due guerre.” Annali della Fondazione Giagiacomo Feltrinelli 20.

Ziegler, H. 1989. Nazi Germany’s New Aristocracy. The SS Leadership, 1925–39. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Zofka, Z. 1986. “Between Bauernbund and National Socialism: The political orientation of the peasants in the final phase of the Weimar Republic.” In Childers (ed.), The Formation of the Nazi Constituency.

Zuccotti, S. 1987. The Italians and the Holocaust. New York: Basic Books.

P1: IWV ind.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:22

Index

Abel, Theodore, 144 Action Française, 86 agrarian landlords, 52; role in fascist Italy,

125; role in Weimar Germany, 52 Alfonso XIII (King of Spain), 302 American Legion, 70 anarcho-syndicalism, 35, 310; effectiveness

of, 314; membership numbers for, 310–311; in Spain, 310, 314

Andorfer, Herbert, 223 Anschluss (union with Germany), 207, 208,

211, 219, 220, 244; capitalism and, 229; effect on Austro-fascism, 214, 222, 362; effect on unemployment levels, 222; Gestapo and, 219; unemployment and, 221; Vienna civil service, 220

anti-Semitism: in Austria, 84, 224–228; in Germany, 184; historical background for, 228; Hitler and, 247; in Hungary, 238, 250, 253, 254; materialist explanations of, 228; in Mein Kampf, 184–185; in Nazi Party campaigns, 180, 183, 185; political, 224; role in class conflict, 228; in Romania, 238; stereotypes and, 226–227; völkisch nationalism and, 84

Antonescu, Marshal, 293 Arditi del Populo, 103 Argentina, 24; authoritarian movements in,

24 Arkan’s Tigers, viii Army of Africa, 337, 340; Africanistas in,

337

Arrow Cross movement (Hungary), 237, 239, 248, 249, 255, 256, 269, 292; Communist Party support for, 255; decline of, 244; economic demographic of, 248, 249; electoral demographics of, 255; ethnic lineage within, 250; fascism and, 386; ideology of, 245–247; paramilitarism as part of, 247; population of, 237; voter’s support for, 256, 258; voting demographics for, 238

art forms. See propaganda Austria, 1, 25, 30, 34, 36, 207;

anti-Semitism in, 207, 219, 224, 225; Austro-Hungarian monarchy and, 208; authoritarianism in, 41, 220; Christian Social Party in, 45, 208, 215, 217, 362; economic status of, interwar, 221–222; effect of Great Depression on, 221, 230; effect of socialism in, 219; fascism in, 87, 208, 235, 362; Fatherland Front Party in, 209; German Nationalist Party in, 224; Heimwehr paramilitary, 208, 213; Hitler and, 207, 235, 362; Judeo-Bolshevism in, 228; Korneuburg Oath and, 210; Linz Program in, 34; militarism in, 36, 213; nationalism movements in, 36, 83, 211; organic authoritarianism in, 213; population demographics for, 208; Protestants in, 216; religious history in, 215; role of church in, 362; Social Christian Party in, 224; Social Darwinism in, 82; Socialist Party of, 212, 223, 224, 229, 231;

417

P1: IWV ind.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:22

418 Index

Austria (cont.) unemployment levels in, 222. See also Vienna

Austrian Legion, 28 Austrian Nazi Party, 211; Anschluss and,

212; effect of class conflict on, 221; effect of Hitler on, 212; effect on unemployment, 219; elite support of, 229–230; foundations of, 211, 222; role of paramilitarism in, 236

authoritarianism: in Austria, 10; conservatives and, 43; corporatist, 46–47; current versions of, 370; vs. (democratic) educational enrollment, 88; vs. democratic nation demographic, 50; economic theory and, 56; effect of class conflict on, 58; as effect of political crises, 77, 353; effect on interwar Europe, 54, 66; effect on nation-statism, 56; eras of, 57; European political demography and, 41–42; fascists and, 43, 47–48; Franco and, 44; in Hungary, 10; late development theory and, 49, 51, 55; modern versions of, 44, 353; in Romania, 10; semi-reactionary, 45–46; social development under, 54; Soviet Union and, 43

Azana, Matthew, 350

Bauer, Otto, 17, 232; on fascism, 17; on Italian fascism, 125

Bildung (cultured education), 166 “Black Reichswehr” conspiracy,

198 Blair, Tony, 14 Blanco, Carrero, 344 Bolshevik Revolution, 59, 63, 76,

130, 356; property rights during, 63 Bolshevism, 23, 117, 125, 132, 204; in

Germany, 61; Nazi Party and, 174, 187; in Weimar Republic, 144

Bourbon monarchy, 301–302, 347 “bourgeois nations,” 6, 192; effect on Nazi

Party on, 192; electoral losses by, 193; materialism within, 7

Brazil, 24; authoritarian movements in, 24

Brunner, Alois, 215

Bucharest Legionary Worker’s Corp, 281

Caballerist Party, 321 caciques (leaders), 71, 297, 304; electoral

reform opposition by, 304; role in European political systems, 356

Cambodian Angka, viii capitalism: “Bonapartist autonomy” and,

20; capital/labor conflict as part of, 59; class conflict as result of, 7; effect of authoritarianism on, 77; fascism and, 15, 119; Franco and, 346; imperialist, 20; industrial, 35; interwar support for, 53; labor rights and, 125–126; Marx on, 62; monopolist, 20; nationalism and, 4; “organized,” 54; property rights under, 62; role in Weimar Republic, 201; unionization and, 63

Carlos, Juan (King of Spain), 347 Carol (King of Romania), 57, 264, 275,

281, 288, 289, 291, 293; Hitler and, 289

Casa del Pueblo Party, 328 Casa Social Católica Party, 328 Casa Viejas, 316 Catholic Centre Party, 160, 164, 186, 187,

200 Catholic Opus Dei, 346 Catholicism, 42, 85, 126, 129;

Austro-fascism and, 209, 215; authoritarianism and, 232; fascism and, 126, 127, 136; in Germany, 187–188; labor unions and, 86; Nazism and, 148, 187; social, 86, 126, 209, 301, 341; in Spain, 301, 329, 345, 349; transnationalism and, 187

CEDA (Spanish Confederation of Autonomous Rightists): demographics of, 329, 335–340, 341; dissolution of, 309, 333, 335; Falange Party and, 335; fascism and, 332, 333; Gil Robles and, 330–331, 338; political ideology of, 330, 331; role of Catholic Church in, 329, 331; semi-authoritarian leanings of, 332; Socialist Party vs., 331

Century of Corporatism, The (Manoilescu), 277

Chiang Kai-Shek, 46

P1: IWV ind.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:22

Index 419

China, 39; authoritarianism in, 39

Christian Social Party: in Austria, 45, 208, 223; authoritarianism in, 232; effect on Great Depression on, 233; Heimwehr paramilitary and, 210

Christus Rex Party, 41, 269 church systems, 85; Catholicism, 85–86;

Eastern Orthodoxy, 85; fascism and, 86–87; Protestantism, 85

citizenship: political, 37; social, 37 “civil society,” 7, 33, 51; ethnic/political

cleansing within, 171; Italy and, 106; social marginality within, 170

class theory: bourgeois, 189; capitalism as part of, 20, 21, 55, 59; conflict as part of, 13, 58, 59–60, 63–64; fascism and, 5, 15, 53, 96, 124; “mass society,” 170; middle-, 17, 19–20, 21, 58; Nazism and, 20; political parties and, 53; radicalism as part of, 20; role of unions in, 53; role of World War I in, 96–97; social bases and, 21

Codreanu, Corneliu, 265, 268, 271, 272, 275, 276; anti-Semitism of, 266, 271; biographical background of, 265; “Creed of National Christian Socialism” and, 266; democratic theory of, 267; organic nationalism and, 267; Programme of the Legion and, 267; religious ideology of, 267; statism and, 267

collectivism, 11 Colombia, democracy in, 39 communication networks: effect on fascism

of, 130; macro-regional, 78; nation-states, 78; role of churches in, 85; transnational, 78, 81

Communist Party: in Austria, 230; Legion of the Archangel Saint Michael and, 277; Maximalist Party and, 124; Nazism and, 187

corporatist authoritarianism, 46, 277; hierarchy under, 46; parliamentary rules under, 46–47; role of armed forces under, 46

Cortina, Suarez, 335 Costa Rica, democracy in,

39

“Creed of National Christian Socialism,” support for Eastern Orthodox Church, 266

Czechoslovakia, 41, 244; ethnical divisions within, 41; German Sudeten Party in, 41

Dark Side of Democracy, The: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing (Mann), viii, 4, 171

democracy, 51, 53; effect of capitalist industrialization on, 52; effect of economic development on, 51–52; effect of per capita income on, 54; role in Weimar Germany, 205

democratic “contestation,” 71; competitive party systems as part of, 71; effect of political party domination in, 75

democratic “participation,” 71; suffrage movements as part of, 71

dual states, 73, 74; fascism and, 77; semi-authoritarianism and, 73

Eastern Orthodoxy, 85, 276; nationalism and, 86, 276; nation-statism and, 85

Eatwell, Roger, 11; on fascism, 11; “third way” and, 14

Eberl, Irmfried, 223 economic development, 48–49; effect on

authoritarianism, 56; effect on democratization, 51–52; factors for, 49, 137; industrial capitalism and, 49; during interwar period (Europe), 58

Eichmann, Adolf, 141, 223 Eliade, Mircea, 278, 279; “Romanianism”

and, 278 Enlightment era, 80, 81 Esquerra Party, 307, 308, 319 ethnic blindness, 74 ethnic/political cleansing, vii, 4, 16, 122,

370; conservatism as part of, 370; “enemies” and, 16; Nazi Party and, 179; Nazism and, 16; organic nationalism and, 16; in Spain, 344

EU (European Union), 371; requirements for democracy of, 371

eugenics, 82 Europe: domination by fascism, 31; effect

of authoritarianism in, 54, 357; effect of Bolshevism in, 357; effect of

P1: IWV ind.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:22

420 Index

Europe (cont.) conservatism in, 354, 355; Great Depression in, 23; interwar crises in, 23–24; interwar map of, 38; land reform in, 356; liberal democracy in, 31, 37, 38; macro-regional cultures in, 43; militarism in, 356; multiparty democracy in, 38; political geography of, 39; political modernism in, 355; political role of church in, 356–357, 361; populist nationalism in, 355; social democracy in, 37; unionization in, 60–61; voting demography of, 37, 42

Evangelical Church of Germany, 188; Nazi Party and, 188

Falange Party: CEDA and, 335; Franco and, 345, 346; role of religion within, 336; in Spain, 313, 334, 335–338

fasci di combattimento, 95 fascism: activism as part of, 28, 141;

agrarian policies under, 115; in Austria, 47; authoritarianism and, 47; barbarianism and, 8; Bauer, Otto, on, 125–126; capitalism and, 15; Catholic Church and, 126, 127, 361; causes of, in Germany, 152; citizen armies as part of, 2; class conflict and, 111, 120; class theories on, 5, 15, 17, 19, 53, 100; Constitutionalist Party as part of, 119; core constituencies for, 3, 15, 19, 23, 79, 89, 107, 113, 119; definition of, 5, 13, 63–64, 365; development ideology as part of, 130; economic demographics for, 107, 113; effect of class conflict on, 58; effect of corporatism on, 306; as effect of modernism, 1, 13, 80; effect of overeducation on, 112; electoralism under, 47, 358; etymology of, 9, 93; in Europe, 31, 358; female demographic, 108; foundations of, 99, 358; hierarchy within, 29; ideology, 2, 3, 4; internationalism vs., 132; Islamic, 373; Italian government reaction to, 124, 125; Italy and, 47, 105 (see also Italian fascism); late development theory and, 56; liberal democracy and, 8, 77, 136; macro-regional communication

networks within, 78; “minimum” for, 10; “moral murder” as part of, 8; nation-state communication networks within, 78; nation-statism and, 4, 137, 358; Nazism vs., 104; “new man” as part of, 12; organizational structure of, 358; paramilitarism and, 47, 102, 121, 123, 127, 275, 359; prewar theory, 68; radicalism as part of, 15; “rational economic actor” model of, 158; “revolutionary” theory for, 124; role of intellectuals within, 7; role of peasant leagues in, 116; role of students in, 108, 359; role of violence in, 3, 114, 116, 121, 122; role of working class in, 110; rural involvement in, 113, 116, 117, 118; scholarly definitions of, viii; “social cages” within, 3; socialism and, 108, 111, 130; sociology of, 3–4, 21; “transcendence” and, 16; transnational communication networks within, 78; unions as part of, 117; urban involvement in, 110, 113; vs. dictatorships, 16–17

Fatherland Front Party, 210; Heimwehr paramilitary, 210

“The Final Solution,” 62, 207, 212; role of Austria in, 225; role of Hungary in, 244; in Romania, 292

Fini, Gianfranco, 367 Finnish Lapau Movement, 41 Fitzhum, Josef, 226 Fortuyn, Pim, 367 France, 40, 59; authoritarianism in, 40;

Communist Party in, 59; conservatism in, 83; early paramilitarism in, 70; nation-statism in, 84; organic nationalism in, 83; Republican Radicals Party in, 35

Franco, Francisco, 44, 62, 345, 363; capitalism and, 346; Carlist Party and, 345; corporatist authoritarianism and, 346; ethnic/political cleansing by, 344; importance of army for, 345; importance of Catholic Church to, 345; importance of Falange Party for, 345, 346, 350; “Law of Responsibilities” and, 343; Nationalist forces of, 345; political opportunism of, 339, 351; semi-reactionary politics of, 346; titles of, 345

P1: IWV ind.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:22

Index 421

Frankfurt School, 19 Freedom Party of Haider (Austria), 367,

368, 369 Freikorps paramilitary, 153 French Revolution, 32, 54; industrial

capitalism during, 32, 54; Jacobinism, 32

Freud, Sigmund, 227 “front” generation, 149, 213; Austrian

fascism and, 213; in Hungary, 247; in Romania, 272

Front National Party, 367

Gauleiter (regional leaders), 151, 160, 163; social mobility within, 168

“Generation of 1914,” 149, 283; “front” generation as part of, 149; “home” generation as part of, 149; role of Führer for, 149

George, Lloyd, 36 German Christian Social Party, 34 German Nazi Party: academic professionals

as part of, 165, 166; age demographics for, 148–149, 150, 155; agrarian support for, 190; agricultural policies of, 180; anti-Semitism campaigns of, 180, 184; “authority principle” in, 197; blue-collar supporters of, 156–157, 172; Catholics in, 186, 187; civil servants in, 163, 191; class voting demographics within, 189–190; constitution of, 155; core constituencies for, 147, 203; early rise of, 361–362; economic policies of, 181, 191, 197; effect of Great Depression on, 185, 361; electoral strategy of, 177–179, 184–185, 186; Emergency Powers Provisions and, 185; ethnic/political cleansing and, 179; Evangelical German Church and, 188, 203; German expansion and, 178; German foreign policy and, 178; importance of rituals to, 173; military demographics for, 151; mobilization cells within, 173; nation-statism and, 155; organic nationalism within, 178, 180, 362; Party Constitution of 155, 285; patriarchy as part of, 148; productivist socialism within, 182; Protestants in, 186–187,

203; public works programs of, 181; religious demographics within, 155; role of armed forces in, 199; role of paramilitaries in, 167–168, 361, 362; role of propaganda in, 178; role of women in, 147–148; SA Army as part of, 167; social activism within, 170; social marginality within, 168, 170, 172; social mobility within, 168; “Socialism of the Deed,” 181; SS Army as part of, 167; Stahlhelm paramilitary and, 150; Volkspartei and, 172; voting demographics, 186; white-collar supporters of, 161. See also Nazism

German People’s Party, 34; nationalism as part of, 34

German Protestantism, Nazism and, 26 German Social Democrat Party, 34 German Socialist Party, 160 German Sudeten Party, 41 Germany, 1, 15, 22, 25, 30, 40, 55, 56, 59,

363; authoritarianism in, 41; Bolshevism in, 61, 356; bourgeois liberalism in, 59; Catholicism in, 139, 155; Christian Social Party in, 34; conservatism in, 36; effect of class conflict in, 204, 361; effect of educational system in, 84; effect of Great Depression on, 139, 204; effect of paramilitarism on, 152, 153–154, 364; effect of World War I on, 139, 361, 364; Freikorps paramilitary in, 152; genocide, effect on, 22; industrial capitalism in, 32, 195; Jews in (demographics), 141; labor movements in, 363; military organization in, 154–155; nation-statism in, 188; organic nationalism in, 83; Pan-German Party in, 34; parliamentarism in, 205; People’s Party in, 34; protectionist models in, 55; Protestantism in, 139, 155; racial theory within, 184; role of agrarian landlords in, 52; role of Evangelical Church in, 139, 188; role of religion in, 27; role of veteran’s organizations in, 152; Romania and, 264; Romanticism in, 365; Social Darwinism in, 82; Social Democrat Party in, 34; socialism in, 182; Sonderweg in, 42; unemployment in, 152; volkisch nationalism in, 84, 141

P1: IWV ind.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:22

422 Index

Gil Robles, José Maria, 306, 321, 338; CEDA and, 330, 332

Giscard d’Estaing, Valerie, 347 GNP: effect of per capita measurements on,

49; late development theory and, 49; nation-statism effect on, 32

Goebbels, Paul Josef, 151, 182, 199 Goldman, Lucien, 80 Göring, Hermann, 21, 152, 182; Hitler

and, 243 Great Britain: General Strike of 1926 in,

60; Labour Party in, 72; New Liberal Party in, 35, 72; Union of Fascists in, 70

The Great Depression, 20, 23, 24, 57, 90, 135, 353; authoritarianism during, 57; effect on Austria, 233; effect on German nationalism, 233; effect on Hungary, 254; effect on NPP, 264; effect on Romania, 264, 293; effect on SA Army (Nazi Party), 167; Nazism and, 182

Greece, 45; Metaxas coup in, 45, 61 Griffin, Roger, 11, 12; on fascism, 12; on

“national rebirth,” 13 gross national product. See GNP

Habsburg Dynasty, 33, 225; Hungary and, 241, 249, 250

Heimwehr paramilitary, 208, 209, 210, 211, 216, 217, 220, 232; armed forces representation in, 217; “Association of Front Fighters” and, 213; Christian Social Party and, 210, 233; core constituency of, 213; demonstrations by, 231; elite support for, 229; Fatherland Front and, 210; formation of, 209–210; gender demographics for, 212–213; Marxism and, 209; mean age within, 212; Nazi infiltration into, 233; New York Times and, 216–217; political aggression of, 232; population demographics, 210; populism of, 222; radicalism of, 209; role of women in, 213–214; urban representation within, 217; violence and, 218; white-collar representation in, 223

Himmler, Heinrich, 344 hindu rastra (Hindu nation), 372

Hitler, Adolf, 9, 15, 21, 24, 41, 61, 66, 90, 142, 143, 204; Austria and, 207, 224; Bolshevism and, 61; capitalism and, 183; early anti-Semitism of, 184, 206; early days of, 233, 234; economic policies of, 180; electoral strategy of, 185, 199–200; fascism and, 48; Führer principle and, 143, 267; Göring and, 182, 243; Hungary and, 250, 257; King Carol and, 289; military history of, 152; Mussolini and, 134; Nazi socialism and, 143, 183; Nuremberg racial laws and, 229; religious background of, 155; role of “enemies” to, 142; social marginality of, 170; social opportunism of, 146; Strasser and, 183; use of propaganda by, 79

Hitler Youth, 149, 174 Holocaust, 6, 9; role of Hungary in, 253 “home” generation, 149, 153, 213;

Austrian fascism and, 213; in Hungary, 247; in Romania, 272

“humanistic bourgeoisie,” 79, 112, 131, 132; nation-statist values and, 112

Hungary, 1, 25, 30, 59; anti-Semitism in, 245, 251, 252–253, 258; causes for economic disruption in, 242, 259; civil war in, 241, 245, 257, 362; communist-socialist government in, 240; dual market system in, 251; early Nazism in, 243; early racial tolerance in, 238, 250; effect of Great Depression on, 242, 245, 252; effect of national socialism in, 246; effect of World War I on, 238; ethnic origins in, 249–250; “Heroes Association” in, 240; Jewish population in, 251–252; late development economic policy and, 55; “Lumpenguardists” in, 253; Maygar Creed in, 242; militarism in, 36; military support in, 246; National Radical Party in, 249; organic nationalism in, 245, 257; protofascist movements in, 240, 255, 257, 362–363; Red Army in, 245; role in Holocaust, 244, 253; role of geopolitics in, 245; spiritual principle of, 246; statist ideals of development in, 245; “Szeged Idea” in, 240; “white terror” in, 59, 243

P1: IWV ind.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:22

Index 423

Hussein, Saddam, 373 Hutu Interahamwe, viii

ideological power, 78–87, 137; conservatism and, 79; institutionalized, 78; liberalism and, 79; meaning systems as part of, 78; role of churches in, 85, 126–127; socialism and, 79

India, 24; fascism in, 373; Gowalkar in, 372; Hindu nationalism in, 372–373; Hindu Nationalist BJP Party in, 373; hindu rastra in, 372; Hindutva as part of, 372; Hitler and, 24; Indian Legion in, 372; nation-statism in, 373

integral nationalism. See organic nationalism

Integralismo Lusitano, 86 Interest Alliance Party, 191, 192; Nazi Party

effect on, 191 Ionesco, Eugen, 279 Ireland, 42; role of Catholicism in, 42 Iron Guard, 265, 275, 371; LANC and,

265. See also Legion of the Archangel Saint Michael

“Iron Law of Oligarchy,” 160 Islamic fascism, 373, 374; Al Qaeda as part

of, 374; jihadis as part of, 373; nationalism and, 373; Sudanese, 374

Italian Confederacy of Industry, 120 Italian fascism, 7, 21, 66, 96, 100, 130, 133,

358; early rise of, 360–361; effect of capitalist crises on, 95; factions within, 133; Fascist Grand Council and, 134; focus of nationalism in, 130, 131; Marxism and, 360; Ministry of Corporations and, 134; radicals within, 134; regional demographics, 105–107; role of Catholic Church in, 94, 115; role of liberal parliamentarism in, 93, 95; role of proletariat in, 94; role of unions within, 134; Socialist Party in, 93; syndicalists in, 94, 98; Syndicates and, 134

Italy, 1, 25, 30, 54, 60, 87, 93; economic recession in, 57; effect of citizen warfare on, 95; effect of World War I on, 139; infant mortality rates in, 384; labor

strikes in, 60, 123; labor movements in, 94; leftist insurgence in, 121; male suffrage in, 93; militarism in, 36; municipal socialism in, 124; nationalism in, 115; per capita income (interwar), 54

Jacobinism, 32, 35; French Revolution and, 32

Japan, 24; authoritarianism in, 39; corporatism in, 46; nation-statism in, 24

Jurados Mixtos, 318, 326, 347

Kaiserreich, 150, 187, 188, 192, 200, 204; semi-authoritarianism and, 205

Kaltenbrunner, Ernst, 226 Kautsky, Karl, 225, 227 Keyser, John, 239, 253 Kreisleiter (subregional leaders), 163 Kun, Bela, 59, 254, 256; defeat of, 240; in

Hungary, 59, 240, 251 LANC (League of National Christian

Defense), 265, 283; anti-Semitism of, 287; Iron Guard and, 265

late development theory: authoritarianism and, 49, 51, 55; class conflict as result of, 64; fascism and, 56; liberal democracy and, 54–55; literacy rates and, 51; modernism and, 51; nation-statism as part of, 49; role of GNP in, 49; role of infant mortality in, 51; semi-authoritarianism and, 64

League of National Christian Defense. See LANC (League of National Christian Defense)

Ledesma Ramos, Ramiro, 11 Legion of the Archangel Saint Michael, 8,

237, 265, 269, 272, 275, 280, 288, 290, 292, 295; anti-Semitism within, 269, 277; average age in, 272; “citadels” as part of, 272; Communist Party and, 290; electoral strength of, 268; formation of, 273; iconography and, 282; nation-statism and, 273; nests and, 267, 280, 284; population of, 237; proletarian nationalism and, 288, 291; religious ideology of, 268, 280; role of propaganda for, 268; role of women in, 272–273;

P1: IWV ind.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:22

424 Index

Legion of the Archangel (cont.) Szekler support for, 286; “The Final Solution” and, 292; violence and, 268; voter support for, 282; white-collar support for, 276, 280, 281

liberal democracy: British miners and, 72; contestation as part of, 71; effect of monarchy on, 73; effect on Europe, 24, 37, 82, 90, 354; fascism and, 8, 119, 128, 136; (Italian) government support for, 129, 360; nation-statism and, 35; Nazism and, 73, 173; participation as part of, 71

liberalism. See liberal democracy “Lib-Labs,” 72 Linz, Austria, 233; Hitler in, 233–234; role

of Catholic Church in, 234; Upper Austrian Christian Social Party, 234

Linz, Juan, 11; on fascism, 11 Linz Program, 34, 230, 232 List, Friedrich, 32, 180 Lliga Party, 307 Luxembourg, Rosa, 82

Man, Henri de, 7 Manoilescu, Mihai, 277; background of,

277; political theories of, 277 March on Rome, 48, 106, 120, 127, 130,

133 Marx, Karl, 62 Marxism, 17, 34, 117; socialism and, 34 Maximalist Party, 121, 122, 124, 128;

Communist Party and, 124 Mein Kampf (Hitler), 141, 177;

anti-Semitism in, 184–185, 206 Merkl, Peter, 144 Meyszner, August, 216 military power, 64–70, 137; effect of

authoritarianism on, 77; fascism and, 66–67; “Judeo-Bolsheviks” and, 66; “mass armies” as part of, 75, 76; social power as result of, 64, 356; troop mobilization and, 65; World War I and, 65

mittlestand (middle estate), 18, 161, 162, 163; economic demographics of, 161; white-collar workers and, 163

modernism: fascism and, 1, 13, 80; late development theory and, 51

Moore, Barrington, 51, 52, 65 Mosley, Oswald, 7; on socialism vs.

nationalism, 7 Mosse, George, 2; on fascism vs. Nazism, 9 Mubarak, Hosnei, 373 Mussolini, Benito: African aggression by,

134–135; on Bolshevism, 125, 132; Catholic Church and, 126; on democracy, 97; development of totalitarian state by, 98, 102; effect on Italian class conflict, 120; ethnic/political cleansing by, 344; fasci di combattimento and, 95; Heimwehr paramilitary and, 229; Hitler and, 134; Italian fascism and, 7, 9, 14, 15, 21, 61, 93, 95, 97, 133, 243; March on Rome by, 48, 129; organic nationalism and, 130, 131; paramilitarism and, 97, 99, 105; parliamentarism and, 98, 128; political opportunism of, 100, 111, 137; on rural fascism, 118; secret police and, 135; Social Catholicism and, 126; on socialism, 117; special courts and, 135; use of populist ideology by, 131; use of propaganda by, 79; warmongering by, 99

National Christian Party, 288 National Corporatist League, 277 National Peasant Party. See NPP (National

Peasant Party) National Socialism, 6, 246; in Hungary,

258; labor unions within, 6; syndicalism and, 6

nationalism, 2, 13–14, 34, 90; capitalism and, 4; civic, 34; cultural diversity and, 13; Eastern Orthodoxy and, 86; economic, 58; effect of authoritarianism on, 56; ethnic, 34; growth of, European, 33; imperialism effect on, 33; in Italy, 115; Nazi Party and, 202; organic, i, vii, 13; “rebirth” as part of, 13; role of “enemies” in, 13; school for, 4; in Spain, 302–303

nation-statism, i, 2, 3, 4, 27–28, 36, 58, 64, 90, 91, 203; Austro-fascism and, 234;

P1: IWV ind.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:22

Index 425

authoritarian, 31; core fascist constituencies as part of, 3; despotic strength of, 31; extreme, 128; fascism and, 4, 113, 118; in Germany, 6; GNP averages as effect of, 32; importance of youth in, 87–88; infrastructural strength of, 31; during interwar period, 54; Japan and, 24; Judeo-Bolshevism and, 235; late development theory and, 49; liberalism as part of, 35; minorities and, 34; modern versions of, 37; Nazism and, 155; role of citizenship in, 32; role of property in, 35; role of religion in, 27; in Romania, 292–293; semi-authoritarianism and, 44; “sovereign,” 31; support demographics for, 27; vs. transnationalism, 187

Navarro, Arias, 344 Nazi Party Constitution of 1920, positive

Christianity as part of, 155 Nazione, 128 Nazism, viii, 9, 14, 22, 40, 139; Anschluss

and, 218; anti-Semitism and, 142, 183; capitalism and, 183; class theory and, 171, 201; corporate state and, 143; development of, 84, 201; economic policies under, 158; effect on liberal democracy, 73; fascism and, 47, 218; female labor force during, 147; Führer principle as part of, 143; German Protestantism and, 26; ideological focus of, 202, 227; importance of propaganda in, 165–166; importance of rituals in, 173; internationalism and, 142; land reform as part of, 142; liberal democracy and, 173; members, social profiles of, 22, 156–160; nationalism within, 178; nation-statism and, 171; paramilitarism and, 28; party program of 141, 285; polycracy within, 14; Protestantism and, 165; role of middle class in, 161–167; role of religion in, 187; role of violence within, 142, 174, 175, 198; role of völkisch in, 9; rural involvement in, 171; social activism as part of, 170; social attraction to, 146; social marginality and, 170; socialism as part of, 142, 143, 146, 149; socialization within, 170–171;

unemployment and, 159, 181–182; universities and, 150; vs. Marxism, 140, 142; Wandervogel movement, 150. See also German Nazi Party

The Nazi Party: A Social Profile of Members and Leaders, 1919–1945 (Kater), 156

neo-fascism, 136, 365, 366, 374–375; European Union and, 371; immigration and, 370; interculturalism in, 368; military imperialism and, 375; NATO and, 371; skinheads and, 368; in Western Europe, 366

nest leaders, of Legion of Archangel Saint Michael (Romania), 267

New York Times, 216; Heimwehr demographics in, 216

New Zealand, 38 Nohel, Vinzenz, 223 Northern League Party, 369 Norway, 73 NPP (National Peasant Party), 263, 272,

280, 288; effect of Great Depression on, 264; in Romania, 241, 263

numerus clausus (Jewish quotas): in Hungary, 241, 254; in Viennese universities, 226

Nuremberg racial laws, Hitler and, 229

Official Statement on Farmers and Agriculture, 180

organic nationalism, i, vii, 2, 4, 6, 34, 43; authoritarianism and, 43; characteristics of, 34; democracy as part of, 2, 34; in Hungary, 245; liberal vs., 34; role of religion in, 27; violence as part of, i

Ottoman Dynasty, 33

Pan-German Party, 34 paramilitarism: activism as part of, 28;

age-based demographics for, 26; “bottom-up,” 47, 359; early development of, 69; effect of educational levels on, 26; as effect of World War I, 68; effect on Austro-fascism, 208; electoral democracy and, 16–17; fascism and, 16, 29, 104, 119, 136; in Germany, 153;

P1: IWV ind.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:22

426 Index

paramilitarism (cont.) militarism vs., 26; vs. military power, 17; Mussolini, Benito, and, 97, 98–99; Nazism and, 28, 206; role of citizenry in, 68; role of comradeship in, 69, 104; social identity as part of, 104; SS Army (Nazi Party) and, 175; statism as part of, 359; “top-down,” 47; veteran leagues as result of, 68; violence as part of, 16, 198; World War I and, 36

Paris Commune of 319 Partito Nationale Fascista. See PNF (Partito

Nationale Fascista) Payne, Stanley, 10; on fascism foundations,

10–11 peasant leagues: Catholic Church and, 116;

growth of, 116; labor exchanges of, 116; Nazi Party effect on, 191; role in fascism, 116

“petty bourgeoisie,” 18, 22; fascism and, 18, 108; role in Nazism of, 161

Pius XI, Pope, 126 PNF (Partito Nationale Fascista), 95, 101,

111, 113, 119; age demographics of, 102; financing of, 119–120; Reggio Emilio group in, 102; role of Social Catholicism in, 101; role of violence for, 114; role of women in, 101–102; social demographics of, 101; students’ role in, 108; voting demographics and, 115

political development theory, 73, 137; authoritarianism and, 77; Axis states and, 74

political geography (Europe), 39; Anglo-Saxon, 39; language as part of, 39; Low Country zone, 39; Nordic zone, 39; organic authoritarianism and, 40; religion as part of, 39; socio-cultural zones as part of, 40

political power, 70–78; authoritarianism, 70; effect of interwar period on, 70; effect on economic crises, 70; “elite theories” of, 70; institutional statist theory and, 70

Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism, The (Mussolini), 97

“Popular Front” Party: electoral victories of, 299, 328, 332, 335, 338; insurgent acts by, 319; role in Spanish government, 308, 311, 314, 319, 321, 325, 347, 349

Portugal, militarism in, 36 Primo de Rivera, José, 7, 57, 298, 302,

303, 305, 334; biographical background of, 303; effect of Bolshevik Triennium on, 303; in Spain, 57, 363; support demographics for, 341

“proletarian nations,” 6, 55; fascism and, 116; resistance within, 6

propaganda, 5, 79 property rights: under authoritarianism, 63;

under capitalism, 62, 355; under fascism, 120–121

Protestantism, 85; in Germany, 188; Nazism and, 148, 165, 187, 189

Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 78

Radek, Karl, 18; on fascism, 18–19 radical statism, vii Red Guards, viii redshirts, 104 Reggio Emilio, 109; PNF and, 102; role of

workers in, 109 Reichsleiter (national leaders), 151, 160 Renovación Española Party: Sotelo, Calvo,

and, 339; in Spain, 326, 333 Republican Assault Guard, 337, 339;

center-left parties and, 337 Republican Centre Party, 321–325; Acción

Republicana faction within, 322; “bourgeois” centrists within, 322; “Bourgeois Republic” as part of, 322; Left Republicans within, 322; main factions within, 322; political compromises of, 321; Radical Party within, 324, 325, 327; role of church in, 323, 349; “Republic of the Intellectuals” as part of, 322; voting demographics of, 322; white-collar support for, 326

Republikaner Party, 367, 368 Rerum Novarum, 86, 126 Rheinisch-Westfäslische Zeitung, 197 Rhinoceros (Ionesco), 279

P1: IWV ind.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:22

Index 427

Rhodesia, 38; CEDA and, 330, 332 Romania, 1, 25, 30, 45, 56; anti-Semitism

in, 238, 270, 277, 285, 286, 294; Austro-Germans in, 285; authoritarianism in, 57; capital ownership demographics in, Communist Party in, 270; effect of peace treaties on, 261; fascism in, 87, 271–272, 276, 283, 288, 362–363, 370; fascist counties in, 283; foreign policies of, 271; formation of, 261; “Generation of 1922,” 279, 286; Germany and, 264; GNP per capita in, 263; “government by rotation” in, 263; Greater Romanian Party in, 370; Hitler and, 265; industrial development in, 263; interwar regimes in, 45; Jews in, 269–270; Judeo-Bolshevism in, 270; King Carol in, 57; (see also Carol (King of Romania)); land reform in, 262; late development economic policy and, 55; Legionary Worker Corps in, 290; literacy rates increases in, 265; map of, 262; Maygars in, 286; nation-statism in, 292; NPP in, 241, 263; organic nationalism in, 262, 272, 286; pogroms in, 270, 285; role of agrarian landlords in, 52; role of Eastern Orthodox Church in, 262, 271; role of education in, 265; role of military in, 275; socialism in, 294; suffrage movements in, 263; Szeklers in, 286

Romanov Dynasty, 33 Rosenberg, Alfred, 278 Russia: Bolshevism in, 37; civil war in, 37,

59; militarism in, 36; Zemstvo intelligentsia in, 35

SA Army (Nazi Party), 167; economic demographics for, 167; effect of Great Depression on, 167–168

Schmitt, Carl, 201, 278; on fall of Weimar Republic, 200; religious background of, 76–77; role in Weimar Republic, 200; on welfare benefits, 76

Schutzbund paramilitary, 219, 231, 232; formation of, 229; population of, 231

Schwammberger, Josef, 223 Segura, Cardinal, 323

semi-authoritarianism, 44–45, 77, 193; CEDA and, 332; development of Nazism and, 76; “dual states” and, 44; electoral process under, 44; fiscal/social policies under, 45; Jewish pogroms and, 44; late economic development and, 64; nation-statism and, 44; role of monarchies in, 44

semi-reactionary authoritarianism; fascist ideology under, 45; paramilitarism and, 45; role of minorities within, 45

Sima, Horia, 280, 281, 290, 291 Sindicatos Libres (free unions), 303, 304,

306; fascism and, 303–304 Single Party, The (Manoilescu), 278 Social Darwinism, 6, 82; in Germany, 83 social power: control within, 5; sources of,

5, 137 social welfare, 76 socialism: fascist violence and, 114–115; in

Germany, 182; ideology of, 35; labor strikes and, 116; Maximalist party and, 117; membership increases for, 124; military organization within, 122; nineteenth-century development of, 81; organized leagues within, 117; proletariat as part of, 119; role of paramilitarism in, 121; role of revolution for, 121; in Spain, 315; tenets of, 230; transnationalism and, 81; voting demographics and, 115, 124; vs. fascism, 117

Socialist Nationalism, 6 “Socialists of the Professor’s Chair,” 35 Sonderweg, 42, 139 Sotelo, Calvo, 305, 316 Sources of Social Power, The (Mann), vii, 48,

78 South Africa, 38 Soviet Union. See Russia Spain, 1, 37, 41, 42, 54, 297; Acción

Española Party in, 326; Acción Popular Party in, 329; anarcho-syndicalism in, 300, 314–315, 327, 348; Army of Africa and, 337; authoritarianism in, 41, 57, 306, 324; capitalism in, 62, 325; CEDA in, 329, 348; center-left party in, 315, 317, 322, 323, 324, 327, 348;

P1: IWV ind.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:22

428 Index

Spain (cont.) center-right party in, 318, 322, 323, 324–325, 326, 337, 339, 349; Civil Guards in, 347; civil war in, 297, 334, 348; corporatism in, 306; economic history of, 298; effect of Catalan independence on, 319; effect of Great Depression on, 298; effect of late economic development on, 305; effect of revolution ideology in, 320; effects of political violence in, 313, 320, 335, 349; electoral demography of, 309, 335; electoral processes of, 309; ethnic/political cleansing in, 342; Falange Party in, 313, 334, 335–336, 338; Franco, Francisco, in, 339; growth of fascism in, 303, 317, 334, 350–351, 363; Guardia Civile in, 326; importance of Hispanidad to, 302; industrial growth in, 300; interwar regimes in, 45; Jesuits in, 323; Jurados Mixtos in, 316, 326; labor unions in, 311–312; land reform in, 327, 328; Marxism in, 315, 320, 348; militarism in, 36, 337, 342; and Morocco, 337; Nationalist Party in, 342; parliamentary structure of, 301; per capita income (interwar), 54; political conservatism in, 325, 329; regional economic geography of, 299–300; regionalism in, 300, 302; regions/provinces of, 299, 335; Renovación Espanola Party in, 326, 333, 339; republic regimes in, 298; Republican Center Party in, 321–322; rise of organic nationalism within, 16, 302, 303, 332, 333, 339, 387; role of Agrarian Party in, 327, 333; role of armed forces in, 301; role of Bourbon monarchy in, 301, 302; role of Catholic Church in, 299, 301, 324, 328–329, 332, 346; role of democratic process in, 325; role of integralismo in, 307, 308, 318; role of latifundistas in, 326, 327; semi-authoritarianism in, 297; socialism in, 315, 317, 320–321; Socialist Party in, 328; voting demographics in, 308–309; during World War I, 302, 345

Spanish Army, 301; military statism and, 301

Spanish Civil War: political reprisals during, 343–344; total killed during, 342–343

Spanish Confederation of Autonomous Rightists. See CEDA (Spanish Confederation of Autonomous Rightists)

Spann, Othmar, 220 squadristi, 102, 103, 104, 112, 115, 117,

120, 122; government support for, 115; idealism of, 112; leadership of, 111; social demographics of, 103

SS Army (Nazi Party), 167; economic demographics of, 167; paramilitary discipline of, 175; social mobility within, 169; use of violence by, 175

Stahlhelm paramilitary, 151, 155, 198; organization within, 151; social activism within, 171

Stalin, Leo, 61 Stangl, Franz, 220 statism, 14; authoritarianism as part of, 14;

leadership principle within, 14; totalitarianism vs., 14

Sternhell, Zeev, 2 Strasser, Gregor, 21, 181, 183, 196 Strasser, Otto, 183 Sturdza, Michael (Prince of Romania),

280 Sturzo, Dom, 126 “successor states,” 67 suffrage movements: democratic

“participation” and, 71; development of, 72; in Italy, 95; in Romania, 263; Schmitt, Carl, on, 75

Szálasi, Ferenc, 244, 245, 246; ideology of, 247; racial theories of, 246–247

“Szeged Idea,” 240, 241

Taliban, 374 Tenant’s Party, Nazi Party effect on, 191 “The Final Solution,” vii theo-democracy, 372 Theory of Protection and International Trade,

The (Manoilescu), 277 “total” war, 68 totalitarianism, statism vs., 11–14

P1: IWV ind.xml CY366/Mann 0521831318 March 4, 2004 11:22

Index 429

transcendence, 14–15, 16, 34; economic demographics and, 26–27

transnational power relations, 35 Transylvania, fascism in, 286 “trench power,” 102 Trianon, Treaty of (1920), 74, 240 Turkish Special Forces of viii, 283 turno pacifico (peaceful change), 297, 324

Unamuno, Cortes, 323 Unión Patriotica, 305 unions, 60; internal commissions and, 123;

regional demographics, 117; role in Italy, 94; “scabs” and, 116, 117

Versailles, Treaty of, 74 Vienna, Austria, 215, 219, 225; Jewish

population in, 225; Nazi youth in, 226; numerus clausus in, 226

Vlkaams Blok Party, 367 Volk, 6, 9; “Generation of 1914” and, 149,

150, 283 völkisch nationalism, 150, 164; agrarian

representation within, 180; anti-Semitism and, 84

Volksgemeinschaft (organic community), 143, 181; in Hungary, 247; ideology of, 190, 202

Volksunie Party, 367

Waldheim, Kurt, 207 Wandervogel movement, Nazism and, 150 Weber, Eugene, 77, 239 Weber, Max, 8, 69, 201, 357

Weimar Republic, 40, 75, 139; anti-Semitism and, 144; authoritarianism and, 194; Bolshevism and, 144; capitalism during, 194; capitalists as part of, 201; Constitution of, 183; downfall of, 200, 201; effect of Great Depression on, 194, 195–196; elite classes in, 194; labor laws during, 195; Nazi Party during, 199; population of, 140; role of news organizations in, 197; taxation during, 195. See also Germany

Weltanschauung (view of the world), 10, 11–14, 79, 140, 144, 181, 370

Why I Believe in the Victory of the Legionary Movement (Eliade), 278

Wilson, Woodrow, 37 women: Nazi ideology and, 147; role in

Legion of the Archangel Saint Michael, 272; role in Nazism, 147–148; role in PNF, 101–102

World War I: Austro-fascism and, 208; class theory and, 97; effect on citizen warfare, 65; effect on Germany, 139; effect on Hungary, 238; effect on youth culture, 149; fascism as result of, 360; militarism as effect of, 36, 89; sovereign parliamentary development after, 72, 73; “successor states” and, 67

World War II, vii, 135; effect on Italy, 136; fascism during, vii

Yugoslavia, 38

Zog (King of Albania), 45

  • nlReader.dll-01-COVER.pdf
  • nlReader.dll-02.pdf
  • nlReader.dll-03.pdf
  • nlReader.dll-04.pdf
  • nlReader.dll-05.pdf
  • nlReader.dll-06.pdf
  • nlReader.dll-07.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_1.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_2.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_3.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_4.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_5.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_6.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_7.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_8.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_9.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_10.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_11.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_12.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_13.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_14.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_15.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_16.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_17.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_18.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_19.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_20.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_21.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_22.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_23.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_24.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_25.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_26.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_27.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_28.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_29.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_30.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_31.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_32.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_33.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_34.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_35.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_36.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_37.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_38.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_39.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_40.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_41.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_42.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_43.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_44.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_45.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_46.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_47.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_48.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_49.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_50.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_51.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_52.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_53.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_54.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_55.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_56.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_57.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_58.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_59.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_60.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_61.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_62.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_63.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_64.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_65.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_66.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_67.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_68.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_69.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_70.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_71.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_72.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_73.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_74.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_75.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_76.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_77.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_78.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_79.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_80.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_81.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_82.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_83.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_84.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_85.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_86.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_87.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_88.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_89.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_90.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_91.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_92.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_93.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_94.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_95.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_96.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_97.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_98.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_99.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_100.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_101.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_102.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_103.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_104.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_105.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_106.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_107.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_108.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_109.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_110.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_111.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_112.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_113.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_114.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_115.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_116.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_117.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_118.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_119.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_120.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_121.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_122.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_123.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_124.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_125.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_126.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_127.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_128.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_129.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_130.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_131.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_132.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_133.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_134.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_135.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_136.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_137.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_138.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_139.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_140.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_141.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_142.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_143.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_144.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_145.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_146.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_147.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_148.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_149.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_150.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_151.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_152.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_153.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_154.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_155.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_156.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_157.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_158.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_159.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_160.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_161.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_162.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_163.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_164.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_165.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_166.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_167.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_168.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_169.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_170.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_171.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_172.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_173.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_174.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_175.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_176.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_177.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_178.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_179.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_180.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_181.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_182.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_183.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_184.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_185.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_186.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_187.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_188.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_189.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_190.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_191.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_192.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_193.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_194.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_195.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_196.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_197.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_198.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_199.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_200.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_201.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_202.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_203.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_204.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_205.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_206.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_207.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_208.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_209.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_210.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_211.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_212.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_213.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_214.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_215.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_216.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_217.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_218.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_219.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_220.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_221.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_222.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_223.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_224.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_225.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_226.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_227.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_228.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_229.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_230.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_231.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_232.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_233.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_234.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_235.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_236.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_237.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_238.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_239.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_240.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_241.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_242.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_243.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_244.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_245.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_246.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_247.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_248.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_249.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_250.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_251.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_252.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_253.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_254.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_255.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_256.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_257.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_258.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_259.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_260.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_261.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_262.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_263.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_264.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_265.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_266.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_267.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_268.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_269.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_270.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_271.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_272.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_273.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_274.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_275.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_276.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_277.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_278.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_279.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_280.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_281.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_282.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_283.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_284.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_285.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_286.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_287.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_288.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_289.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_290.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_291.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_292.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_293.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_294.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_295.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_296.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_297.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_298.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_299.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_300.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_301.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_302.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_303.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_304.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_305.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_306.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_307.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_308.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_309.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_310.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_311.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_312.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_313.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_314.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_315.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_316.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_317.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_318.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_319.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_320.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_321.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_322.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_323.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_324.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_325.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_326.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_327.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_328.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_329.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_330.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_331.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_332.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_333.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_334.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_335.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_336.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_337.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_338.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_339.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_340.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_341.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_342.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_343.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_344.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_345.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_346.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_347.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_348.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_349.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_350.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_351.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_352.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_353.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_354.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_355.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_356.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_357.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_358.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_359.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_360.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_361.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_362.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_363.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_364.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_365.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_366.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_367.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_368.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_369.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_370.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_371.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_372.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_373.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_374.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_375.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_376.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_377.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_378.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_379.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_380.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_381.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_382.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_383.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_384.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_385.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_386.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_387.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_388.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_389.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_390.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_391.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_392.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_393.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_394.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_395.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_396.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_397.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_398.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_399.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_400.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_401.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_402.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_403.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_404.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_405.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_406.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_407.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_408.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_409.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_410.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_411.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_412.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_413.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_414.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_415.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_416.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_417.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_418.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_419.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_420.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_421.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_422.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_423.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_424.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_425.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_426.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_427.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_428.pdf
  • nlreader.dll@bookid=164301&filename=page_429.pdf

Yale University Press

Chapter Title: Democracy Goes into Reverse

Book Title: Democracy in Retreat Book Subtitle: The Revolt of the Middle Class and the Worldwide Decline of Representative Government Book Author(s): Joshua Kurlantzick Published by: Yale University Press. (2013) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bh31.4

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Democracy in Retreat

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

D uring april, the hottest month of the year in Thailand, all activity

in Bangkok slows to a molasses pace. With temperatures rising to

well over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, many residents leave town, head-

ing north or to the islands east and south of the city, and the slow- moving

fl ow of traffi c releases a cloud of smog into the steaming air. In mid- April,

the entire country shuts down for a week for the Thai New Year, leaving the

few people still in the capital marveling at their sudden ability to drive across

the city in minutes rather than hours.

But in the spring of 2010, Bangkok was anything but quiet. Tens of thou-

sands of red shirted protesters descended upon the city to protest against the

government, which they viewed as illegitimate and unsympathetic to the

working class, and to call for a new election. They mostly hailed from poorer

villages in the rural northeast, or from working class suburbs of Bangkok.

At fi rst, the protests seemed like a village street party. Demonstrators snacked

on sticky rice and grilled chicken, and danced in circles to bands playing

mor lam, a northeastern Thai music that, with its wailing guitars and plain-

tive, yodeling vocals, resembles an Asian version of Hank Williams. Amid a

rollicking, almost joyous atmosphere, over 100,000 red shirts soon gathered

around a makeshift stage in central Bangkok to demand the resignation of

the government.

Within weeks, however, the demonstrations turned violent, leading to

the worst bloodshed in Bangkok in two de cades. On April 10, some dem-

onstrators fi red on police and launched grenades at the security forces. The

troops cracked down hard, sometimes shooting randomly into the crowds.1

By the end of the day, twenty- four people had been killed.

Democracy Goes into Reverse

1

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2 Democracy Goes into Reverse

That was just a warm- up for late May. By that time, the red shirts had

been camped out for weeks in the central business district, shutting down

commerce and paralyzing traffi c. The government and the armed forces,

which had rejected the protesters’ demands for an immediate election, de-

cided to take a tougher line. Advancing into the red shirts’ encampment,

heavily armed soldiers created virtual free- fi re zones, shooting at anyone

who moved and reportedly posting snipers in buildings above the streets to

take out red shirts. A prominent general who had joined the red movement

was killed by a bullet to the forehead as he stood talking with a reporter

from the New York Times.2 The red shirts battled back, setting fi re to the

stock exchange, the largest mall in the city, and other symbols of elite privi-

lege. On the eve ning of May 19, fl ames engulfed the Bangkok skyline, dwarf-

ing the temples of the old city and the glass- and- steel high rises of the

fi nancial district.3 By the end of May, most of the red shirts had gone home,

but the battle had ended at a terrible cost. The clashes had resulted in the

killing of over one hundred people, most of them civilians, and the govern-

ment had declared a state of emergency in most provinces, giving it the

equivalent of martial law powers to detain people without having to charge

them with committing a crime.

Such violence has become increasingly common in a country that was

once among the most stable in Southeast Asia and an example to other

developing nations of demo cratic consolidation. Four years before the red

shirt protests, a different group of protesters had launched Thailand into

turmoil, gathering on the main green in the old city of Bangkok, near the

Grand Palace, with its glittering spires inlaid with tiny gems. Then it was

thousands of middle- class urbanites from Bangkok— lawyers, doctors, shop-

keep ers, and others— demanding the removal of Prime Minister Thaksin

Shinawatra, a charismatic populist, mostly backed by the rural poor, who

had been elected by large majorities but was clearly disdainful of demo cratic

institutions.

Dressed in the yellow of Thailand’s revered monarch, King Bhumibol

Adulyadej, the middle- class protesters were led by a group with the Or-

wellian name People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD). Like the Demo cratic

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Democracy Goes into Reverse 3

People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) or the old German Demo cratic

Republic, the PAD was neither demo cratic nor representative of many people.

Its platform for change called for reducing the number of elected seats in

Parliament, essentially to slash the power of the rural poor, who constitute

the majority of Thais.4 “The middle class— they disdain the rural masses and

see them as willing pawns to the corrupt vote buyers,” said one former U.S.

ambassador to Thailand.5

Thaksin had used his power to eviscerate the civil ser vice, silence the

media, and allegedly disappear po liti cal opponents. He declared a “war on

drugs” in which more than two thousand people were killed by the security

forces, frequently with gunshots to the back of the head, and often despite

the fact that they had no links to narcotics.6 He also cracked down on dissent.

In one horrifi c incident in October 2004, Thai security forces rounded up

hundreds of young men in southern Thailand after demonstrations against

the government at a local mosque. The security forces stacked them inside

stifl ing, insuffi ciently ventilated trucks; eighty- fi ve people died of suffoca-

tion.7 On a daily basis Thaksin spread fear among potential critics. At the

offi ces of the Bangkok Post its tough investigative reporters, who had sur-

vived on cheap whiskey and cigarettes through coups, street protests, and

wars, were completely dispirited. One editor said they were scared even to

touch stories related to Thaksin, for fear the prime minister’s cronies would

buy the paper and fi re them.8

Still, Thaksin had been elected twice, and he dominated Thai politics

largely because he was the most compelling, or ga nized, and dynamic poli-

tician in the country. In a lengthy cable analyzing Thaksin’s appeal— and

released to the public by Wikileaks— Ralph Boyce, a former U.S. ambassa-

dor to Thailand who was no fan of Thaksin’s repressive policies, admitted:

“Thaksin’s personality, sophisticated media pre sen ta tion, focused populist

message, and traditional get- out- the- vote or ga niz ing, combined to allow

[Thaksin’s party] to leave . . . its closest rival in the po liti cal dust . . .

Thaksin . . . has no equal in Thailand on how to attract po liti cal attention.”

In 2005 Thaksin trounced the Demo crat Party, which was favored by

most yellow shirts, and in 2006, when he called a new election, the Demo crats

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

4 Democracy Goes into Reverse

simply refused to participate. By that time the Demo crats, once the most

powerful party in Thailand, had been reduced to a small rump in Parlia-

ment, holding less than one hundred out of the fi ve hundred seats in total.

Instead of contesting the 2006 election, then, the yellow shirts, who shared

po liti cal leanings with the Demo crat Party, tried to paralyze the country.

They stormed Parliament and shut it down, trapping lawmakers and forc-

ing some se nior ministers to fl ee, James Bond– style, over a fence and into

a nearby building. Later, they laid siege to the main international airport,

throwing commerce into turmoil and severely damaging tourism, one of

the country’s main sources of foreign exchange.

After months of rallies, Thaksin’s government was fi nally ousted in a

coup in 2006, but this only led to more chaos. For nearly a de cade now, Thai-

land has weathered one street protest after another, with both sides disdain-

ing demo cratic institutions and refusing to resolve their differences at the

ballot box instead of in the streets, often with bloody results. After Thaksin

and, later, other pro- Thaksin parties were prevented from assuming power

despite their electoral mandates, Thailand’s working classes formed their

own movement. They donned red clothing— Thaksin’s color— in response

to the yellow shirts. (The red shirts’ offi cial name was the United Front for

Democracy Against Dictatorship.) Just as the yellow shirts had tried to cre-

ate havoc and paralyze the economy, so too the red shirts attempted to

destroy what was left of demo cratic culture and order. They laid siege to

Parliament, forcing lawmakers loyal to the yellow shirts to fl ee. In April

2009, they stormed a meeting of Southeast Asian nations in the resort town

of Pattaya, forcing many visiting Asian leaders to hide inside their hotel,

and ultimately causing the meeting to be canceled, to the great embarrass-

ment of the Thai government.9 Finally, in the spring of 2010, the red shirts

converged on Bangkok.

In July 2011, despite efforts by Thailand’s middle classes and its mili-

tary to prevent the red shirts from taking power, the red shirts’ favored

party, called Puea Thai, won national elections again, forming a majority in

parliament. The electoral victory handed the prime ministership to Yingluck

Shinawatra, the party’s leader— and the youn gest sister of former prime

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Democracy Goes into Reverse 5

minister Thaksin. Soon, Thailand was boiling again, as Thaksin’s oppo-

nents revolted against his sister’s government, warning that if Thaksin re-

turned to Bangkok— and to power— they might well riot in the streets

again, shutting down the city once more.

In the late 1990s, the possibility of such a breakdown of democracy in Thai-

land seemed remote. After a massive pop u lar demonstration of hundreds

of thousands in Bangkok ousted a military regime in 1992, Thais believed

they had fi nally created a stable democracy. At the Bangkok Post, young re-

porters often seemed downright jubilant. During the day, they crawled

through traffi c in their cars to research investigative pieces unthinkable

under past dictatorships; at night, they often attended informal strategy ses-

sions about how to make good on the promises written into the new, pro-

gressive constitution passed in 1997. That groundbreaking constitution

guaranteed many new rights and freedoms, created new national institutions

to monitor graft, and strengthened po liti cal parties at the expense of un-

elected centers of power— the palace, the military, big business, and the elite

civil service— that together had run Thailand since the end of the absolute

monarchy in the 1930s. It also set the stage for elections in 2001 that were

probably the freest in Thailand’s history. Meanwhile, the media utilized its

new freedoms, along with new technologies like the Internet and satellite

tele vi sion, to explore formerly taboo topics like po liti cal corruption and

labor rights.

By the early 2000s, many Thais felt great pride in their nation’s demo-

cratic development. Outsiders noticed, too. “Thailand’s freedom, openness,

strength, and relative prosperity make it a role model in the region for what

people can achieve when they are allowed to,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of

State James Kelly declared in 2002.10 Besides Kelly, former Secretary of

State Madeleine Albright and then Secretary of State Colin Powell, among

others, heaped praise on Bangkok. Powell declared in 2002, “Thailand has

lived up to our expectations in so many ways.”11 In its 1999 report, the inter-

national monitoring or ga ni za tion Freedom House ranked Thailand a “free”

nation.12

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

6 Democracy Goes into Reverse

Today, Thailand looks almost nothing like a model emerging democ-

racy. The never- ending cycle of street protest, by both the middle class and

the poor, paralyzes policy making, hinders economic growth, and deters

investment at a time when authoritarian competitors like China and Viet-

nam are vacuuming up foreign capital. Few Thais now trust the integrity

of the judiciary, the civil ser vice, or other national institutions. Even the

king, once so revered that Thais worshipped him like a god, has seen his

impartiality questioned.13 The Thai military now wields enormous infl u-

ence behind the scenes, a dramatic reversal from the 1990s, when most

Thais believed the military had returned to the barracks for good.14 A once

freewheeling media has become increasingly shuttered and servile. The

government now blocks over one hundred thousand websites, more than in

neighboring Vietnam.15 Once- groundbreaking Bangkok newspapers now

read like Asian versions of the old Pravda, lavishing praise on the red shirts

or the yellow shirts depending on the paper’s point of view.16 The Thai

government even began locking up Americans visiting the country who’d

written blog posts about the Thai monarchy years earlier. Even after Thak-

sin’s sister took the reins of power, little changed, with arrests and Web

blocking continuing as before.

Many middle- class Thais, faced with the breakdown of their once-

vibrant democracy, seem to believe their country is somehow singular— that

its collapse is due to a coincidence of factors that are unique to the country

and hard for a foreigner to understand: the end of the reign of Bhumibol,

who’d long played a stabilizing role; the Asian fi nancial crisis, which pushed

the country toward pop u lism; and the unfortunate rise of Thaksin, a man

with little commitment to the rule of law. “We were just unlucky,” a se nior

Thai government offi cial said. “If we’d not had Thaksin, if His Majesty

could have been more involved, like in 1992, things would have been much

different. . . . It’s a Thai situation.” 17

But demo cratic meltdowns like Thailand’s have become depressingly com-

mon. In its annual international survey, the most comprehensive analysis of

freedom around the globe, Freedom House, which uses a range of data to

assess social, po liti cal, and economic freedoms in each nation, found that

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Democracy Goes into Reverse 7

global freedom plummeted in 2010 for the fi fth year in a row, the longest

continuous decline in nearly forty years. At the same time, most authoritar-

ian nations had become more repressive, stepping up their oppressive mea-

sures with little re sis tance from the demo cratic world. Overall, Freedom

House reported, twenty- fi ve nations went backward, in terms of freedom,

in 2010 alone, while only eleven made any gains; among the decliners were

critical regional powers like Mexico and Ukraine. This despite the fact that

in 2011 one of the most historically authoritarian parts of the world, the

Middle East, seemed to begin to change. The decline, Freedom House noted,

was most pronounced among what it called the “middle ground” of nations,

primarily in the developing world— nations that have begun demo cratizing

but are not solid and stable democracies.18 Indeed, the number of electoral

democracies fell in 2010 to its lowest number since 1995.19 “A ‘freedom

recession’ and an authoritarian resurgence have clearly emerged as global

trends,” writes Freedom House’s director of research, Arch Puddington.

“Over the last four years, the dominant pattern has been one of growing

restrictions on the fundamental freedoms of expression and association in

authoritarian settings, and a failure to continue demo cratic progress in pre-

viously improving countries.”20 Freedom House also found an increasing

“truculence” among authoritarian regimes. This truculence actually was

only made stronger by the Arab Spring, which led autocratic regimes like

China and Uzbekistan to crack down harder on their own populations. The

International Federation for Human Rights, an or ga ni za tion that monitors

abuses around the world, found in its late- 2011 annual report that the Arab

uprisings had little impact on a dire, deteriorating climate for human rights

defenders worldwide.21

Indeed, in the fall of 2011 Rus sia, which along with China is one of the

most powerful authoritarian nations, made clear that any hopes of change

were just a mirage, as Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who has dominated

Rus sia for more than a de cade, announced that, in a secret deal with Presi-

dent Dmitry Medvedev, Putin would once again assume the presidency in

2012 and potentially serve two more terms, which would keep him in con-

trol of the Kremlin until 2024, longer than some Soviet leaders had lasted.

Putin had been constitutionally barred from serving another presidential

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

8 Democracy Goes into Reverse

term after his fi rst two terms ended in 2008, and once Medvedev assumed

the presidency some Rus sian liberals had hoped that he would introduce

reforms, despite his history as a close confi dante of Putin’s. Indeed, in offi ce

Medvedev declared that Rus sia’s criminal justice system needed to be over-

hauled, and that the country should open up its po liti cal system, but his

announcement that he had secretly agreed with Putin to manipulate the

presidency and prime ministership to put Putin back in power showed that

he, too, was at heart hardly a demo crat. When Rus sia’s fi nance minister ques-

tioned the handoff of power from Medvedev back to Putin, he was sum-

marily fi red, in a clear message.

The stagnation of democracy predates this fi ve- year period, Freedom

House noted; since 2000 democracy gained little ground around the world,

before sliding backward beginning in the mid- 2000s. “Since they were fi rst

issued in 1972, the fi ndings in Freedom in the World have conveyed a story of

broad advances,” Freedom House reported. “But freedom’s forward march

peaked around the beginning of the [2000s].”

Even as some demo crats were celebrating the Arab Spring and hoping

that, as in 1989, its revolutions might spread to other parts of the world, a

mountain of other evidence supported Freedom House’s gloomy conclu-

sions. Another of the most comprehensive studies of global democracy,

compiled by Germany’s Bertelsmann Foundation, uses data examining de-

mocracies’ ability to function, manage government, and uphold freedoms

to produce what it calls the “transformation index.” The overall goal of the

index is to analyze the state and quality of democracy in every developing

nation that has achieved some degree of freedom. To do so, Bertelsmann

looks at a range of characteristics including the stability of demo cratic insti-

tutions, po liti cal participation, the rule of law, and the strength of the state,

among other areas. And the most recent index found “the overall quality

of democracy has eroded [throughout the developing world]. . . . The key

components of a functioning democracy, such as po liti cal participation and

civil liberties, have suffered qualitative erosion. . . . These developments

threaten to hollow out the quality and substance of governance.” The index

concluded that the number of “highly defective democracies”— democracies

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Democracy Goes into Reverse 9

with institutions, elections, and po liti cal culture so fl awed that they no lon-

ger qualifi ed as real democracies— had roughly doubled between 2006 and

2010. By 2010, in fact, nearly 53 of the 128 countries assessed by the index

were categorized as “defective democracies.”

Sixteen of these fi fty- three, including regionally and globally powerful

states like Rus sia and Kenya, qualifi ed as “highly defi cient democracies,”

countries that had such a lack of opportunity for opposition voices, prob-

lems with the rule of law, and unrepresentative po liti cal structures that they

were now little better than autocracies. The percentage of “highly defi cient

democracies” in the index has roughly doubled in just four years. And in

Africa, which had been at the center of the global wave of demo cratization

in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the deterioration was most pronounced.

Between 2008 and 2010, Bertelsmann found, sub- Saharan Africa was

home to nine of the thirteen nations in the developing world that suffered

the greatest deterioration in the quality of their po liti cal systems. Among

these backsliders were Senegal, Tanzania, and Madagascar, which once were

among the greatest hopes for democracy on the continent.

Even nations that have been held up as demo cratic models have re-

gressed over the past fi ve to ten years, according to both the Freedom House

and the Bertelsmann studies. When they entered the Eu ro pe an Union in

the late 1990s and early 2000s, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, and

Slovakia were considered success stories and would join the older democ-

racies of Western Eu rope as solid, consolidated demo cratic systems. But in

their de cade inside the EU, all of these new entrants actually have been

downgraded repeatedly by Freedom House, showing that their demo cratic

systems, election pro cesses, and commitments to civil liberties have deterio-

rated.22 Populist and far- right parties with little commitment to demo cratic

norms gained steadily in popularity; public distaste for democracy in these

supposed success stories skyrocketed, so much so that in one 2006 survey

publics in Central Eu rope showed the most skepticism about the merits of

democracy of any region of the world.23 Hungary deteriorated so badly that

its press freedoms reverted to almost Soviet- type suppression, with its gov-

ernment using harsh new laws and other attacks to silence the media.24

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

10 Democracy Goes into Reverse

The third major international study of democracy, the Economist

Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) “index of democracy,” only further confi rmed the

decline. The EIU’s annual survey of the entire world analyzes democracy

using categories for electoral pro cess, pluralism, po liti cal participation, po-

liti cal culture, functioning of government, and civil liberties including press

freedom and freedom of association. In its most recent study, it found that

democracy was in retreat across nearly the entire globe. “In all regions, the

average democracy score for 2010 is lower than in 2008,” noted the report.

In ninety- one of one hundred sixty- seven countries it studied, the democ-

racy score had deteriorated in that time period, and in many others it had

only remained stagnant. Of the seventy- nine nations that it assessed as hav-

ing some signifi cant demo cratic qualities, only twenty- six made the grade as

“full democracies,” while the other fi fty- three were ranked only as “fl awed

democracies” because of serious defi ciencies in many of the areas it assessed.

“Democracy is in retreat. The dominant pattern in all regions . . . has been

backsliding on previously attained progress,” the survey concluded.

In some of the specifi c categories that it examined to assess democracy,

such as media freedom, the EIU found that backsliding was even more severe

than the broader decline in the democracy index. More than thirty nations,

including regional powers— and onetime examples of democratization—

like Rus sia, Hungary, Mexico, and Turkey, witnessed sharp increases in

media and online repression between 2008 and 2010. The Economist Intel-

ligence Unit’s 2011 Democracy Survey, released roughly a year after the

Arab uprisings began, had just as much gloom. As in 2010, it similarly found

that “democracy has been under intense pressure in many parts of the

world,” and that the quality of democracy had regressed on nearly every

continent in 2011.

Like Freedom House and the Bertelsmann Foundation, the EIU found

that, with only a few exceptions, backsliding was occurring in nearly every

developing region of the world. It found that authoritarianism was becom-

ing more entrenched in Central Asia, demo cratization was being reversed

in Africa, authoritarian populists were emerging in Latin America, and

po liti cal participation was plummeting in the former Soviet states of East-

ern and Central Eu rope, undermining the region’s demo cratic transitions.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Democracy Goes into Reverse 11

Assessing the data, and the severe reversals, the EIU was glum about the

future, though it recognized that the Middle East had nowhere to go but

up, given its long- entrenched authoritarianism. “The threat of backsliding

now greatly outweighs the possibility of future gains [in demo cratization

worldwide],” the survey concluded.

Old- fashioned coups also have returned. In Latin America, Asia, and

even most of Africa, coups, which had been a frequent means of changing

governments during the Cold War, had become nearly extinct by the early

2000s. But between 2006 and 2010 the military grabbed power in Guinea,

Honduras, Mauritania, Niger, Guinea- Bissau, Bangladesh, Thailand, Fiji,

and Madagascar, among other states.

In many other developing nations, such as Mexico, Pakistan, and the

Philippines, the military did not launch an outright coup but managed to

restore its power as the central actor in po liti cal life, dominating the civilian

governments that clung to power only through the support of the armed

forces. Freedom House, in fact, notes that the global decline in democracy

in the past fi ve years has been the result, in part, of weakening civilian

control of militaries across the developing world. The civilian Thai prime

minister in the late 2000s, Abhisit Vejjajiva, who took power in 2008, owed

his survival in offi ce to the military’s backing, and se nior army offi cers made

clear to him, in private, that if they withdrew their support, his government

could easily collapse. Unsurprisingly, the Thai military’s bud get more than

doubled between 2006 and 2011, with much of the expenditures going to-

ward tools to control Thailand’s own population, rather than toward fi ght-

ing potential foreign enemies. After Thaksin’s sister became prime minister,

the armed forces negotiated a deal with her that gave the military total

control over its own bud get, with little civilian authority— and which es-

sentially preserved its ability to interfere in politics indefi nitely. Philippine

president Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo relied upon the armed forces to enforce

a crackdown against opponents. According to several local human rights

groups, more than a thousand left- leaning activists, opposition politicians,

and other government opponents were killed between 2001 and 2010, and

one comprehensive study found that “the [Philippine] military [is] an im-

portant veto actor in the competition among the country’s po liti cal elites.”25

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

12 Democracy Goes into Reverse

“It’s almost like we’ve gone back to the [Ferdinand] Marcos era,” prominent

rights activist and lawyer Harry Roque Jr. said as he waited in his offi ce for

the security forces to come and interrogate him.26 “There’s the same type of

fear, the same abuses, the same attitude by the military that their actions

will never face consequences.” Within months of the election of Arroyo’s

successor, Benigno Aquino, in 2010, the Philippine military seemed ready

to bolster its power even more. Several prominent former military offi cers

reportedly launched a new movement called “Solidarity for Sovereignty,”

designed to step in if the president’s government, as one of them put it, “self-

destructed.”27

Similarly, in Pakistan, though General Pervez Musharraf, who took

power in a coup in 1999, eventually returned leadership to a civilian govern-

ment nearly a de cade later, Pakistan’s army clearly had reestablished itself

as the central power in policy making. After interludes of civilian control in

the 1990s, the army has again “assumed control as well as oversight of pub-

lic policy. . . . The military has carved out a role and position in the public

and private sectors, including industry, business, agriculture, education and

scientifi c development, health care, communications, and transportation,”

reported military analysts Siegfried Wolf and Seth Kane. In early 2010, when

the Pakistani leadership held talks in Washington on the future of the bilat-

eral relationship with the United States, there was no doubt about who was

the key player on the Pakistani side: not civilian president Asif Ali Zardari

but army chief of staff Ashfaq Kayani.28 Similarly, after American Spe-

cial Forces swooped into Pakistan in the spring of 2011 to kill Osama bin

Laden, it was Kayani who essentially enunciated the Pakistani govern-

ment’s response to America.

Indeed, in another recent comprehensive study, this time of Asia, re-

searchers from the Institute for Security and International Studies in Thai-

land concluded, “Any short- term prospects for civilian control in the young

democracies of South and Southeast Asia are gloomy indeed.” Yet support for

democracy has become so tepid in many parts of the developing world that

many of these coups or military interventions were cheered. After the coup

against Thaksin in Thailand in 2006, many urban Thais openly celebrated.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Democracy Goes into Reverse 13

“Academic contacts [of U.S. diplomats] could only be described as ebullient

[about the coup,]” reported the American embassy in Bangkok in one cable

written after the coup.

Across the Middle East, armed forces also have dominated the Arab

Spring and Summer, putting the lie to the idea that the Arab uprising is

going to bring democracy to the region. Instead, in the near term the Arab

uprisings appear to be entrenching the power of militaries in the region,

sparking massive unrest, scaring middle- class liberals into exodus, and po-

tentially empowering Islamists. Protesters may have challenged leaders from

Yemen to Egypt, but the loyalty of the military has determined whether these

rulers stay in power, and during any transition the militaries have, by de-

fault, become the dominant— and sometimes only— national institutions.

In Bahrain, the military’s willingness to continue to support the regime of

Sheikh Hamad bin Isa al- Khalifa allowed the royal family to crush pro-

tests, to enlist the support of armies from other Gulf states, including Saudi

Arabia, and to maintain a tight grip on power after antigovernment protests

fl ared in early 2011.

As in Bahrain, armies have used this power to ensure that they will re-

main at the center of politics for years to come, in part because middle classes

in the region fear that the end of dictatorships like Hosni Mubarak’s could

usher in chaos, insecurity, and bloodshed if the military does not step in.

Egypt’s generals, write po liti cal analysts Jeff Martini and Julie Taylor, “are

determined to . . . protect their privileged position. . . . The generals now

hope to create a system of carefully shaped [institutions] that will preserve

their power and reduce the chances that any single po liti cal group can chal-

lenge them.” Indeed, they note, during Egypt’s transition the generals have

insisted the military be exempted from parliamentary scrutiny, enjoy power

over an elected president, and maintain the legal right to intervene in poli-

tics under a broad array of circumstances.

By the summer and fall of 2011, as this book was being written, the

Egyptian military increasingly demonstrated that it had no interest in giv-

ing up the power it had amassed over de cades, and that it had learned how to

use a po liti cal vacuum to bolster its own power, as it had many times in the

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

14 Democracy Goes into Reverse

country’s past. In 2011, the Egyptian military controlled nearly every aspect

of the country’s supposed transition. It passed legislation outlining the terms

of potential new elections without consulting with the public, a move that

led some protesters to rally again, in central Cairo, to demand that the mili-

tary remove itself from politics. The army also has expanded laws used to

jail dissidents, imprisoning many who have criticized the military since the

fall of the Mubarak regime, and has helped ensure that the armed forces’

business interests, which are vast, will remain protected under any future

Egyptian government. When liberal Egyptians, including some Christians,

protested against the military’s power in post- Mubarak Egypt in early

October 2011, chanting, “The people want to bring down the fi eld mar-

shal,” riot police and other armed security forces beat protesters mercilessly

and ultimately opened fi re, killing at least twenty- four people and wound-

ing some two hundred.29 Ultimately, the antiarmy sentiment grew so fi erce

that, in November, crowds gathering once again in Tahrir Square in down-

town Cairo battled with riot police and other security forces, as they de-

manded that the military release its hold on power and ensure that, in the

future, it could not dominate an elected government. Thousands, possibly

even tens of thousands of demonstrators, packed into the square, which had

been the site of the initial protests that toppled Mubarak nearly a year earlier.

The security forces attacked the crowds with rubber bullets, tear gas, and

batons, killing at least one person and injuring more than a thousand, ac-

cording to press reports.30 Though the military appeared to cede some

ground after these protests, allowing the constitution to be altered to place

the military formally under civilian control, it retained broad powers that

seemed inimical to democracy, including, essentially, the right to overturn

civilian governments if it desired.

Meanwhile, in the autumn of 2011 Islamists made signifi cant gains

nearly everywhere in the region. The fi rst elections held, post- Arab Spring,

in Tunisia, were a triumph for democracy in the Arab world. People across

Tunisia waited patiently in long lines to vote, and monitors reported that

polling was free, fair, and peaceful, which was hardly expected— anticipating

chaos, Tunisia had deployed some forty thousand policemen at polling sites.31

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Democracy Goes into Reverse 15

Following the voting, many Tunisians took to public spaces to celebrate the

fact they voted, despite diffi culties in the year since they had toppled their

autocrat: Tunisia’s economy had weakened, partly because of the war next

door in Libya, and in a freer po liti cal climate grievances about economic

in e qual ity increasingly bubbled to the surface in poorer parts of Tunisia.

But in October 2011, Tunisians defi ed many predictions of a disastrous elec-

tion. Overall, nearly 90 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot, a huge turn-

out. Because of quotas imposed in the electoral laws, some 30 percent of

seats in the new parliament would go to women. Still, when the results

came in, it was clear that Al Nahda, the main Islamist party, had won a siz-

able victory, mostly at the expense of the secular, liberal Progressive Demo-

cratic Party. Al Nahda’s leadership, which openly styled themselves after

Turkey’s progressive Islamists, said all the right things about their commit-

ment to building Tunisian demo cratic institutions, upholding individual

freedoms, and separating mosque and state.32 (Before the election, the transi-

tional government had banned parties that theoretically did not demonstrate

a commitment to democracy, and so prevented a more avowedly Islamist and

Salafi st party from even contesting the poll.)33

But unlike Turkey, where Islamists took de cades to demonstrate their

allegiance to the secular state, and today have been governing for more than

ten years, in Tunisia, which was less than a year from autocratic rule, many

middle- and upper- class Tunisians had doubts about Al Nahda’s real long-

term commitment to the secular state. (Al Nahda had been banned under

Tunisia’s dictatorship.) Before the election, groups of activists allied with Al

Nahda had stormed a private Tunisian tele vi sion station, trying to close it

down for showing what they deemed sacrilegious content; in the past, Al

Nahda activists had attacked rivals by throwing acid in their faces, among

other tactics.34 And in the run- up to the election, hard- line Salafi sts clearly

enjoyed something of a re nais sance in Tunisia, making their presence felt

throughout society. In June radicals attacked people attending a fi lm in

Tunis, and they also have attacked some artists whom they have deemed

“un- Islamic.”35 Many liberal, middle- class Tunisians continued to express

doubt about Al Nahda despite its leadership’s vows to uphold democracy;

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

16 Democracy Goes into Reverse

applications to leave Tunisia and gain passports more than doubled in 2011.

These doubts boded poorly for the country’s future, since these middle classes

and elites would be critical for growth, development, and demo cratic con-

solidation.

Perhaps Al Nahda’s success would be fl eeting. A study released in early

2011 in the Journal of Democracy found that, by surveying parliamentary

elections in twenty- one countries, Islamic parties tended to do best in

the initial elections after the end of authoritarian rule, a period when they

tended to be the most or ga nized group in the country. Over time, as elec-

tions became more regular, their support tended to wane, and wound up

averaging about 15 percent of the vote.36 Islamist parties also tended to

become more moderate over time, as they tried to appeal to less religious

swing voters, in order to possibly gain enough votes to govern. Still, this

study does not necessarily predict the future: Islamist parties in the post—

Arab Spring countries tend to be better entrenched, better or ga nized, and

even more dominant than in places where they have competed in the past,

such as Indonesia, where religious- oriented parties were hardly as power-

ful as a group like Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood or Salafi sts, who adopted a

harder- line position than the Brotherhood. In the initial rounds of Egypt’s

parliamentary elections, held in December, the Brotherhood and the more

extreme Salafi sts gained overwhelming victories, even in areas long consid-

ered some of the most liberal parts of Egypt, such as Cairo; liberal and sec-

ular parties generally placed very poorly, split among themselves and unable

to sometimes garner even enough votes to make it into Parliament. The

Islamists’ dominance of the voting set them up in prime position to write

Egypt’s new constitution.

In Libya the death of Muammar Qadaffi led, in the short run, to chaos

in Tripoli and other towns, and a clear rise in the power of Islamists in what

was already the most religiously conservative country in north Africa. The

post- Qadaffi interim leadership quickly brought up the possibility of legal-

izing polygamy in order to create a more pious nation, infuriating some

Libyan women’s groups.37 They further suggested that sharia should be the

basis of law in the new Libya, and many Libyans agreed that, in post-

Qadaffi elections, Islamists would dominate, since as in Egypt they had built

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Democracy Goes into Reverse 17

a strong underground or ga ni za tion in Libya during the authoritarian

period. Youssef Sherif, a leading Libyan intellectual, told reporters, “Every

day the Islamists grow stronger. When there is a parliament, the Islamists

will get the majority.”38 Indeed, despite having worked through NATO to

end Qadaffi ’s regime, many se nior American offi cials essentially accepted

that by ousting the Libyan dictator they were likely to empower an Islamist

government, given Libya’s religious conservatism— and they had little trust

that Islamists in Libya would uphold a semblance of a secular state. Militias

wielding Soviet- designed Kalashnikov assault rifl es and rocket launchers

roamed the country, often engaging in banditry to support themselves, and

the weak transitional government had trouble disarming anyone.39 One of

the most powerful post- Qadaffi leaders to emerge, with his own group of

armed backers, was a man who previously had led a hard- line or ga ni za tion

linked to Al Qaeda.40 As in Egypt, some Libyan liberals now are wonder-

ing whether the Libyan transitional government will turn into an autocracy

of its own— or whether perhaps it actually should, since holding elections

anytime soon could lead to more chaos or to an Islamist takeover.41

The strengthening of military rule in many developing nations has been

disastrous for reform, despite the militaries’ contention that they are the

only institutions standing in the way of civil strife or Islamist rule. Indeed,

human rights groups such as Amnesty International found that, since the

winter of 2010– 11, human rights abuses actually have increased in nearly

every Middle Eastern nation, including Syria, Egypt, and Bahrain, where

at least fi ve hundred people were detained for protesting between February

and September 2011.42

Despite the fact that militaries could hardly be called agents of reform,

middle classes in many developing nations, both in the Middle East and

in other parts of the world, often continued to support the armed forces

as potential antidotes to pop u lar democracy— democracy that might em-

power the poor, the religious, and the less educated. In this way, Egyptian

liberals’ concerns about the fruits of democracy were not unique. Overall,

in fact, an analysis of military coups in developing nations over the past

twenty years, conducted by my research associate Daniel Silverman and

myself, found that in nearly 50 percent of the cases, drawn from Africa,

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

18 Democracy Goes into Reverse

Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East, middle- class men and women

either agitated in advance for the coup or, in polls or prominent media cov-

erage after the coup, expressed their support for the army takeover.

Although the uprisings in the Middle East have led to unrest, civil

strife, and renewed military rule, they have had little impact on other parts

of the world— a sharp contrast to 1989, when the revolts in Eastern Eu rope

helped catalyze change in other parts of the Soviet Union, as well as in

China. Picking up from the Tunisian uprising, a small group of Chinese lib-

erals in early 2011 attempted to launch their own “jasmine revolution,” be-

ginning with an online manifesto calling for protests. But their numbers

likely never exceeded a few hundred people, and the Chinese government

quickly quashed their movement, closing down websites and arresting

organizers. More important, these protests gained little traction with the

Chinese public, which knew relatively little about the demonstrations in

the Middle East and, as we will see later, is far more satisfi ed with their

country’s leadership than Egyptians or Tunisians were with theirs. In sub-

Saharan Africa, too, the Arab uprisings ultimately had minimal impact;

protests broke out in places from Malawi to Burkina Faso to Uganda, but

none succeeded in toppling rulers; in response to the uprisings, the militar-

ies in many of these African countries were able to further entrench their

power. In Zimbabwe, the military has come to dominate the power struc-

ture of Robert Mugabe’s regime, making him and his allies even more

indebted to the armed forces. Overall, concluded Northwestern Univer-

sity’s Richard Joseph in a survey of the current state of politics in sub-

Saharan Africa, “the electoral authoritarian regime,” not democracy, has

become the most prevalent po liti cal system in Africa— a system that in-

cludes not only Mugabe but some of the other most entrenched autocrats,

such as Angola’s Jose Eduardo dos Santos, who has ruled his country

since 1979.43

In addition to these studies showing the return of coups, opinion polling

from many developing nations shows not only that the quality of democ-

racy is declining but also that public views of democracy are deteriorating

as well. The international public opinion group Program on International

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Democracy Goes into Reverse 19

Policy Attitudes uses extensive questionnaires to ask people in a range of

Latin American, African, Asian, and Middle Eastern nations about their

views on democracy, as compared with other potential po liti cal systems.

The regular “Afrobarometer” survey of the African continent has found

declining levels of support for democracy throughout much of sub- Saharan

Africa; in Nigeria, the largest nation on the continent, support for democ-

racy has plummeted over the past de cade. In several polls only 16 percent of

Rus sians said that it was “very important” that their nation be governed

demo cratically. Even in Kyrgyzstan, which despite its fl aws remains the

most demo cratic state in Central Asia, one comprehensive Gallup poll found

that a majority of the population did not believe that a po liti cal opposition is

very or somewhat important, and a sizable plurality said democracy was not

important to their country. Shortly after Kyrgyzstan’s presidential elections

in the fall of 2011, this disinterest in demo cratic politics became clear: losing

candidates and their supporters massed in public areas around the country,

trying to use protests to bring down the supposed victor.44

“Latinobarómetro” polls and studies of South America showed similar

dissatisfaction with democracy. In Ec ua dor, Guatemala, Paraguay, Colombia,

Peru, Honduras, and Nicaragua, either a minority or only a tiny majority

of people think democracy is preferable to any other type of government.

Overall, in the most recent Latinobarómetro survey, only a small majority

of people across Latin America supported democracy as a po liti cal system,

and less than 40 percent said they were satisfi ed with the way that democ-

racy works in practice in their country.45 In most countries in Latin Amer-

ica, these fi gures have either remained stagnant or slumped from where

they were a de cade ago. Many Latin Americans now say they do not even

have a functioning democracy at all.46 Meanwhile, in Pakistan, roughly

60 percent of respondents in a comprehensive regional survey said that the

country should be ruled by the army, one of the highest votes of support for

military rule in the world.

The global economic crisis, which continued to hit Eu rope hard in 2010

and 2011, only weakened public support for democracy in new democracies

in Central and Eastern Eu rope. A comprehensive study of Central and East-

ern Eu rope by the Eu ro pe an Bank for Reconstruction and Development

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

20 Democracy Goes into Reverse

(EBRD), released in 2011, found that the crisis had severely lowered people’s

support for democracy.47 “The more people were personally hit by the cri-

sis, the more they turned away from democracy,” it found.48 Support for

democracy had declined, since 2006, in all of the new Eu ro pe an Union

nations except Bulgaria. In some of these countries, such as the Slovak

Republic and Hungary, support for democracy fell, in the EBRD’s surveys,

by as much as twenty percentage points compared to 2006. This decline

provided an opportunity for stronger, even authoritarian, leaders. “Those

who enjoyed more freedoms wanted less democracy and markets when

they were hurt by the crisis,” the EBRD report noted.49

Even in East Asia, one of the most eco nom ical ly vibrant and globalized

regions of the world, polls show rising dissatisfaction with democracy.

In  fact, several countries in the region have developed what Asian demo-

cratization specialists Yu- tzung Chang, Yunhan Zhu, and Chong- min Park,

who studied data from the regular “Asian Barometer” surveys, have termed

“authoritarian nostalgia.” “Few of the region’s former authoritarian regimes

have been thoroughly discredited,” they write, noting that the region’s aver-

age score for commitment to democracy, judged by a range of prodemo-

cratic responses to surveys, has fallen in the most recent studies. An analysis

of the Asian Barometer data by Park found that, even in South Korea, one

of the supposed success stories of democracy in the developing world, the

percentage of South Koreans saying that under certain circumstances an

authoritarian government was preferable doubled between 1996 and 2006.

“An upward trend is unequivocal,” Park writes. “In times of crisis these

halfhearted citizens may not be mobilized to defend demo cratic institutions

and pro cesses.” Similarly, in Taiwan, another supposedly stable democracy,

the Asian Barometer survey found that only 40 percent of respondents agreed

that democracy was “preferable to all other kinds of government,” a low fi g-

ure. Only slightly more than 50 percent of Mongolians and Filipinos, two

other supposedly vibrant democracies, thought democracy was preferable to

all other kinds of government.

Even in developing nations where democracy has deeper roots, and

seems to be stronger, disillusionment with its po liti cal pro cesses, and with

demo cratically elected leaders, has exploded in recent years, as these leaders

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Democracy Goes into Reverse 21

have seemed unable to develop effective solutions for global and local eco-

nomic crises, other than biting austerity mea sures. From Indians demon-

strating in Delhi in support of hunger strikers attacking corruption in

Indian politics, to Israelis camping in the streets of Tel Aviv in the biggest

demonstrations in the country’s history to protest their leaders’ lack of inter-

est in basic economic issues, to the Occupy movement across the United

States and countries of Western Eu rope, people in even more established

democracies are increasingly turning to street protests to make their points,

since they believe they cannot be heard at the ballot box. They have become

convinced, they say, that the demo cratic pro cess has become so corrupted,

so dominated by entrenched interests, and so disassociated from pop u lar is-

sues, that they can change their countries only through massive rallies, even

if those protests use the street to bring down leaders fairly elected. “Our

parents are grateful because they’re voting,” one young woman told report-

ers in Spain, where tens of thousands of young people also have launched

full- time street protests against politicians’ lack of interest in the country’s

long- term unemployment crisis, which has led to unemployment of nearly

40 percent for recent university graduates of both sexes. “We’re the fi rst

generation to say that voting is worthless.”

This demo cratic decline is not concentrated in one region or one continent,

and, unlike previous waves of democracy regression such as those occurring

in the 1920s and 1930s, today’s decline includes a far wider array of nations,

from more regions of the globe, and is much less likely to be stopped. More

important, many of the countries that are regressing from democracy are

regional powers, including Rus sia, Kenya, Thailand, Argentina, Senegal, the

Philippines, Hungary, Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, and many others. Their

examples matter more to their regions than those of smaller, less infl uential

states. One of the key factors in determining whether a country will demo-

cratize is the international and regional climate, according to a study of de-

mocracies’ endurance by po liti cal scientists Adam Przeworksi, Michael

Alvarez, Jose Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi. So, when powerful countries

fail to demo cratize, this diffusion effect works in reverse, hindering the

cause of demo cratic change in their entire regions.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

22 Democracy Goes into Reverse

In many of these regionally important countries, the decline of democ-

racy has been so sharp that it has shocked people who lived through the

initial period of demo cratization. In the Philippines in the 1980s, crowds of

nonviolent Filipinos thronging Manila’s Edsa Avenue invented the “people

power” movement that inspired uprisings from the “color revolutions” in

Eastern Eu rope and Central Asia to the Ira ni an Green Movement of 2009,

to the Arab Spring of 2011, which swept through Egypt, Yemen, Syria, and

other nations. Now, as one demo cratically elected Philippine government

after the next becomes mired in corruption and self- dealing, Filipinos are

increasingly disenchanted with demo cratic rule.50

African nations that had made major progress in the previous de cade

also have regressed badly. Kenya, where, after the rule of longtime dictator

Daniel arap Moi, many people believed that the country— the wealthiest

and most globalized in east Africa— would become a vibrant democracy,

has collapsed into interethnic battles and newly repressive governments.

This decline is being repeated in Nigeria, the most vital nation in west

Africa. In Uganda, Yoweri Museveni, who had amassed enormous pop u lar

goodwill for ending confl icts and rebuilding the economy after the disas-

trous regimes of Milton Obote and Idi Amin, had promised to only serve

only four years when he became president in 1986. Yet he kept fi nding

reasons to stick around, until he fi nally forced through a constitutional re-

write in 2005 that removed presidential term limits altogether.51 By 2011,

after he won another presidential term in a fraudulent election, his security

forces had to repeatedly clear the streets of Kampala with massive shows of

force.

Under Vladimir Putin and his protégé Dmitri Medvedev, Rus sia,

which in the 1990s had developed a vibrant media and a robust if chaotic

democracy that provided an example to many other former Soviet states, has

discovered a nostalgia for Soviet repression. The last truly in de pen dent Rus-

sian po liti cal party, the Union, or Right Forces, merged with pro- Kremlin

parties several years ago, leaving virtually no opposition in the Duma.52

“Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the basic idea that po liti cal

opposition is a useful, legitimate po liti cal phenomenon remains remarkably

weak in much of the [post- Soviet] region,” noted Thomas Carothers of the

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in a study of democracy’s

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Democracy Goes into Reverse 23

global challenges. “Dominant po liti cal elites treat po liti cal opposition as

inherently disloyal.”53

By 2009, according to an analysis by Freedom House, the former Soviet

Union was one of the least free regions of the world—- even before Putin

announced that he would again be taking total control of Rus sia, the most

important post- Soviet state.54 Belarus, the country closest to Rus sia po liti-

cally and culturally, fl irted with reform but, by the end of the 2000s, had

retreated into an authoritarian, statist regime little different from the

Belarus of the early 1990s. Its long- serving leader, Alexander Lukashenko,

won reelection in 2010 with a farcical 80 percent of the vote; protesters who

gathered to demonstrate, sometimes simply by standing in public places and

sarcastically clapping their hands, were beaten and jailed.55 Two of the

greatest hopes for the former Soviet states, Georgia and Ukraine, also are

going backward, with Ukraine’s president, Viktor Yanukovych, installing

Putinesque policies that crushed any opposition and resulted in the arrests

and jailing of many politicians, including, in the summer of 2011, the oppo-

sition leader and former presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko, who was

given seven years in prison in a trial that was clearly predetermined. Along

with Tymoshenko’s trial, the Ukrainian government passed new mea sures

giving the president nearly unlimited powers and curtailing the country’s

vibrant civil society, and launched investigations of eleven other opposition

fi gures. Yanukovych simultaneously emasculated the Ukrainian parliament,

made much of the country’s court system subordinate to his decrees, and had

the country’s constitution altered to give the president domineering power.56

In Asia, other supposed success stories have regressed as well. The

Malaysian government, which once had vowed to uphold total freedom for

online media in order to promote the country as a high- tech hub, began

developing new ways to censor both the print and the online media. The

regime started arresting po liti cal opponents, whistleblowers, and civil soci-

ety leaders, including opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who himself faced

jail on dubious charges of sodomizing an aide.57 (Anwar ultimately was

acquitted and then hit with new charges related to or ga niz ing a po liti cal

protest.) Once such people are in custody, strange things can happen. In July

2009, a man named Teoh Beng Hock visited the offi ces of the country’s

anticorruption commission in order to testify about witnessing the misuse of

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

24 Democracy Goes into Reverse

public funds. The next day, he was found dead on the roof of the adjacent

building. Offi cials said he’d jumped from the anticorruption headquarters

to his death. In de pen dent forensic scientists later found evidence that Teoh

had been beaten and sodomized with an object before he “leaped” to his

death.58 In Cambodia, after the collapse of the Khmer Rouge and the end of

years of civil war, some 93 percent of eligible voters came to the polls in a

landmark fi rst free election in 1993, and the international community, which

oversaw— and paid for— the largest reconstruction effort to that time in

Cambodia, exulted in the turnout. But since then the country’s po liti cal

system has gone steadily downhill. Prime Minister Hun Sen, a rugged sur-

vivor of the Khmer Rouge years, has silenced nearly every opposition group,

intimidated the media, and overseen beatings and outright killings of many

po liti cal rivals.59

Meanwhile, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, like Thaksin an elected leader

with little dedication to constitutionalism or the rule of law, has pushed

his “Bolivarian revolution” closer to outright authoritarianism, as has Evo

Morales in Bolivia and Peruvian president Ollanta Humara.60 And in Mex-

ico, the security forces, working in collaboration with the president, have

taken advantage of the war on drugs to basically take over many Mexican

states, turning them into essentially army- run fi efdoms. Military personnel

now occupy hundreds of positions traditionally held by civilian personnel,

especially those in law enforcement. “The military is becoming the su-

preme authority— in some cases the only authority— in parts of some

states,” said Mexican po liti cal analyst Denise Dresser.

So many countries now remain stuck between authoritarianism and

democracy, reported Marc Plattner and Larry Diamond, co-editors of the

Journal of Democracy, that “it no longer seems plausible to regard [this

condition] simply as a temporary stage in the pro cess of demo cratic transi-

tion.”61

Despite the demo cratic recession of recent years, and the destructive impact

of the global economic crisis on democracy, even today most Western lead-

ers more or less unthinkingly assume that democracy will eventually tri-

umph worldwide. At the end of the Cold War, nearly all Western leaders

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Democracy Goes into Reverse 25

and po liti cal scientists believed demo cratic values had triumphed. The no-

tion of demo cratic victory was captured most famously in Francis Fuku-

yama’s essay “The End of History,” in which he claimed, “The triumph of

the West, of the Western idea, is evident fi rst of all in the total exhaustion of

viable systematic alternatives to Western liberalism.”62 This view, though

seldom so baldly stated, dominated most Western discourse on po liti cal

change in the 1990s and early 2000s and, despite the changes in the world,

still dominates today. The enormous relief triggered by the collapse of the

Soviet Union and the end of fi ve de cades of tightrope diplomacy between

the great powers seemed, as Robert Kagan noted, “to augur a new era of

global convergence. The great adversaries of the Cold War suddenly shared

many common goals, including a desire for economic and po liti cal integra-

tion.”63 Human progress, constantly marching forward, would spread de-

mocracy everywhere.

Of course, there is no consensus on the defi nition of democracy, but

nearly all such defi nitions include certain components of democracy. In

discussing democracy, this book uses a relatively widely accepted defi nition

also utilized by the Economist Intelligence Unit in its analyses of the quality

of democracy around the world. As the EIU notes, democracy means “gov-

ernment based on majority rule and the consent of the governed, the exis-

tence of free and fair elections, the protection of minorities and respect for

basic human rights. Democracy presupposes equality before the law, due

pro cess and po liti cal pluralism.” This book adds another component not

included in this basic defi nition: demo cratic po liti cal culture, which includes

respect for the concept of a loyal opposition, support for demo cratic po liti cal

institutions, and interest in and access to po liti cal participation, among

other components.

For a time, the rosy predictions of global demo cratization seemed

warranted. Po liti cal freedom indeed blossomed in a “fourth wave” of

demo cratization in the developing world in the 1990s and the early part of

this century. The old great- power adversaries, the United States and Rus sia,

worked together on challenges ranging from the fi rst Gulf War to the safe

decommissioning and storage of nuclear weapons. While authoritarians still

ruled most of Africa, Eastern Eu rope, and Asia in 1990, by 2005 democracies

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

26 Democracy Goes into Reverse

had emerged across these continents, and some of the most powerful develop-

ing nations, including South Africa, South Korea, and Brazil, had become

solid democracies. By 2005 more than half the world’s people lived under

demo cratic systems.64 With the color revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, and

Kyrgyzstan, the fall of Saddam Hussein, the overthrow of the Taliban, the ap-

parent end of military interventions in Turkey, the stirrings of reform in small

Persian Gulf nations like Bahrain, and even a reformist presidency under

Muhammad Khatami in Iran, the Middle East and Central Asia, long the

exception to global demo cratic change, seemed ready to make the transition.

Increasingly confi dent Western leaders came to assume that liberal

demo cratic capitalism would conquer every nation on earth. President George

H. W. Bush promised a “new world order” in which “freedom and respect

for human rights fi nd a home among all nations.”65 George W. Bush declared

in his second inaugural that the United States would promote the demo-

cratization of the world, saying, “We will per sis tent ly clarify the choice

before every ruler and every nation— the moral choice between oppression,

which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right.”66 In a meet-

ing with China president Jiang Zemin, Bill Clinton told Chinese leaders that

they stood “on the wrong side of history” by perpetuating authoritarian rule,

and later warned the Chinese leadership that trying to control the liberating

effects of new technologies was like trying to “nail Jell- O to the wall.”67

Of late, the Jell- O has been nailed. Not only has democracy experienced

its longest and deepest rollback in forty years, a confl uence of po liti cal, eco-

nomic, and social changes could halt global demo cratization indefi nitely.

Autocracies seem to be gaining not only strength but legitimacy, with au-

thoritarian regimes like China posting high growth rates and powerful

new democracies like Brazil and South Africa unwilling to join the West in

pushing for demo cratic change in the developing world.68 From Thailand

to Rus sia, middle classes and many leaders in developing nations that have

regressed from real democracy appear to have little appetite for a return to

demo cratic rule. Seeing the rise of Islamist parties, new sectarian rifts, and

the fl ight of many religious and ethnic minorities, the middle classes in

many of the countries in the Middle East and Africa where new revolts

have occurred in the past two years already have begun to doubt the value

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Democracy Goes into Reverse 27

of democracy, leading them to support renewed types of authoritarian rule,

including continued powers for the military.

To be sure, when viewed against the entire expanse of the twentieth and

twenty- fi rst centuries, or against even longer periods of human history, the

world today appears to be highly demo cratic. At the start of the twentieth

century, as we will see in the next chapter, only a tiny fraction of the coun-

tries in the world could have been called true democracies. Nearly all of

these democracies were in Western Eu rope, North America, and the for-

mer overseas territories of the British Empire.69 Together they constituted

no more than one- tenth of the world’s population. Empires ruled much of

Eu rope, Asia, and Africa. Even as recently as 1988, before the collapse of the

Berlin Wall, a small minority of the world’s people lived under democracy;

Central Asia and Eastern Eu rope had no democracies, and sub- Saharan

Africa had virtually no true democracies as well.

Compared with those bleak periods, the number of democracies in the

early twenty- fi rst century seems like a great advance. Many African nations

have made the beginnings of a transition to demo cratic rule, and real de-

mocracy is increasingly entrenched in Eastern Eu rope, the Baltics, and many

parts of East Asia. No one expects that democracy will backslide to its

weak global position in 1900; the prospect of democracy being wiped away

completely, as seemed possible in the 1930s, now appears all but impossible.

Indeed, the point of this book is not to suggest that democracy is in its death

throes, but that it is in decline over the past decade— a decline that should

be worrying because of its vast impact on human rights, economic free-

doms, and the international system. If policy makers do not recognize this

decline, and understand the complex reasons, examined later on, for de-

mocracy’s current weakness in many developing nations, they will fail to

reverse this trend. Worse, as the economic crisis lags on, publics in many

developing regions may become far more distrustful of demo cratic rule— a

prospect that could indeed help set the world back to the situation in 1988

or before.

Choosing to look at democracy’s decline over the past de cade is not arbi-

trary. Just as 1974, and then 1989, were watershed years for demo cratization,

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

28 Democracy Goes into Reverse

so too was 2001 such a year, although not in a positive way. Over the subse-

quent de cade certain trends, which were less apparent in the 1980s or 1990s,

clearly indicated weakening democracy throughout the developing world.

Those trends began to materialize in 2001, and they would grow stronger

throughout the 2000s and into the early 2010s, as surveys such as those done

by Freedom House and the Economist Intelligence Unit, as well as my own

research, would show this distinct decline in democracy in many nations.

The global landscape that had begun to be transformed in 2001 in-

cluded the weakening of American power. In the months after the Septem-

ber 11, 2001, attacks, American power seemed to be at its zenith, but as the

United States became entangled in two long wars stemming in some ways

from that day, its power would ebb, with signifi cant consequences for Amer-

ica’s ability and willingness to attempt democracy promotion in the devel-

oping world. In 2001, too, both Rus sia and China would begin to consolidate

their leadership transitions, and in that year the foundations would be set

for the authoritarian great powers to reassert their dominance both at home

and in their near neighborhoods, where they would lead a backlash against

democracy. Also in 2001, broadband Internet began to become available to

a growing number of homes in developed countries, the fi rst step toward

what would become its widespread use, and would impact demo cratic

change in many developing nations. The early 2000s also saw the height of

the antiglobalization movement and the questioning of the Washington

consensus regarding economic liberalization, a change that would reverber-

ate through young democracies, as many citizens who had linked economic

and po liti cal reform would come to question whether democracy was nec-

essarily the best system to produce growth and development. Finally, in 2001

the initial signs of conservative, middle- class revolts against electoral democ-

racy would begin to emerge in many key developing nations, including

Pakistan, the Philippines, Venezuela, Rus sia, and others.

Though Thailand is not as unusual as many Thais seem to believe,

every country certainly has its own po liti cal history and circumstances.

Democracy was imposed by an occupier in Japan, midwifed by a king in

Spain, and fought over for de cades in Timor- Leste. Reversals of democracy

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Democracy Goes into Reverse 29

in each nation likewise have unique characteristics. In Thailand the king’s

prolonged illness has hurt demo cratic consolidation, while in Rus sia the

anarchy of the Boris Yeltsin era, in which a proud country teetered on the

brink of bankruptcy while oligarchs plundered its wealth, soured many

Rus sians on the freedoms of democracy. But the broad— and dangerous—

reasons for the global demo cratic rollback today differ relatively little.

Democracies have faced many challenges in the past, and at other

times countries that seemed to have demo cratized suffered serious rever-

sals, occasionally regressing, as in the case of Germany in the 1930s, to out-

right totalitarianism. But those reversals tended to be relatively isolated, and

eventually global democracy progressed once again. That progression can

no longer be taken for granted: today a constellation of factors, from the rise

of China to the lack of economic growth in new democracies to the West’s

fi nancial crisis, has come together to hinder democracy throughout the de-

veloping world. Absent radical and unlikely changes in the international

system, that combination of antidemo cratic factors will have serious staying

power.

Yet Western leaders do not seem to recognize how seriously democracy

is threatened in many parts of the developing world. Though some observ-

ers, like Freedom House, have begun to recognize how democracy has be-

come endangered, few have systematically traced how a form of government

once thought to be invincible has been found lacking in so many places

and consequently tossed aside, often by the very middle- class reformers who

once were democracy’s vanguard. Among se nior American offi cials, few

are willing to accept that the current climate is anything more than a blip in

democracy’s ultimate conquest of the globe, that the Arab Spring and Sum-

mer might not turn out to be like 1989’s year of demo cratic revolution— or

that a prolonged demo cratic rollback would have severe consequences for

global security, trade, and American strategic interests, not to mention the

well- being of millions of men and women across the developing world.

The offi cial national security strategy developed by the George W. Bush

administration, which enshrined democracy promotion as a central value of

U.S. foreign policy, carried the unstated assumption that, with U.S. backing,

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

30 Democracy Goes into Reverse

democracy would continue to spread around the world. Although the

Obama administration’s 2010 national security strategy acknowledged

that this progress had met obstacles, experts within the administration

seemed to assume that, given the right adjustments in American policy,

the United States would soon be leading a renewed wave of global demo-

cratization.70

The United States is not the only entity that does not comprehend that

democracy’s progress may have stalled. In 2008, the Association of South-

east Asian Nations (Asean), the main regional grouping in Southeast Asia,

passed a new charter that made respect for human rights a core component

of membership. Even in private, se nior Asean offi cials argue that the region

is moving toward shared demo cratic values.71 This despite the fact that,

except in Indonesia, demo cratization and human rights have regressed

throughout Southeast Asia in the past ten years, as well as the fact that the

region is still no closer to having real shared values than it was when Asean

was formed more than four de cades ago.

African nations in 2001 agreed to a “New Partnership for Africa’s De-

velopment,” a continent- wide compact to instill norms of human rights and

good governance that was greeted with much celebration by Western do-

nors and many African leaders. Capturing this mood in 2006, the Sudanese

communications entrepreneur Mo Ibrahim launched a prize for the Afri-

can leader who best focused on development, governance, and education of

his or her people. Ten years into the “New Partnership,” African offi cials

continue to cite the compact and claim that the continent is moving toward

shared values of good governance and democracy, but this trend is hardly

evident. In 2010, unable to fi nd a leader who exemplifi ed reform and good

governance, the Ibrahim board decided not to award its annual gift.72

Prolonged demo cratic rollback will have serious implications. Evidence

suggests that one of the major reasons countries demo cratize is that nations

around them are demo cratizing.73 A halt to this process— particularly if

middle- class men and women lead this demo cratic breakdown or fl ee places

like the Middle East and Africa rather than standing for democracy—

could call into question many of the assumptions of the post– Cold War

world and could lead to a new era of confl ict. Though there have been ex-

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Democracy Goes into Reverse 31

ceptions, in general the theory that democracies do not go to war against

other democracies has held true, while authoritarian states fi nd it much

easier to go to war, whether against democracies or against other autocra-

cies. Even without actual war, a divergence of core po liti cal values will make

it harder for nations around the world to make progress on critical inter-

national issues, from climate change to free trade. Demo cratic rollback could

impede commerce: despite the facile assumption by some Western business

leaders that authoritarian regimes provide more stable environments for

investment, in reality autocracies generally fail to provide the rule of law

and impartial judiciary that most Western investors require; prolonged

demo cratic rollback could thus worsen the global business climate. Finally,

a global demo cratic rollback will undermine perhaps the most critical foun-

dation of American soft power— its ideology— as competing ideologies like

China’s model of development grow more powerful.

Perhaps most important of all, a prolonged demo cratic rollback could

condemn the citizens of many of these countries, from Rus sia to Cambodia

to Venezuela, to increasing repression under ever more confi dent autocrats.

Already, over the past four years, activists not only in China but in Viet-

nam, Thailand, Venezuela, Rus sia, and many other countries whose gov-

ernments once allowed greater degrees of freedom have seen a much tighter,

less predictable po liti cal climate.

Grappling with this demo cratic decline and its potentially severe inter-

national consequences will require not only outlining the problem but also

gaining a deeper understanding of why democracy has faltered. To do so,

we must fi rst look back at the previous three waves of demo cratic change in

the twentieth century, as well as at the post– Cold War era of optimism and

Western triumphalism in the 1990s and early 2000s, the time of the fourth

wave of demo cratization in the developing world. By examining mistakes

made during the high point of the global demo cratic revolution, we may

understand how democracy has declined so rapidly and dramatically in a

number of developing nations across several continents. This decline has in-

cluded not only the rise of elected autocrats but also stark shifts in the views

of the general public about democracy in many countries— even those in the

Middle East. (We will not, however, examine the weakening of democracy

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

32 Democracy Goes into Reverse

in the established democracies of North America and Western Eu rope; even

though these nations’ po liti cal systems have many fl aws, unlike many devel-

oping nations they do not face regression to autocratic rule, and a full study

of the United States and Western Eu rope is well beyond the scope of this

book, though we will examine Central and Eastern Eu rope.)

To be sure, we must recognize that, particularly in the Middle East,

revolt and reform are in progress and sometimes can be hard to predict; this

book was written as the Arab Spring and Summer began to curdle, but its

outcomes remain very much uncertain.

Just as the demo cratic decline extends to nearly every part of the devel-

oping world, so too the reasons for the demo cratic rollback are diverse and,

often, intertwined. To understand why democracy has struggled over the

past de cade, and to consider ways to put global demo cratization back on

track, we have to examine not only why leaders like Putin and Chavez were

able to destroy demo cratic institutions, but also why the middle class allowed

these elected autocrats to do so, or accepted militaries reasserting their po liti-

cal power. The fact that the middle class, long considered the linchpin to

successful demo cratization, actually has turned against democracy in many

countries is perhaps the most striking and unsettling trend in democracy’s

global decline, and later on we will see in great detail how the middle class

has changed from a force for reform to an obstacle. In many countries, the

middle class acquiesced for a number of reasons: fear that democracy would

produce chaos, corruption, and weak growth; anger at the rise of elected

populists who disdain the rule of law; and worry that their own power will

be diminished. And as the middle class revolts, the working class often

fi ghts back, only further damaging demo cratic politics.

We also have to understand the international system. We have to ask

why today, even as middle- and working- class men and women in devel-

oping nations have allowed democracy to fail, many established democra-

cies, including the United States and emerging powers like South Africa

and Brazil, also have abandoned democracy promotion and human rights

advocacy. Indeed, with authoritarians like China wielding more power,

with established democracies in the West and the developing world reluc-

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Democracy Goes into Reverse 33

tant to stand up for their values, or pursuing democracy promotion strate-

gies that too often focused on rhetoric, elections, and pro cess, the inter national

environment has become far more complicated and challenging for democ-

racy in the new millennium. And far too often, men and women in the

developing world have paid the price for these failures of democracy pro-

motion.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:45:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Yale University Press

Chapter Title: How We Got Here

Book Title: Democracy in Retreat Book Subtitle: The Revolt of the Middle Class and the Worldwide Decline of Representative Government Book Author(s): Joshua Kurlantzick Published by: Yale University Press. (2013) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bh31.5

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Democracy in Retreat

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:44 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

O nly ten years ago, few po liti cal leaders or theorists would have

predicted democracy’s decline. Even as late as the early 2000s, the

fourth wave of democracy, which in the 1990s and early 2000s

had swept through parts of Asia, Latin America, and— most notably—

Sub- Saharan Africa, still seemed to be holding up. And the fourth wave

built on three earlier waves of demo cratization, making it seem like the

natural extension of democracy’s global spread.

Throughout most of the twentieth century, democracy had been con-

fi ned to tiny islands of freedom in a generally repressive globe, dominated

by colonies, monarchies, and warlords. At the start of the twentieth cen-

tury, only twelve countries, nearly all in Western Eu rope and North Amer-

ica, could truly be called democracies, though roughly thirty nations had

established minimal demo cratic institutions and cultures, including Italy,

Argentina, Germany, Japan, and Spain. Po liti cal scientist Samuel Hunting-

ton would call this initial group of democracies, which gained freedoms in

the eigh teenth and nineteenth centuries and the early twentieth century, the

“fi rst wave” of democracy. These democracies— Britain, the United States,

the Scandinavian nations, France, Switzerland, and British dominions like

Canada and Australia— had their origins in the American and French

revolutions. This small group of countries generally shared long histories of

gradual demo cratic development, born in the theories of the Enlightenment,

the Eu ro pe an wars, and the civil strife of the early nineteenth century, and

the legal systems drafted in Eu rope and the United States after the French

and American revolutions.

Many of the fi rst wave democracies that came of age last, in the early

twentieth century, did not survive the First World War and the economic

How We Got Here

2

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:44 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

How We Got Here 35

chaos of the 1930s. Spain, Italy, Austria, Germany, and many others crum-

pled in the face of a reverse wave of fascism and communism, and, as Hun-

tington notes, the initial demo cratic institutions that were germinating in

Poland, the Baltics, and in other parts of Central and Eastern Eu rope, as

well as in Brazil and Argentina, were snuffed out. Those countries that had

not already succumbed gave way to the military takeovers by fascist Ja-

pan, Italy, and Germany. Even at the end of the Second World War, de-

mocracy remained mostly limited to the same small club of countries in

Scandinavia, Western Eu rope, North America, and former British domin-

ions like Australia.

But the Second World War unleashed what would become known as

the second wave of global demo cratization. The Allies’ victory and occu-

pation of nations like Germany, Austria, and Japan allowed the occupiers

to foster a rebirth of demo cratic institutions and culture in those countries—

indeed, the new constitution drafted for Japan by its American occupiers

was far more liberal than Japa nese society would have accepted if Japa nese

leaders had drafted such a document themselves at that time. The defeat

of fascism, the triumph of the Anglo- American po liti cal model (at least in

areas not controlled by the Soviets), and the removal of Italy and Germany

as military powers provided space for Greece and Turkey to strengthen their

demo cratic institutions. In Latin America, meanwhile, Argentina, Venezu-

ela, Colombia, and Peru held demo cratic elections in the mid- 1940s.

By exhausting the British, German, Dutch, and French empires, the war

also triggered a wave of decolonization around the globe. A few of the newly

in de pen dent states, like India, Israel, and Malaysia, already had relatively sub-

stantial traditions of opposition politics and freedom of association, and were

able to build on those. Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia,

among other newly free states, held initial elections and seemed to be put-

ting into place demo cratic institutions.

Countries like India, however, turned out to be the exception. As new states

emerged in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East in the 1950s and 1960s, many

Western po liti cal scientists and leaders believed that these new nations were

not fertile ground for democracy, at least not anytime soon. These countries

had little previous experience with elections and very few educated men

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:44 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

36 How We Got Here

and women, and they faced many challenges, from establishing education

systems to simply feeding their people. “Parliamentary democracy has a

dim future in Africa,” predicted a typical 1961 article titled “The Prospect

for Democracy in the New Africa.”1 In the late 1970s, in her famous Com-

mentary article “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” in which she pushed

the White House to back right- wing dictatorships as a bulwark against

revolutionary left- wing authoritarian regimes, Jeanne Kirkpatrick made a

similar argument, writing, “In the relatively few places where they exist,

demo cratic governments have come into being slowly, after extended prior

experience with more limited forms of participation.”2 Even as late as 1980,

then mayor of Paris (later president of France) Jacques Chirac told a group

of African leaders, “Multi- partyism is a po liti cal error, the type of luxury

that developing countries cannot afford.”3

With a few exceptions, like India’s Jawaharlal Nehru, who held a deep

and intense belief in Indian democracy, leaders of the former colonies es-

sentially echoed Kirkpatrick’s theme, publicly arguing that they could not

be expected to develop democracies overnight— not when they had so many

other priorities. Of course, postcolonial leaders in Africa and Asia had ulte-

rior motives for claiming that their people were not ready for democracy.

But without a doubt, most of the fi rst generation of postin de pen dence lead-

ers displayed little interest in democracy. Malawi’s fi rst postin de pen dence

leader, a Scottish- trained doctor named Hastings Banda who maintained

an intense love for all things Scottish and an obsession with Malawians’ per-

sonal grooming— his government banned long hair for men and pants for

women— named himself “Life President” of the country and had his picture

plastered inside every offi ce building and movie theater, as well as in most

homes.4 Banda, one of the most controlling of the postin de pen dence African

big men, certainly believed that his people couldn’t be trusted with the fran-

chise. Malawians, he told reporters, were “children” and needed a powerful

ruler to guide them.5

Theorists Huntington and Seymour Martin Lipset, meanwhile, ar-

gued that countries needed to attain a certain level of economic develop-

ment to create the conditions for successful democracy— a level of development

that virtually none of the postcolonial states had attained. The exact level of

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:44 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

How We Got Here 37

development at which democracy solidifi es was diffi cult to pinpoint, but

many proponents of this modernization theory have argued that, once a

country reaches the income level, per capita, of a middle income nation, it

rarely returns to authoritarian rule. (Exceptions were states totally depen-

dent on oil wealth, in which a small elite could use oil simply to solidify its

control of power.) Economic development, these theorists argued, would

create such features as a sizable middle class, an educated populace, and

greater integration with the rest of the world.

In par tic u lar, development theorists like Huntington placed their bets

on the middle class as the primary moving force behind demo cratic change.

As the middle class grew in size, middle class men and women would build

new networks of business and society outside of the control of the state.

They would gain more education, build more ties to the outside world of

demo cratic ideas, and increasingly demand more social, po liti cal, and eco-

nomic freedoms. In addition, development would promote higher levels of

interpersonal trust, seen as critical to civic engagement in politics, to open

debate, and to forming opposition po liti cal parties. “In virtually every coun-

try [that had demo cratized] the most active supporters of demo cratization

came from the urban middle- class,” Huntington wrote.

For the most part, until the early 1970s, the theory that these poor, newly

in de pen dent nations could not support democracy seemed correct. Even

India suffered its own dramatic demo cratic reversal, when in the mid- 1970s

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi suspended the constitution and declared a

state of emergency, essentially making herself dictator. Indeed, in the 1960s

and 1970s democracy suffered another reverse wave, though this reverse did

not cancel out all the gains of the previous two waves. Military regimes took

power again in Greece and Turkey. Nearly every postcolonial African state

developed into some kind of authoritarian regime, often ruled by a domi-

neering in de pen dence leader like Kenya’s Jomo Kenyatta or Ghana’s Kwame

Nkrumah. Many of these nations also adopted highly centralized economic

policies, which not only failed to produce high growth rates but also con-

tributed to a general centralization of power in the hands of the ruling re-

gime. Postcolonial states that had seemed to offer prospects for democracy,

like Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Burma, disintegrated into civil war

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:44 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

38 How We Got Here

or fell prey to military takeovers, such as the bloody civil confl ict in Indone-

sia in 1965– 66, where in the aftermath of a military takeover communal

riots killed as many as one million Indonesians.

And if Asia’s postcolonial leaders proved more successful eco nom ical ly

than their counterparts in Africa, opening their countries to international

trade and using the power of the state to support industrialization and pri-

mary education made them no less dictatorial than their African peers. The

leaders of South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore— Park Chung Hee, Chiang

Kai- shek, and Lee Kuan Yew, respectively— established spartan, tightly con-

trolled states. Thailand’s military generals might allow American companies

and American soldiers into their country, but not American- style democ-

racy. When a group of prodemocracy opposition politicians criticized the

ruling Thai junta in 1949, the security forces grabbed four men from the

opposition, who never made it out of police custody. When the police fi nally

released their bodies, the corpses were pocked with bullet holes and showed

signs of torture, including swollen eyes and ears, burns over their bodies

(likely from lit cigarettes), and shattered legs.6 Overall, in the late 1960s and

early 1970s, in the second reverse wave, as many as one- third of the countries

that had been democracies in the early 1960s had reverted to authoritarian

rule by the early 1970s. The reverse wave, Huntington noted, sparked broad

pessimism that stable democracy could take hold anywhere in the develop-

ing world.

The international system enabled authoritarian rule and, generally,

posed a major obstacle to demo cratic change during the Cold War. The

Soviet Union crushed stirrings of demo cratic reform in Hungary, Czech o-

slo vak i a, and other Soviet satellites. Meanwhile, not only did many Western

leaders tolerate anticommunist autocracies, by the 1970s— with oil shocks

staggering the U.S. economy and the retreat from Vietnam denting Amer-

ican military confi dence— they also openly wondered whether democ-

racy could actually defeat communism around the world. In 1977 Henry

Kissinger, the former secretary of state and a believer in détente with the

Soviet Union, wrote, “Today, for the fi rst time in our history, we face the

stark reality that the [communist] challenge is unending.”7 Kissinger’s views

were widely shared among American policy makers and intellectuals, most

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:44 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

How We Got Here 39

of whom in the 1970s and early 1980s accepted that the Soviet Union would

not reform, that communism and democracy would have to coexist indefi -

nitely, and that democracy might eventually turn out to be the historical

accident, restricted to a few societies of the West and perhaps doomed even

there.8

Even when Western allies crushed potential young democracies, Cold

War realities dominated. In 1975, as Portugal released its last colonial

possessions, the leaders of one of those possessions, East Timor, developed

plans to build an in de pen dent democracy on their tiny half- island. But that

year giant Indonesia invaded Timor with the tacit consent of the United

States and other powers, including the regional power, Australia. In a meet-

ing with Indonesian dictator Suharto, President Gerald Ford and Secretary

of State Kissinger made clear they would not stand in the way. “What ever

you do,” Kissinger told Suharto, according to documents later released

under the Freedom of Information Act, “We will try to handle it in the best

way possible.”9 Indonesia launched a brutal military occupation of East

Timor. According to an estimate by Geoffrey Robinson of the University

of California at Los Angeles, as many as 200,000 East Timorese— close to

half the population— died from the occupation in the late 1970s.10

In April 1974, in an event that was only later recognized as having launched

the third wave of demo cratization, leftist military offi cers in Portugal, frus-

trated with the government’s continued commitment to expensive and bloody

colonial wars, deposed the authoritarian regime that had ruled the country

for fi ve de cades. Thousands of Portuguese fl ocked into the streets of Lisbon,

gathering near the fl ower market, where they began waving carnations and

sticking them into soldiers’ gun barrels to show their support for the rebels.

The coup paved the way for an opening of the Portuguese po liti cal system,

and within a year of the “Carnation Revolution,” Portugal had held a free

election.

Beginning with the Carnation Revolution, democracy spread in the

third wave across southern Eu rope, to parts of East Asia and Latin Amer-

ica, and, after 1989, to much of post- Soviet Eastern Eu rope. Between the

mid- 1970s and the early 1990s, some thirty authoritarian nations would

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:44 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

40 How We Got Here

become demo cratic, and more would develop at least some trappings of

democracy. Of course, the idea of a “demo cratic wave”— political science

shorthand for sweeping change— could be overstated. Specifi c domestic

factors in each nation precipitated demo cratization, and it would be im-

possible to claim that po liti cal change in one nation necessarily sparked

change somewhere else. But in certain regions and at certain times, like

Latin America in the late 1970s and early 1980s, or Eastern Eu rope in 1989,

the sheer number of countries undergoing change in a short time meant that

reforms in Brazil or Poland did have a demonstration effect, infl uencing the

po liti cal situation in Argentina or Czech o slo vak i a. The Carnation Revolu-

tion, for instance, was watched carefully in neighboring Spain. Shortly after-

ward, with the death of Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, Spain embarked

on its own transition, in which King Juan Carlos helped manage a demo-

cratic opening.11 Reforms in Brazil and Argentina in the late 1970s and early

1980s encouraged the reformers in Chile, who had already begun pushing

back against dictatorship. Chile restored democracy in 1990 and built what

is now arguably the most stable demo cratic system in Latin America.12

Many of these third wave nations also had experienced rapid economic

growth in the 1970s, seemingly adding support to Huntington’s theory that

growth helps build a middle class and, thus, demo cratic change. In the late

1960s and early 1970s, economic reforms helped usher in high growth in

Spain and Greece and other southern Eu ro pe an nations, and several of the

Asian nations that would demo cratize in the third wave, including the

Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, and Taiwan, also posted high growth

rates in the 1970s and early 1980s. In the case of Korea, Thailand, and Tai-

wan, these growth rates were some of the highest in the world. The military

regimes running these nations often played a role in sparking the growth

through free market policies, but in Greece, Spain, and other nations, they

proved incapable of managing some of the challenges of growth, including

infl ation, higher public debt, migration to urban areas and the need for

greater social ser vices, and macroeconomic instability. This lack of economic

management hurt the autocrats’ legitimacy, particularly with the middle

class businesspeople.

In addition, these nations’ middle classes seemed to respond to growth

exactly as Huntington and Lipset had predicted. Demanding greater eco-

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:44 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

How We Got Here 41

nomic, social, and po liti cal freedoms, urban middle class men and women

led demonstrations in the Philippines, Argentina, Chile, Taiwan, South

Korea, and many other nations. In countries like Bulgaria or Burma, where

the urban middle class was much smaller, demo cratization during the third

wave faced many more challenges, and had a harder time laying founda-

tions for demo cratic consolidation.

In the Philippines, it was primarily Manila’s middle class, over a mil-

lion men and women, who formed the bulk of the People Power movement

that forced dictator Ferdinand Marcos to step down in 1986 and fl ee into

exile. In South Korea in the late 1980s, middle class urbanites in Seoul, in-

cluding many university students, led angry and sometimes violent protests

against dictator Roh Tae Woo, forcing him to concede to demo cratic re-

forms and, ultimately, paving the way for the presidencies of former dissi-

dents Kim Young Sam and Kim Dae Jung, who’d once been hunted and

nearly killed by the military regime.

Looking to the Philippines example, Thailand, Malaysia, Sri Lanka,

and Bangladesh also built fl awed but increasingly reformist governments,

while demonstrators in Burma in part modeled their massive 1988 prode-

mocracy protests on the People Power movements in Manila.

The middle class did not always act so forcefully, but it invariably

played a major role. In Chile, Turkey, and Brazil, gradual economic develop-

ment and slow pressure for reform from an emerging middle class ulti-

mately forced leaders to negotiate transitions to democracy and to return

the military to the barracks. In apartheid South Africa, middle class white

liberals, tired of their country’s isolation and its negative impact on com-

merce, subtly pressured the ruling National Party to liberalize. Many of

these middle class attempts at po liti cal reform began with mea sures to so-

lidify demo cratic institutions. In South Africa, leaders backed by the urban

middle class passed one of the most progressive constitutions in the world,

recognizing a vast array of human rights including the right to healthcare,

housing, and education. In Thailand, idealistic young Bangkokians, some-

times working with reform- minded foreign NGOs, wrote and passed a

forward- thinking constitution with broad protections for rights and clauses

that created in de pen dent institutions to oversee po liti cal competition and

prevent vote buying.13

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:44 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

42 How We Got Here

Later in the third wave, when coups threatened nascent democracies,

middle class men and women stood up for reform. As the Argentine mili-

tary threatened the civilian government in 1985 and 1987, the civilian lead-

ers called hundreds of thousands of people out into the streets of Buenos

Aires to support the government’s legitimacy. In the Philippines, post–

People Power leader Corazon Aquino faced down multiple coup attempts,

including a serious one in late 1989 by Marcos loyalists. Each time, Aquino

called upon her support among middle class Manila residents, using tele-

vised speeches to rally her faithful, and staving off all of the military’s

attempted putsches.

The middle classes’ re sis tance to demo cratic rollback was not the only

sign, during the third wave, of their seemingly deep commitment to de-

mocracy. Numerous polls taken during the third wave across Latin Amer-

ica, Asia, Southern and Eastern Eu rope, and other demo cratizing regions

showed extremely high levels of support for democracy. In one such study

cited by Huntington, around 75 percent of Peruvians in 1988 believed that

democracy was the most desirable po liti cal system. In another series of

polls, taken in a range of former Soviet satellites, overwhelming majorities,

primarily in urban middle class areas, declared that democracy was prefer-

able to all other forms of government.

Broader public demands for democracy also challenged authoritarian lead-

ers across the third wave at a time when many of these authoritarians no

longer could count on the backing of the Soviet Union or the United States

as the Cold War came to a close. The Solidarity protests at Poland’s ship-

yards in the early 1980s did not immediately force an end to Polish com-

munism, but they helped set the stage for the revolutions of 1989, which

quickly spread from the more developed Eastern Eu ro pe an nations to even

the least developed, like Bulgaria and, eventually, Albania, which had been

kept in near isolation during the Cold War by its paranoid, xenophobic

ruler, Enver Hoxha. Facing its own economic challenges, the Soviet Union

had less capacity to repress dissent in its satellites, while, in the United

States, support for democracy and human rights was beginning to build.

The People Power movement in the Philippines indeed not only pushed

Ferdinand Marcos out of power but also helped reshape American thinking

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:44 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

How We Got Here 43

about the strategic benefi ts of authoritarian regimes, a shift that would

add fuel to global demo cratization in the third wave. As crowds gathered in

Manila to call for Marcos’s ouster, the outpouring prompted some offi cials

within the administration of President Ronald Reagan to begin aggressively

promoting the idea that demo cratic governments in developing nations like

the Philippines ultimately would prove better partners for Washington than

even the friendliest authoritarian regimes— and that the United States thus

should reduce its support for even avowedly anticommunist autocrats. Paul

Wolfowitz, who was assistant secretary of state for East Asian affairs dur-

ing the anti- Marcos protests, wrote in 2009 following the death of People

Power leader Corazon Aquino, “Some U.S. offi cials in the mid- 1980s de-

fended Marcos on the grounds that ‘there’s no real alternative’ . . . but that

ignored the fact that continued U.S. support for Marcos was itself discourag-

ing opposition.” In fact, Wolfowitz wrote, Washington fi nally made a crucial

decision that would help push forward the third wave of democratization—

that demo cratic government, not a conservative autocrat, was the best anti-

dote to communism: “In the end, the conclusion was that it would be more

dangerous if Marcos continued on his current course.”14

Wolfowitz played a central role in pushing the Reagan administration,

still wedded to a policy of backing conservative dictatorships, to abandon its

support for Marcos and embrace the prodemocracy movement in Manila.

Beginning with a Wall Street Journal article he wrote in 1985 calling for

American democracy promotion to counter communism, Wolfowitz advo-

cated, in public and in private administration interagency meetings, for

the White House to embrace demo cratic reforms in the Philippines. Em-

bracing the democracy movement would be a sharp change for the United

States and a risk in the Philippines, which at that time was a critical Amer-

ican ally and home to important naval bases. Though a de cade earlier Wol-

fowitz would have found few allies for his cause, by the mid- 1980s pressure

to make democracy promotion a part of American and Western Eu ro pe an

policy had begun to build among a community of academics, writers, con-

gressional representatives, and a few policy makers, both neoconservatives

like Wolfowitz and, later, liberal internationalists like Samantha Power and

Michael Ignatieff, as well as many West German, British, and Nordic activ-

ists and writers. What’s more, the coming end of the Cold War, a de cade

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:44 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

44 How We Got Here

later, would give their arguments greater resonance, because it would be-

come harder for American realists to use the confl ict with the Soviet Union

as a reason to prop up pro- Western dictators like Marcos or Mobutu, or for

Western Eu ro pe an realists to advocate their own détente with the nations

of the Warsaw Pact.

Wolfowitz and his allies had argued during the Manila protests that,

in the long run, the global spread of democracy would be in America’s

interest. Demo cratization, they believed, would minimize the possibility of

global confl icts that might necessitate American intervention, reduce the

corruption and rent- seeking that added burdens to American companies

investing abroad, enlarge the sphere of countries committed to free trade

and free markets, and generally enhance America’s prestige abroad. It was

an idea that already had begun to gain traction in the Carter administration,

which had made human rights a focus. The rhetoric of demo cratization also

appealed to Carter’s successor, who usually sought broad visions rather than

policy details, and it gained traction in Washington and other Western capi-

tals. As Reagan declared in a speech to the American Conservative Union,

“America’s foreign policy supports freedom, democracy, and human dig-

nity for all mankind, and we make no apologies for it. The opportunity so-

ciety that we want for ourselves we also want for others, not because we’re

imposing our system on others but because those opportunities belong to

all people.”15

The democracy advocates had help. In 1983 the National Endowment

for Democracy (NED) was founded in Washington, funded through an

annual congressional grant and given a mission to support demo cratic insti-

tutions around the world, including free media, unions, and po liti cal parties.

Partner democracy- promotion organizations like the National Demo cratic

Institute and the International Republican Institute, also established in the

early 1980s, were designed to augment NED’s overseas work.16 From the

beginning, much of NED’s work was pop u lar with civil society organiza-

tions in developing nations, and extremely unpop u lar with rulers, though

by the 2000s that would change: as American democracy- promotion efforts

during the George W. Bush era became increasingly unpop u lar in regions

like the Middle East and South Asia, NED grantees from civil society

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:44 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

How We Got Here 45

organizations would hide their affi liation with the group.17 But earlier on,

NED grants helped speed transitions to democracy in countries like Poland,

where the group invested heavily in the Polish trade unions that played a

major role in criticizing the communist regime.18 Private organizations that

performed similar functions, like George Soros’s constellation of Open

Society initiatives, also would add to the investments in demo cratization in

the third wave nations.

With the end of the Cold War, demo cratization moved to the forefront of

American policy making, and the third wave of demo cratization expanded

beyond the post- Soviet states to include parts of Latin America and Asia

and even some African nations. Democracy advocates on both the right

and the left gained infl uence and power. Some, like Madeleine Albright,

took high- profi le positions in the administration of President Bill Clinton.

The United States, now an unrivaled superpower with a soaring economy,

enjoyed the luxury of making democracy promotion a central pillar of for-

eign policy; America could embark on armed foreign interventions to save

nations trying to build new democracies, even when those countries were

tangential to American strategic interests. The American public, riding the

economic boom of the mid- and late 1990s, would tolerate a more interna-

tionalist foreign policy; American liberals, who since the Vietnam War had

linked military intervention to overaggressive, even brutal, American power,

could now support the use of force to prevent crimes against humanity and

to save beleaguered potential democracies like East Timor or Kosovo. And

if the United States wanted to promote democracy and help build a new

class of po liti cal leaders, even close to the traditional spheres of infl uence of

Rus sia or China, who was going to stop it? By the mid- 1990s, Moscow was

on the verge of bankruptcy and Beijing still had not fully recovered from

the stain of the Tiananmen massacre.

As president, Clinton decided to make democracy promotion a core

part of his foreign policy. Searching for a theme that would convey a foreign

policy for the post– Cold War era and would be remembered by history,

Clinton had settled on one phrase: demo cratic enlargement.19 Demo cratic

enlargement, he decided in meetings with his National Security Council,

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:44 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

46 How We Got Here

would form the center of his foreign policy and would be a successor to

the containment policy of the Cold War. It would capture the optimism

and hope of the post– Cold War era and would wed optimism to strategic

purpose. Enlargement would mean that America’s priority now would be

to help expand the number of free states in the world, because, as National

Security Advisor Anthony Lake told historian Douglas Brinkley, “as free

states grew in number and strength the international order would become

both more prosperous and more secure.”20 The Clinton administration, he

said, would help consolidate young democracies, help counter the aggres-

sion of states hostile to democracy, and support the liberalization of undemo-

cratic nations.21 Of course, there would be exceptions, such as China and the

Middle East, but from early in his fi rst term, and even in his speeches on the

campaign trail, Clinton aggressively highlighted democracy promotion as

vital to American national interests. His fi rst National Security Strategy

stated that “all of America’s strategic interests— from promoting prosperity

at home to checking global threats abroad before they threaten our territory—

are served by enlarging the community of demo cratic and free market

nations.”22 In studying the Clinton administration’s record, Thomas

Carothers, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, found that

Clinton had for the fi rst time institutionalized democracy promotion in the

U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy— every U.S. embassy now had to submit

an annual report on its democracy promotion efforts— and the White

House, in its bud geting requests, clearly made democracy promotion one of

its strategic priorities.23 Between the early 1990s and 2000, U.S. government

spending on democracy promotion grew from around $100 million annually

to over $700 million annually.24 Clinton attempted to support what he con-

sidered the most important nations on the verge of demo cratization, includ-

ing Rus sia and Mexico; under Clinton, the United States became Rus sia’s

largest investor, American democracy- promotion organizations like NED

expanded their Rus sia programs, and the Clinton administration pushed

the International Monetary Fund, G7, and World Bank to use their re-

sources to foster demo cratization in Rus sia.25 The White House drastically

expanded funding for demo cratic institution building and market reforms

in the newly free nations of Eastern Eu rope, and, on the campaign trail in

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:44 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

How We Got Here 47

1996, Clinton boasted, “With our help, the forces of reform in Eu rope’s

newly free nations have laid the foundations of democracy.”26

East Timor, which in 1975 had shown the limits of what Washington

would do to protect a nascent democracy during the Cold War, served as an

example again in 1999. As in 1975, a brutal bloodletting exploded in Timor.

After the majority of Timorese voted to separate from Indonesia, militias

with links to the Indonesian armed forces began a campaign of slaughter

that would not have been out of place in the Rwandan genocide. Gangs of

militiamen wielding machetes and automatic weapons hacked, disembow-

eled, and beheaded known in de pen dence supporters, aid workers, journal-

ists, and anyone else who happened to be in their way. Thousands died, and

70 percent of Timor’s infrastructure was destroyed. But this time the world

responded. Despite having minimal strategic interests in East Timor, major

powers like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia backed

an armed humanitarian intervention that, under the auspices of the United

Nations, ultimately stemmed the violence, allowed relief workers to avoid a

total catastrophe in East Timor, and ultimately helped Timor to fi nally

break from Indonesia and build a fragile and in de pen dent democracy.27

The Timor triumph, along with successful Western intervention in

Kosovo, only further emboldened Washington. With the end of the Soviet

Union, Western fears that democracy would not survive and that commu-

nism would last forever suddenly vanished. Few had predicted the Soviet

collapse, but in its wake a Western triumphalism quickly emerged. Francis

Fukuyama later protested that he never intended his “End of History” arti-

cle to express this conviction that liberal democracy had triumphed forever,

but the piece captured the victorious Western mood. Democracy, Clinton

administration offi cials now argued, had a universal appeal, and would

spread, well, universally— a belief, as Robert Kagan noted, rooted in the

Enlightenment concept of the inevitability of progress, of history constantly

moving forward toward human improvement.28 In aid conferences and

missions to developing nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, offi cials

from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the United Na-

tions, U.S. government agencies, and other Western organizations preached

the new gospel of economic and po liti cal liberalization.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:44 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

48 How We Got Here

Kishore Mahbubani, a former se nior Singaporean foreign ser vice offi -

cial, remembered meeting a top Belgian offi cial in 1991, the year that prob-

ably marked the apex of post– Cold War triumphalism. Before a group of

Asians, the offi cial declared, “The Cold War has ended. There are only two

superpowers left: The United States and Eu rope.”29

Post–Cold War haughtiness even fi ltered into bilateral relations with

powers like Rus sia and China. In the 1990s Western scholars like Gordon

Chang predicted the coming collapse of the Chinese Communist Party and

took bets on when it would fall to a demo cratic uprising. American offi cials,

seeing in Yeltsin’s Rus sia the opposite of the Soviet Union— Russia would

now be a close friend, an American- style democracy— pushed to expand

NATO closer to Rus sia’s borders, ignoring warnings from experts that

Rus sian nationalism had hardly just vanished, and that Russians— and

Chinese— might resent this dramatic American intervention in their

backyard.30

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:44 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Yale University Press

Chapter Title: The Fourth Wave

Book Title: Democracy in Retreat Book Subtitle: The Revolt of the Middle Class and the Worldwide Decline of Representative Government Book Author(s): Joshua Kurlantzick Published by: Yale University Press. (2013) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bh31.6

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Democracy in Retreat

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

T he outskirts of blantyre, the commercial capital of Malawi,

are some of the most forlorn suburbs on earth. Years of on- and-

off drought and famine in the countryside have gradually de-

stroyed Malawi’s farming families, driving many people to settle in Blantyre,

where the men take odd jobs as guards at stores or as part- time bus drivers.

Rows of shacks made from scraps of metal and scavenged wood cover the

denuded hills outside the city, and, at night, if you are brave enough to walk

in these neighborhoods, you can see young men posted as guards in front of

the families’ tiny dwellings, since Malawi’s urbanization and deep poverty—

GDP per capita is roughly $800— have sparked a rise in violent crime. In

wealthier parts of the city, residents employ private security companies and

equip their houses with “panic rooms,” which don’t always work— home in-

vasions remain common, and the thieves often seem to be in cahoots with

the security guards assigned to watch the properties.

In the early morning, the sides of the rutted roads are so thick with

people walking to their jobs from the shantytowns that cars can fi nd these

routes diffi cult to negotiate. Nearly all the land outside Blantyre has been

ripped up. Wood has been stripped for houses, and edible plants taken for

food on the formerly lush hills above the green valleys of Thyolo, the tradi-

tional tea- growing region north of the city. In se nior housing in Thyolo,

el der ly planters, who settled in Malawi from Britain when it was still a

colony, still take afternoon tea and tiny British- style fi nger cakes. But out-

side of the carefully tended gardens of these residences, and beyond the lush

tea plantations owned by large companies, across Thyolo one can see only

arid scrub, razed buildings, and fruit plants ripped apart in search of food.

The Fourth Wave

3

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

50 The Fourth Wave

Women with babies tied on their backs with brightly colored chitenge cloths

jostle for space on the sides of the road with sickly vendors carry ing bat-

tered trays of avocados and bananas.

Children are everywhere. Malawi has one of the highest birthrates in

the world, and its fi fteen million people are jammed into a country the size

of Pennsylvania, with cities that resemble the packed metropolises of South

Asia more than the archetypical open landscapes of Africa. It also has a

staggeringly high rate of HIV/AIDS infection. The United Nations’ AIDS

program estimates that 14 percent of Malawians are infected, an epidemic

that, even in the era of antiretrovirals, has orphaned many kids, leaving

them to be cared for by grandparents, or by no one.1 At intersections in

Blantyre proper, packs of orphans clad in torn clothes and with matted hair

often waylay stopped or slow- moving cars to beg for food or a few kwacha,

the nearly worthless Malawian currency that piles up in stacks in mer-

chants’ shops.

And yet, for all its destitution Malawi was, until recently, a demo cratic

success story. After the country’s longtime dictator stepped down in the

early 1990s, the country held free, multiparty elections. The fi rst demo-

cratically elected president, Bakili Muluzi, was later accused of massive

corruption— but after Malawi’s top court upheld the constitution and barred

him from seeking a third term in the 2009 presidential election, he complied

with its ruling. His former protégé, Bingu wa Mutharika, now leading an

opposition party, won the presidency.

Beginning in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Malawi also developed a

culture of largely peaceful, vigorous po liti cal campaigning. The presiden-

tial election of 2009 exemplifi ed this trend. At one point during the winter

campaign a large crowd dressed in red, the color of John Tembo, was hol-

lering wildly for their candidate in front of an overgrown soccer fi eld next

to a divided highway. Across the road a smaller group of Mutharika back-

ers, all dressed in his party color, blue, had taken position, screaming into

the sky, clapping and singing, and thrusting massive posters of their candi-

date’s face at passing cars, nearly causing an accident. After a while some

Mutharika supporters crossed the street toward the Tembo group, yet they

didn’t make any effort to stir up violence— a common occurrence during

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Fourth Wave 51

election campaigns in neighboring nations like Zimbabwe and Zambia.

Instead, several of the younger men dropped their Mutharika posters, pulled

out a ragged soccer ball, and started an impromptu dribbling exhibition

with two Tembo men. Later that year, Malawi would hold a relatively peace-

ful presidential election, marking another seeming transition to stable

democracy. The campaign was covered extensively in the local newspapers,

which suffered from lack of resources— reporters were paid little, and the

papers themselves often looked like they had been printed on rags— but

which reported on the candidates with boldness and style, chronicling nearly

every po liti cal battle that went on across the country. Despite some threats

from angry politicians, reporters rarely backed down, and each day’s paper

usually contained a scandal sheet rapping all the major politicians’ foibles.

Even as Malawi welcomed democracy, its leaders, and its citizens, also

came to associate po liti cal change with promises of economic prosperity.

Throughout the fourth wave of demo cratization, in the late 1990s and early

2000s, foreign donors and many local leaders who pushed the “Washington

Consensus” prescriptions of open markets and open societies, increasingly

made this association. But it was a dangerous link. No evidence had really

shown that open societies were more likely to create economic growth. In

fact, Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has shown that, in

recent years, many authoritarian nations have outperformed freer coun-

tries.2 But in the late 1980s and 1990s, many developing world leaders—

and their advocates in the West— linked the two.

In the late 1980s, Malawi might have seemed a remote prospect for democ-

racy, but it was joined by many other demo cratizing nations from similar

levels of development. The fourth wave of global demo cratization, which

built on the gains of the third wave, began to crest in the late 1990s and con-

tinued into the early 2000s. While the third wave had swept through South-

ern Eu rope and parts of Eastern Eu rope, Latin America, and Asia, the

fourth wave included much of sub- Saharan Africa and many other coun-

tries that were poorer, more prone to confl ict, and, often, more remote, than

those in the third wave: East Timor, Cambodia, Mexico, Mozambique, and

Malawi, among many others.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

52 The Fourth Wave

In many ways, the uprisings in the Middle East in 2011 seemed to fi t in

with that fourth wave. The Middle East revolts took place in countries like

Yemen or Egypt— nations that were often as poor, authoritarian, or confl ict-

ridden—or all three— as those in the fourth wave nations. Before the Arab

Spring, just as in sub- Saharan Africa before the 1990s, many observers, and

indeed many Arabs, had all but written off the prospect of real change in

the Middle East for generations.

Just as in the third wave, a kind of positive diffusion effect took place

in which demo cratic change— sometimes backed by powerful advocacy by

established democracies, as in East Timor— in one fourth wave country

spilled over to neighboring nations. The revolts in Tunisia in December

2010, broadcast on satellite tele vi sion and social media, inspired reformers

fi rst in Egypt, and then in Bahrain, Syria, Libya, and other nations in the

Middle East. The dramatic end of apartheid in South Africa in the early

1990s, as well as liberalization in neighboring nations like Mozambique

and Zambia, helped create currents of change that autocratic leaders like

Malawian dictator Hastings Banda ultimately could not ignore. Throwing

off most of the remaining postcolonial dictators, many other poor African

nations, like Benin, held multiple free and fair elections.

In the former Soviet sphere, the progress toward democracy of former

communist states like Poland and Kyrgyzstan began to spill over into harder

cases, like Ukraine, Central Asian nations, and Georgia. New states carved

from the Soviet Central Asian republics, some of the poorest and most

ethnically heterogeneous parts of the former Soviet Union, held elections.

After the vicious Balkan wars of the 1990s, nearly every part of the former

Yugo slavia held real, competitive elections, with several, like Slovenia, ap-

proaching Western Eu ro pe an standards of stable democracy. Overall, by

the early 2000s, nearly half of the world’s population lived in countries that

were either full or partial democracies, up from less than half in the mid-

1970s.3

Sub- Saharan Africa made perhaps the greatest demo cratic gains in the

1990s and early 2000s, seemingly disproving arguments, sometimes made

by African leaders, that the region was too poor, too ethnically divided, and

too uneducated to make democracy work. From Malawi to postapartheid

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Fourth Wave 53

South Africa, the continent disposed of so- called big men, held elections,

and paid lip ser vice to new demo cratic norms. Long- ruling parties in many

countries fi nally lost elections and willingly transferred power. Western

leaders, including President Bill Clinton, touted a “new generation” of Afri-

can leaders, men like Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni and Ethiopia’s Meles

Zenawi, who would commit themselves to reform and to priorities that

the fi rst postcolonial generation had often ignored.4

In Kenya, the era following Daniel arap Moi had begun exuberantly

in 2002 with the frenzied inauguration of former longtime opposition

leader Mwai Kibaki, who vowed to clean up, and open up, Kenyan politics.

At Kibaki’s inauguration, where the new president declared, “The era of

anything goes is now gone forever: Government will no longer be run on

the whims of individuals.” Africa journalist Michela Wrong tried to pay a

small bribe to a local driver, but he refused her money, saying that a new,

cleaner era had come to Kenya.5 Kibaki appointed John Githongo, a prom-

inent, outspoken local journalist who had bitterly criticized Moi’s autocratic

and venal style, as his anticorruption czar.

Like Kibaki, Olusegun Obasanjo, a former general with a relatively

clean reputation who won the Nigerian presidency in 1999 after the dictator

Sani Abacha died, took offi ce amid a wave of optimism. Obasanjo touted

himself as a reformer after the predation and outright thuggery of the

Abacha era; the day of his inauguration was called “Democracy Day,” and

a national holiday was declared.6 In the following months U. S. Secretary of

State Madeleine Albright called for greater American aid to Nigeria, prais-

ing Obasanjo for launching a demo cratic revolution that could rival “the

Czechoslovak ‘Velvet Revolution’ and South Africa’s long walk to freedom”

in its power and infl uence.7

The fourth wave of demo cratization, which had seemed so improbable

just a de cade earlier, cemented in many Western leaders’ minds the idea

that democracy eventually would come to every country. If a place as poor

and as confl ict- ridden as Malawi or Mozambique could build a viable demo-

cratic system, what nation could not? Critical international developments,

including the rapid expansion of communications technology, the end of the

Cold War, and the birth of Western democracy promotion, also seemed to

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

54 The Fourth Wave

foster the global spread of democracy. By the beginning of the 2000s, this

belief in the essential triumph of democracy had become a kind of religion

among Western leaders.

The color revolutions of the early 2000s capped off the fourth wave,

and only added to Western leaders’ demo cratic triumphalism. Beginning

with the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003 (some would add the protests

in Serbia in 2000), the term “color revolutions” came to mean peaceful,

pop u lar movements for demo cratic change, initially in the former Soviet

Union and old Eastern bloc.

To be sure, some fourth wave nations seemed, even in their best moments,

to be the “illiberal democracies” that prominent intellectual and writer

Fareed Zakaria has described— places like Cambodia, whose leaders never

really upheld what Zakaria calls “constitutional liberalism,” meaning pro-

tections of individual autonomy and dignity against coercion, including

the potential tyranny of a demo cratic majority.8 As Zakaria outlined in his

book The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad,

many young democracies, led by popularly elected leaders who had little

interest in creating demo cratic institutions, trampled on minority rights,

religious freedoms, and economic rights. “In many developing countries,

the experience of democracy over the past few de cades has been one in

which majorities have— often quietly, sometimes noisily— eroded separa-

tions of power, undermined human rights, and corrupted longstanding

traditions of tolerance and fairness. . . . Demo cratization and illiberalism

are directly related,” he wrote.9 In India, where Zakaria was born, the mid-

1990s BJP government, popularly elected and supported by many Hindus,

fostered pogroms against Muslims, a religious minority, in states like Guja-

rat, and apparently set back India’s commitment to liberalism, which had

been enshrined at the time of in de pen dence by unelected Indian elites or by

leaders, like Jawaharlal Nehru, who were far more tolerant than most Indi-

ans. In Indonesia, where for thirty years relative interreligious and intereth-

nic peace had prevailed under Suharto’s iron grip (though, when he came to

power in the mid- 1960s, Suharto unleashed massive bloodshed), demo cratic

change in the late 1990s led to new waves of violence between Muslims and

Christians, Javanese and non- Javanese, and many other groups within In-

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Fourth Wave 55

donesian society.10 Unlike leaders like Suharto or Singapore’s Lee Kuan

Yew, who could “make shrewd choices for the long term,” demo cratic lead-

ers also would inherently be pulled into populist economic policies focused

on short- term gains at the expense of development.11

Zakaria argued further that the problem with these “illiberal democ-

racies” was not that they were insuffi ciently democratic— that their institu-

tions and po liti cal cultures needed to continue to mature, like those in the

West that had developed for de cades. This was a critique that had been made

by many demo cratization specialists, and even by demo crats in many devel-

oping nations themselves. Instead, he argued that they had too much democ-

racy, and that the only solution was authoritarian rule, or at least a kind of

oligarchic rule by the “best people”— the elites, like Nehru and other Indian

founding fathers, who had attended En glish boarding schools and then

Oxford or Cambridge. He celebrated leaders like Indonesia’s Suharto and

Pervez Musharraf, the military ruler of Pakistan throughout most of the

2000s who, by Zakaria’s reckoning, instilled greater tolerance of religious

and ethnic diversity than any civilian politician in that country could or

would have done.12 He seemed to even suggest that no Muslim- majority

nation was capable of real democracy, since illiberal Islamists would always

dominate an election and crush people’s freedoms— thus, a “liberal” dicta-

tor like Musharraf or Tunisia’s Zine Al- Abidine Ben Ali was the best alter-

native. He longed for earlier periods even in American history, when politics

was essentially decided by a small group of men who came from the “right”

background, attended the “right” universities, and then governed together at

the State Department, CIA, and the White House.

Some of Zakaria’s argument about illiberalism made inherent sense,

such as the critical observation that democracy means more than simply

elections; U.S. policy too often has focused on one relatively free election in

a developing nation while ignoring other signs suggesting that demo cratic

institutions are not being put into place. As we will see later, some “elected

autocrats”— popularly elected leaders in fragile democracies like Rus sia or

Thailand— have shown little commitment to the rule of law or to freedoms

of association, press, or religion, and a democracy promotion policy focused

primarily on elections, or a one- size- fi ts- all type of pro cess, can hardly be suc-

cessful. And in some instances, development- minded dictators like Suharto

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

56 The Fourth Wave

or Augusto Pinochet of Chile were able to pass economic reforms that set

the stage for sustained growth.

Yet a wide range of comprehensive studies has shown that it is impossi-

ble to fi nd a clear link between autocracy and growth. These dictators also

usually did little to set the stage for any demo cratic transition, since the

foundation of their rule was a desire to stay in power for life— when Suharto

was overthrown, he was focused on concentrating more wealth and power

into the hands of his family, not liberalizing the po liti cal environment or

opening up Indonesia’s cartelized markets. More important, these elected

autocrats alone, whom Zakaria despises, did not undermine these democra-

cies; as we will see, when this fourth wave crested these nations were neu-

tered by a combination of poor leadership, weak institutions, a complacent

middle class, slow growth, and corruption. This fourth wave also was not

helped by Western democracy promotion strategies heavy on rhetoric, elec-

tions, and pro cess, and it was light on actual funding on the ground, or an

understanding of how to make democracy more attractive to both middle

classes and working classes in the developing world.

But despite Zakaria’s legitimate concerns about young democracies,

some of which are echoed in this book, and even though many of these

elected autocrats often took their countries’ democracies backward, they

almost never left their nations more repressive than they had been under pre-

vious true dictatorships. In Thailand, for instance, Thaksin Shinawatra did

set the rule of law back during his prime ministership between 2001 and

2006: he intimidated the Thai media, bent the court system to his priorities,

and essentially sacked supposedly in de pen dent bureaucrats who defi ed his

policies. But only someone with no historical memory would argue that

Thaksin’s period as prime minister even began to compare to the bloodiest

days of Thailand’s past dictatorships, such as the late 1940s, when dictator

Phibul Songkram disappeared or simply murdered po liti cal opponents,

or the mid- 1970s, when under a series of right- wing regimes state- backed

vigilantes attacked Thammasat University, the Thai equivalent of Har-

vard, where they raped female students and then doused students with

gasoline and immolated them, leaving their charred bodies swinging

from trees.13

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Fourth Wave 57

Indeed, even if they were incomplete democracies, all of the fourth wave

nations that later regressed were freer in every respect during their more

demo cratic periods than they had been earlier, during their truly authoritar-

ian periods. Vladimir Putin, in the 2000s, did indeed set back Rus sian de-

mocracy, often with the consent of many Rus sians; its scores on Freedom

House rankings fell compared to the Yeltsin era during the 1990s. But the

country hardly had reverted to the terrors of the Soviet Union, in which

none of Zakaria’s individual liberal rights received any protections.

Zakaria’s notion of illiberal democracy is inherently fl awed in other

ways. He chooses many examples in his book that do not even fi t the defi ni-

tion of democracy at all, countries like Kazakhstan that, according to the

international monitoring or ga ni za tion Freedom House and other ranking

organizations, are simply autocracies. For every Pinochet or Lee Kuan Yew,

there were tens of Mobutus or Malawi’s Hastings Banda, who used their

cults of personality to signifi cantly restrain personal freedoms and individ-

ual liberties. In nearly every country he surveyed, many of the problems he

outlined were indeed a result of not enough, rather than too much, democ-

racy. As Harvard’s Sabeel Rahman writes in an analysis of Zakaria’s book,

“On closer inspection, one fi nds that the culprits [in illiberal democracies]

are not the public, who are the supposed benefi ciaries of demo cratic em-

powerment, but rather special interest groups”— groups that could be

minimized through greater, not lesser, democracy.14

Meanwhile, as they have become more autocratic, the fourth wave na-

tions have not developed any of the supposed positive attributes of authori-

tarian rule that Zakaria writes about: benign dictators promoting liberal

social and economic freedoms that would have been impossible in a pop u-

lar democracy, or making farsighted economic decisions, since they are not

accountable to the broader public. Instead, after the coup in 2006 Thailand’s

new military leaders badly bungled economic policy, sparking panic among

investors and leading to runs on the Thai currency. In Cambodia, where the

prime minister has suffocated the demo cratic reforms of the 1990s, the

government has done little to promote sustained economic growth, instead

turning into a kind of mafi a state designed to enrich se nior government

offi cials and their allies.15 Overall, a comprehensive study of fourth wave

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

58 The Fourth Wave

nations by Council on Foreign Relations researchers found that economic

growth did not improve as they veered back toward autocracy, and that

protection of these types of liberal freedoms also did not improve, even

under supposedly “enlightened” autocracies like the Thai generals who de-

posed the elected autocrat Thaksin, or Musharraf.

In earlier demo cratic waves, countries had pursued a wide range of develop-

ment strategies. Many third wave nations, especially those in East Asia,

actually pursued highly state- directed strategies of economic growth, which

some economists later would call the East Asian model. Eventually, these

countries, like Taiwan and South Korea, also built vibrant democracies.

While participating in global trading regimes, nations like Taiwan, Thai-

land, Malaysia, South Korea, and, earlier, Japan protected critical industries

until they were more internationally competitive, invested heavily in primary

education, and directed banks and other fi nancial institutions, including citi-

zens’ pension plans, to support certain sectors of the economy. Some of

these high- powered economies, like Malaysia (and later China), used capital

controls to protect themselves from international capital markets. In Thai-

land, a small cadre of government bureaucrats in the Bank of Thailand and

Ministry of Finance oversaw these government economic plans; in Japan,

the powerful bureaucrats of the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry

played this role. In Thailand, import substitution and protections of critical

industries would ultimately be responsible for nearly half the growth in the

export manufacturing sector, while in South Korea such supports and

protections nurtured a generation of companies that would become world-

beaters, including automaker Hyundai and technology giant Samsung.

These state- directed mea sures were actually not so different from those

employed by earlier, fi rst wave democracies in North America and Western

Eu rope when they, too, were developing economies. During the early years

of its existence, the United States, for example, used high tariffs and other

import restrictions to protect many of the young country’s industries from

competition with Eu ro pe an fi rms.

Other second and third wave nations pursued different strategies of

growth, with less success, yet managed at the same time to build solid de-

mocracies. After in de pen dence, India created a highly protected economy,

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Fourth Wave 59

using a wide range of tariffs and nontariff barriers to keep out foreign

investment in most sectors, and to actually hinder domestic companies

from growing too large. Many other postcolonial states also adhered to a

socialist economic strategy, with highly mixed economic results— India

grew by around 3– 4 percent most years, and many African nations barely

grew at all in the 1970s and early 1980s. Yet some of these nations, such as

Greece and India, still managed to consolidate their democracies. Very few

nations in the second or third waves adopted wholly free market policies—

even countries later championed by free market advocates, like Chile, still

used a sizable degree of state planning and support to buttress certain sec-

tors. The one place often cited by free market advocates as an example of

the power of economic liberalization, Hong Kong— annually ranked as the

“freest” economy in the world in the Heritage Foundation think tank’s In-

dex of Economic Freedom— was neither a country nor a democracy, and its

prosperity actually depended, in no small mea sure, on a massively infl ated

local property market tightly controlled by the government.

But in the fourth wave Western leaders, policy makers, and institutions

like the World Bank were caught up in a kind of post– Cold War hysteria.

The West’s triumph over communism was proof, as Francis Fukuyama fa-

mously argued in The End of History, that liberal democracy, combined with

market economics, represented the direction in which the world would in-

evitably evolve. The hard sell of democracy barely took account of the uncer-

tainty about the actual conditions for growth in developing nations. It did

not seem to matter that earlier wave nations had employed many different

economic models of growth, or that many of the governments that collapsed

in 1989 and in the early 1990s did so not because of economic liberalization

but for a variety of reasons, ranging from international pressure (apartheid

South Africa) to internal leadership dynamics that spiraled out of control

(the Soviet Union under Gorbachev). At the time, this nuance was ignored:

economic change was linked to po liti cal change, and a program of free mar-

kets and free politics was the only item on the menu. As candidate George

W. Bush declared in 2000 on the presidential campaign trail, “Economic

freedom creates habits of liberty. And habits of liberty create expectations of

democracy.”16 The man he was hoping to replace, Bill Clinton, made essen-

tially the same point many times. In one typical phrase from his book- length

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

60 The Fourth Wave

vision for America, Between Hope and History, he wrote, “Just as democracy

helps make the world safe for commerce, commerce helps make the world

safe for democracy.”17

By the 1990s a large cadre of development experts, housed at the World

Bank, the International Monetary Fund, ministries of Western govern-

ments, and universities and think tanks, were ready to dispense advice about

the proper route to po liti cal and economic liberalization. The model advo-

cated by many of these experts became known as the “Washington Con-

sensus.”18 Its author, economist John Williamson, originally intended it to

mean a discrete and limited set of economic initiatives particularly devel-

oped to address many of the economic problems facing Latin American

nations in the late 1980s and in the 1990s, including fi scal discipline, tax

reform, liberalizing exchange rates, privatization, and trade liberalization,

among other changes. But the term soon took on a far broader meaning

among many development experts and world leaders: it came to signify

broad reforms, promoted not only for Latin America but for the entire devel-

oping world, and designed to open markets, increase fi nancial transparency,

and reduce government intervention in the economy, along with po liti cal re-

forms that would also foster freedom by shrinking the role of the state.19

Proponents of the Washington Consensus made swaggering boasts about

the potential results, and brooked little criticism of their proposals. In per-

haps the most famous example, World Bank offi cials throughout the 1990s

promised that these policy reforms, if implemented throughout the devel-

oping world, would slash global poverty in half.20 Later, in an internal as-

sessment of its policies during this de cade, the Bank admitted that it still

didn’t know “how to improve institutional per for mance [i.e., how to pro-

mote economic growth]” and that the Washington Consensus had been “the

dominant view, making it diffi cult for others to be heard,” even though

these proposed reforms actually had had a mixed impact on growth and

po liti cal change.21 Another retrospective comprehensive analysis of the

Washington Consensus, by former World Bank chief economist Joseph Sti-

glitz, found that proponents of its reforms made little effort to tailor its pre-

scriptions to individual countries and, even if it produced growth, actually

paid little attention to whether that growth alleviated poverty or really ad-

dressed in e qual ity at all. Worse, Stiglitz also concluded that the Washington

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Fourth Wave 61

Consensus failed to even promote signifi cant growth in most of the nations

where it was applied, even as it ignored the balanced, important role that a

state can play in development.

The lack of another obvious alternative model in the late 1990s and early

2000s only emboldened advocates of free markets linked with free politics.

Compared with the Cold War, no major powers now dissented loudly from

this new orthodoxy. After the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown, China adopted

a more modest public approach to foreign policy and spent most of the 1990s

and early 2000s wooing foreign investment, building its own industries

(using many of the statist models pioneered by other Asian nations), and

refusing to publicly offer any alternative to the Washington Consensus. Rus sia,

decimated eco nom ical ly by the fall of the Soviet Union, and nearly bankrupt

in the mid- 1990s, also was in no position to offer any alternative.

The sheer number and diversity of countries in the fourth wave of

demo cratization, as compared with earlier waves that took place mostly in

the West, also added to pressure among many leaders and donors to de-

velop a single model that could be applied in developing nations. After the

fall of the Berlin Wall, many leaders, both in the former Soviet states and in

the West, feared that if radical mea sures were not taken rapidly in the old

Soviet bloc, these states would be unable to jettison the legacy of communist

economic planning, and might wind up with hyperinfl ation and highly

uncompetitive economies, which could lead to a stalling, or even a reversal,

of po liti cal reforms and potential links to the West. These countries, many

economists and donor agencies believed, needed to embark on quick trans-

formations. Led by economists such as Jeffrey Sachs, many IMF and Bank

offi cials promoted a kind of economic shock therapy, consisting of rapid

freeing of the economies of countries like Poland.

The Bank was hardly alone in its hard sell of free markets and free

politics. Sub- Saharan Africa and much of Latin America had suffered

badly in the 1980s, a period of capital fl ight and economic policies that too

often saddled Latin American and African nations with greater debts. In

the worst years of the 1980s, sub- Saharan Africa’s total GDP actually

shrank, and even in the best years overall growth in Africa barely topped 4

percent; many Latin nations also ended the de cade of the 1980s poorer than

they’d begun.22 By the early 1990s, most African and Latin leaders were

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

62 The Fourth Wave

looking for any solutions that would halt a death spiral of underdevelop-

ment and isolation from the global economy. Many had failed with the social-

ist economic planning and import- substitution strategies of the postcolonial

era, and at the time few understood the potential of the gradualist approach

of the East Asian nations, which slowly weaned themselves off of many of

the state subsidies and protections they had used in the 1960s and 1970s.

(Later, as we will see, as China became a major world power again, and

began highlighting its growth model, many other developing nations would

try to copy the gradualist approach.) Compared with the weak growth and

stasis of the 1960s and 1970s, and facing balance of payments problems,

weak growth, and high unemployment, many developing nations as-

sumed that the Washington Consensus could not help but improve their

economies.

The savviest leaders of developing nations also realized that decent

growth rates could bring stability to a young democracy. Growth, after

all, would mollify members of the old regime— friends of the old dicta-

tor, the military, se nior civil servants used to comfortable lifestyles, local

traditional leaders— by expanding the pool of potential spoils and, possi-

bly, convincing the most recalcitrant former regime insiders to support a

demo cratic transition.

Malawi, like many sub- Saharan African nations, received the full mea sure

of Washington Consensus advocacy. Stephen Carr, an economist, worked

for the World Bank for years, and then retired to Malawi, where he lived

on a small mountain outside of Blantyre. He had worked at the Bank dur-

ing the height of the Washington Consensus era and then watched, even

after he had left, as Bank specialists continued to descend upon the country.

“You’d have economists come in here, never been to Malawi, knew nothing

about how the country worked, and they’d make predictions, projections. . . .

No follow- through, but if anyone disagreed with them, well, you just

couldn’t,” he said. “It would be put that there was no other choice, really.”23

In the 1990s and early 2000s, Malawi was confronted with one crisis

after another: declining world prices for its staple crops of tea, coffee, and to-

bacco, and growing competition from new producers like Vietnam. Between

1980 and 2000, global prices for eigh teen major commodities plunged by

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Fourth Wave 63

nearly one- quarter. Several times in the 1990s, droughts in the maize-

planting regions, possibly caused by shifting global climate patterns, caused

famines. Many Malawian families were left without enough maize even to

feed themselves the staple porridge of nsima, much less enough maize or

any other crop to sell; the ever- present deep- fried potatoes sold by street

vendors throughout the country were luxuries they could not afford.

The World Bank’s specialists proposed that Malawi privatize its agri-

cultural sector, slashing state subsidies for fertilizer and feed. These policy

recommendations came on the heels of Bank- and International Monetary

Fund– led structural adjustment policies for Malawi, begun in the late 1980s,

and they have launched a wave of privatization and macroeconomic liberal-

ization in the country. Some Malawian government offi cials wanted to tell

the Bank, politely, to shove off. They worried that, with even less of a gov-

ernment cushion of maize surplus and seeds, a drought would leave average

Malawians in an even more precarious position. But Malawi relies on donors

for more than half of its annual bud get, and so the Bank, and other Western

donors, wield enormous infl uence over government policy. “There was not

much [of a] way they [the Malawian government] could really stand up to

the donors,” said Carr. In the late 1990s, the government did begin to imple-

ment many of the Bank’s recommendations. As it did so, both Bank offi cials

and many Malawians politicians who realized that strong growth was needed

to maintain social stability aggressively advertised these policies.

Then, in the 2000s, disaster struck. Each season seemed to bring a

drought worse than the previous one. Malawi’s farms withered, and the

country had to start importing food from neighboring nations. Maize pro-

duction dropped by nearly half between 1998 and 2004, and in October

2005 Malawi’s president declared that the famine was a “national disaster.”

Malnutrition soared in a country where many people already could not

obtain enough food, and in the early 2000s hundreds died every year from

starvation. But the government had sold off much of its grain reserves, and

so it could do little to help its suffering farmers; it had to rely even more

heavily on handouts from aid agencies and other African nations. Private

traders who had amassed stocks of grain jacked up prices, and farmers

complained bitterly. Malawi’s economy contracted by nearly 5 percent in

2001, and by another 4.4 percent in 2002.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

64 The Fourth Wave

Eventually, the devastating famine forced the Malawian government to

reassess its strategies. Defying the Bank’s recommendation, the government

instead launched a program in which roughly half of Malawi’s small farm-

ers were given coupons that allowed them to buy fertilizer and seed at a rate

far below the market price. World Bank experts initially disdained the

Malawian government’s strategy, and the Bank may even have threatened

to cut assistance if Malawi went forward with its plan.24 Still, the Malawian

government insisted on its strategy and ultimately was seemingly proven

correct. The subsidized fertilizer and seeds helped Malawian farmers

produce some of their best harvests in the late 2000s. Once the farmers pro-

duced, the Malawian government created funds designed to buy a percent-

age of the maize crop and store it for future emergencies, thereby averting

the threat of empty grain silos in a future famine. Leaders from other Afri-

can nations, and even from some Latin American countries like Costa

Rica, began traveling to Malawi to study its turnaround. At one point, Ma-

lawi’s farmers became so productive that some government offi cials wor-

ried whether they might be producing too much, and thereby driving down

the price of their crops. Eventually, by the late 2000s the World Bank’s own

internal watchdog concluded that the demands by the Bank and other aid

donors to privatize agriculture in countries like Malawi had actually hurt

African nations. The Bank, and other Western donors, decided to cautiously

back the Malawian subsidies.25

But by the time of the Bank’s reevaluation, donors already had pursued

more than a de cade of in effec tive and dangerous policies in Malawi, despite

many warnings by local specialists that the donors were actually making

the situation worse.26 And even with the new subsidy policies, years of

privatization, combined with changing climate patterns and new competi-

tors for coffee, tea, and tobacco, weakened the country’s economy and led

to far greater fl uctuations in unemployment than that in the 1960s, 1970s,

or 1980s. As the economy stalled and hunger grew, further worsening the

HIV/AIDS situation in the country, many Malawians began to wonder

whether democracy, which had been promoted as part of the new economic

model, was not also to blame.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:46:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Yale University Press

Chapter Title: It’s the Economy, Stupid: The Consensus Fails

Book Title: Democracy in Retreat Book Subtitle: The Revolt of the Middle Class and the Worldwide Decline of Representative Government Book Author(s): Joshua Kurlantzick Published by: Yale University Press. (2013) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bh31.7

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Democracy in Retreat

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

B y the early 2000s, outside donors and many fourth wave nations like

Malawi had little to show for the linking of rapid economic and po-

liti cal liberalization. The tough reforms of democracy and the tough

reforms of market capitalism supposedly went hand in hand. Together, they

would bring freedom of speech and free elections but also growth, which

would trickle down to working class men and women. But in reality, the

correlation, or lack thereof, between democracy and economic growth has

been the subject of many studies, which have yielded inconclusive results.

Harvard economist Dani Rodrik has examined a wide range of case studies

and concluded that democracies historically neither outperform nor under-

perform dictatorships in promoting economic growth.1

Rodrik’s fi nding is supported by most other macroscopic literature stud-

ies, though other researchers, like the American Enterprise Institute’s Kevin

Hassett, have found short- term advantages for dictatorships.2 Another re-

cent comprehensive study analyzed countries that shifted from dictator-

ship to democracy, and vice versa. It found that the average rate of GDP

growth for the dictatorships was 4.37 percent a year and the average rate for

the democracies was 4.49 percent— virtually no difference.3

Authoritarian regimes can offer some advantages for growth if the

leadership, such as Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore or Augusto Pinochet in

Chile, pursues consistent and wise economic policies: dictatorships tend to

suffer less po liti cal instability, allowing authoritarian regimes to pursue

more farsighted economic policies without being captured by the po liti cal

pro cess. These policies can also impose more hardship on more people,

since they do not have to survive the test of elections— think of China’s

It’s the Economy, Stupid: The Consensus Fails

4

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

66 It’s the Economy, Stupid

willingness to implement infrastructure projects that force people to move,

a far harder feat in demo cratic India, where every new infrastructure project

requires signifi cant po liti cal negotiation.

Democracies, meanwhile, offer other advantages: They can create more

rule- based economies and can offer investors and local businesspeople more

outlets to pursue grievances, including outlets that are less opaque and easier

for foreign companies to navigate. Of course, some authoritarian states,

such as Pinochet’s Chile, or even today’s China, have welcomed foreign

investment and have created a relatively hospitable environment for it, but

overall democracies tend to provide the rules- based environment that facili-

tates investment. Several studies also have suggested that democracy tends

to reduce population growth, since demo cratic governments invest more in

public education, thereby boosting women’s earning potential by giving

them access to a greater range of jobs, expanding the country’s potential

workforce, and also likely helping bring down high fertility rates since

women’s growing education tends to be linked with declines in population

growth. Still, as Rodrik found, it can be diffi cult to trace economic success

to any clear policies adopted by a government.4

Some states in the third and fourth waves of demo cratization did pros-

per after opening up their po liti cal systems, but many of these countries—

including Taiwan, South Korea, and Chile— already had been succeeding

under authoritarian rule, and so continued economic growth did not help

much in selling the public on the merits of democracy. In other new de-

mocracies, the 1990s did become an era of decent growth— overall, Latin

America grew by just over 3 percent annually during the de cade, and Af-

rica grew by 2.2 percent— but these modest gains were not enough to make

up for the enormous losses suffered in the 1980s, especially with high fertil-

ity rates resulting in more and more young people entering the job market.

And, in Africa and parts of Asia, increased government and private sector

revenues quickly were consumed by the costs of a spiraling HIV/AIDS

crisis, which had not abated well into the 2000s.5

By the end of the 1990s, fi nancial crises in Rus sia, Argentina, and East

Asia reversed many economic gains made earlier in the de cade by young

democracies; overall, the Washington Consensus failed to deliver on many

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

It’s the Economy, Stupid 67

of its promises of higher growth, or it produced growth that still did not

make signifi cant inroads into unemployment in the developing world. In

fact, growth overall was lower in the developing world in the late 1990s and

early 2000s than it had been in the 1950s and 1960s, the postcolonial era of

import substitution and protectionism. Rus sia’s GDP shrank in 1998, as did

that of the Philippines and Malaysia; Argentina’s GDP shrank in 1999 and

2000; Thailand, where the Asian fi nancial crisis began with attacks on the

Thai currency in May 1997, suffered huge economic reversals as well. Latin

America and sub- Saharan Africa began to grow somewhat more strongly

in the late 2000s, but again much of this growth wound up being absorbed

by rising costs for pandemic disease— particularly HIV, which hit working

class men and women hard— spiraling prices for essential items, and declin-

ing terms of trade for many primary commodities produced in the poorer

fourth wave nations, which faced many nontariff barriers from Eu rope, the

United States, and other wealthy nations. Sub- Saharan nations like Zambia,

Mozambique, Malawi, and many others saw the economic gains they had

made further diminished.

When another global economic crisis hit in the late 2000s, many of

these fourth wave nations would be battered again, while the privatizations

of the 1990s and early 2000s had left states with fewer resources to absorb

this latest economic downturn through large- scale social welfare programs

or job creation schemes. In Central and Eastern Eu rope, growth averaged a

solid 4– 5 percent between 2003 and 2007, these nations were then decimated

by the global economic crisis. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the height of the

crisis in Latvia, the country’s economy shrunk by over 10 percent year- on-

year, and unemployment rose to over 20 percent. In neighboring Estonia,

the economy contracted by 9 percent year- on- year in the fourth quarter of

2009 alone. Asia’s developing nations, many of which were highly dependent

on exports to the West, suffered too: Singapore’s economy contracted by

nearly 20 percent in the fi rst quarter of 2009, in the wake of the global

economic crisis, with Malaysia, Thailand, Bangladesh, Cambodia, and the

Philippines hit hard as well.

Meanwhile, in many of these fourth wave countries, radical economic

restructuring in systems that still had not developed strong rules of law often

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

68 It’s the Economy, Stupid

resulted in old regime insiders morphing into fl ashy new oligarchs con-

trolling former state companies. This was particularly true among former

Soviet states, where the rapid economic liberalization frequently led to the

stripping of state assets and other dubious types of privatization. In Rus sia,

polls showed that the public had an intensely negative view of the oligarchs,

the big businessmen who had taken control of state companies in the post-

Soviet period, often gaining the assets at fi re sale prices. In one study, by the

ROMIR polling agency, only 19 percent of Rus sians held positive views of

the oligarchs’ actions in the 1990s, the height of the post- Soviet privatiza-

tion.6 In a more telling, and sad, statement, a Pew Research poll of many of

the former Soviet and Eastern bloc states taken to coincide with the twenti-

eth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall found that, “in many nations,

majorities or pluralities say that most people were better off under commu-

nism.” Other studies by the New Eu rope Barometer survey group found

rising levels of dissatisfaction with government in most former Eastern bloc

states in the two de cades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, often because of

dissatisfaction with their governments’ economic per for mance, a dissatisfac-

tion that would, for many, refl ect poorly on democracy as a po liti cal system.7

Even when the demo cratic era produced decent growth, various factors—

rising in e qual ity in a more globalized world, a decrease in state social welfare

policies in most nations, disease, urbanization, environmental degradation,

migration, and other changes wrought by the pace of modernization— often

made working class men and women’s lives harder, in some ways, than they

had been during earlier years of authoritarian rule. Overall, the United Na-

tions Human Development Program reports, the 2000s witnessed rising

income in e qual ity in nearly every developing nation. As a result, perceptions

that the standard of living was declining— or, at least, that it was not keep-

ing pace in countries that were becoming more unequal— often mattered

more than the actual facts of a par tic u lar nation’s economic growth or

decline. “A crucial paradox— that of growth without prosperity— besets

Africa’s new democracies,” writes Peter Lewis of Johns Hopkins University.

Macroeconomic reforms instituted by governments in Africa, Latin Amer-

ica, and parts of Central Asia, did deliver stronger economic fundamentals

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

It’s the Economy, Stupid 69

and higher growth. Yet except in a few rare exceptions like Brazil, which

combined macroeconomic stabilization with an innovative cash transfer

antipoverty program, in most of these developing nations growth seemed

to mean little to the lives of average citizens, and governments also cut social

welfare programs that, in the 1970s and 1980s, had helped prevent hunger

and homelessness.8 In Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and Tanzania,

Lewis concluded, indicators of public well- being—such as a rising incomes,

decreasing infant mortality, or home buying— lagged in the 1990s behind

strong overall economic per for mance in all of these new democracies.

And though politicians often expected that citizens would “evaluate po liti cal

and economic ‘goods’ separately,” in Lewis’s words, as we have seen this did

not happen— with such high expectations, many citizens of developing

nations judged the two “goods” together, and increasingly concluded that if

democracy could not deliver economic per for mance and public well- being,

its strengths had been greatly oversold.

Expectations seemed to matter enormously in Central and Eastern

Eu rope as well. The Eu ro pe an Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s

(EBRD) survey of the region in 2011 found that the economic crisis batter-

ing Eu rope in the late 2000s and early 2010s led to a decrease in support for

democracy among much of Central and Eastern Eu rope. Many house holds,

it found, had linked markets and democracy, and blamed the two for the

decrease in their living standards. But the EBRD also found that people

living in countries that had experienced previous serious downturns, and

that seemed to have lowered expectations for the relationship between de-

mocracy and growth, were less dissatisfi ed with the downturn of the late

2000s and early 2010s, and tended to remain stronger supporters of both

democracy and free market systems.9 In other words, if they had not linked

the “goods” of democracy and markets together so explicitly, they were less

likely to condemn democracy when the economy soured.

In Malawi, the 2000s contained several years of solid growth, at least

according to year- end economic fi gures. In 2005, Malawi grew by over 4

percent; two years later, it grew by over 8 percent. These fi gures suggested

that the country actually was becoming one of the stronger economic per-

formers in Africa.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

70 It’s the Economy, Stupid

But few working class Malawians felt they had benefi ted much from

this growth; almost to a person, they complained that their standard of

living had declined, whether or not the national economic growth fi gures

showed such a decline. And few understood that, whether Malawi liked it

or not, its government could not, in a globalizing world, keep the economy

closed and provide the type of social welfare it had delivered in the 1960s or

1970s. Back then, Malawi, willing to defy other black- run newly in de pen-

dent nations, had benefi ted from the largesse of apartheid South Africa, had

a much smaller population, and had enjoyed high world prices for its to-

bacco and coffee. Now, working class men and women saw that economic

liberalization had undercut the prices for their maize, tea, and tobacco, and

po liti cal liberalization had allowed more freedom of movement in the 1990s

and 2000s from farms to urban areas. This movement was resulting in

intensive crowding in Blantyre and other cities, where all land was being torn

up by squatters arriving every day, trucks choked the sky with unfi ltered

diesel gas, and new roads and truck routes linking Malawi to the rest of

Africa contributed to the spread of HIV, which killed brothers, fathers,

mothers— nearly every Malawian personally knew someone who had died

from an AIDS- caused illness. The Malawian government, which had por-

trayed itself as a paternalistic, caring father during Banda’s time, could do

little for most of these suffering people. “The government has no resources

to take care of people, with all the problems that are coming up,” said Peter

Kazembe, a well- known and outspoken Malawian doctor who worked at

times for government agencies. “We are more open [in politics] but that

doesn’t mean we are able to deal with all these new, modern problems. . . .

But people can talk more than in the past [than under the dictatorship] so

maybe it also seems like there are more problems.”

A country with very little economic in e qual ity during the 1960s and

1970s now had become more unequal, and the in e qual ity far more visible

than in the past, when the country had been a primarily rural society, and

foreign consumer goods had been diffi cult to obtain. Imported cars, cell

phones, computers, and other items were coming in from South Africa and

put on display to average Malawians in a way they had not been during the

1960s or 1970s— but few could afford these new luxuries. Outside one com-

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

It’s the Economy, Stupid 71

puter and electronics store on a main street in Blantyre, young boys dressed

in rags peered into the windows, where inside a tiny group of wealthy Indi-

ans and Malawians pored over torn- apart keyboards, wireless mice, and

motherboards. Across town, at the upscale Blantyre restaurant Greens, a

favorite watering hole nestled in the hills above the city, obese businessmen

and local offi cials, their bellies hanging over the waists of their too- tight

polyester slacks, ate skewers of lamb and chicken and other grilled meats

dripping with fat, and washed them down with South African wines. Later

in the eve ning, their drivers would shuttle them, in Range Rovers, over to

the South African– owned Protea Ryalls Hotel, where they could sip scotch

at the long bar or lounge on pillows on the terrace outside. Meanwhile, as

birthrates soared and HIV decimated families in the early 2000s, the United

Nations estimated that roughly 65,000 Malawian children were malnour-

ished, more than 10 percent of the country’s children. These hungry chil-

dren gathered outside the Ryalls Hotel or the upscale South African– owned

Shop Rite supermarket on the outskirts of town, where the sons and daugh-

ters of wealthy Malawians stocked up on cell phone cards and low- fat yo-

gurt imported from South Africa, as well as on other items they could now

see advertised on satellite TV stations airing shows from South Africa, fi lms

from Nigeria, and other programming that never would have been available

during the dictatorship. Outside the supermarket, guards wielding trun-

cheons shooed away the children.

Perhaps, Malawians remembered, the era of authoritarian rule had

been po liti cally harsh, but at least they had enjoyed stability and a decent

quality of life— regular meals, land to farm, government handouts for the

very poorest. Of course, part of the past quality of life simply had to do with

a smaller population, and thus more arable land— something that was hardly

related to the type of government running Malawi. Part of this memory was

simply a willful forgetting of the past: as years separated them further

from the era of the dictatorship, many Malawians forgot its most repressive

elements. They remembered instead— somewhat oversympathetically— a

simpler time, in the way that people all over the world often romanticize

the past. “It might have been more repressive, but at least under [former

dictator Hastings] Banda we always had enough to eat, and the country

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

72 It’s the Economy, Stupid

was safe,” one Malawian offi cial said, a sentiment echoed by many of his

peers who actually once fought the dictatorship as opposition activists.

Numbers revealed this shift in attitudes toward Banda’s dictatorship,

especially among the poorest Malawians, who believed they had fared the

worst as the country had become more open, and also more unequal. In-

deed, in the 1980s, when Malawi was still ruled by Banda, more than 80

percent of Malawians rejected the idea of authoritarian rule, though they

were still living under it. By 2005, that number had fallen dramatically:

only about half the population rejected the idea of authoritarian rule as the

best solution for the country.

When asked why they had become willing, again, to consider the

possibility of authoritarian rule, many Malawians said, like the government

offi cial, simply, that under Banda the country had enjoyed more stable and

prosperous growth. This was not necessarily true: During Banda’s time,

GDP growth fl uctuated from over 13 percent in the mid- 1960s, in the early

days of in de pen dence, to as little as roughly 1 percent annually in the early

and mid- 1980s. After in de pen dence Banda, like many other postcolonial

leaders, pursued a policy of import substitution designed to make Malawi

self- suffi cient in many industries. Banda’s policy worked, for a time, but in

the 1970s and early 1980s, as it became clear that Malawi could not indefi -

nitely protect its industries, and as the price of oil and other inputs rose,

Malawi’s economy weakened. Still, the smaller population at that time, and

the lack of environmental degradation, meant that even the poorest Mala-

wians usually had some family land to farm, and could raise a few chickens

for eggs, or some fruit trees. In a less globalized world, without donor agen-

cies pushing for privatization, and with signifi cant aid fl owing in from

South Africa, which built the country an entire new capital in the town of

Lilongwe, Banda could afford to cushion any economic downturns with

job creation programs or price supports for farmers’ crops.

What ever the reality, Banda, like many leaders in the developing world

in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, also had not tied growth as closely to his po-

liti cal legitimacy as would later occur with the wave of Malawian demo-

cratic politicians who emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s, or with the

donors who funded the country’s bud gets. Like many other postcolonial

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

It’s the Economy, Stupid 73

leaders, Banda, unlike his successors, also could rely on his credentials as an

in de pen dence leader to build pop u lar support for himself. He created a kind

of new Malawian nationalism, albeit one closely centered around him and

a fabricated new Malawian national culture, one that might tie together

the country’s language groups, tribes, and regional differences. In this way,

Banda’s efforts echoed those of many other postcolonial leaders, from

Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah to India’s Jawaharlal Nehru, who could use

their history as in de pen dence campaigners, as well as their po liti cal ideolo-

gies, to shore up their government’s legitimacy. Some postin de pen dence

leaders, such as Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, were able to utilize the legiti-

macy they obtained from fi ghting the colonists to remain in power even as

they ran their nations’ economies into the ground.

In the 1990s and 2000s, Banda’s demo cratic successors could not call

upon their credentials as in de pen dence heroes, and in a far less ideological

era than the 1960s, they could hardly fashion grand po liti cal ideologies de-

signed to remake the country. So, they did make the explicit link between

growth and their po liti cal system, over and over again, and thus rested

much of their legitimacy on the ability to deliver that growth. “Malawians

thought that these types of changes would raise their standard of living, so

it was these higher expectations that couldn’t be lived up to,” said Stephen

Carr, the longtime World Bank economist who lives in Malawi. Even if, in

reality, the demo cratic era had produced decent growth, high expectations

had gone unmet. And so, many working class Malawians wondered whether

po liti cal openness really was best for their country, a question that would

be repeated increasingly among people in other fourth wave nations.

In the early 2010s, Malawi’s leaders seemed to draw on this authoritar-

ian nostalgia. President Mutharika, who had been elected as a reformer,

turned increasingly authoritarian, sometimes justifying his more autocratic

rule by claiming he needed more power to right the economy. When demon-

strators gathered in July 2011 to protest in the streets of the capital, Lilongwe,

and in other cities about the rising cost of staple foods and fuel, Mutharika

had hundreds of them arrested, with many badly beaten and reportedly

shot by security forces. At least eigh teen people were killed in the crack-

down. The government banned broadcasters from showing the protests,

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

74 It’s the Economy, Stupid

and after the crackdown Mutharika toured the affected cities and vowed

that any future opponents would feel the “wrath of government.” Although

many Malawians protested this crackdown, particularly in urban areas,

Mutharika seemed to believe— with some reason— that if he could get the

country’s economy under control, while amassing more power for himself,

many people would forgive his abuses. Though ultimately Mutharika died

in the spring of 2012, the autocratic culture he had instilled survived, as his

supporters at fi rst refused to acknowledge his death publicly, apparently

hoping to launch a coup or some other intervention that would prevent the

vice president, not known as a Mutharika loyalist, from succeeding him in

offi ce as president.

Across the developing world, when economies did not take off, the sales

pitch of the Washington Consensus worked in reverse, actually subverting

demo cratic progress. The failure of growth fell hardest on working class

men and women, who often were barely getting by under the old authoritar-

ian regime, and who did not have the skills, education, and capital to take

advantage of international trade and economic liberalization. Often, as in

Malawi, the working classes were employed almost solely in agriculture, and

so were also hurt badly by declining terms of global trade for developing

nations’ textiles, commodities, and other products, as Western nations used

tariffs and subsidies to support their own farmers, and to keep out cheaper

agricultural goods from places like Africa, Vietnam, or Thailand.

These working class men and women began associating economic fail-

ures with democracy, even though economic globalization, changing terms

of international trade, or many other factors also could explain weak growth

in the developing world. To be sure, middle classes and elites also were

unhappy with weak growth, but they could more easily take advantage of

economic liberalization and freer trade, and they tended to reap what ever

economic gains were made in developing nations. Over the past de cade

they would turn against democracy for other reasons.

For working classes, though, the failure of growth, or at least the fail-

ure to live up to the kind of expectations created in Malawi, was critical. In

Latin America, for example, the Latin Barometer surveys showed that, in

the early 2000s, support for democracy across the region closely tracked per

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

It’s the Economy, Stupid 75

capita growth; when regionwide growth went up, support for democracy

rose, and when it declined, support for democracy did as well, particularly

among lower- income men and women.10 In Ukraine, one of the most

notable examples of this working class alienation, the country’s economy

shrank by a staggering 15 percent in 2009, the victim of the global eco-

nomic crisis as well as the poor national leadership by Viktor Yushchenko,

the hero of the country’s 2004 and 2005 Orange Revolution. By the end of

his term, in 2010, Yushchenko was, according to polls, the most unpop u lar

leader in the world, in large part because Ukrainians were im mensely dis-

satisfi ed with how poorly he— and Ukraine’s democracy— had done in fos-

tering growth.11 The urban middle classes of Kiev still generally supported

Yushchenko and other Orange Revolution leaders, despite the tepid growth;

they were still faring relatively well eco nom ical ly. But among lower- income

Ukrainians Yushchenko had essentially become a pariah. In 2010, Ukraine

would elect a new president, Viktor Yanukovych, who would roll back many

of the nation’s freedoms. But he seemed, to many Ukrainians, a better bet for

promoting lasting growth, a fi gure modeled on Vladimir Putin, who had

slowly whittled away Rus sians’ po liti cal and social freedoms in the 2000s

while presiding over a period of strong growth. On the campaign trail, Yanu-

kovych promised that he would bring Ukraine stability and sustained growth,

the kind of growth that the previous, more demo cratic government had

failed to provide. He did not exactly hide his po liti cal intentions. Kremlin

aides advised Yanukovych’s campaign. Many Ukrainians understood that,

if Yanukovych were elected, their country would both move closer to Rus-

sia and also probably see its po liti cal freedoms curtailed— a tradeoff that,

by voting Yanukovych into offi ce, many accepted in exchange for what they

believed would be stronger economic growth. Indeed, after Yanukovych

won he was able to negotiate more favorable terms on energy imports from

Rus sia.

In fact, by analyzing a range of surveys from the Barometer series, results

of local polling organizations in developing nations, and the Pew Research

or ga ni za tion’s regular results, Council on Foreign Relations researchers, in-

cluding myself, found that nearly every study of developing nations reported

that, by the end of the 2000s, satisfaction with democracy had dropped, even

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

76 It’s the Economy, Stupid

in countries where citizens still preferred democracy to other alternatives;

they also found that in most of these countries the majority of survey re-

spondents, and particularly those from lower- income house holds, thought

that transitions to democracy had brought no improvement to their lives.

In Africa, where foreign donors probably exert the most infl uence, and

the link of growth and po liti cal liberalization was pushed the hardest, sat-

isfaction with democracy also dropped in large part because of perceptions

that democracy had not brought promised material gains. In a broad study

of African nations taken between 2000 and 2006, satisfaction with democ-

racy fell from 58 percent of the population to 45 percent; over roughly the

same period, the percentage of Africans saying the economy in their nation

was fairly good or very good fell to only 28 percent.12 Overall, my analysis of

the 2009 data from the Afrobarometer surveys, the most recent data, re-

veals that satisfaction with democracy is negatively correlated with “present

living conditions.” In these surveys, people who thought their living condi-

tions had become “very bad” were most likely to say that their nation was

not becoming a democracy and that they were unsatisfi ed, while those

people who said that their living conditions had become “very good” were

much more likely than anyone else to say that they were “very satisfi ed” with

democracy.13 As we will see, just as in Ukraine, this dissatisfaction would

provide an opportunity, in many of these developing nations, for a more

authoritarian leader who could promise better, more equal growth, to make

inroads.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:08 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Yale University Press

Chapter Title: The Middle Class Revolts

Book Title: Democracy in Retreat Book Subtitle: The Revolt of the Middle Class and the Worldwide Decline of Representative Government Book Author(s): Joshua Kurlantzick Published by: Yale University Press. (2013) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bh31.8

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Democracy in Retreat

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I n the late 1990s and early 2000s, the lack of economic growth began

to sour working class men and women on demo cratization. But in

many developing nations the middle classes turned against democracy

too. The Washington Consensus prescriptions had been, in many ways,

predicated on the modernization theory of experts like Huntington and

Lipset; for economic liberalization to be linked with po liti cal liberalization,

an economic opening had to produce a middle class that then would help

push for po liti cal change. Yet over the past de cade, the middle class has, in

many developing nations, subverted those predictions, just as the growth–

political change linkage has, more broadly, subverted demo cratic progress.

Perhaps nowhere has the middle class turned so clearly, and disas-

trously, against the modernization theory’s predictions as in the Philip-

pines. To a traveler arriving from more orderly cities in East Asia, dropping

into Manila feels like descending into some combination of Blade Runner

and a Broadway musical. Rutted roads lead into the city, many lined with

twisted pieces of discarded metal that could be confused with modernist

sculptures. “Jeepneys”— converted jeeps overstuffed with paying passen-

gers and decorated with garish murals of Christ— crowd each other in the

traffi c, which stretches for miles in the polluted and soupy air. The jeepneys

meander past mountainous garbage dumps and hastily erected slums of tin

shacks and tiny wood homes that look like they were made from packing

crates. Occasionally, amid the slums sits a heavily guarded gated commu-

nity where Manila’s elites can live as if they were in suburban Los Angeles

or Houston, ignoring the squalor as they head off to shop at nearby air-

conditioned malls.

The Middle Class Revolts

5

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

78 The Middle Class Revolts

With turbocharged economies surrounding it, the Philippines has in

recent years grown at only 3 or 4 percent per year, a rate not high enough to

provide jobs for all the new workers in a country with one of the highest

birthrates in Asia.1 In a country naturally blessed with abundant fi sh and

produce, nearly 15 percent of Filipinos do not have enough to eat. Virtually

every other nation in the region has made strides in eradicating poverty and

hunger, but the Philippines has made none.2

Most Filipinos would not have anticipated this failure back in 1986,

when they thronged the streets of Manila not only to force out the dicta-

tor Ferdinand Marcos but to demand a better life for themselves and their

countrymen— a protest led, as we have seen, by the city’s urban middle

classes. Benigno Aquino, the opposition leader whose assassination by Mar-

cos security forces set off the People Power movement that carried Aquino’s

wife to power, had made “The Filipino is worth dying for” his motto.3 Amid

the jubilation of that era, many Filipinos, and particularly the urban middle

classes who possessed skills and college educations, thought that with Marcos

gone, all aspects of their lives would improve. “The optimism of that time, it’s

hard to imagine now,” remembered Roel Landingin, a Filipino journalist

who has worked for years in Manila. “It wasn’t just getting rid of Marcos, we

really thought those things that seemed unchangeable in the country would

change now.” 4

After Marcos fl ed, and after his successor, Corazon Aquino, survived

numerous coups as president, the country did enjoy solid growth and rela-

tively stable government under her successor, President Fidel Ramos—

growth that generally boosted the incomes of middle class professionals and

small businesspeople. But in the de cade and a half since Ramos left offi ce,

the economy has stagnated badly. Though the Philippines always had been

a stratifi ed society— a legacy of Latin America– Spanish colonialism— in the

post- Ramos era the in e qual ity has become far worse, with a tiny elite gar-

nering an ever- larger share of the wealth, and both the poor and the middle

class falling further and further behind. Homelessness and violent crime

have skyrocketed, turning Manila into one of the most dangerous cities in

Asia— a condition made worse by a corrupt and incompetent police force.5

This crime falls harder on middle class businesspeople, who cannot afford to

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Middle Class Revolts 79

live in the gated communities of the rich, with their armed guards and high

walls topped with barbed wire. One politician after another has succumbed

to corruption scandals, and an annual study conducted by the Asia Founda-

tion found that fewer than 20 percent of businesses in the country reported

paying their taxes honestly.6 The speaker of the Philippine House of Repre-

sentatives undertook a charity drive for the national trea sury, asking people

to donate to the state bud get like it was a Salvation Army fund drive. The

Philippine ombudsman’s offi ce reports that the country lost $48 billion in

revenue in graft over the past twenty years, and companies needing contracts

roam the halls of Congress there with envelopes full of cash to stuff into con-

gresspeople’s desks. In such a climate, vote rigging becomes the norm: a sur-

vey before the 2007 Philippines elections found that nearly 70 percent of

voters expected vote buying in the election, and more than half anticipated

that the vote counting would involve cheating.7

Though Aquino’s son, Benigno, was elected in 2010 partly on a mandate

to clean up corruption, in offi ce he could do little to halt such entrenched

practices. His government fi led several high- profi le corruption cases, and

he made numerous speeches about addressing graft, but payoffs and hand-

outs remained the norm throughout the po liti cal system. After only one year

in offi ce, Aquino’s popularity ratings had fallen, partly because of his failure

to fi ght corruption. The head of one of the country’s biggest business groups

dedicated to good governance admitted, “[The Aquino] administration has

failed in its fi ght against corruption.”8

For years, leaders of the Philippines’ neighbor Singapore, essentially a

one- party state, have publicly contrasted Manila’s chaos and stagnant growth

with their gleaming, high- tech city, where every roadside shrub seems to have

been manicured by a gardening master, and you can whiz from the airport to

the central business district in minutes. The difference is more than superfi -

cial. Though the two countries had relatively equal standards of living in

1965, today Singapore boasts a GDP per capita more than ten times that of

the Philippines.9 In a speech in the Philippines in 1992, Lee Kuan Yew, mod-

ern Singapore’s founding father, delivered a direct insult to the host country.

“I do not believe that democracy necessarily leads to development. . . . The

exuberance of democracy leads to undisciplined and disorderly conditions.”

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

80 The Middle Class Revolts

Lee did offer a backhanded compliment: “The Philippines is im mensely bet-

ter off compared to Af ghan i stan or Lebanon or Sri Lanka”— three states

decimated by bloody civil wars.10

For years, many middle class Filipinos, proud of their hard- won de-

mocracy and their free— if wild— media, shrugged off Lee Kuan Yew’s

barbs. But as the divide between the two states has turned into a chasm,

and as more and more Filipinos head overseas just to fi nd jobs— more than

10 percent of the population lived abroad in 2009, and their remittances

keep the country’s economy afl oat— they can’t ignore the criticism so eas-

ily.11 In surveys taken by the Asia Barometer project, which primarily inter-

views urban middle class men and women, nearly half of the respondents

in the Philippines now agree with the statement “The nation is run by a

powerful few and ordinary citizens cannot do much about it.” Most Filipi-

nos, the survey showed, distrust virtually every institution of the state and

have little hope that it will improve.12 “Middle- class Filipinos who’ve been

outside the country, who see what’s happening in other nations in Asia,

they come back here, and it’s just disappointment, hopelessness,” says Land-

ingin. “We have too much democracy here,” agreed Jose Romero Jr., a for-

mer Philippine diplomat who, along with other educated Filipinos, had led

the revolt against Marcos.

Some middle class Filipinos even yearn for the return of the dictator,

seemingly having forgotten the thuggery and personality cult of the dicta-

tor’s later years and instead remembering the order and growth of his early

period in offi ce. According to the Asia Barometer study, the Filipino public

had a high degree of “authoritarian nostalgia” for the Marcos era.13 The old

dictator is still around, but he doesn’t get out much: His waxy body is dis-

played in a refrigerated mausoleum, like a Southeast Asian Lenin, in the

family compound in Ilocos Norte, the Marcos’s home province. Still, even

though Ferdinand cannot serve anymore, in 2010 Filipinos elected his son,

Ferdinand Jr., to the Philippines Senate, and his daughter, Imee, as gover-

nor of Ilocos Norte.14 Ferdinand Jr. might well seek a higher offi ce in the

next election, completing the Marcos restoration.15

The Philippines middle class has, in another important way, demon-

strated its growing disillusionment with the lack of growth and the in e qual-

ity, graft, and poor governance of the country’s young democracy. In 1998,

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Middle Class Revolts 81

after the end of Fidel Ramos’s presidency (Philippine presidents are allowed

only one six- year term), the presidential election was won by Joseph Estrada,

an actor- turned- politician famous for his many roles playing action heroes.

Estrada was beloved by the poor in the Philippines for his rugged charm,

his easy, down- to- earth manner, and his promises of populist policies, but he

was hardly a deep thinker, and in offi ce he soon proved both incompetent

and corrupt. His administration squandered many of the economic and

management reforms made under Ramos, foreign investors fl ed to other

countries, and graft allegations soon swirled around his administration and

around Estrada himself, who was known to be personally friendly with sev-

eral or ga nized crime leaders. By 2001, three years into his presidency, the

Philippine defi cit had nearly doubled since 1998, and Estrada stood accused

of taking payoffs from illegal gambling syndicates while serving as president.

(After leaving offi ce, he would later be convicted of plunder and sentenced

to a maximum of forty years in jail, though he was ultimately pardoned after

serving six years in detention because of his age and infi rmities.)

Urban middle class Filipinos, many of whom had not voted for Estrada,

instead supporting other candidates, could have stuck to demo cratic means

to try to remove the president for his many alleged crimes. Indeed, the Phil-

ippines legislature did begin impeachment proceedings against Estrada.

But middle class Filipinos had little patience for them. They had watched,

during Estrada’s term, as the country’s democracy produced an incompetent

and corrupt president. They had seen how Estrada could maintain support

from the poor masses who constitute the majority of voters, and they wor-

ried he might whittle away both the rule of law and the economic, social,

and po liti cal privileges long enjoyed by the middle class. True to his macho

fi lm image, Estrada had pursued increasingly tough policies, toward both

dissent in urban areas and separatist movements in the country’s Muslim

southern provinces, launching a massive offensive against one of the Muslim

rebel groups, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, that ultimately resulted in

a bloody stalemate.

So, in late 2000 and early 2001, middle class Filipinos took to the streets

of Manila, launching large scale street protests designed to push Estrada

out. In some ways, these protests mimicked the 1986 People Power move-

ment that ultimately overthrew the Marcos regime. Many Filipinos took to

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

82 The Middle Class Revolts

calling the 2001 protests “People Power Two,” except that now the demon-

strators were trying to remove an elected president, by resorting to the

street, a practice that ultimately would only weaken the country’s demo-

cratic institutions like the legislature and the judiciary, which had been

designed to address just such serious breaches by the president.

As protests swelled in the streets of Manila, hundreds of thousands of

people, mainly middle class, university- educated Filipinos, joined in. Many

demonstrators, who once had battled Marcos’s armed forces for years, and

who had stood up for Corazon Aquino in the face of coups, now called for

the military to resolve the situation. And indeed, behind the scenes the

armed forces made clear to Estrada that they were withdrawing their sup-

port for him, implicitly threatening that, if he did not leave, the army

would make a move. Estrada’s supporters, later learning of the army’s deci-

sion, called it a kind of silent coup, but at the time the president realized

that he could not hang on to power. He agreed to vacate the presidency. His

vice president, Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo, a U.S.- trained economist and tech-

nocrat preferred (at the time) by the middle classes, quickly was sworn into

offi ce, before Estrada’s large base of poor supporters around the country

could mobilize in response.

Though the anti- Estrada protests did force the president to fl ee, spark-

ing a short period of jubilation in Manila, they hardly quieted the Filipino

middle class’s anger over incompetent and corrupt government, or its fear

of losing its rights and privileges to a populist president. Three years later,

middle class men and women camped in the streets of Manila once more,

trying again to use protests— rather than demo cratic institutions like the

ballot box or legislative maneuvering or impeachment— to force the presi-

dent to leave offi ce. Though Macapagal- Arroyo once had seemed a compe-

tent technocrat, she too had earned the ire of the urban middle class after

she allegedly had overseen highly corrupt national elections and increas-

ingly had cracked down on any opposition, proposing tougher legislation

akin to martial law and arresting many civil society activists. After Iraq the

Philippines became, under Arroyo, the second most dangerous place in the

world for journalists; in some years more than thirty were killed, in murky

circumstances in which the murders seemed to be linked to the journalists’

critical reporting.16

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Middle Class Revolts 83

Unlike Estrada, the savvier and smarter Macapagal- Arroyo survived,

partly through maintaining the support of the army, but she was not yet safe.

Filipino middle classes returned to the streets again and again in the follow-

ing years in attempts to make her resign or even possibly provoke a coup.

Even Corazon Aquino herself, the old symbol of Filipino democracy, joined

the protesters trying to oust Macapagal- Arroyo, marching in the streets to

push out the president.

In some areas of the city these protesters became a kind of permanent

encampment, though the president would manage to serve out her term.

“The people in Manila are just giving up on democracy, that’s why they

take to the streets to try to force out an elected leader,” said Landingin, the

longtime Filipino journalist who had covered People Power One as well. “It

seems like a demo cratic protest, but it’s actually hurting.”17 And as we will

see, in many other developing nations, middle class men and women are

turning against democracy in similar ways, striking perhaps the biggest

blow to democracy’s survival.

In the Philippines, it took fi fteen years for the urban middle class to move

from leading the country’s battle for democracy to leading the battle against

democracy. In other developing nations, across Asia, Latin America, and

Africa, the shift has taken place even faster, as Huntington’s theory has

been turned on its head. Now it appears that once that po liti cal transition

began, a sizable middle class actually became a primary impediment to

demo cratic consolidation.18

If the middle class can no longer be taken for granted as a force for

demo cratic change, it will mark an enormous shift that will challenge the

accepted wisdom about demo cratization. This new understanding of the

middle class calls into question predictions that powerful authoritarian states

like China will eventually demo cratize, and forces policy makers and democ-

racy activists to question who their real allies are.

The middle class in emerging markets is still growing rapidly. The

World Bank estimates that, between 1990 and 2005, the middle class tripled

in size in developing countries in Asia, and nearly doubled in Africa. Today,

according to an estimate by Goldman Sachs, roughly seventy million people

worldwide begin to earn enough to join the middle class (defi ned as making

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

84 The Middle Class Revolts

between $6,000 and $30,000 annually) in emerging markets each year. By

2030, Goldman estimates, the global middle class will have added another

two billion people, with particularly strong growth in Brazil and other large

emerging democracies. While $6,000 a year may be a poverty- level income

in a wealthy democracy like the United States or Japan, in developing

nations like Thailand it puts a family in the middle class. And unlike, say,

the United States, where more than 50 percent of adults classify themselves

as middle class, the middle class in most developing nations remains a

minority— usually no more than 30 percent of the population.19 Yet in these

nations the middle class does not mean the wealthiest elites, either— the top

1 or 2 percent of the population that actually controls the largest companies

and enjoys lifestyles that would be considered rich by any standard. Instead,

these middle classes normally comprise professionals, small businesspeople,

and other educated men and women.

The fact that the middle class does not actually constitute a majority

of the population in these nations matters greatly, since it means demo-

cratization often empowers the poor more than it empowers the middle

class. At the same time, though, the middle class is not so small that demo-

cratization threatens to foster intense hatred against it, in the way that ana-

lysts like Yale’s Amy Chua believe po liti cal change can boomerang against

wealthy ethnic minorities.20 Chua argues that entrepreneurial but demo-

graphically tiny minorities— the ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia, or the

Lebanese in West Africa— face physical danger, and even massacres, in

countries that demo cratize rapidly. There are examples of this trend, such

as the killings of Lebanese in West Africa or of Chinese in Indonesia after

the fall of longtime dictator Suharto— but these mass killings have tar-

geted small groups of elite minorities, and not the broader middle classes.

Still, in many emerging democracies, the middle classes have valued growth

over freedom and stability over change, giving little reason to believe these

middle class men and women have any real commitment to democracy.21

In theory, educated middle class people in most developing nations possess

strong commitments to democracy: recent polling by the Pew Research

Center found theoretical support for democracy especially strong among

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Middle Class Revolts 85

the global middle class.22 But that theoretical commitment to democracy has

meant little in practice.23 In many developing nations, middle class reform-

ers have been badly let down by the fi rst generations of demo cratic leaders.

Some, like Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine, have demonstrated woefully

poor economic management, alienating not only working classes but also

middle class businesspeople who need economic stability to thrive. But be-

sides managing the economy poorly, the fi rst generation of elected leaders

has not demonstrated much real commitment to democracy— a lack of

commitment that has resonated among urban middle classes. Urban mid-

dle class men and women who had spent years fi ghting an authoritarian

regime simply assumed, perhaps naively, that when opposition leaders fi -

nally gained power, they would govern more inclusively than the deposed

autocrats. The Demo cratic Progressive Party (DPP) in Taiwan, made up of

many former po liti cal prisoners from during the Nationalist dictatorship of

Chiang Kai- shek and his son Chiang Ching- kuo, had fought for two de-

cades to challenge the power of the ruling Kuomintang. The party also had

stood up for Taiwan’s separation from, and even formal in de pen dence from,

the People’s Republic of China, in part because it believed that only real

separation could guarantee Taiwan’s demo cratic freedoms. Many DPP poli-

ticians had deep ties to labor unions, environmental groups, and other pro-

gressive causes, and in opposition had suffered badly for their beliefs. DPP

leader Chen Shui- bian himself had served time in prison for his beliefs, and

in 1985 his wife became paralyzed after being hit by a truck in what Chen

and his supporters believed was an attack by progovernment forces.

As Chen rose up the po liti cal ladder in an increasingly open and demo-

cratic Taiwan, from local councillor to mayor of Taipei to, eventually, presi-

dent, he brought with him a bright young circle of advisers who had also

suffered as opposition activists. These DPP politicians, many educated in

America’s Ivy League schools, promised, if they were elected, to usher in

Taiwan’s most open era. They vowed to work for equal rights in a country

with a highly patriarchal traditional culture, to reduce in e qual ity after Tai-

wan’s long economic boom, and to guarantee women a certain number of

cabinet seats, putting them at the policy- making table in Taiwan for the

fi rst time. “The DPP is for progress— on women’s issues, on labor rights— it

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

86 The Middle Class Revolts

can be slow, but it’s far better than it was a de cade ago,” said Hsiao Bi- khim,

one of the DPP’s leading minds and, in the early 2000s, one of the youn gest

members of Taiwan’s legislature.

When the DPP fi nally won the 2000 election, opposition politicians,

activists, labor union leaders, and journalists rejoiced. Taiwan’s po liti cal

system seemed to have morphed into a stable two- party democracy, con-

tested between the Kuomintang, no longer a dictatorial regime but a nor-

mal po liti cal party, and the DPP, which now held the presidency for the

fi rst time. Many also believed that having come from po liti cal exile, and

suffering themselves at the hands of an oppressive government, the DPP

would strengthen Taiwan’s young democracy. Thousands gathered after

the election results were in to hear Chen speak. In the country’s fi rst legisla-

tive elections after Chen was elected president, a record number of women

won seats. The party quickly passed a series of progressive environmental

and labor laws.

Several weeks after Chen’s victory he was sworn in as president on May

20, 2000. During his inaugural speech he shouted “Long live freedom and

democracy!” as if he were still leading a street rally rather than giving a

formal address. During the inauguration, DPP activists danced at parties

in strongholds in Taipei and the south, its base in the country, while foreign

observers, from the New York Times editorial board to American diplomats

stationed in the country, praised Taiwan’s transition as a model of democ-

racy. When Chen traveled to America in spring 2001, he was greeted in

New York City and Houston by an outpouring of support from Bush

administration offi cials, and he held meetings with se nior American

congressmen— even though nearly every previous Taiwanese leader since

the U.S. had cut diplomatic ties with the island in 1979 had been treated like

pariahs even if they stopped in the United States only to refuel their plane.

In some cases— though not, unfortunately, in Taiwan— longtime opposi-

tion leaders who fi nally gained the presidency or the prime ministership

did remember past struggles and made real attempts to foster compromise

and tolerance, even toward their old enemies. Nelson Mandela famously

reached out to South Africa’s white minority as president, not only publicly

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Middle Class Revolts 87

supporting their beloved rugby team but also retaining se nior offi cials who

could reassure white businesspeople and investors. More often, however, the

fi rst generation of elected leaders only fueled middle class rage. From Ven-

ezuela to Bolivia to Kenya to Thailand to Taiwan, these leaders too often

have turned into elected autocrats, dominating young democracies whose

institutions are not strong enough to restrain a powerful leader uninter-

ested in compromise, negotiation, and tolerance of opposition. To this fi rst

generation, many of whom came of age po liti cally under authoritarian re-

gimes, votes are referendums on their rule; having triumphed, they can

then use all the powers of the state to crush opposition and favor their per-

sonal, po liti cal, and ethnic allies.

In other words, these elected autocrats, though fulfi lling one function

of democracy— winning the most votes— do not uphold constitutional

liberalism, or ensure that the rule of law is maintained and that individual

liberties and minority rights are protected. They follow the form of democ-

racy but are weakening its practice.

It is not hard to see why this fi rst generation of elected leaders so often

regressed in this way. Holding an opposition movement together in the face

of a repressive regime requires a high degree of cohesion, even autocracy,

within that movement; serving in opposition for so long also can make a

leader intensely fearful. In South Africa during apartheid rule, the African

National Congress viciously attacked, and sometimes even killed, members

of its own movement whom it perceived as too conciliatory toward the gov-

ernment, or as simply working against the ANC’s aims. (Nelson Mandela

was in jail on Robben Island during much of this internal bloodletting,

but his wife, Winnie, was accused of promoting the beating and murder of

ANC members accused of being government informers.)24 Chen Shui- bian,

the Taiwanese DPP leader, exhibited many of the same traits while the

DPP was in opposition— tight control of his party and paranoia regarding

outsiders. These were survival skills in opposition during the Kuomintang

dictatorship, when Chen could never trust whether anyone beyond his inti-

mate circle had been coopted by government agents, but later this course

would doom his administration once he gained the presidency and the

country had transitioned to democracy.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

88 The Middle Class Revolts

Like Chen, many former opposition leaders can fi nd it especially diffi -

cult to jettison these survival traits when the transition to democracy is ex-

tremely rapid, as happened in many African nations in the 1990s. These

circumstances leave little opportunity for former opponents to forgive the

crimes and mistakes of the past. Instead, having fi nally attained power, lead-

ers who’d seen authoritarian rulers enrich their own tribes, ethnic groups,

families, and supporters would then often use their new power simply to

reward their own— who can justly claim that they were shortchanged under

the previous regime. By comparison, in a more gradual transition, such as in

Spain after the death of Francisco Franco in 1975, conservative and liberal

po liti cal opponents had more time to build trust and jointly agree on the

norms and rules that would govern Spanish democracy.

Taking offi ce in 2000, Taiwan’s DPP movement soon dashed hopes

that it would usher in an era of greater democracy and freedom on the

island. True to its election promises, the DPP did take a harder line against

China, defending Taiwan’s right to govern itself, and to protect its free-

doms. (China initially responded harshly but eventually came to a kind of

frosty détente with the DPP leaders.) But on the island itself, Chen Shui-

bian, and a circle of party leaders around him who had developed a siege

mentality in exile, brought their almost authoritarian style to governing in

Taipei. Two years into Chen’s term as president, party activists who op-

posed anything Chen did soon found themselves ostracized, cut off from

circles of power. Some DPP insiders began to murmur that Chen and his

wife were increasingly using the power of his offi ce, which is one of the

strongest presidencies in the world, to direct favors, jobs, and cash to family

members and friends.25

Later, Chen’s wife would admit to laundering over $2 million from a

government contractor. Chen himself would go to jail on corruption charges,

after allegations that he had personally stolen millions in campaign money

and other government funds. And as we will see later on, Chen and his

wife’s corruption were hardly unusual— in Taiwan and in new democra-

cies, graft seems actually to worsen as the po liti cal system opens up, at least

at fi rst, further alienating average men and women, and besmirching the

concept of demo cratic reform.26

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Middle Class Revolts 89

In the early 2000s, stories of Chen’s corruption were only whispers;

DPP supporters were far more shocked to witness his insular, domineering

style. Many believed that, once in offi ce, Chen would naturally give up some

of the secrecy and paranoia that had served him during his time in opposi-

tion, but they were wrong. Chen angrily fi red aides who refused to carry out

his wishes, and he brought family members into his inner po liti cal circle—

at least eleven family members would face corruption charges similar to

those made against the president, and his son would face charges of insider

trading. Several se nior ministers, including the foreign minister, would

resign after charging that Chen’s high- handed, self- dealing style had seri-

ously impaired Taiwan’s ability to hold on to its few remaining formal

allies, and had allowed Taiwan’s government to be taken advantage of by

unscrupulous middlemen with ties to Chen. “People feel humiliated by the

government’s incompetence,” George Tsai, a po liti cal analyst at Chinese

Culture University in Taipei, told the New York Times, referring to a scandal

in which one of the middlemen apparently had taken $30 million in gov-

ernment money. “It’s a joke to the outside world— how could the govern-

ment be cheated like this?”27 By the mid- 2000s, the once- supportive Bush

administration, furious with Chen’s incompetence and arrogance, simply

refused to let him stay overnight in the United States.28

In other cases, the fi rst leaders of young democracies come not from long-

time opposition movements but from within the former regime, where they

also received little education in demo cratic norms. Nearly every former So-

viet republic, for example, transitioned to a government run by former

Soviet bureaucrats; few of these leaders, save for a handful from the Baltics

and Georgia who’d lived for years in the West, had experience with democ-

racy. For them, politics had always been a zero- sum endeavor. Losers within

the Soviet hierarchy lost everything— their power, their prestige, sometimes

their lives. Had the transitions been more gradual, this lack of demo cratic

experience might have mattered less; newer, younger leaders with fewer ties

to the Soviet era might have emerged, and even old Soviet bureaucrats might

have learned that a defeat in the new po liti cal system did not send one to the

gulags. But in such a rapid transition, the former Soviet bureaucrats simply

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

90 The Middle Class Revolts

brought with them the po liti cal mindsets and strategies that had served

them well in the Soviet Union.

Throughout the former Soviet Union, nearly everywhere except the

Baltics, the fi rst generation of elected leaders has revealed itself to be auto-

crats at heart. Kurmanbek Bakiyev, who was one of the leaders of Kyrgyz-

stan’s 2005 Tulip Revolution against the autocratic regime of President

Askar Akayev, proved himself in offi ce to be nearly as authoritarian as his

pre de ces sor, and his tough policies ultimately sparked another bloody revo-

lution in 2010. In Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili was also a leader of a color

revolution. But as president in 2007, faced with demonstrations against him,

Saakashvili unleashed overwhelming force against the protesters and later

declared a state of emergency, allowing him to close down media outlets,

detain opposition journalists, and silence much of the protest.29 Today he ap-

pears likely, after ending his term- limited presidency in 2012, to try to run

for the prime ministership, and make parliament the center of his power,

much as Vladimir Putin shifted from president to prime minister but re-

mained the most important actor in Rus sian politics. And now, in the Middle

East, a similar pattern is emerging, with many leaders of transitional gov-

ernments and, possibly, future parliaments, coming from within systems

that for de cades allowed no dissent, and where winner- take- all internal poli-

tics were the norm.

Beyond the shock and anger that elected politicians are undermining

reforms and ignoring the rule of law, many members of the middle class

have begun to grasp democracy’s downside: If the franchise is extended to

everyone, and if the poor, who make up the majority of the population in

most developing nations, band together behind one candidate, they could

elect someone determined to reduce the economic, po liti cal, and social privi-

leges enjoyed by the middle class.

Hugo Chavez, the charismatic Venezuelan military offi cer, certainly

grasped the notion that, with the support of the poor, a politician could gain

im mense power in a developing nation. Born to a working class family him-

self, Chavez seems from an early age to have developed a deep distaste for

Venezuela’s traditional capitalists, the large landowning families and busi-

nessmen of Caracas. Chavez went into the army partly, it seems, as a means

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Middle Class Revolts 91

of rising up into politics. As a young soldier, he traveled through Caracas

and witnessed the severe poverty of the city’s slums— the country was, at

that time, one of the most unequal in the world. It made a profound impact

on Chavez. Early in his career, he founded a group called the Revolutionary

Bolivarian Movement- 200, which aimed to topple the country’s traditional

politics, which were nominally demo cratic but also dominated by powerful

business interests and traditionally rich families.

In 1992, as Venezuela’s ruling party implemented painful neoliberal

reforms pushed by donors, including cuts in social welfare spending, Chavez

tried to seize power in a coup. His putsch failed and he was sentenced to jail,

but he had gained nationwide fame as a man willing to stand up to neoliberal

reforms. Following his jail term, Chavez launched his own po liti cal party,

and in 1998, riding massive support from the poor, who had fared poorly as

Venezuela had pursued the Washington Consensus reforms, he was elected

president.

Though Venezuela, like many Latin countries, had long been domi-

nated by politicians from a few powerful families, in 1998 the country did

boast strong demo cratic institutions and culture, including an in de pen dent

judiciary, a vibrant print and broadcast media, and a healthy tradition of

po liti cal debate.30

Chavez would change that. He soon set about advocating for the inter-

ests of the poor and the lower middle classes against the interests of the ur-

ban middle classes and the elite, while also amassing more and more power

to himself and a close circle of allies. Chavez nationalized many key indus-

tries, with private businesspeople often getting what they perceived as unfair

compensation for their assets. He launched a program called “Plan Bolivar,”

in which the state would help upgrade the physical infrastructure of poor

areas, while also providing highly subsidized health care and food, and

cheap credit to the poor to start up community projects around the country.

He launched communal councils, an experiment in direct democracy that,

in many poor neighborhoods of the country, gave the poor a greater voice

in policy making, though these council also undermined legislators in

parliament.31 While announcing these policies, he clearly positioned them

as tools for the poor and as attacks on the middle and upper classes, often

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

92 The Middle Class Revolts

during rambling addresses on his pop u lar weekly radio show, Alo Presidente

(Hello, President). Using his powerful, mercurial speaking style to its fullest

extent, on his show Chavez repeatedly fulminated against his favorite

targets— local businesspeople, whom he claimed were trying to take over

the country, as well as the United States and other Western powers.

The longer Chavez remained in offi ce, the more populist his economic

policies became. In 1998 he still retained some more moderate economic

advisers, and he traveled to the United States and other countries to adver-

tise that Venezuela was still open for investment, particularly in the oil and

gas sector. But by the mid- 2000s Chavez had jettisoned most of the advisers

who had links to middle class urban businesspeople, and he had thrown out

many foreign investors, particularly in the oil sector. Government spending

continued to increase, boosting Venezuela’s debt, and Chavez handed con-

trol of many important companies to a small circle of close friends, making

them rich, even as his government’s laws, price controls, and economic mis-

management made it tougher and tougher for average small businesspeople

to earn a living.

Chavez’s policies had a mixed effect. At fi rst, they did help slash pov-

erty signifi cantly, which only further bonded the poor to him, and they also

did initially bring more of the poor into the po liti cal pro cess, clearly reduc-

ing the po liti cal power of the middle and upper classes. But they also hurt

the overall macroeconomic environment. Foreign investors bailed out of the

country, and the national oil company could not meet its production quotas

and saw its aging infrastructure deteriorate. Whenever the price of oil, the

major export, dropped, Venezuela had trouble providing even basic ser vices

to its people. By 2011, even as the price of oil had recovered and its Latin

neighbors, including Brazil and Colombia, were growing strongly, Venezu-

ela was limping, posting some of the worst growth rates in South America

and relying on loans from China to survive. Electricity blackouts hindered

business in the cities, infl ation soared, and in many parts of the country

staple goods became harder and harder to fi nd. As the economy worsened,

violent crime rose, and by 2011 Caracas had the highest murder rate per

capita of any city in the world— a staggering 233 per 100,000 inhabitants—

higher than the killings per capita in war zones like Kabul and Baghdad.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Middle Class Revolts 93

Many human rights organizations believed that the offi cial fi gures actually

were understated.32

Still, Venezuela’s poor repaid Chavez with their loyalty, even as he

slowly strangled the country’s relatively strong demo cratic institutions. When

Chavez toured slums in Caracas and other cities, tens of thousands turned

out to greet him like he was a god. He won election after election— united

and engaged in politics, the poor by far constitute the majority of Venezuelan

voters. Chavez kept offering job creation programs and other populist mea-

sures to keep them happy, along with new nationalizations, price controls,

and other mea sures hated by many businesspeople and other professionals.

Toward the middle classes and upper classes, Chavez practiced a harsher

style of politics. He used his domination of broadcasting licenses to replace

private tele vi sion stations, which tended to favor the urban middle class

opposition candidates, with state TV. Eventually he forced the most critical

private channel off the air.33 He introduced legislation making it a crime

for critics to offer “false” information that “harms the interests of the state”;

he locked up judges who issued rulings he did not like and packed the

courts with his supporters. Chavez and his backers in the National Assem-

bly passed laws that essentially allow Chavez to rule the country by decree,

making the Assembly meaningless.34 By the end of the 2000s, the inter-

national monitoring or ga ni za tion Freedom House ranked Venezuela, one of

the oldest democracies in Latin America, as only “partly free.” In 2010, the

Or ga ni za tion of American States (OAS), a regional grouping that included

several Latin states with left- leaning governments favorably inclined to-

ward Chavez, issued a report condemning Venezuela for widespread abuses

of media freedom, human rights, freedom of association, and other free-

doms. “The state’s punitive power is being used to intimidate or punish

people on account of their po liti cal opinions,” declared the OAS’s human

rights watchdog.35

Chavez had not totally destroyed the country’s freedoms. In the early

2000s, some newspapers and tele vi sion stations remained in private hands,

critical of the president’s policies, and if opposition politicians had been able to

unite around one platform and one anti- Chavez fi gure, they might have been

able to dislodge Chavez. But instead, many middle class Caracas residents,

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

94 The Middle Class Revolts

and middle class politicians, took the easy way out. They launched street

demonstrations, general strikes, and marches on the presidential palace

starting in 2001 and 2002. Many protesters openly called for the military

to intervene and push Chavez, authoritarian but also elected, out of offi ce.

During the protests, and the run- up to the military intervention, at least

eigh teen people were killed.

In April 2002, the armed forces responded, launching a coup and threat-

ening to bomb the presidential palace if Chavez did not step down. When

he did, they took Chavez hostage on a Ca rib be an island. While Chavez was

jailed, the coup makers installed a prominent businessman as interim pres-

ident. The George W. Bush administration seemed to tacitly condone the

coup, with press spokesperson Ari Fleischer essentially blaming Chavez for

the situation; later the Central Intelligence Agency was discovered to have

known that the military was planning a coup against Chavez but did not

provide a serious warning about the plot.36

Rallying his support among the poor, who massed in the streets of the

capital, and within lower ranks of the armed forces, Chavez would prevail.

Unable to win much support outside the capital, the coup government col-

lapsed. With the president’s backers thronging the streets, he emerged from

incarceration some forty- eight hours later at the presidential palace.

From that point on, the Venezuelan leader would only sharpen his

attacks on the middle class and elites, further dragging down the country’s

democracy. But by backing the coup— and then stepping up the number of

street protests designed to force Chavez out— his middle class opponents

had showed that they cared little for the institutions of democracy, either.

Despite the early euphoria of the Arab uprisings, middle classes in the

Middle East appeared to be just as conservative as their peers in East Asia

and Latin America. Though many of the groups that helped overthrow

Hosni Mubarak’s government fear the continuing power of the military,

some Egyptian middle class men and women actually have welcomed the

army’s continued po liti cal power. Increasingly they view the armed forces as

a check against Islamists and against growing instability, crime, and urban

violence, and wonder whether the country might not be better off under

another authoritarian regime, at least one less corrupt than the Mubarak

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Middle Class Revolts 95

regime. Though Cairo historically had been a relatively safe city, after the

downfall of Mubarak, and with much of the Egyptian police on strike or

simply at home because they are not getting paid, armed robbery, gang war-

fare, and more petty crime has become common in the city, deterring in-

vestment and scaring many businesspeople.37 Consequently, some liberals

have come to support continued military rule even after security forces killed

Coptic Christians during the October protests, provoking a wave of anger

among Egypt’s Christians. Other liberals and some minorities simply have

fl ed the country during the Arab Spring: the New York Times reported that

the number of Egyptians who successfully obtained passports doubled in

the fi rst fi ve months of 2011, compared to the previous year.38

Indeed, by the autumn of 2011 many in the Egyptian middle classes

seemed to be scared of the prospect of free elections, which, they were

convinced, would make the chaos worse, or lead to a victory by the Muslim

Brotherhood, as Islamists had triumphed in the fi rst postuprising election

in neighboring Tunisia. Some Egyptian middle class men and women even

expressed concern that the country’s military actually was moving too quickly

in turning over power and or ga niz ing elections before secular, liberal parties

could build their strength and seriously compete with the Muslim Brother-

hood and other Islamist parties that had built strong organizations under-

ground during the Mubarak era.39

Given the wariness of the middle class in Egypt and in other Middle

Eastern nations, the Arab uprisings easily could stall before countries even

or ga nize regular elections. “There seems little doubt— as protesters tire and

as the general public tires of them— in what direction the balance will tilt” in

the Arab world, write analysts Robert Malley and Hussein Agha in the New

York Review of Books.40 The militaries in these nations have the or ga ni za-

tion, po liti cal experience, and power to dominate any postdictator era, and

they will be at the forefront of the Arab experiment, they write. Meanwhile,

they note, crowds that once fervently backed the anti- Mubarak, anti- Qadaffi ,

and anti– Ben Ali protesters have become more equivocal, as Islamists, who

have built their parties for de cades, have shown themselves to be the most

capable organizations in the new po liti cal climate as law and order has bro-

ken down in places, and as ethnic and tribal divisions fl ourish. So, to many

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

96 The Middle Class Revolts

Arab middle classes, a military- backed counterrevolution, an antidote to the

revolutions of the Arab Spring, does not look like such a bad idea.41

As they did in Venezuela, once the middle classes turn against elected leaders,

convinced they are actually protecting democracy, they seem willing to use

virtually any means to topple presidents and prime ministers. As we saw in

the fi rst chapter, nearly half of the military coups launched in the past twenty

years either enjoyed middle class support or were openly called for by middle

class protesters. This trend shows no sign of waning: as recently as the middle

of 2011, Thai urbanites, furious that Thaksin’s party had won yet another

national election, again were calling on the military to step in and annul the

poll. When this did not happen, the middle class anti- Thaksin groups in

Thai society relentlessly attacked Thaksin’s sister, the prime minister. Even

when massive fl ooding swamped the country in the fall of 2011, submerging

many parts of Bangkok and killing hundreds, the Thai military seemed

unwilling to cooperate with Thaksin’s sister, the new prime minister.42

This promilitary sentiment was repeated in 2011 in places as diverse as

Mexico, Pakistan, and Syria. In the case of Syria, urban middle classes and

religious minorities, like Christians, have continued to back the armed forces

and Bashar al- Assad even as the security forces have unleashed a brutal cam-

paign of violence against peaceful protesters in many parts of the country.

As we have seen, middle classes and elites in many other Middle Eastern

nations also have become more confl icted about whether to continue sup-

porting demo cratic reform, with many putting their trust once again in the

armed forces.43

Many of these elected autocrats, from Putin to Chavez to Thaksin, also

tend to be savvy politicians, retaining sizable popularity with the majority

of their country even as they undermine the rule of law, usually by embark-

ing upon populist policies that help reduce poverty, stirring up nationalism,

or some combination of the two. The endurance and survival of these lead-

ers have made urban middle class men and women only angrier, more des-

perate, and more willing to use extreme tactics, from violent protests to coups,

to remove an elected autocrat.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Middle Class Revolts 97

To take one example, in late 2006 and early 2007 Bangladesh’s military

essentially staged a coup, maneuvering into power an unelected “caretaker”

government that then declared a state of emergency and assumed signifi -

cant powers. During the state of emergency, the government arrested Sheikh

Hasina, one of the two powerful women who for years had dominated Ban-

gladeshi electoral politics but who allegedly had been implicated in massive

graft and extortion. But eventually the government just dropped its charges

against the po liti cal leader, who clearly retained enormous popularity among

poor Bangladeshis. In the next free election, following the demise of the

caretaker government, Sheikh Hasina’s party dominated the poll, delight-

ing Bangladesh’s poor but infuriating Dhaka’s urbanites, many of whom

had supported the military intervention.

Even in Taiwan, which, during Chen’s rule, was still considered one of

the strongest democracies in Asia, middle class activists, many of them vet-

erans of the long struggle against the authoritarian Nationalist regime, be-

gan to turn. Increasingly furious at Chen’s incompetence, alleged corruption,

and crushing of protest, thousands of demonstrators, and then hundreds

of thousands, gathered in front of the presidential palace in Taipei in Sep-

tember 2006. They were led by a man named Shih Ming- teh, himself a

longtime democracy activist who once had greatly admired Chen, and

who had been beaten badly in jail during prison stints under Taiwan’s

authoritarian rulers. In the mid- 1990s, Shih actually had served as chair-

man of the DPP, Chen’s po liti cal party. Shih had fought so long against

the dictatorship that ruled Taiwan until the 1990s that he enjoyed enor-

mous moral authority among average Taiwanese. As many reporters noted,

Shih often was locally referred to as the “Nelson Mandela of Taiwan.” 44

Still, there Shih was, in September 2006, at the front of the crowd,

made up primarily of middle class and upper middle class Taipei men and

women. Shih led the crowd in chants and catcalls at the mention of the

president’s name, and in choruses of “Chen Step Down!” before they

marched from the palace through the business district. Later, the protest-

ers fanned out into other parts of the city, holding red sparklers— red be-

ing their color of anger. In Chen strongholds, they started fi ghting with

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

98 The Middle Class Revolts

his supporters, and eventually crashed several meetings Chen held with

foreign offi cials.

Although Chen had twice won elections, the demonstrators hoped to

recall him from his post, a strategy of dubious legality— but one that

some protesters had tried earlier, in 2004, holding violent demonstrations in

the capital in a previous effort to get Chen to leave. At that time they had

faced off against armored troop carriers in front of the palace and taunted

the police, daring the offi cers to attack them. The president was not in

residence— he had traveled to his heartland in southern Taiwan to ask his

supporters to pray for him and to vow never to step down— but the demon-

strators did not relent. Some openly hoped for a repeat of the silent coup that

had, in the Philippines, removed Joseph Estrada, though Shih later insisted

that he had no desire to provoke a military intervention. Still, during the

demonstrations in 2004, and ones held earlier, some 300,000 people calling

for Chen’s ouster had skirmished with police, leading to battles in front of the

presidential palace. Some of those demonstrators carried clubs, steel pipes,

bats, and other weapons to the protest, clearly looking to start violence.45

This time, in 2006, the protesters promised to turn out a million people

in front of the palace, in a rally called “Million People Depose A-Bian”

(A-Bian was Chen’s nickname). Ultimately, for all their rallies and attacks

the demonstrators did not force Chen out despite his popularity ratings,

which had fallen below 20 percent. Chen could still call on his support in

working class southern Taiwan, and he was savvy enough to evade, prevent,

or stop any larger demonstrations. He eventually was indicted and convicted

of corruption, in a decision his supporters saw as po liti cally motivated— but

the protests only added to the vitriol and distrust in Taiwanese democracy.46

To be sure, middle classes have not uniformly turned against democracy.

Within many countries still struggling for democracy, middle classes remain

the locus of reform movements. To take just two examples among many, in

Iran, middle class urbanites form the core of the opposition Green protest

against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the authoritarian/clerical

regime, while in Burma middle class men and women, including students

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Middle Class Revolts 99

from Rangoon and Mandalay, have continued to push for democracy as the

country begins to change.

But when they do turn against democracy, the middle classes’ interven-

tion can prove utterly destructive. By inviting the military back into politics,

the middle class potentially undermines civil/military relations for generations

and sets the stage for the army to undermine civilian leaders repeatedly, a

recurring cycle from Pakistan to Thailand to Venezuela. By legitimizing the

use of street demonstrations to oust elected leaders, the middle class delegiti-

mizes elections and other legitimate demo cratic institutions. This is partic-

ularly dangerous when the middle class uses protest to oust an elected leader

pop u lar with the majority poor of a country, who themselves now have be-

come more po liti cally engaged and convinced that only street demonstra-

tions, rather than demo cratic institutions, can work to fi ght back against the

middle classes. In Thailand or Taiwan, Venezuela or Bolivia, the revolt of

the middle class has left a bitter divide that is unlikely to be healed any-

time soon— the poor, feeling disenfranchised, store up their rage for a

future showdown.

Indeed, while working class men and women in many developing na-

tions already have grown disillusioned with democracy because of the lack

of growth, the middle classes’ willingness to abrogate democracy in order to

protect their privileges only further alienates working classes. “Why do they

have the right to just outlaw our party whenever they want?” said Noppa-

don Pattama, a minister in the populist Thai governments run by Thaksin

Shinawatra, who was forced to fl ee into exile after his party was banned.47

Empowered by populists like Thaksin, Joseph Estrada, or Hugo Chavez,

and no longer willing to simply hand over po liti cal power to middle classes

and elites, as they might have done ten or twenty years ago, the voting poor

in country after country have fought back after their mandates have been

overruled. In Thailand, for example, poor supporters of Thaksin formed

the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, a mass or ga ni za tion

whose members, wearing their trademark red shirts, targeted middle class

and elite institutions with demonstrations and violent protests in 2009 and

2010. They held massive rallies drawing tens of thousands of people, but

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

100 The Middle Class Revolts

they also attacked government meetings, pelted the motorcade of then prime

minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, and launched rallies in the center of Bangkok

that deteriorated into brawls with middle class shop keep ers in certain neigh-

borhoods. Ultimately, it seemed, the red shirts had decided that, if Thai-

land’s middle classes could ruin the country’s democracy, so could they.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Yale University Press

Chapter Title: Graft, Graft, and More Graft

Book Title: Democracy in Retreat Book Subtitle: The Revolt of the Middle Class and the Worldwide Decline of Representative Government Book Author(s): Joshua Kurlantzick Published by: Yale University Press. (2013) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bh31.9

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Democracy in Retreat

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

F or many first- time visitors to Jakarta, capital of Indonesia and

the largest city on the intensely crowded island of Java, the metropo-

lis seems to be in constant motion, its incessant activity and brutal

equatorial heat wearing down travelers. Alongside the wide boulevards of

the central fi nancial district, where glass- and- steel skyscrapers jostle for space

with fi ve- star hotels, vendors peddling sticks of satay and clove cigarettes

and copies of the Indonesian tabloids push their carts past mobs of local

offi ce workers dressed in Western suits. Away from the grandiose fi nancial

areas, in the cramped side streets of newer districts that have sprung up to

accommodate migrants from other parts of the sprawling archipelago of

17,000 islands, motorcyclists weave through gridlocked traffi c, their exhaust

stinging the throat and mixing with soupy air already polluted by cars,

buses, and haze from forest fi res burning out of control across other parts of

Indonesia.

Yet compared with the late 1990s, Jakarta today has become so placid it

could resemble Oslo. At that time, the collapse of longtime dictator Suharto

and the Asian fi nancial crisis had battered Indonesia’s economy and simul-

taneously released the cork that had repressed religious, ethnic, class, and

other divides in the staggeringly diverse archipelago. The result was a po-

liti cal and social meltdown. At the time, many frequent visitors to Indone-

sia wondered whether the country was going to disintegrate into a Southeast

Asian version of Pakistan or Nigeria, a giant failing state poisoning its neigh-

bors and, potentially, the international community. The Indonesian econ-

omy shrank by 13 percent in 1998, tens of millions of Indonesians fell below

the poverty line, and rioters ransacked and burned large areas of the capital.

Graft, Graft, and More Graft

6

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

102 Graft, Graft, and More Graft

Long lines formed for handouts of staple goods like rice and cooking oil,

and the value of the rupiah, Indonesia’s currency, plummeted by about 75

percent in the end of 1997 and the beginning of 1998.1

Outside Jakarta, the violence could actually be worse. Besides violent

anti- Chinese sentiment, other ethnic and religious fault lines exploded in

the late 1990s and early 2000s. In the Malukus, the famous “Spice Islands”

where Western colonists once had competed for access to valuable nutmeg

and cloves, Christians and Muslims attacked each others’ villages, burning

them to the ground and beheading survivors, whose heads were left on

skewers like a tropical Vlad the Impaler. Outlying regions like Aceh, East

Timor, and West Papua threatened to secede, potentially breaking up the

country.

To people who lived through the late 1990s and early 2000s in Indone-

sia, the turnaround to the situation today seems, on the surface, to be re-

markable. The sprawling country, with the fourth- largest population in the

world, appears to have achieved stability and defused the violence that had

threatened to tear the archipelago asunder. Rather than disintegrating into

Nigeria or Pakistan, Indonesia, to some observers, has become the demo-

cratic success story of the de cade. Indonesia has devolved much of the central

bud get and empowered local offi cials, increasing nationwide participation

in politics. It has fostered a broader and more inclusive civil society, and

has increasingly tolerated public protest, po liti cal opposition, and legisla-

tive horse- trading. Local areas have gained greater control over their natu-

ral resources and their social welfare systems, and have introduced new

forms of local- level elections and other types of voter feedback. Jakarta’s

Indonesian and English- language newspapers now give a daily roundup—

right next to the weather pages— of planned (peaceful) protests that will be

held on the capital’s streets, a sign of how normal and routine such public

participation has become.

Unlike po liti cal leaders in other countries such as Pakistan, who are

reticent to confront militancy for fear of seeming like tools of the United

States, Indonesia’s recent leaders have utilized the bully pulpit to condemn

militants, while also integrating Muslim parties into the mainstream po liti-

cal sphere. “I would like to emphasize that the country must not, and will

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Graft, Graft, and More Graft 103

not, be defeated by terrorism. . . . To the whole of the Indonesian people, let

us collectively unite in the fi ght against the acts of terrorism,” Indonesian

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono declared in one speech.2 Indeed, by

combining this public outreach with effective police work, Indonesia has

shattered Jemaah Islamiah, once the most powerful terror network in South-

east Asia, responsible for the bloody 2002 Bali bombings, which killed over

200 people, as well as for numerous attacks on Western hotels and embassies

in Jakarta. According to the International Crisis Group, the most authorita-

tive analyst of Jemaah Islamiah, the group is now splintered, weakened,

and largely in effec tive.3

Stability, engendered by public participation and devolution, has al-

lowed for investment and stronger growth; except for India and China, In-

donesia has posted some of the highest growth rates in the world in recent

years. Yudhoyono also has presided over truly free and contested elections.

After its violent birth, the in de pen dent country of East Timor did emerge.

Another secessionist confl ict, in Aceh, was resolved following the devastat-

ing tsunami in December 2004; Yudhoyono had the wisdom to try to help

negotiate an end to the decades- long confl ict in Aceh, rather than attempt

to overwhelm insurgents by force. Attacks against Indonesian Chinese have

decreased sharply as calm has been restored. Today, far from sheltering

themselves in heavily guarded enclaves across Jakarta, behind razor wire

and security checks, many ethnic Chinese businesspeople are beginning to

participate openly in politics.

In recognition of Indonesia’s supposed turnaround, the United States,

which all but ignored the country for a de cade after Suharto’s fall in 1998,

is once again courting it. The Obama administration has launched what it

calls “comprehensive partnership” with Indonesia.4 As countries in the Mid-

dle East throw off their own dictators, the White House commissioned an

internal study to examine Indonesia’s transition, and to see whether the

archipelago now could be an example to the Arab world.5 Returning in

November 2010 to the country where he spent four years of his childhood,

President Barack Obama heaped praise on Indonesia, declaring, “Indonesia

has charted its own course through an extraordinary demo cratic transforma-

tion.”6 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, meeting with Indonesian offi cials

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

104 Graft, Graft, and More Graft

the following year, urged them to promote democracy in the Middle East

and in Burma, saying that Indonesia “provides an example for a transition

to civilian rule and building strong demo cratic institutions.”7

And yet, even as it supposedly goes from success to success, Indonesia

has developed what could be a fatal fl aw. As in many other young democra-

cies, the opening of politics also has opened the tap for corruption. In this

liberalization of corruption, the breakdown of a centralized system of graft,

common under authoritarian rule, leads to more bureaucrats, offi cials, and

average policemen with their hands out— so many more people for citizens

to pay in order to start a business, get their kids into school, drive on the

highway, mail a letter, or fulfi ll any number of other tasks taken for granted

by citizens of wealthy democracies. Corruption has become so common-

place that, when politicians accused the national anticorruption commission

of being penetrated by corruption and other crimes itself, few Indonesians

were surprised— though it turned out that the accusations were mostly an

attempt to undermine the commission.8 Still, in 2010 one former head of

the anticorruption commission was found guilty of masterminding the mur-

der of a rival.9

In theory, more open politics should reduce corruption, by throwing sun-

light onto the actions of politicians. This may be true in the long run, but

in the short run the opposite often seems to happen. During an era of tight

authoritarian rule, graft often remains relatively centralized and predict-

able, allowing citizens to understand and manage established networks of

corruption. The regime siphons off a certain percentage of money from lo-

cal businesses, but the number of actors involved in the corruption remains

relatively small. (To be sure, there are exceptions, like Mobutu Sese Seko’s

Zaire, in which the venality of this small number of actors was so great that

it became utterly unmanageable.) Yet as countries demo cratize, the old

channels of graft and monopolies over important information tend to van-

ish, and more actors have access to important government information that

could be sold, and so these new and different actors— local po liti cal bosses,

broader segments of the bureaucracy, staff of members of parliament— put

out their hands. This liberalization of corruption can add to business costs

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Graft, Graft, and More Graft 105

for everyone, from the largest local corporations to the smallest street ven-

dors, who now, in cities like Jakarta, have to pay a litany of small “fi nes” to

everyone from beat cops to traffi c police to small- time local offi cials.

Indeed, Indonesia provides a clear illustration of how po liti cal opening

leads to the liberalization of corruption. At the beginning of the transition

from longtime dictator Suharto, whose regime collapsed in 1998, graft be-

came decentralized, following de cades of tightly controlled networks of cor-

ruption run by the military and Suharto’s extended family.10 The central

government handed over more power to local leaders, and, in addition to

empowering local politicians, the new situation also provided many more

opportunities for corruption. “Actors in the bureaucracy, judiciary, po liti cal

parties, and in the army have reemerged as central players in a corruption

free for all in demo cratic Indonesia,” wrote economist Michael Rock in a

comprehensive study of corruption in Indonesia and several other develop-

ing countries.11

A truly competitive legislature, a sharp change from Suharto’s compli-

ant parliament, also has added to an increase in corruption. Again, in the

long run a competitive legislature could bring transparency to politics, and

studies by multiple economists have found that corruption eventually de-

creases as a democracy ages. But for now, it signifi cantly increases the amount

of money in the po liti cal system. Although Indonesian legislators no longer

can count on winning offi ce just by joining Suharto’s party, Golkar, the

young democracy has developed few rules governing how politicians should

raise money to campaign. “With the emergence of a confrontational rela-

tionship between newly empowered legislatures and embattled presidents,

members of parliament, who needed ample war chests to win re- election,

used their new po liti cal powers to extort funds. . . . Local offi cials also par-

ticipated in extorting and taxing private fi rms,” Rock wrote.12 Democracy

has provided rent seekers with many more opportunities to make money

off the state, or from elections, but Indonesia has not yet developed the

checks and balances to restrain them, he concluded.

Simply the fact that Indonesia now has more elections— for local po liti-

cal positions, for party leadership, for legislative seats— provides more op-

portunity for graft in the absence of strong traditions of clean elections or

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

106 Graft, Graft, and More Graft

effective monitoring. During the 2006– 7 race for the governor of Jakarta, a

position similar to that of an American mayor, the U.S. embassy reported

that some parties were trying to sell their nominations for the post to the

highest bidder.13 Two years earlier, in the run- up to the national presiden-

tial election ultimately won by Yudhoyono, a similar problem had emerged:

powerful politician Jusuf Kalla, who would serve as Yudhoyono’s fi rst vice

president, allegedly won the chairmanship of the Golkar party by “[paying]

enormous bribes to secure votes from party branches,” according to another

U.S. embassy analysis. Since there were now so many more party branches

than during the dictatorship, and each one could exercise the kind of infl u-

ence that local party offi ces never had during Suharto’s time, the amount of

money needed to pay them off was far higher than in the past.14

Even Yudhoyono, who tried to build a reputation as a clean politician,

rhetorically supporting the nation’s anticorruption watchdog even as it

went after some of his closest associates, could not escape the country’s

growing graft problem. The trea sur er of Yudhoyono’s Demo cratic Party, a

man named Muhammad Nazaruddin, fl ed the country in May 2011 after

being accused of massive corruption in the tender of buildings in Jakarta.

Once abroad, Nazaruddin claimed that many members of Yudhoyono’s

party had been involved in his state contracts scheme, an allegation widely

believed among Indonesian po liti cal, media, and business leaders.15

Not surprisingly, despite its increasingly open politics, Indonesia has

made little headway in recent years in Transparency International’s annual

rankings of perceptions of corruption. The Po liti cal Economy and Risk

Consulting, a leading Asian survey, ranked Indonesia as the most corrupt

country in Asia, behind such paragons of clean politics as Cambodia and

the Philippines.16

This decline in Transparency International rankings is echoed in other

emerging democracies, where the enlargement of the franchise and the

decentralization of po liti cal power, at least at fi rst, seems to make graft

easier. As Thailand became more demo cratic in the 2000s, in terms of a

broader franchise, freer voting, and a decentralization of power to prov-

inces from Bangkok, its Transparency International ranking fell from sixty-

fi rst in the world in 2001 to seventy- eighth in 2010. The Philippines’s ranking

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Graft, Graft, and More Graft 107

in Transparency International’s survey of corruption perceptions declined

from fi fty- fi fth in the world in 1998 to one hundred thirty- fourth in 2010.

In fact, in analyzing over thirty developing countries that emerged from

authoritarian rule and shifted to democracy in the late 1990s and early 2000s,

Council on Foreign Relations researchers have found that the Transparency

International score for corruption perceptions actually declined in most of

the countries in the fi rst fi ve years of demo cratic rule.

In a number of cities and provinces across Indonesia, newly empowered

local offi cials— or party leaders like Nazaruddin— have built megaprojects,

like a $600- million, 50,000- seat outdoor stadium in East Kalimintan on the

island of Borneo, that allegedly have provided innumerable opportunities

for contractors, in collusion with local offi cials, to skim money from proj-

ects. Today nearly a quarter of the Indonesian leaders charged with cor-

ruption come from district and provincial- level jobs, compared with almost

none a de cade ago, when graft was controlled by Jakarta.17

This corruption is hard to miss, even for outsiders. Even as Obama

pushes for the “comprehensive partnership” with Indonesia, American in-

vestors, who have looked closely at the country, understand how graft is

spiraling out of control. Despite Indonesia’s size, it remains only the twenty-

eighth- largest trading partner of America, behind such global minnows as

Belgium. When quizzed about their interest in investing in Indonesia, most

American companies— other than large natural resources fi rms that already

have huge investments in the country— reply that they are still deferring

any investments, largely because of the country’s problem with graft.18 When,

in 2011, Google decided to launch new investments in Southeast Asia, it

initially passed over Indonesia, by far the largest country in the region, and

then essentially asked the Indonesian government for waivers that would

allow it to avoid all the red tape (and potential graft) clogging Indonesian

business today.19

Indonesia’s story is repeated in many young democracies. In Rus sia and

other post- Soviet states, people watched, after 1989, as the old nomenkla-

tura, the former communist offi cials, benefi ted from an orgy of self- dealing

of state assets. Yet, at the same time, the chaotic freeing of the economy of-

ten allowed these former bureaucrats, who now “owned” many former state

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

108 Graft, Graft, and More Graft

assets, to extort bribes from the general public to get access to certain for-

eign goods, licenses to launch a business, or entrée into companies created

from old state fi rms. In a study of several post- Communist states by the New

Democracies Barometer at the University of Strathclyde in Scotland, over 70

percent of respondents said that corruption had increased in comparison

with that under their former communist regimes, and that this had signifi -

cantly impacted their views of the quality of democracy.20

Indeed, several multicountry studies of corruption suggest that graft

increases in the early years of demo cratization. In one analysis of democ-

racy and rent seeking, economists Hamid Mohtadi and Terry Roe of the

University of Minnesota found that in nearly every one of the sixty- one

countries they studied, rent seeking and corruption rose in the early stages

of demo cratization.21 Other studies, focusing on specifi c regions or coun-

tries, have found similar results. Po liti cal scientists Chris Baker and Pasuk

Phonpaichit concluded that corruption rose as Thailand demo cratized; other

economists discovered that corruption has increased in most demo cratizing

Latin American nations as centralized networks give way to more decen-

tralized politics.22

Even when graft might not actually be getting worse, the openness of new

democracies often leads to the perception among the general public that it is.

In large part, this is simply because a freer media, and more in de pen dent

anticorruption agencies, investigate the government and publish reports on

graft. In the long run, again, this is a positive development: Exposés of graft

eventually could encourage politicians and civil servants to think twice about

their actions. But in the short run, the freer media and anticorruption agen-

cies’ reports tend to increase public perceptions of government corruption.

Under authoritarian governments, rumors of graft within po liti cal circles

may spread, but they are easier to keep out of the local press. In China, for

example, Prime Minster Wen Jiabao has successfully maintained an image

of a caring, earthy, and incorruptible grandfather type. Because of this im-

age, Wen is always the fi rst top Chinese offi cial on the scene at any major

tragedy, like the deadly 2008 earthquake in Sichuan province, where he

comforted the grieving and vowed an honest government investigation of

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Graft, Graft, and More Graft 109

any malfeasance that might have made the disaster worse. Wen has main-

tained this image despite the fact that po liti cal insiders— and foreign

journalists— know that his wife, Zhang Peili, wears staggeringly expensive

jewelry, which makes one wonder how she can afford such items given his

modest offi cial salary.23 But because the tightly controlled Chinese press

never reports on the business interests of Wen’s wife, and China’s state an-

ticorruption agencies do not touch such se nior offi cials, most average Chi-

nese have no idea about her wealth. When, in 2007, the Taiwanese media

reported that Zhang owned jade jewelry worth hundreds of thousands

of dollars, Chinese censors quickly blocked the stories from the Chinese

Internet. “The Propaganda Ministry issued blanket orders to the news me-

dia not to cover Zhang’s jewelry activities, according to a se nior Chinese

editor who asked not to be identifi ed. Filtering software was updated to

block all queries about “Wen’s wife” and “jewelry,” reported the Los Ange-

les Times.24

Similarly, during the time of the dictator Suharto, whose family stole

as much as $35 billion in government wealth, according to several estimates,

to publish an exposé of the Suharto empire would have meant guaranteed

arrest for any local reporter who attempted to do so. By contrast, the free,

and scandal- driven, press in Indonesia now produces endless exposés of cor-

ruption in high po liti cal circles. In addition, demo cratic Indonesia has devel-

oped a Supreme Audit Agency and other anticorruption watchdogs, which

generally produce in de pen dent, fair investigations of graft allegations. Yud-

hoyono, though certainly far less corrupt than Suharto by any standard, has

been battered by a long string of media reports about corruption linked to

his administration, including the Nazaruddin allegations and allegations

that the president ordered the bailout of a leading bank, Bank Century,

that made major campaign contributions to his vice president. These alle-

gations were given more fuel by a report, released in late 2009, by the

Supreme Audit Agency, which suggested that the vice president, who had

formerly governed Indonesia’s central bank, had used his powers as central

banker to help rescue Bank Century. The allegations became so numerous

that Yudhoyono was forced to go on national tele vi sion to address his role in

them, and to promise a tougher fi ght against graft. During Suharto’s time,

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

110 Graft, Graft, and More Graft

such allegations simply would have been completely quashed, and the pres-

ident would not even have had to respond to them in public.25

These perceptions of corruption heighten economic uncertainty, since

average people simply hear more about graft than they used to under an au-

thoritarian regime, and they also add to civic disengagement from a po liti-

cal elite perceived as cynical and uninterested in the public welfare. As

economist Rock notes, under Suharto the private sector was, in a way,

protected from excessive graft— Suharto granted a “franchise” to a certain

number of se nior regime cronies to extort money from companies, but he

prevented any other offi cials who did not have this “franchise” from doing

so. Now, “demo cratization witnessed the collapse of the franchise system,”

making private companies in Indonesia even more uncertain about whether

their investments would be protected, or whether they would have to pay a

continual, unending string of bribes.26

In earlier global demo cratic waves, freedom of the press may have had

a similar impact, exposing corruption to the public. But the reach and scope

of media outlets were much smaller in the second and third waves of de-

mocracy, and so even if the press did print more stories on corruption, its

ability to quickly infl uence large sections of the public was limited. With

the Internet and social media, the media’s reach is far greater and faster.

Even in a developing nation like Indonesia, widespread Internet penetra-

tion and use of social media provide even the poorest men and women with

access to the latest news coverage— including numerous stories about cor-

ruption. Indonesia, in fact, now has the largest number of Facebook users

of any country other than the United States.27

Rising corruption, or even perceptions of rising corruption, can add to

pop u lar alienation with democracy. A meta- analysis of over thirty emerging

democracies around the world conducted by several of my research associ-

ates at the Council on Foreign Relations and myself used survey data be-

tween 2002 and 2007, the most recent years with comprehensive survey

information, to examine the correlation between support for democracy and

corruption. We conducted our analysis by using Barometer surveys from

various regions to examine support for democracy, and also utilized data

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Graft, Graft, and More Graft 111

from the Pew Global Attitudes Survey, in which people in several regions

were questioned to assess whether they considered corruption a “very big

problem” in their country. We found that, in roughly one- quarter of the

countries, support for democracy decreased when perceptions of corruption

increased. Conversely, in several of the case studies, such as Bangladesh,

Argentina, and India, signifi cant decreases in perceptions of corruption

were correlated with increases in pop u lar support for democracy. These

results suggest that, if governments in emerging democracies can quickly

get graft under control, they can more easily consolidate demo cratic transi-

tions.28

In countries in this meta- analysis that showed a clear link, the relation-

ship between corruption and diminishing support for democracy was sub-

stantial— a fi nding supported by the work of other researchers such as

Yun- han Chu of National Taiwan University, who has found that corrup-

tion perceptions have eroded trust in government in many young Asian

democracies.29 In Pakistan, where even many middle class liberals privately

admit that graft has increased in recent years of civilian governments as

compared with past military regimes, the survey data shows that perceptions

of corruption have been bad for democracy. Between 2002 and 2007, the

number of Pakistanis who perceived that the country had a serious cor-

ruption problem grew by 6 percent; over the same period, support for de-

mocracy among the Pakistani population fell by nearly 9 percent. Similarly,

in Ukraine, where many middle class men and women grew frustrated

in the late 2000s with the government of Orange Revolution leader Viktor

Yushchenko because they saw graft rising despite the country’s greater po-

liti cal openness, the survey data also shows that this frustration has led to

disillusionment with democracy. Between 2002 and 2007, the percentage of

Ukrainians who believed that the country had a serious problem with cor-

ruption grew by 9 percent; over that same period, support among the popu-

lation for democracy fell by a sizable 11 percent.30

Other studies show similar results. Examining perceptions of corruption

in Africa between 2002 and 2005, several researchers found that “corruption

is a major, perhaps the major, obstacle to building pop u lar trust in state insti-

tutions and electoral pro cesses in Africa.” Corruption was the strongest factor

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

112 Graft, Graft, and More Graft

hurting Africans’ trust in demo cratic institutions— institutions whose func-

tioning was critical to these young democracies.31

In other cases, corruption fosters public dissatisfaction with elected of-

fi cials. This dissatisfaction can then lead to citizens looking to other, un-

elected actors to resolve po liti cal problems. This might not be such a problem:

one comprehensive survey, taken in the mid- 2000s, and covering all of South

Asia, found that less than 50 percent of Indians trusted po liti cal parties,

but that Indians had instead placed high degrees of trust in their country’s

judiciary and nonpartisan Election Commission, two important institu-

tions in a democracy. Even so, the rallies against corruption by Indian

hunger strikers in the summer of 2011, who openly disdained the po liti cal

system and elected politicians, drew large middle class crowds, suggesting

that even those low levels of trust in Indian politicians had fallen precipi-

tously.32

But at least in India, the public has placed trust in some demo cratic in-

stitutions. In places like Pakistan, Thailand, or Egypt, where the public today

has low levels of trust in po liti cal parties, middle class citizens instead often

have put their trust in the army, which, though it has played a central role in

those nations’ histories, can hardly be called guarantors of democracy.

As we have seen in the case of the Jakarta polls, this growth in corruption

also extends to election campaigns in young democracies, which, at fi rst,

become more corrupt and, potentially, divisive. As economist Paul Collier

shows in his analysis of demo cratic systems in Africa, initial demo cratic

elections in developing countries often create what he calls a “Darwinian

struggle for po liti cal survival in which the winner is the one who adopts the

most cost- effective means of attracting votes.”33 Lacking the strong institu-

tions capable of rewarding good governance and punishing cheating— such

as anticorruption watchdogs, a strong election monitoring commission,

and impartial courts— the most cost- effective means of winning votes in a

young and poor democracy, Collier found, is not delivering good gover-

nance but bribery, voter intimidation, and ballot fraud. And without an

established tradition of tolerance for opposition parties, these fi rst free elec-

tions turn into zero- sum battles, in which no party can afford to lose, and

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Graft, Graft, and More Graft 113

so all parties are willing to use the most dramatic— and even violent—

tactics to triumph. And in each subsequent demo cratic election, as the stakes

of winning or losing become clearer— each party understands that, unless

it wins, it will be cut out of all patronage— the amount of vote buying and

intimidation tends to increase. In Nigeria, for instance, vote buying appar-

ently has increased in each demo cratic presidential election, with the me-

dian price paid for a vote rising with each election as well.

So, during the fi rst truly competitive elections in Kenya, for example,

in the early 2000s, it made sense, from a perspective of survival, for all the

parties contesting the poll to use bribery, voter and candidate intimidation,

and even outright killings to try to dominate polling districts during the

election campaign. All of the parties knew, after all, that if they lost an elec-

tion, their party, and all their po liti cal, business, and ethnic allies, would be

frozen out of power.34

Even in wealthier emerging democracies such as those in East Asia,

where one might think there would be more room for politicians to share

spoils— and thus less incentive to view elections simply as survival of the

fi ttest— democracy has actually led to spikes in election violence and vote

buying. A 2011 analysis of several emerging democracies in Asia, produced

by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), found that while

elections can allow for public participation, in many emerging democracies

they are exacerbating violence and graft. Elections “can trigger violence. . . .

Elections are not in themselves suffi cient mechanisms for managing po liti-

cal change when the players have not bought into the rules of the game”— in

other words, contesting polls cleanly and peacefully, it noted. Electoral

democracy, it concluded, “has come at a high price [in emerging Asian de-

mocracies.] Each year hundreds of people lose their lives in connection with

competitive election.”35 In Thailand, Nepal, Bangladesh, the Philippines,

and Pakistan, among other emerging Asian democracies, elections have, as

in Africa, turned into winner- take- all contests in which any losing party

gets completely shut out, UNDP concluded. As a result, just as in Kenya or

Nigeria, Asian po liti cal parties are willing to go to any extent to win elec-

tions, since they know a loss means their power will be eviscerated. For ex-

ample, one estimate suggests that vote buying in Thailand has become so

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

114 Graft, Graft, and More Graft

entrenched, despite laws that punish it with prison terms, that this activity

puts some $1 billion into the economy during election time.36

In Indonesia, money politics now has become the norm during cam-

paign seasons— in Jakarta and nearly everywhere else in the archipelago.

During Suharto’s time, there were really no parties other than Golkar, the

dictator’s po liti cal vehicle. Golkar representatives might hand out small

amounts of Indonesian rupiah during the elections, which were held every

fi ve years and which resulted in Suharto and his party getting Saddam

Hussein– like vote tallies. But those disbursements of money were necessar-

ily limited by the fact that Suharto had no real opposition, and the dictator’s

party, together with the army, always could use the threat of force to get

people to vote for them as well.

Today, Indonesian po liti cal parties are far more competitive: in parlia-

mentary elections, at least fi ve sizable national parties now contest each elec-

tion. None really can rely on force to intimidate voters into supporting them,

so handing out money during campaigns, or on Election Day, has become

far more important. One prominent Indonesian academic, Effenda Ghazali,

looked at voter attitudes in several parts of the country, and found that the

amount people were paid for their votes had more than doubled between

the early 2000s and the late 2000s.37

Even a quick tour of campaign stops by Indonesian po liti cal parties

reveals hyperinfl ation in the price of votes. At rallies in one Jakarta suburb,

where migrants from around the country have built small, two- room houses

of concrete and wood, candidates from one leading Indonesian party can-

vass for support. While a candidate speaks on the suburb’s makeshift stage,

his aides hand out small baskets of rice, cooking oil, and peanuts to people

in the audience, and then the candidate leads the crowd in chants and fl ag-

waving in the party’s colors. Few in the crowd seem to even bother listening

to the speech; many are waiting for an appearance onstage of a pop u lar

local pop singer known for dancing while shaking her rump toward the

crowd.

But the men and women in the audience, mostly working class people

who came to the capital to work in construction or other manual labor, start

to pay more attention as the candidate’s aides wander through the audience

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Graft, Graft, and More Graft 115

with other presents. Inside new baskets being handed out are small hand-

fuls of rupiah, along with cards instructing people how to fi nd the party’s

symbol and colors on ballots. Men and women who a minute ago had been

relaxing on the ground, chewing sticks of spicy chicken, jump to their feet

and press forward— many grab one, two, three baskets with the cash inside

in a scene that is reminiscent of an American radio station promotion. But

several of the people who grabbed baskets turn to the party’s aides in disap-

pointment after looking inside. “This is half what we got from the other

parties,” says one.38

The ongoing vote buying, the perceptions of growing corruption among

elected politicians, the little bribes demanded over and over, have begun

to wear down many Indonesians. When asked, many Indonesian business-

people refl exively express pride in their young democracy, and in how their

country has grown since the chaos and economic crises of the late 1990s.

But when pushed a bit harder, they allow their frustration to surface quickly—

street vendors, taxi drivers, and even wealthy tycoons will promptly complain

about all the bribes they must pay to keep their businesses running. So per-

haps it should not have been surprising when the former dictator’s son,

known as “Tommy” Suharto, decided in mid- 2011 that he would enter

politics— even though his father had overseen numerous brutal campaigns

of repression and he himself had served a long jail sentence for allegedly mas-

terminding the murder of a Supreme Court judge. Tommy launched a new

po liti cal party and became chairman of its board, and laid plans for Indone-

sia’s national elections in 2014. “The people don’t believe in the [Yudhoyono]

government,” one of Tommy’s top po liti cal aides told reporters. “Thirteen

years of ‘reform’ hasn’t made people’s lives better.”39

Tommy seemed to have understood the zeitgeist. In a study by the In-

donesian research or ga ni za tion Survey Circle, released in late 2011, only 12

percent of respondents believed that the current group of politicians in

the demo cratic era were doing a better job than leaders during the era of

Suharto.40 An overwhelming number of respondents cited graft as one of the

biggest complaints about the demo cratic era; commentaries on the survey

noted that a sizable percentage of Indonesia’s elected members of parlia-

ment were targeted by corruption investigations within a year after taking

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

116 Graft, Graft, and More Graft

their seats. “This underscores the fact that for a majority of Indonesians,

democracy has not delivered a better life,” noted the Jakarta Globe, com-

menting on the results of the survey.41 In another poll released in May 2011,

residents of Indonesia, the supposed demo cratic success story of the 2000s,

said, by a margin of two to one, that conditions in the country were better

during Suharto’s time than under the government of demo cratically elected

Yudhoyono.42

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Yale University Press

Chapter Title: The China Model

Book Title: Democracy in Retreat Book Subtitle: The Revolt of the Middle Class and the Worldwide Decline of Representative Government Book Author(s): Joshua Kurlantzick Published by: Yale University Press. (2013) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bh31.10

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Democracy in Retreat

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:40 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

T he attendees of the annual World Economic Forum in Davos

are not exactly used to being told what to do. The Swiss resort

draws the global elite: the highest- powered investment bankers,

the top government offi cials and leaders, the biggest philanthropists, and

the most famous celebrities, who gather each year to attempt to solve the

world’s most pressing problems and still have time for eve ning cocktails.

But in January 2009, the Davos crowd had to listen to a blistering lec-

ture from a most unlikely source. Some thought that the fi rst se nior Chinese

leader to attend the World Economic Forum, premier Wen Jiabao, might

take a low- key approach to his speech to the Forum.1 But at Davos, that

genial grandpa was not in evidence. Months after Lehman Brothers col-

lapsed, triggering the global economic crisis, Wen told the Davos attendees

that the West was squarely to blame for the meltdown roiling the entire

world. An “excessive expansion of fi nancial institutions in blind pursuit of

profi t,” a failure of government supervision of the fi nancial sector, and an

“unsustainable model of development, characterized by prolonged low sav-

ings and high consumption” caused the crisis, said an angry Wen.2

Five years earlier, such a broadside from a Chinese leader would have

been unthinkable. Though in the 1990s and early 2000s China had used its

soft power to reassure its Asian neighbors and to expand its infl uence in

regions like Africa and Latin America, until the end of 2008 nearly every

top Chinese offi cial still lived by Deng Xiaoping’s old advice to build Chi-

na’s strength while maintaining a low profi le in international affairs.3 As

Deng told one visiting African leader in 1985, “Please don’t copy our model.

If there is any experience on our part, it is to formulate policies in light of

The China Model

7

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:40 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

118 The China Model

one’s own national conditions.” 4 In the mid- 2000s, American journalist

Joshua Cooper Ramo already had coined the term “Beijing Consensus” to

describe China’s brand of authoritarian capitalism, and in private some

Chinese academics had begun discussing whether Beijing might have les-

sons to teach other countries in Asia, Africa, or Latin America.5 Still, no

Chinese offi cials, academics, or other opinion leaders were willing to say, on

the record, that they believed China had a model of po liti cal and economic

development that other developing nations could follow.6 Many top leaders

publicly stuck to the line that China was a developing nation that still had

much to learn from the world.7

But in 2008 and 2009 the global economic crisis decimated the econo-

mies of nearly every leading democracy, while China surfed through the

downturn virtually unscathed, though Beijing did implement its own large

stimulus package, worth roughly $600 billion.8 China’s economy grew by

nearly 9 percent in 2009, while Japan’s shrunk by over 5 percent, and the

American economy contracted by 2.6 percent.9 By August 2010, China (not

including Hong Kong) held over $860 billion in U.S. trea suries; when Chi-

nese leaders returned to Davos the year after Wen’s scolding of the West,

they came not to chat but to hunt for distressed Western assets they could

buy up on the cheap.10 In the downturn’s wake, the crisis made many West-

ern leaders tentative, questioning whether not only their own economies

but also their po liti cal systems actually contained deep, possibly unfi xable

fl aws. The economic crisis, said former U.S. Deputy Trea sury Secretary

Roger Altman, has left “the American model . . . under a cloud.”11 “This

relatively unscathed position gives China the opportunity to solidify its

strategic advantages as the United States and Eu rope struggle to recover,”

Altman writes.

These fl aws appeared especially notable when compared with what

seemed like the streamlined, rapid decision making of the Chinese leader-

ship, which did not have to deal with such “obstacles” as a legislature,

judiciary, or free media that actually could question or block its actions.

“One- party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a

reasonably enlightened group of people, as in China today, it can also have

great advantages,” writes the infl uential New York Times foreign affairs

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:40 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The China Model 119

columnist Thomas Friedman. “One party can just impose the po liti cally

diffi cult but critically important policies needed to move a society for-

ward.”12 Even John Williamson, the economist who originally coined the

term “Washington Consensus,” admitted, in an essay in 2012, that the Bei-

jing Consensus appeared to be gaining ground rapidly, at the expense of

the Washington Consensus.

As Western leaders, policy makers, and journalists questioned whether

their own systems had failed, Chinese leaders began to promote their au-

thoritarian capitalist model of development more explicitly. After all, in

the wake of the crisis many Western governments, including France and the

United States, bailed out their fi nancial sectors and many of their leading

companies. These bailouts made it harder for Western leaders to criticize

Beijing’s economic interventions, and led some Chinese offi cials to question

whether Western democracies now were copying the China model. In Bei-

jing, a raft of new books came out promoting the China model of devel-

opment and blasting the failures of Western liberal capitalism. “It is very

possible that the Beijing Consensus can replace the Washington Consensus,”

Cui Zhiyuan, a professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing, told the Interna-

tional Herald Tribune in early 2010.13 Suddenly, too, the same Chinese lead-

ers who in the early and mid- 2000s still had played the role of the meek

learner became, in speeches and public appearances and writings, very much

the triumphalist teacher. In an article in the China Daily one think- tank ex-

pert from China’s Commerce Ministry writes, “The US’ top fi nancial offi -

cials need to shift their people’s attention from the country’s struggling

economy to cover up their incompetence and blame China for everything

that is going wrong in their country.”14

In previous reverse waves, eras when global demo cratic gains stalled

and went backward, there was no alternate example of development re-

motely as successful as China today; the Soviet Union claimed to be an al-

ternate example, but it never produced anywhere near the sustained growth

rates and successful, globally competitive companies of China today. In the

early 1960s, another time of a reverse wave following the post- WWII demo-

cratization in Eu rope and parts of Asia, the only real challenger to liberal,

capitalist democracy was the communist bloc. At the time, many developing

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:40 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

120 The China Model

nations did attempt to follow the Soviet economic model, partly because it

offered an alternative to the West, which was attractive to former colonies,

partly because the Soviet model came with signifi cant Soviet aid, and partly

because many leaders of newly in de pen dent nations, such as Tanzania’s Ju-

lius Nyerere, had studied in socialist systems, or in universities in the West

that had favorable views of socialism and believed a Soviet- style system

could work.

But even among many true believers, who remained convinced that the

Soviet Union and Mao’s China offered viable alternatives of development,

the massive disaster of Mao’s Great Leap Forward in 1958– 61, which led to

a famine that killed tens of millions, and the stagnation of the Eastern bloc

economies, revealed by émigrés, showed that, given time, the communist

system probably would collapse. After the fi rst generation of postcolonial

leaders, many newly in de pen dent states that had once embraced socialist

models began to slowly dismantle them. By the 1980s, when many newly

in de pen dent states were struggling with serious economic crises, and neo-

liberal reforms promoted by the West began to take hold, communist- style

economics were nearly dead.

Today, China— and to a lesser extent other successful authoritarian

capitalists— offer a viable alternative to the leading democracies. In many

ways, their systems, which we will see in more detail, pose the most serious

challenge to demo cratic capitalism since the rise of communism and fas-

cism in the 1920s and early 1930s. And in the wake of the global economic

crisis, and the dissatisfaction with democracy in many developing nations,

leaders in Asia, Africa, and Latin America are studying the Chinese model

far more closely— a model that, eventually, will help undermine democracy

in these leaders’ countries.

In recent years, the “China model” has become shorthand for economic

liberalization without po liti cal liberalization. But China’s model of devel-

opment is actually more complex. It builds on earlier, state- centered Asian

models of development such as in South Korea and Taiwan, while taking

uniquely Chinese steps designed to ensure that the Communist Party re-

mains central to economic and po liti cal policy making.15 Like previous Asian

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:40 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The China Model 121

modernizers, China in its reform era has devoted signifi cant resources to

primary education, resulting in youth literacy rates of nearly 98 percent; in

many other developing nations, the youth literacy rate is less than 70 per-

cent.16 Like other high- growth Asian economies, and the most reformist of

the Persian Gulf modernizers, China also has created highly favorable envi-

ronments for foreign investment, particularly in the special economic zones

along the country’s coast; in many years over the past two de cades China

has been the world’s top recipient of foreign direct investment.17 Yet in the

China model, the Beijing government maintains a high degree of control

over the economy, but it is hardly returning to socialism. Instead, Beijing

has developed a hybrid form of capitalism in which it has opened its econ-

omy to some extent, but it also ensures that the government controls strategic

industries, picks corporate winners, determines investments by state funds,

and pushes the banking sector to support national champion fi rms. Indeed,

though in the 1980s and 1990s China privatized many state fi rms, the cen-

tral government today still controls roughly 120 companies. Among these

are the biggest and most powerful corporations in China: of the forty- two

biggest companies in China, only three are privately owned. In the thirty-

nine economic sectors considered most important by the government, state

fi rms control roughly 85 percent of all assets, according to a study by China

economist Carl Walter. In China the party appoints se nior directors of many

of the largest companies, who are expected to become party members, if

they are not already. Working through these networks, the Beijing leader-

ship sets state priorities, gives signals to companies, and determines corpo-

rate agendas, but does so without the direct hand of the state appearing in

public. And even when the state does not directly control the most impor-

tant companies, Beijing increasingly has used nontariff barriers to encourage

what it calls “indigenous innovation” in industries it considers strategic, like

energy, computing, and others— barriers that favor certain local fi rms for

procurement and research and development.

What’s more, in this type of authoritarian capitalism, government in-

tervention in business is utilized in a way not possible in a free market de-

mocracy: to strengthen the power of the ruling regime and China’s position

internationally. When Beijing wants to increase investments in strategically

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:40 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

122 The China Model

important nations, such as Thailand or South Africa, it can put pressure on

China’s major banks, all of which are linked to the state, to boost lending to

Chinese companies operating in those nations. For example, Chinese tele-

communications giant Huawei, which is attempting to compete with multi-

nationals like Siemens, received some $30 billion in credit from state- controlled

China Development Bank, on terms its foreign competitors would have sali-

vated over. By contrast, though the Obama administration wanted to dras-

tically upgrade the United States’ relationship with Indonesia, an important

strategic partner, it could not convince many American companies to invest

there, and, unlike the Chinese leadership, it could not force them to do so.18

In short, the China model sees commerce as a means to promote na-

tional interests, and not just to empower (and potentially to make wealthy)

individuals. And for over three de cades, China’s model of development has

delivered staggering successes. Since the beginning of China’s reform and

opening in the late 1970s, the country has gone from a poor, mostly agrar-

ian nation to, in 2010, the second- largest economy in the world.19 Some

coastal Chinese cities, like Shenzhen and Shanghai, now boast gross do-

mestic products per capita equivalent to those of cities in Southern Eu rope

or Southeast Asia.20 In the pro cess, this growth has lifted hundreds of mil-

lions of Chinese out of poverty.21 With the economies of leading industrial-

ized democracies still suffering, today China, and to a lesser extent India,

are providing virtually the only growth in the whole global economy.22

Since 2008, not only top Chinese leaders but also people across the coun-

try clearly have become more confi dent about Beijing’s place in the world.

Some of this confi dence is only natural, part of China reclaiming its posi-

tion as a major world power, a role it occupied for centuries until it fell be-

hind the West’s modernization in the nineteenth century. But some of the

confi dence comes from China’s more recent rise during the global economic

crisis, which put Beijing in an international leadership role far before its

leaders expected. And, some of the confi dence comes from Chinese leaders,

diplomats, and scholars traveling more widely, and realizing that their demo-

cratic neighbors— Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and many others

that used to lecture China about human rights and freedoms— actually are

falling behind China’s breakneck growth. “Chinese leaders used to come

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:40 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The China Model 123

here and want to learn from us,” one se nior Thai offi cial said. “Now it’s like

they don’t have anything left to learn. . . . They have no interest in listening

to us.”23

China’s newfound confi dence has manifested itself in many forms.

When the Nobel committee awarded the 2010 Peace Prize to Chinese dis-

sident Liu Xiaobo, jailed in China for or ga niz ing an online petition calling

for the rule of law, Beijing condemned Norway and other Eu ro pe an na-

tions, and applied intense pressure on Eu ro pe an offi cials, and on many from

Asian nations as well, not to attend the award ceremony.24 Ultimately, several

of the nations China pressured the hardest, like the Philippines, declined to

send representatives to the Nobel ceremony.

A few months earlier, Beijing had applied similar pressure on Eu ro-

pe an nations, this time to join with it in an unpre ce dented public call to

replace the dollar as the global reserve currency. Previously, Beijing had

been relatively willing to abide by the dollar as the major global currency,

but China, owning a massive amount of U.S. Trea suries, had become more

and more worried about America’s unsustainable debt and reckless fi scal

policies. China followed up on its call by helping Chinese fi rms, and foreign

companies, to begin using the renminbi more readily in international trans-

actions, as well as in funds based in Hong Kong.25 When, in the fall of 2011,

Eu ro pe an nations looked for saviors to solve their growing economic crisis,

China stepped in. Chinese offi cials signaled their willingness to contribute

as much as €100 billion to the Eu ro pe an Financial Stability Fund, or possi-

bly to a new bailout mechanism set up by the International Monetary Fund.

In Greece, China launched plans to invest billions in infrastructure, in-

cluding its ports, while also repeatedly offering to buy up Greek debt.26 But

China did so only while at the same time demanding that Eu rope nations

drop any claims against China for unfair trade policies. Eventually, when

these conditions could not be met, China withdrew the idea of trying to

bolster Eu rope’s ailing banks.

Beijing has become more forceful in dealing with Washington, too, an

assertiveness that can add to its appeal with developing countries who’ve

often looked for another major power, and particularly a power hailing from

Asia, to balance their relations with the United States. When the Obama

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:40 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

124 The China Model

White House informed Chinese offi cials in the summer of 2009 that it, like

every other recent American administration, planned to host the Dalai Lama

for a private meeting, Beijing aggressively lobbied the White House not to

meet the Tibetan leader. The White House acquiesced, and for the fi rst time

since the administration of George H. W. Bush the Dalai Lama came to

America without meeting the president, a huge victory for China.27 A few

weeks later, Chinese offi cials used a global conference on climate change to

furiously admonish their American counterparts for their position on global

warming, one of the fi rst times the Chinese had taken such a public ap-

proach to the issue. “There has been a change in China’s attitude,” Kenneth

G. Lieberthal, a former se nior National Security Council offi cial focusing

on China, told the Washington Post. “The Chinese fi nd with startling speed

that people have come to view them as a major global player. And that has

fed a sense of confi dence.”28 Or as one current se nior American offi cial who

deals with China said, “They are powerful, and now they’re fi nally acting

like it.”29

In 2010 and 2011, China also surprised its neighbors by stepping up its

demands for large swaths of the South China Sea, other contested waters,

and regions along its disputed land borders.30 In the summer and fall of

2010, China reacted so furiously to Japan’s decision to impound a Chinese

fi shing boat in disputed waters that it cut off shipments to Tokyo of rare

earth materials critical to the manufacture of modern electronics like cel-

lular phones and fi ber optics.31 Beijing also warned its neighbor Vietnam

not to work with Western oil companies like ExxonMobil on joint explora-

tions of potential oil and gas in the South China Sea, detained Philippine

and Viet nam ese boats, and claimed nearly the entire sea— Beijing’s claims

extended nearly to the shores of the Philippines, hundreds of miles from

China’s territory.32 When Southeast Asian nations, attending a regional

summit in the summer of 2010, protested Beijing’s stance on the South

China Sea and asked Washington to mediate their disputes with Beijing,

Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi lost his composure. He suddenly got

up and exited the meeting, leaving the room in an uncomfortable silence.

One hour later, he stormed back in and launched into a thirty- minute mono-

logue, practically screaming at the other participants. At one point Yang

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:40 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The China Model 125

mocked his hosts, the Viet nam ese; at another he declared, “China is a big

country and other countries are small countries, and that’s just a fact.” In

other words, he was implying that China could outmuscle these smaller

nations.33

This increasingly assertive Chinese diplomacy has alienated some coun-

tries, particularly in Asia. Yet along with more forceful diplomacy, Beijing

has started to proactively promote its model of development, and in some

ways its newfound confi dence, expressed in its more forceful relations with

the United States and other powers, only adds to its global appeal, since

other, smaller countries want to join forces with a clearly rising power. But

even as China has become more confi dent, its leadership still recognizes

that it cannot challenge American military power, at least not anytime soon.

As China analyst Stephen Halper writes, “In reality, Chinese leaders want

neither the strain on fi nances nor the negative and potentially costly atmo-

spherics that would accompany a genuine arms race with the United States.”34

Despite boosting its defense bud get by over 10 percent annually, China re-

mains a long way from developing a global blue water navy, or expedition-

ary forces capable of fi ghting far from China’s borders.35 Most years, the

Pentagon’s bud get surpasses the defense bud gets of all other major mili-

tary powers combined, and because of this disparity in spending Beijing

increasingly has focused on “asymmetric warfare”— ways for weaker mili-

tary powers to damage stronger ones, such as cyber attacks and ballistic

missiles.36 “We need to think more on how to preserve national integrity.

We have no intention of challenging the US [militarily,]” admitted Major

General Luo Yan, a se nior member of the People’s Liberation Army.37

Recognizing that China remains de cades from challenging the Penta-

gon, Beijing’s leaders realize they can compete in other ways, such as by pro-

moting their development model, and as other countries learn and adopt

aspects of the China model, they will become more likely to align with

China, to share China’s values, and to connect with China’s leaders. Over

the past two years, prominent Chinese academics have released a raft of

new books on the China model and its applicability to other countries, and

several Chinese media outlets called the 2010 World Expo in Shanghai, for

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:40 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

126 The China Model

which China reportedly spent some $60 billion, a platform to advertise its

development successes to other countries.38 On another occasion, according

to China scholar Randall Peerenboom, China and the World Bank jointly

hosted a forum called the Shanghai Global Learning Pro cess, where some

1,200 participants from 117 nations attended sessions designed partly to

explain how they could learn from China’s development experience.39 The

economic crisis, Chinese economist Cheng Enfu told reporters, “displays

the advantages of the Chinese model. . . . Some mainstream [Chinese] econ-

omists are saying that India should learn from China; Latin American

countries are trying to learn from China. When foreign countries send del-

egations to China, they show interest in the Chinese way of developing.” 40

By the early 2000s, China already had developed training programs for

foreign offi cials, usually from developing nations in Africa, Southeast Asia,

and Central Asia. These offi cials came to China for courses in economic

management, policing, and judicial practice, among other areas. At the time,

Chinese offi cials would not necessarily suggest that China had an economic

model to impart. But by the late 2000s, many of these courses explicitly fo-

cused on elements of the China model, from the way Beijing uses its power

to allocate loans and grants to certain companies, to China’s strategies for

co- opting entrepreneurs into the Communist Party, to China’s use of spe-

cial economic zones to attract foreign investment over the past thirty years.41

Attendees at these sessions described how, unlike in the past, their Chinese

counterparts explicitly contrasted the Chinese system and its ability to

rapidly handle crises and successfully pursue long- term goals— though they

did not explicitly say that China is an authoritarian country, of course—

with the gridlock of Western governments. One Viet nam ese offi cial who

repeatedly has traveled to China for such programs noted how the style

of the programs has changed over time. Now, he said, Chinese offi cials, far

more confi dent than even ten years ago, would introduce the example of

one or another Chinese city that had successfully attracted sizable invest-

ments, talking through how the city government coordinates all permits

and other needs, and moves favored projects swiftly through any approval

pro cess. Some of the offi cials would compare this with investments in India

or even wealthy democracies, noting how hard it was to get approvals for

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:40 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The China Model 127

even the smallest investments in many parts of these countries. Other Cen-

tral Asian attendees at Chinese training sessions noted how they increas-

ingly learned about the Chinese judicial system, in which the party has

almost complete control, and then returned to their home countries,

where their governments used similar types of control mea sures over their

judiciaries.

Beijing also has built close political- party- to- political- party ties with

several other developing nations. Increasingly, it has utilized these ties to

promote its model of po liti cal and economic development. For at least two

de cades, Viet nam ese offi cials have traveled to China and then consequently

have based many of their development policies on China’s strategies.42 More

recently, Chinese offi cials have worked on development planning with lead-

ing politicians in neighboring Mongolia, which demo cratized after 1989 but

where the public has become increasingly disenchanted with corruption and

weak growth. Chinese offi cials also have cooperated with United Rus sia,

the main pro- Kremlin party, whose leaders want to study how China has

opened its economy without giving up po liti cal control. In 2009, United

Rus sia held a special meeting with top Chinese leaders to learn Beijing’s

strategy of development and po liti cal power.43 China also has held training

sessions for many leaders from the Cambodian People’s Party, the party of

Prime Minister Hun Sen.44 Combined with the massive Chinese aid and

investment fl owing into Cambodia, where Beijing is now the largest donor

and biggest investor, these introductions to the China model have had a

signifi cant impact on Cambodia’s shaky democracy.45 “You already don’t

have a lot of strong demo cratic values here,” said one longtime se nior Cam-

bodian offi cial. “You have [government] people seeing how well China has

done, going to China all the time, what they come back [to Cambodia] with

is how much faster and easier China has had it without having to deal with

an opposition.” 46

These efforts to promote a China model of undemo cratic development

build on a decade- long effort by Beijing to amass soft power in the develop-

ing world— soft power that would then add to the appeal of China’s ideas

and China itself. Among other efforts, this strategy has included expand-

ing the international reach of Chinese media, such as by launching new

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:40 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

128 The China Model

China- funded supplements in newspapers in many different countries, and

by vastly expanding the reach and professionalism of the Chinese newswire

Xinhua, which recently bought a fl ashy new American bureau in the heart

of Times Square in New York.47 Today, according to its own fi gures, Chi-

na’s state- backed international tele vi sion channel reaches over sixty- fi ve mil-

lion viewers outside the country.48 This strategy also includes broadening

the appeal of Chinese culture by opening Confucius Institutes— programs

on Chinese language and culture, at universities from Uzbekistan to Tanza-

nia.49 It has involved a rapid and substantial expansion of China’s foreign

aid programs, so that Beijing is now the largest donor to many neighboring

nations like Cambodia, Burma, and Laos. A study by the Wagner School of

New York University found that Chinese aid to Africa grew from $838 mil-

lion in 2003 to nearly $18 billion in 2007, the most recent year for which

data was available.50 Another analysis of China’s overseas lending, compiled

by the Financial Times in 2010, found that China lent more money to devel-

oping nations in 2009 and 2010 than the World Bank had, a stark display of

Beijing’s growing foreign assistance.51 And the soft power initiative has also

included outreach to foreign students, providing scholarships, work- study

programs, and other incentives to young men and women from developing

countries. The number of foreign students studying in China grew from

roughly 52,000 in 2000 to 240,000 in 2009.52

Over the past de cade, too, China has set up networks of formal and

informal summits with other developing nations. With meetings held

either in China or in the developing world, these summits are designed to

bring together offi cials and opinion leaders.53 At fi rst, the summits offered

China the opportunity to emphasize its role as a potential strategic partner

and source of investment and trade. But over the past fi ve years some sum-

mits, like those with Southeast Asian and African leaders, also subtly ad-

vertised China’s model of development, according to numerous participants.

Several Thai politicians who attended the Boao Forum for Asia, a kind of

China- centered version of the World Economic Forum in Davos, noted that,

in recent years, some of the discussions at the meeting had shifted from a

kind of general talk of globalization and its impact in Asia to more specifi c

conversations about some of the failings of Western economic models ex-

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:40 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The China Model 129

posed by the global economic crisis, and whether China’s type of develop-

ment might be less prone to such risks. “Many of the African leaders coming

here [to Beijing] for the Chinese- African summit are attracted not only by

opportunities for aid and trade, but also by the China model of develop-

ment,” argues Zhang Weiwei, a prominent Chinese scholar and former

aide to Deng Xiaoping, after leaders from nearly every African nation

traveled to Beijing in 2006 for a summit. These African leaders realize, he

writes, that for them the Chinese model of development will work better

than a Western model dependent on a liberal demo cratic government.54

The soft power initiative also has involved a coordinated effort to up-

grade the quality of China’s diplomatic corps, replacing an older generation

of media- shy, stiff bureaucrats with a younger group of Chinese men and

women, many of whom are fl uent in En glish and comfortable bantering

with local journalists. On one occasion Chinese reporters working in Thai-

land watched as the then U.S. ambassador Ralph Boyce appeared on a prom-

inent Thai talk show. Boyce was known in the diplomatic community for

his knowledge of Thailand and command of Thai; on the show he spoke

fl uently and elegantly. Not to be outdone, alongside him the Chinese ambas-

sador to Thailand also appeared, speaking fl uent Thai and appearing right

at home in the freewheeling tele vi sion talk show format. In one cable re-

leased by Wikileaks, even American diplomats stationed in Thailand ad-

mitted that Thai offi cials had become increasingly admiring of China and

its model of development, and less interested in the American model.

Until the past two or three years, the China model appealed mostly to the

world’s most repressive autocrats, eager to learn how China has modernized

its authoritarianism: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Bashar al- Assad of

Syria, and Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. In Iran, se nior regime offi cials re-

portedly have engaged in intense debate about how to import China’s strategy

of nondemo cratic development to the Islamic Republic.55 In Syria, a similar

kind of debate reportedly has taken place among se nior offi cials surround-

ing Assad, while in Ethiopia, where strongman Meles Zenawi has ruled for

nearly two de cades, the foreign minister and other top offi cials have pub-

licly encouraged the country to follow China’s model of development.56

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:40 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

130 The China Model

In the past, these repressive regimes attracted most of the media cover-

age of the China model. But in recent years it is not just autocrats who have

been learning from Beijing. China’s soft power offensive has given it in-

creasing leverage over democracies in the developing world, and has made

Beijing’s model of development more attractive to leaders even in freer na-

tions, places where there has already been some degree of demo cratic transi-

tion. Increasingly, leaders and even average citizens of young democracies

like Indonesia, Thailand, Senegal, Venezuela, Nicaragua, or Bolivia—

countries where pop u lar support for democracy has weakened— have taken

an interest in China’s model, and as China’s model becomes more infl uen-

tial, it can weaken democracy in these countries, since it brings with it

growing state control over both economics and politics.

Because China’s advocacy of its model of development is still relatively

new, it will take years to see the full effect of its challenge to Western liberal

orthodoxy. Still, one can see some initial effects in developing democracies.

In Venezuela and Nicaragua, Beijing has ingratiated itself with the leader-

ship, offering $20 billion in loans to Caracas in the spring of 2010, a time of

economic downturn in Venezuela; China’s loans have helped Hugo Chavez

perpetuate his government, even in the face of signifi cant opposition, and

even as he has used increasingly antidemo cratic methods to crack down.57

As China has gained a larger presence in nations like Venezuela, Chavez

increasingly has sent top diplomats and bureaucrats to Beijing to specifi -

cally examine China’s strategies of development, and how they might be

applied in Central or South America.58

Similar shifts have taken place in Southeast Asia, where China’s soft

power and its economic strength have broadened its appeal, even as its

military aggressiveness simultaneously has sometimes hurt it. In acknowl-

edging China as becoming the predominant infl uence in Cambodia, as well

as the loss of leverage of Western donors over the government of Hun Sen,

several Cambodian offi cials said that the Cambodian prime minister increas-

ingly has based his po liti cal and economic strategies on China, from his use

of his po liti cal party to control big business to his use of the court system to

dominate the opposition. In par tic u lar, according to a number of Cambodian

activists and human rights specialists, advisers from China’s Communist

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:40 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The China Model 131

Party have given suggestions to Hun Sen’s party about how to utilize laws

for libel and defamation to scare the in de pen dent media, how to create a

network of se nior offi cials who can move in and out of major companies,

and how to train special police forces, including Hun Sen’s personal body-

guard, who will always be loyal to him, even in the face of street protests.

What’s more, China has pushed Hun Sen’s government to crack down on

various protesters and refugees who might be an embarrassment to Beijing.

When a group of Uighurs, who live in the western Chinese province that is

home to about ten million Muslim and ethnic Turkic Uighurs, fl ed to Cam-

bodia in the winter of 2009, Chinese offi cials applied signifi cant behind-

the- scenes pressure on Hun Sen’s government to expel the Uighurs, even

though they were classifi ed as refugees. In December 2009, the Cambodian

government deported the Uighurs back to China, where many of them

vanished. Beijing praised Cambodia as “a model of friendly cooperation”;

shortly after the deportation, China signed new aid deals with Cambodia

worth roughly $1 billion, the biggest single disbursement of aid to the coun-

try ever.

China allegedly has made similar efforts to push Laos, Vietnam, and

Thailand to deport Uighurs, Falun Gong practitioners, and other po liti cal

migrants fl eeing China, as it has used its growing power in Nepal to push

the Nepalese government to return Tibetans fl eeing China, even though

Nepal has for years provided shelter to many Tibetans. And in Central

Asia, where China increasingly conducts training seminars for local police,

judges, and other justice offi cials, offi cials there say that Beijing has pushed

them to use their judicial systems to arrest and deport Uighurs as well. In

fact, even Kyrgyzstan, which once was the freest nation in Central Asia,

and a home for regional prodemocracy activists, including Uighurs, has

tightened the noose, searching for and deporting Uighurs back to China,

where they are often arrested, jailed, and tortured.

Across Southeast Asia, in fact, China’s model has gained considerable ac-

claim. “There are, of course, no offi cial statements from [Southeast Asian]

countries about their decisions to follow the Beijing Consensus or not,”

writes prominent Indonesian scholar Ignatius Wibowo. “The attraction

to the Chinese model is unconscious.” Still, it is possible to quantify this

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:40 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

132 The China Model

“unconscious” appeal. Having analyzed surveys of po liti cal values in

Southeast Asia going back a de cade, Wibowo concludes that people in many

Southeast Asian countries share a willingness to abandon some of their

demo cratic values for higher growth and the kind of increasingly state-

directed economic system that many of these countries in fact had in their

authoritarian days, and that China still has today. Southeast Asian nations

“have shifted their development strategy from one based on free markets and

democracy to one based on semi- free markets and an illiberal po liti cal sys-

tem,” Wibowo writes. “The ‘Beijing Consensus’ clearly has gained ground in

Southeast Asia.”59 Indeed, by examining the po liti cal trajectory of the ten

states that belong to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Wibowo

found that with only a few exceptions, each country’s po liti cal model, exam-

ined through a series of po liti cal indicators, has moved in the direction

of  China and away from liberal democracy over the past de cade, largely

because these nations had watched China’s successes and contrasted them

with the West’s failures. Many Southeast Asian leaders and top offi cials were

implementing strategies of development modeled on China’s, including tak-

ing back state control of strategic industries, recentralizing po liti cal deci-

sion making, using the judicial system increasingly as a tool of state power,

and reestablishing one- party rule— all changes that undermine demo cratic

development. Supporting his claims, the most recent Economist Intelligence

Unit survey of global democracy, which analyzes nearly every nation in the

world, found that the global fi nancial and economic crisis “has increased

the attractiveness of the Chinese model of authoritarian capitalism for some

emerging markets”— which has added to democracy’s setbacks.

In Thailand, for example, growing numbers of politicians, bureaucrats,

and even journalists favorably contrast China’s undemo cratic model of

government decision making with Thailand’s messy and sometimes violent

pseudodemocracy.60 In the past fi ve years, as Thailand’s urban- based mid-

dle class, and its favored po liti cal parties, have taken back dominance of

politics, they have increasingly adopted tools of control similar to China.

These have included creating an Internet monitoring and blocking system

like China’s and skewing the judiciary, through judicial appointments and

“instructions” to judges from the royal palace, so that judicial rulings weaken

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:40 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The China Model 133

potential opposition parties and ensure the dominance of the ruling party.61

Although not every element of Thailand’s po liti cal change was explicitly

modeled on China, of course, many Thai offi cials, in the period after the

coup of 2006, noted how the use of the judiciary, the control of the Internet,

and other po liti cal tools did have some inspiration from China. Thailand’s

judiciary became so infl uential, and so obviously skewed against any oppo-

sition movements, that some opposition politicians and writers began to

complain that the country was turning into a “judiocracy”— an autocracy

of judges.62

Even outside Southeast Asia, in other parts of Asia, China’s gravita-

tional pull and its soft power have had an infl uence on democracies. Over-

all, concludes po liti cal scientist Yun- han Chu, who studied Asian Barometer

surveys about East Asians’ commitment to democracy, “Authoritarianism

remains a fi erce competitor of democracy in East Asia,” in no small part

because of the infl uence of China’s ability to foster economic success with-

out real po liti cal change, providing an alternative model that is clearly visible

to other East Asians who travel to China, work with Chinese companies,

buy Chinese products, or host Chinese offi cials.63 As he notes, China will, in

the coming years, become the center of East Asian trade and economic inte-

gration, giving it even more power. “Newly demo cratized [Asian] countries

[will] increasingly become eco nom ical ly integrated with and dependent

on non- democratic countries,” Chu writes. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given

China’s growing power and infl uence in its region, in a poll of global public

opinion, in which people in twenty countries were asked which world lead-

ers they had the most confi dence in, Chinese President Hu Jintao topped

the list.64

To be sure, China’s model of development, just like demo cratic capital-

ism, suffers from numerous fl aws. These potentially include an inability to

hold corrupt or foolish leaders to account, a lack of checks on state power,

and a reliance on benign and wise autocrats for the China model to work,

which is hardly a given— for every Deng Xiaoping, the po liti cally savvy and

foresighted architect of China’s economic reforms, one could fi nd ten Mobutu

Sese Sekos or Kim Jong Ils, dictators who used their power solely for venal

purposes. And as we will see later, those fl aws, though obscured by China’s

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:40 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

134 The China Model

recent successes, may in the long run spark a global backlash against Bei-

jing, a backlash that would empower demo crats in many developing na-

tions. Rising in e qual ity within China, between the favored urban areas and

the less- well- off interior rural provinces, also threatens to unhinge China’s

economic miracle, through either growing waves of protests by rural dwell-

ers or massive pop u lar migrations that unleash instability. Already, China

has shifted from one of the most equal— if poor— nations in Asia in the

late 1970s to one of the most unequal societies today in East Asia. But for

now, China has seen relative success in its attempt to quietly impart its

model of development to other nations.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:40 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Yale University Press

Chapter Title: The Autocrats Strike Back

Book Title: Democracy in Retreat Book Subtitle: The Revolt of the Middle Class and the Worldwide Decline of Representative Government Book Author(s): Joshua Kurlantzick Published by: Yale University Press. (2013) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bh31.11

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Democracy in Retreat

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

O ffering an alternative model of successful but undemo cratic

development to other nations, China and other authoritarian states

may implicitly be fostering today’s powerful antidemo cratic wave.

But China, Rus sia, and, to a lesser extent, Venezuela and Iran have at times

gone further. Worried by how the fourth wave of demo cratization, includ-

ing the color revolutions in places like Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, has crept

up to their borders, Beijing and Moscow have developed a range of explicit

strategies to undermine democracy among their neighbors.1 And in a num-

ber of neighboring states, including Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, and Cambodia,

these authoritarian powers have enjoyed some striking successes in under-

mining young democracies.

Between the late 1980s and the early 2000s, neither Moscow nor Beijing

made it a priority to forestall democracy in their neighborhoods. Weakened

by economic crises and, in the case of China, international pariah status fol-

lowing the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown, both Rus sia and China spent much

of the 1990s trying to put their economies on solid footing again, reassure

investors, and foster po liti cal stability at home. Still, both countries clearly

chafed at the West’s willingness to wield power right up to their borders.

NATO expanded to include Poland and other former Warsaw Pact nations,

putting it on Rus sia’s doorstep, and also talked of including Ukraine. Mean-

while, the United States not only fostered rapprochement with old enemies

in Asia like Vietnam but also consistently declared its right to patrol the

South China Sea and other waters near China and to adjudicate disputes in

these seas.2 And though many Rus sian liberals wanted their country to join

the leading Western organizations like the International Monetary Fund and

The Autocrats Strike Back

8

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

136 The Autocrats Strike Back

the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Washington refused on nu-

merous occasions, further alienating Moscow and weakening liberals in the

Kremlin.3

Quite a few Rus sians, including many opinion leaders, saw the NATO

expansion as one of many Western strategies to weaken and take advantage

of post- Soviet Rus sia. “Even pro- Western liberals worried that exclusion of

Rus sia from the emerging all- European security system based on NATO

would lead to its [Rus sia’s] marginalization,” wrote Rus sian analyst Dmitri

Trenin.4 “We do not think NATO expansion is necessary, and believe the

policy is a relapse into the Cold War,” warned Rus sian Foreign Minister Ser-

gei Lavrov.5 By the 2000s, Rus sians already angry at NATO expansion often

would argue that the color revolutions in Central Asia and the Caucasus,

which often involved some assistance from American and Eu ro pe an democ-

racy promotion groups, were the latest Western plots to weaken Rus sia.

Both China and Rus sia, once Vladimir Putin assumed the presidency,

also clearly feared that democracy in East or Central Asia would foster

regional instability and, potentially, dangerous anti- Russia and anti- China

sentiment. This was not a wholly irrational fear. In some Southeast Asian

nations, like Malaysia or Indonesia, and in some Central Asian and Cauca-

sian states, like Georgia, majorities had long seethed at wealthier or more

po liti cally advantaged Chinese and Rus sian minorities living in their midst.

Given the freedom of a newly demo cratic system, these majorities could use

their numerical dominance to repress ethnic Chinese or Rus sians. During a

previous era of freer politics in Indonesia, in the mid- 1960s, mobs massacred

thousands of Indonesian Chinese (ultimately, some 500,000 people were

killed, though they were not all Indonesian Chinese; China gave safe haven

to some fl eeing Indonesian Chinese) after accusing them of communist

leanings. The Suharto dictatorship, which came to power after the 1965– 66

massacres, suppressed much of this interethnic tension. But after Suharto

fell in 1998, in the chaos of Indonesia’s early demo cratic reforms, mobs again

attacked Indonesian Chinese communities in Jakarta and other cities, burn-

ing Chinese homes and businesses and allegedly raping and murdering

ethnic Chinese women.6

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Autocrats Strike Back 137

Of course, in many demo cratizing nations freer politics did not result

in stigmatizing minorities. In Thailand, where, under military dictators in

the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, Chinese were targeted and the teaching of Chi-

nese language was banned, the demo cratic era ushered in a new celebra-

tion of Chinese heritage.7 Politicians who once would have hid their ethnic

Chinese backgrounds now openly celebrated: visiting China in 2005, Thai

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra made a high- profi le visit to his fami-

ly’s ancestral home in southern China, which would have been unthinkable

for an earlier generation of Thai leaders.8

More often, Beijing and Moscow simply seemed more comfortable

dealing with autocratic leaders— similar to those of the Putin- era Rus sian

system or the top ranks of the Chinese Communist Party— who could oper-

ate like powerful executives. Until recently, most Chinese offi cials in Wash-

ington still had a diffi cult time understanding the American system of checks

and balances, or comprehending that the American president could not sim-

ply do what ever he liked. For example, until recently Beijing invested little

in training its offi cials to lobby the U.S. Congress or other legislatures in

demo cratic nations. By ignoring Congress, it allowed its rival Taiwan, a far

smaller player, to dominate the congressional infl uence game, and conse-

quently lost important battles on Capitol Hill, such as the attempt by Chi-

nese oil giant CNOOC to take over the American petroleum fi rm Unocal

in 2005.9 With weak lobbying efforts in Congress, Chinese offi cials were

unable to convince Capitol Hill that the CNOOC takeover would not pose

a national security risk to the United States, and Unocal wound up being

sold to the American fi rm ChevronTexaco.10

The two authoritarian powers also obviously worried that regional

demo cratization might spill over into China or Rus sia, ultimately creating a

national movement for reform like the protests that led up to the 1989

Tiananmen crackdown. Again, this was not an irrational fear. In 1989, waves

of change in Eastern Eu rope had moved from one country to the next,

with citizens in some states modeling their reform efforts on what they

had seen next door. And China and Rus sia already contained large popula-

tions of ethnic minorities who might be swayed by watching neighboring

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

138 The Autocrats Strike Back

states demo cratize and offer greater freedoms and autonomy to ethnic

groups. Were these outlying areas to revolt against Beijing or Moscow, as

Chechnya did in the mid- 1990s, they could threaten the very integrity of the

state. The demo cratization of other ethnic Turkic nations like Turkey had a

profound impact on many Uighurs in Xinjiang, the vast western Chinese

province home to about ten million Muslim and ethnic Turkic Uighurs.

Long repressed by China, the Uighurs, who briefl y had a de facto state of

their own in the early twentieth century, often traveled to Central Asia and

Turkey to trade or to attend schools. Outside China these Uighurs saw

how some of their ethnic peers had built states with far greater freedom of

expression and religion and cultural identity than in China, where Muslim

worship in restive Xinjiang remained tightly controlled, with the government

dominating selections of imams, approving who could travel on pilgrimage,

and dictating religious curricula.11 “When I left East Turkestan [the Uighurs’

name for Xinjiang] then I realized that you didn’t have to have the govern-

ment control religion, there was no danger to having a state where we could

worship on our own, and it could still be a democracy,” one Uighur activist

said.12 The demo cratization of Mongolia, after the collapse of the Soviet

Union, had a similar galvanizing effect on Inner Mongolia, a province of

China home to many ethnic Mongolians. And Beijing and Moscow also

feared that demands for greater democracy among ethnic minorities could

spread into ethnic Rus sian or Han Chinese regions. In the 1980s, an era of

widespread discontent in China, major antigovernment riots in Tibet in

1987 and 1988 were followed closely by Han Chinese activists and certainly

added to the national climate of protest that culminated in the Tiananmen

uprising.13

By the mid- 2000s, several changes in Chinese and Rus sian politics, and in

the international environment, coalesced, giving Moscow and Beijing the

rationale (in their offi cials’ minds) and the means to fi ght democracy in their

backyards. For one, both giants regained their stability. The fi rst peaceful

and orderly po liti cal transitions in the history of the People’s Republic of

China, from Deng Xiaoping to Jiang Zemin, and then from Jiang to Hu

Jintao, made the Communist Party leadership more confi dent and stable—

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Autocrats Strike Back 139

and also more able to focus on events outside China’s borders.14 A renewed

fl ow of investment into China after the stain of Tiananmen faded also

helped booster the party’s power and legitimacy.15 By the late 1990s and early

2000s, as the rest of Asia tumbled into fi nancial crisis, and the United States

and Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund reacted

slowly to the Asian crisis, China assumed a larger regional role, publicly

refusing to devalue its currency, which might have triggered a worse

crisis, and increasing its aid disbursements to some of the hardest- hit Asian

countries.16 Following the Asian fi nancial crisis, many other states in the re-

gion never forgot China’s symbolically important pledge to help other coun-

tries, even if, ultimately, that pledge was not critical to resolving the crisis.

In Rus sia, Putin’s consolidation of po liti cal power, though disastrous for

Rus sian democracy, did create a kind of stability and confi dence in the Krem-

lin, confi dence that also provided an impetus to reassert power throughout

the former Soviet Union. A spike in the price of oil meanwhile helped re-

store petroleum- rich Rus sia’s economic stability. By the latter half of the

2000s, Rus sia under Putin had used its oil wealth to amass nearly $500 bil-

lion in currency reserves, and increasingly utilized the state- controlled gas

giant Gazprom to menace neighboring nations that did not go along with

Moscow’s foreign policy objectives.17

But even as Chinese and Rus sian leaders became more confi dent in the

early and mid- 2000s, the color revolutions worried the two authoritarian

giants, leading them to take more proactive action to stifl e democracy

on their borders. Beginning with the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003

(some would add the protests in Serbia in 2000), the term “color revolu-

tions” came to mean peaceful, pop u lar movements for demo cratic change,

primarily in the former Soviet Union and old Eastern bloc, though the con-

cept eventually expanded to include Lebanon and Burma and, in 2010, the

Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia. The 2003 Georgia uprising, which toppled

president (and former Soviet foreign minister) Eduard Shevardnadze, led to

elections won by pro- Western leader Mikheil Saakashvili. Several Geor-

gian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that received funding from

American philanthropist George Soros, a prominent advocate of demo cratic

change in the former Eastern bloc, played a role in the Rose Revolution, as

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

140 The Autocrats Strike Back

Soros- funded NGOs helped train reformist politicians and or ga nized other

meetings for civil society activists. Though these NGOs’ role in the Rose

Revolution was overstated by many Rus sian commentators, their mere

presence, combined with the dramatic reversal in po liti cal fortunes in

Georgia, both infuriated and scared Moscow. The state- dominated Rus sian

press demonized Saakashvili, and Putin displayed an obvious contempt for

the Georgian leader (he later reportedly told French president Nicolas

Sarkozy that he had wanted to “hang Saakashvili by the balls”).18

The Rose Revolution was followed a year later by an Orange one in

Ukraine that pushed out President Leonid Kuchma, a leader who governed

autocratically and who had presided over a degeneration of freedoms in

Ukraine. As in Georgia, the Western- leaning opposition leader and favorite

of the protesters triumphed in the election following the revolution— in

Ukraine the winner was Viktor Yushchenko— leading many Rus sians to

suspect the revolt was an American undertaking.19 (Other than rhetorically

praising the Orange demonstrators and funding the National Endowment

for Democracy, which had some grantees in Ukraine, Congress and the

White House had played no role in Ukraine.) Yushchenko’s views of

Moscow certainly weren’t helped by an incident during his election cam-

paign in which someone apparently poisoned him with dioxin, nearly kill-

ing him and permanently disfi guring his face— his youthful, robust visage

became a landscape of pockmarks and cysts that resembled a Slavic Manuel

Noriega.20 Toxicologists told the BBC that the sophisticated dioxin poison

used on Yushchenko could have been produced in only a handful of labora-

tories in the world, nearly all of which are located in Rus sia or the United

States.21

By 2005, when a Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan followed the Orange

one and drove out Kyrgyz autocrat Askar Akayev, who had maintained

close ties with the Kremlin, both Moscow and Beijing clearly were rattled.

“The Rus sian leadership viewed the outbreak of the color revolutions across

the former Soviet republics from 2003 to 2005 with deep apprehension,”

concluded Jeanne Wilson, a Rus sian specialist at Harvard. “In the Rus sian

view the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine

and the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan indicated the efforts of Western

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Autocrats Strike Back 141

actors, foremost the United States, to initiate regime change in the post- Soviet

states, an ambitious undertaking that potentially extended to Rus sia itself.”22

And according to Hong Kong– based publications, after the Kyrgyz

revolution Chinese president Hu Jintao commissioned an internal party

report, titled “Fighting the People’s War Without Gunsmoke,” that outlined

how the color revolutions had toppled other regimes and proposed ways the

Chinese Communist Party could prevent such a possibility from occurring in

China.23 The Chinese leadership, too, saw the hand of the United States and

its intelligence agencies rather than local po liti cal factors as the main reason

for the color revolutions. “The ability of the color revolutions to succeed can-

not be separated from the behind the scenes manipulation by the United

States,” argued one commentator in the People’s Daily, the party’s best- known

mouthpiece.24 Refl ecting this viewpoint, the Chinese leadership reportedly

sent intelligence agents to Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan to analyze why

the revolts occurred, and to look for the hand of the United States.25 Beijing

later reportedly commissioned several state- linked think tanks to produce

analyses on the color revolutions. At a symposium on the color revolutions,

Chinese think- tank experts and intelligence offi cials presented recommen-

dations for how China could forestall its own similar pop u lar revolt.26

The revolts in the Middle East in late 2010 and early 2011 also clearly

rattled both Beijing and Moscow. Almost immediately after the initial dem-

onstrations in Tunisia and Egypt, the Chinese authorities intensifi ed their

Web fi ltering, so that Internet users in China who tried to search for the word

“Egypt” got few or no results.27 According to Chinese offi cials and press ac-

counts, the se nior leadership in Beijing also held emergency meetings to con-

sider how the Middle East protests might impact China. When an unknown

group in China posted an online call for a “Jasmine Revolution,” echoing the

Middle East protests, Beijing cracked down hard. It stepped up arrests of

human rights activists and imposed new restrictions on foreign journalists,

limits on their reporting that had not been used in China in years. Some for-

eign journalists who tried to evade the restrictions and venture out to cover

potential protests in Beijing were beaten by the Chinese security forces.28

Chinese reporters said that the climate had become the most repressive for

local journalists in at least two de cades, while even foreign scholars who

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

142 The Autocrats Strike Back

previously had never had trouble with the authorities found themselves

suddenly blocked when they attempted to do work in China.

The Chinese security forces employed such tough mea sures even

though, in most recent surveys, the majority of urban middle class Chinese,

who have prospered enormously since China’s reform period began in the

late 1970s, did not seem to want to change their government. In a 2009 poll

conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, China was the

only country in which a majority of citizens supported their government’s

response to the global economic crisis— 63 percent of respondents said their

government’s efforts to address the economic crisis were “about right.”29 Of

all the countries surveyed in the poll. Another comprehensive analysis of

Chinese citizens by the U.S.- based East- West Center found that “as China’s

economic reform and growth have progressed, public interest in promoting

liberal democracy seems to have diminished,”30 since the public believes

reform might threaten economic and social gains.

China’s state- controlled press cast the Middle East protests in the most

negative light possible. It accused protesters in Arab- Muslim countries of

creating chaos that would detract from growth and potentially hurt living

standards, partly by sparking a wave of rural, poorer people— currently kept

out of richer cities by many formal and informal barriers— who would fl ood

into urban areas, competing for jobs with the urban middle classes. “The

vast majority of the people [in the Middle East] are strongly dissatisfi ed

[with the protests], so the per for mance by the minority becomes a self-

delusional ruckus,” the Beijing Daily said in one typical editorial.31

Compared with the 1990s, by the late 2000s Rus sia and China also had

the means to act on their desire to limit democracy’s spread along their bor-

ders. China’s soft power offensive had spread beyond Southeast Asia into

Central Asia and even the Caucasus, and, by training thousands of offi cials

annually from countries like Kyrgyzstan and Cambodia, Beijing now was

in a position to exert sizable infl uence over foreign governments’ decision

making. From virtually nothing, China also had become a major aid donor

in Central Asia. Many Central Asian states, like Kyrgyzstan, also had be-

come dependent on Chinese investment to develop their infrastructure, or

simply to keep their economy afl oat.32 Chinese construction fi rms laid the

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Autocrats Strike Back 143

new roads in Kyrgyzstan and built the new pipelines. A new Chinese Peace

Corps– like program to boost people- to- people contacts with neighboring

nations, called the China Association of Youth Volunteers, added to China’s

soft power reach.33

Rus sia, too, had assumed a far greater infl uence over Central Asia and

other former Soviet states than it enjoyed in the immediate aftermath of the

collapse of the Soviet Union. Through Gazprom, the Kremlin controlled gas

deliveries for its neighbors, and in many Caucasian and Central Asian states,

where se nior leaders had begun their po liti cal careers in the Soviet Union,

Moscow’s rhetorical and cultural infl uence still mattered as well. The con-

tinuing high price of oil, which fattened the Kremlin’s trea sury, also made

Moscow’s antidemo cratic regional initiatives a rounding error in the national

bud get. In fact, as Charlie Szrom and Thomas Brugato of the American En-

terprise Institute found, from 2000 to 2007 there was an empirical correlation

between the price of oil and the Kremlin’s foreign policy aggressiveness,

with Moscow becoming more forceful when the price of oil rose.34

Worried by the color revolutions, Moscow and Beijing fi rst shored up their

own control. While in the 1980s and early 1990s Beijing had allowed vibrant

debate at the highest levels of government about transition to more open

and demo cratic politics, after Hu Jintao became president in 2003, this de-

bate largely died, and the Communist Party consolidated its control of lead-

ing companies, top offi cials and policy makers, journalists, and other opinion

leaders. The se nior leadership under Hu, in fact, contained few leaders any-

where near as liberal as Zhao Ziyang, the premier who served under Deng

Xiaoping in the 1980s and who was purged after the 1989 Tiananmen crack-

down.35 China cracked down on foreign NGOs to make sure they couldn’t

serve as instigators of unrest. Chinese security forces raided the offi ces of

several local NGOs backed by American democracy promotion organiza-

tions, and after 2005 Beijing imposed much tougher restrictions on local

NGOs, resulting in the closure of thousands of them.36 According to a re-

port by the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, the government started

spending a sum of 514 billion yuan (over $60 billion) annually on what it

calls “stability maintenance,” the largest allocation of the national bud get

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

144 The Autocrats Strike Back

after military expenditures.37 And, following the July 2009 protests by ethnic

Uighurs in Urumqi, the largest city in Xinjiang, Beijing turned the vast west-

ern province, larger than Western Eu rope, into a communications black hole,

shutting off Internet and international mobile phone access to the province

for nearly ten months.38 Beijing imposed similar restrictions after a new wave

of protests by ethnic Mongolians in Inner Mongolia province in early 2011.

While China essentially has no elections, after the color revolutions the

Kremlin made it even harder for Rus sia’s tiny and besieged po liti cal opposi-

tion to win any votes, building up the vicious pro- Kremlin and pro- Putin

Nashi youth movement and calling on members to prevent a color revolu-

tion in Rus sia led by Western- backed instigators— the Rus sian opposition

parties.39 These youth activists targeted the few remaining opposition lead-

ers, who were harassed and frequently attacked. Meanwhile, after leveling

much of the Chechen capital, Grozny, during several wars, the Kremlin un-

der Putin essentially installed a Moscow loyalist, Ramzan Kadyrov, as pres-

ident of the Chechen republic. In Chechnya, Kadyrov did create a semblance

of stability and growth, but did so largely by brutally repressing any anti-

Kremlin or pro- autonomy sentiment.40

But these actions were hardly surprising or, really, new— as authoritar-

ian regimes, Moscow and Beijing long had come up with ever- more- inventive

ways to maintain their hold on power at home. But after 2005, what was

different was that the two authoritarian powers tried to extend their anti-

democracy battle abroad. First, they tried to delegitimize the color revo-

lutions, by arguing that the color revolutions were not genuine pop u lar

movements but actually Western attempts at regime change that violated

the sovereignty of in de pen dent countries. This argument, though not really

supported by facts on the ground in Georgia, Ukraine, or Kyrgyzstan, did

resonate with many people around the world, since the Bush administra-

tion had of course touted democracy promotion as a reason for the invasion

of Iraq. In the wake of the Iraq war, the defense of national sovereignty,

long a foundation of Beijing’s foreign policy, since it did not want foreign

nations involving themselves with Tibet or Taiwan, made the Chinese

leadership an anti- Bush champion to many other nations. In so linking Iraq

and democracy promotion, the White House had tarred the name of

American democracy promotion, but it also had given Rus sia and China

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Autocrats Strike Back 145

ammunition for their defense of sovereignty and provided the opportunity

for the two countries to question the color revolutions.

In May 2005, Rus sian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov previewed this

strategy of linking support for autocrats to a defense of sovereignty, arguing

in an interview that the color revolutions were “unconstitutional” overthrows

of legitimate leaders, and actually would result in greater po liti cal oppression

and instability in the international system.41 Another se nior Kremlin offi cial,

Vladislav Surkov, later would tell the German magazine Der Spiegel that the

color revolutions were simply coups by another name.42 The Rus sian Duma

soon picked up this claim, holding sessions to discuss the illegitimacy of the

Orange Revolution and then using its representatives at the Council of

Eu rope to raise the issue.43 The state- dominated Rus sian press, too, piled on,

calling the Orange protest the “orange virus” or “orange plague,” according

to Russia- watcher Thomas Ambrosio.44 The Rus sian leaders, of course, did

not differentiate between a revolution to topple an authoritarian leader who

had not been elected legitimately, and one to overthrow a fairly elected leader,

as would happen in Thailand, for instance, in 2006. To the Kremlin, a gov-

ernment in power was automatically legitimate, and so any overthrow was

necessarily wrong. Still, Ivanov’s claims carried weight internationally. “The

great issue that divides the U.N. is no longer Communism versus capitalism,

as it once was; it is sovereignty,” wrote James Traub, one of the most astute

observers of the United Nations. By standing up for “sovereignty,” even in

farcical cases like autocrats trying to prevent color revolutions, Rus sia and

China gained supporters at the UN, including many developing countries—

and not only authoritarian ones— with histories of intervention by foreign

powers.45 To be sure, the UN in the late 2000s did adopt the principle of

Responsibility to Protect, or R2P, in which the international community

could intervene in a country, violating its sovereignty, in the case of war

crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.46 But many developing

nations only halfheartedly backed the concept of Responsibility to Protect,

and both they and the authoritarian powers watered down the concept be-

tween its introduction and fi nal adoption.

Indonesia offers an example of a nation that, despite its demo cratization,

supported many of China and Rus sia’s ideas on sovereignty. Indonesia had

been a Cold War battleground, with tensions between rightists, Muslim

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

146 The Autocrats Strike Back

organizations, and communists resulting in a bloodletting in 1965 and 1966

that resulted in between a half- million and one million deaths, according to

reliable estimates.47 Even today, a demo cratic government in Jakarta still over-

sees massive human rights abuses in outlying provinces like Papua, where

the security forces are accused of torture, disappearances, and killings.48

So, Indonesian leaders even today see much to support in China and Rus sia’s

concept of sovereignty. During a state visit to China in 2005 by Indonesian

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, he and China’s leaders together

affi rmed their aversion to “meddling” by foreign actors in their internal

affairs— whether that meant human rights organizations criticizing abuses

by the Indonesian security forces, or foreign governments calling for some

real reforms in Tibet or Xinjiang.49

Together, Rus sia and China also used the Shanghai Cooperation Or ga-

ni za tion (SCO), a regional group linking the two powers with several Central

Asian nations, to make the argument that color revolutions, and demo cratic

change in general, were violations of national sovereignty. At an SCO sum-

mit in 2005, the or ga ni za tion announced that “the right of every people to

its own path of development must be fully guaranteed,” a coded critique of

the color revolutions.50 It would then condemn the color revolutions as akin to

“terrorism,” attempting to link the autocrats’ fi ght against the color demon-

strators to the United States’ global war on terror. By issuing these statements

in an internationally recognized or ga ni za tion, the authoritarian powers

obtained greater global credibility for this position as defenders of absolute

sovereignty. The SCO, wrote Ambrosio, was attempting to be not another

intergovernmental talk shop but “the embodiment of a new set of values and

norms governing the future development of Central Asia. . . . Those seeking

to promote democracy [in Eurasia] will meet another, less expected layer of

re sis tance. Not only will the autocratic regimes themselves oppose demo-

cratization, but the opposition [to democracy] will fi nd resonance at the

intergovernmental level as well.”51

The or ga ni za tion also clearly portrayed electoral democracy as a kind

of Western— foreign—idea, one that was not necessarily suited for Cen-

tral Asia. Thus, when color revolutions broke out in Central Asia, SCO

offi cials could claim that the protests were somehow unsuited to Central

Asia’s traditions.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Autocrats Strike Back 147

In other cases, China has worked to shore up autocrats facing pop u lar

pressure, or has even helped authoritarian rulers track down and arrest

their own dissidents and critics. In one notable example, after large- scale

demonstrations in Uzbekistan in 2005, the authoritarian Uzbek regime

cracked down on protesters, killing at least several hundred in the city of

Andijon when government forces fi red indiscriminately into crowds. In

response, Uzbek activists called for foreign governments to pressure their

government to own up to the massacre and to reform. Many governments

complied, including not only the United States but also other Asian nations.

China took the opposite approach: Not long after the massacre, Beijing

praised the crackdown as necessary and then welcomed Uzbek leader

Islam Karimov in Beijing with a state visit and a gun salute, showing that

China would stand fi rmly behind him. More dangerously, China then

worked with other nations in the region to deny asylum to any refugees

fl eeing Uzbekistan.

Meanwhile, Rus sia and other Central Asian autocracies like Kazakh-

stan used their positions in the Or ga ni za tion for Security and Cooperation

in Eu rope (OSCE) to change the focus of that group from human rights

and demo cratization to other issues like counterterrorism and security co-

operation, according to numerous participants in OSCE forums.52 Such a

shift would be critical, since in the past the OSCE had been one of the lead-

ing organizations monitoring elections— and potentially criticizing whether

they were free and fair. At several OSCE meetings, Rus sia threatened that

it would cut its funding for the or ga ni za tion if election monitoring re-

mained a primary focus of the group.53 Similarly, the Kremlin allegedly used

its delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Eu rope, an

or ga ni za tion of parliamentarians, to tamp down criticism of pro- Russian

Ukrainian leaders and to critique pro– Orange Revolution Ukrainian politi-

cians.54 And Rus sia, along with several other former Soviet states, created

their own election monitoring system to observe polls in the old Soviet

Union. But unlike most internationally accepted election monitoring sys-

tems, the one created by Rus sia relied on a small circle of trusted Kremlin

allies, rather than on groups of monitors selected at random from a range of

NGOs like the Carter Center. As Ambrosio found, in nearly every election

in the former Soviet Union, these Kremlin- allied monitors approved votes

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

148 The Autocrats Strike Back

as free and fair, often in sharp contrast to the reporting of those same polls

by Western Eu ro pe an monitoring organizations.55 When Eu ro pe an moni-

toring groups criticized these polls, the Kremlin, and other autocrats in the

former Soviet Union, could hold up their own monitors as evidence of free

polling and then accuse the Eu ro pe ans of applying inaccurate standards.

“The differing conclusions allowed Rus sia to discredit the external observ-

ers’ fi ndings by fostering a seemingly unwinnable ‘he said- she said’ debate,”

Ambrosio found.56

The two authoritarian powers also took more specifi c actions to under-

mine regional democracy. If Beijing and the Kremlin could undermine

demo crats, and show that their governments were less effective, more cor-

rupt, and worse for development than the authoritarian regimes that previ-

ously had run countries like Ukraine, they might be able to convince the

public in those countries to accept a return to autocratic rule— a return that

would forestall any regional demo cratic wave that might touch the two

powers.

In Ukraine, the Kremlin’s party, United Rus sia, signed an agreement

to cooperate with the party of pro- Russian Ukrainian leader Viktor Yanu-

kovych, who was hardly sympathetic to the Orange revolt.57 This deal in-

cluded plans by the Kremlin to help Yanukovych’s party in the next election.

Moscow later provided Kremlin- backed po liti cal con sul tants to advise

Yanukovych’s presidential campaign, and proved willing to sanction Ukrai-

nian elections marred by serious vote rigging, elections in which pro- Russia

candidates triumphed.58 In the winter of 2005– 06, the Kremlin went fur-

ther. Facing a government run by the Orange favorite Yushchenko, Moscow

cut off Ukraine’s discounts on natural gas. Western Eu ro pe an nations forced

the Kremlin to back off its gas threat, but the new price it negotiated with

Ukraine still was twice the old one. Later, the Kremlin would further

threaten the Orange government by questioning Ukraine’s borders and

highlighting the rights of Rus sian speakers in the Ukraine, widely believed

to be a means of further inserting the Kremlin into Ukrainian politics. The

Kremlin’s assistance, combined with the poor governing per for mance of

the post– Orange Revolution government in Kiev, did allow Yanukovych

to regain his power, and in 2010 he won the presidency. As Yanukovych

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Autocrats Strike Back 149

consolidated his power, arresting many of the top offi cials from the Orange

government including the former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, in-

vestigating domestic and foreign NGOs working in Ukraine, and appar-

ently pressuring the media to portray him only positively, Moscow backed

him staunchly. While Moscow had tried to hike gas prices for Ukraine un-

der his pre de ces sor, with Yanukovych the Kremlin negotiated a new deal to

sell gas to Ukraine at subsidized low rates again, a deal that could help boost

Ukraine’s economy, and thus suggest that a more authoritarian leader could

deliver stronger growth than the fractious demo crats who came into offi ce

following the Orange Revolution.59

Similarly, in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and other former Soviet nations like

Moldova, the Kremlin intervened directly in attempts to reverse color revo-

lutions or to prevent new ones from occurring. In so doing, Rus sia actually

violated these nations’ sovereignty far more than any actions by American

democracy promotion organizations or funders like Soros. The Kremlin’s

youth group, Nashi, known for its aggressive tactics against democracy ac-

tivists, launched branches in other Central Asian nations, and another pro-

Kremlin youth or ga ni za tion signed an agreement to help youth groups in

Kiev.60 In Moldova, the poorest country in Eu rope but an increasingly open

democracy, the Kremlin has used its Ukrainian allies to pressure the Moldo-

van government, intermittently barred Moldovan exports from entering Rus-

sia, and taken other steps to promote parties skeptical about demo cratization.

In Kyrgyzstan, Rus sian advisers helped a series of leaders emulate the Krem-

lin’s model of po liti cal control. In part because of this Rus sian infl uence, the

respected International Crisis Group found, “Parliamentary democracy in

Kyrgyzstan has been hobbled. . . . A good example of how the Vladimir

Putin model of governance is being copied in Central Asia.” By 2010, the

top politicians in four Kyrgyz parties were traveling regularly to Moscow,

where they could compete for the Kremlin’s fi nancial support and rhetori-

cal backing.61

In Georgia, which under Saakashvili became a favorite of the Bush

administration, the Kremlin denounced the color revolution as a violation

of sovereignty and a rollback of democracy.62 Then, weeks after Moscow

cut off Ukraine’s subsidized gas in the winter of 2005– 06, an explosion

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

150 The Autocrats Strike Back

disrupted natural gas pipelines from Rus sia to Georgia, plunging Georgia

into a state of fear during an exceptionally cold winter.63 Still, having failed

to force a change in the government of Georgia, including the imposition

of economic sanctions in 2006, Putin ratcheted up tensions, abetted by

Saakashvili, who himself seemed to delight in angering the Kremlin. In Au-

gust 2008, Rus sian forces took advantage of skirmishes between Georgian

troops and separatist insurgents to attack Georgia, advancing to within a

few miles of the Georgian capital. The Rus sian assault, which included the

blocking of Georgia’s harbor and the deployment of tanks out of propor-

tion to the initial skirmishing, had far more to do with teaching Georgia a

lesson— and possibly showing other demo cratizing neighbors how Moscow

would treat them— than with the ostensible dispute over Georgian- Russian

border regions. Although Rus sia portrayed its actions as a move to protect

ethnic Rus sians in the South Ossetia region of Georgia, years earlier Rus sian

intelligence ser vices and military forces had clearly tried to foster separatist

sentiment among ethnic Rus sians in South Ossetia, distributing Rus sian

passports to South Ossetians and taking many other steps to prod the re-

gion to break away, according to several reports by Eu ro pe an human rights

groups.

Perhaps even more dangerous than the direct intervention in neighbor-

ing nations, both China and Rus sia began to redefi ne the very meaning of

democracy so that, in true Orwellian fashion, the word started to lose its

meaning, which was exactly what the authoritarian powers wanted. “Rarely

has democracy been so acclaimed yet so breached,” noted Human Rights

Watch in its 2008 survey of global freedoms. “Today, democracy has be-

come the sine qua non of legitimacy . . . yet the credentials of the claimants

have not kept pace with democracy’s growing popularity. . . . Determined

not to let mere facts stand in the way [autocratic] rulers have mastered the

art of demo cratic rhetoric that bears little relationship to the principle of

governing.”64

Under Putin, the Kremlin, working with many Rus sian academics,

developed the idea of “sovereign democracy,” a concept that would provide

the Kremlin with the ideological underpinnings for Putin’s autocracy. As

one of Putin’s closest advisers defi ned it, sovereign democracy meant a

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Autocrats Strike Back 151

“democracy” run by a highly centralized state and in which civil society is

used by the state to monitor government offi cials, yet society is not in de pen-

dent of the government.65 Sovereign democracy also meant, according to

Kremlin strategists, that each nation was free to choose its own form of

“democracy,” even if that meant holding essentially fake elections designed to

buttress an autocrat— a leader’s “sovereignty” inoculated him against for-

eign criticism of the fairness of his or her “democracy.” To maintain the

facade of democracy, in 2006 the Kremlin even created a fake opposition

party, called A Just Rus sia, designed to simulate the appearance of competi-

tion with the Kremlin- backed United Rus sia, which dominates Rus sian

politics.66

The Kremlin even created its own international NGOs that were sup-

posedly focused on democracy promotion and seemed, from the outside, to

be mirror images of Western groups like America’s National Endowment

for Democracy. But these Rus sian “NGOs” actually offered expertise and

funding to foreign leaders to help them forestall new color revolutions.67 In

Kyrgyzstan, Rus sia allegedly helped launch several NGOs, such as the Co-

ali tion of People’s Demo crats, which mostly spent its time condemning the

United States as well as opposition Kyrgyz politicians.68 In Ukraine, an

or ga ni za tion called the Rus sian Press Club and run by an adviser to Putin

posed as an NGO and helped facilitate Rus sia’s involvement in Ukrainian

elections.69 Moscow also copied a trick used for years by China, which has

fought back against American criticism of its rights record by issuing its own

annual survey of human rights in the United States, which often refers to

historical abuses like slavery.70 In 2008, Rus sia launched an “NGO” called

the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation; its job was to monitor the

human rights climate in Western nations like the United States and France.

It produced a steady stream of articles and press briefi ngs promoting Rus sia’s

style of “democracy” and taking apart America’s democracy promotion

efforts.

The Chinese leadership also wants to alter the meaning of democracy. In

his report to the 17th Party Congress, held in October 2007, President Hu

Jintao used the words “democracy” or “demo cratic” roughly sixty times, ac-

cording to one analysis.71 In its annual report on human rights, too, “Progress

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

152 The Autocrats Strike Back

in China’s Human Rights,” Beijing featured a defi nition of human rights that

emphasized economic rights and material gains for average people in China,

twisting the traditional defi nition of human rights, which historically has fo-

cused more on social and po liti cal freedoms.72 This altering of the defi nition

of rights to focus primarily on economic gains was echoed by many elected

autocrats, men and women like Cambodia’s Hun Sen or Venezuela’s Hugo

Chavez. As the international monitoring or ga ni za tion Freedom House noted,

Chavez has consistently touted Venezuela’s (praiseworthy) economic gains on

his watch, such as reductions in poverty, as indicators of the progress on rights

the country has made— and as a means of avoiding discussion on po liti cal

rights, which have gone backward during his time in offi ce.73 At the United

Nations Human Rights Council, China has similarly made arguments that

twist the traditional defi nition of human rights, while trying to change the

way the Council operates so that only governments, and not human rights

groups or other civil society organizations, could make reports on human

rights to the Council.74

Many elected autocrats, like Cambodia’s Hun Sen or Malaysia’s Najib

Tun Razak, have explicitly modeled their defenses of human rights on

China’s, claiming that, like China, they have brought signifi cant economic

progress and economic liberalism to their citizens, and that these gains

overshadow any concerns about po liti cal repression.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:47:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Yale University Press

Chapter Title: Failure of the Emerging Powers

Book Title: Democracy in Retreat Book Subtitle: The Revolt of the Middle Class and the Worldwide Decline of Representative Government Book Author(s): Joshua Kurlantzick Published by: Yale University Press. (2013) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bh31.12

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Democracy in Retreat

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

R epresenting the world’s largest democracy, which has sewn

together a nation of a billion people, as well as countless ethnic

groups, castes, and languages, Indian offi cials long have boasted of

their nation’s deep and founding commitment to democracy. And as China

and India increasingly have become global competitors— and China’s gleam-

ing infrastructure, rapid decision making, and high growth rates have

outshone India’s— Delhi has emphasized its rhetorical commitment to

democracy only more.

But to Myo, a Burmese activist, demo cratic India doesn’t look much dif-

ferent from authoritarian China.1 Worse, maybe. “At least with China, you

expect that they are going to support dictators, so it’s not that surprising,”

Myo said. “But with India, it’s not what I expected, so it was a slap to [Bur-

mese activists.]”

After working as a democracy activist in Burma, underground, for many

years, Myo fl ed the country in the mid- 2000s to work in exile. Before he left,

he sat in a dingy noodle shop in Rangoon, where customers slurped steam-

ing bowls of Burmese mohingar noodles seasoned with bits of lime and cab-

bage and slices of egg. Myo picked a table wedged deep into one dark corner

of the restaurant, where it would be hard for anyone to overhear conversa-

tion. He said he had been working for a publishing company in Rangoon,

but he covertly had to smuggle po liti cal messages into the writings he pub-

lished in magazines that focused on safe topics like soccer or Burmese rap.2

“It’s kind of a game everyone here plays, but after a while it gets so tiring,” he

said, as he stirred bits of oil into his soup broth. “I’d like to once not have to

try to fi gure out how to fool the censors over a simple article.”

Failure of the Emerging Powers

9

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

154 Failure of the Emerging Powers

At fi rst, after leaving Burma Myo traveled to India, where he’d hoped

that the world’s largest democracy would prove hospitable to activists push-

ing for human rights and democracy in a repressive state on India’s borders.

“I’d heard that, before, India had been very welcoming to Burmese activ-

ists, particularly after 1988 [a period of antigovernment rioting in Burma],

so I expected it would still be,” he said. But Myo was wrong. In the 1990s,

some Indian offi cials had tried to assist Burmese democracy activists, and

India’s then- defense minister George Fernandes, a prominent human rights

advocate, even allowed some Burmese exiles to take shelter in his personal

family compound.3 But by the 2000s, Delhi had reversed its Burma policy

180 degrees. Rather than criticizing the Burmese junta, it now engaged the

generals under a new policy it called “Look East,” hosting Se nior General

Than Shwe on a state visit, during which, with no obvious irony, he visited

the monument of the revered Mahatma Gandhi.4 India ignored interna-

tional resolutions condemning the Burmese regime’s massive human rights

abuses, and it launched a policy to boost Indian investment in Burma, par-

ticularly in the valuable petroleum industry. Delhi began providing arms to

Burma, and in the fall of 2007, while tens of thousands of Burmese monks

were protesting against the government in the streets of Rangoon, Burma’s

biggest city, India’s petroleum minister traveled to Naypyidaw, the new capi-

tal of Burma that had been built by the military, to sign new agreements on

oil and gas.5 He made no mention of the massive protests going on in Ran-

goon, which ultimately would be put down with brutal force.

After Than Shwe’s visit to Gandhi’s monument, a Burma specialist for

Amnesty International commented that “it was entirely unpalatable . . . that

India could allow one of the world’s most fl agrant violators of human rights

to stain the legacy of a man who led masses to peacefully overthrow a re-

pressive colonial overlord . . . or to symbolically forsake its support for [Bur-

mese opposition leader] Aung San Suu Kyi, herself a sort of Burmese version

of Gandhi.”6 Amnesty could have launched a similar salvo at nearly every

major emerging democracy around the world. It could have blasted South

Africa, which Nelson Mandela vowed would make the promotion of de-

mocracy and human rights a pillar of its foreign policy, but which has for

years tolerated Robert Mugabe’s brutal regime next door in Zimbabwe.7 It

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the Emerging Powers 155

could have lambasted Brazil, which even as it has grown more powerful has

cozied up to Ira ni an dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as well as to local

elected autocrats like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.8

By the late 2000s and early 2010s, many Western offi cials still hoped that

the big emerging democracies, the Brazils, Indonesias, and South Africas,

would eventually become regional and global champions of human rights

and demo cratization. To some Western observers, this made natural sense,

since these countries themselves had fought hard for their own democra-

cies, and surely saw the importance of strengthening demo cratic systems in

the countries around them. And yet, as India showed with Burma, such

hopes often proved naive. Unlike, say, the Netherlands or Canada, countries

like India and Indonesia suffered de cades of foreign interventions during the

Cold War that left their leaders skeptical of any policies that might violate

other countries’ sovereignty. And more often than not, these major emerg-

ing democracies shared as many strategic interests with their undemo cratic

neighbors, whom they actually had to live next to, as with the faraway West.

The end of the Cold War may have sped up the emergence of new democra-

cies in the world, but it was not until the late 1990s and early 2000s that the

United States, and other Western nations, began aggressively trying to enlist

emerging powers like India in global democracy promotion. Working with

the leaders of several new democracies, including India, the Clinton admin-

istration helped establish the Community of Democracies, a global meeting

of nations that fi rst convened in Poland in 2000.9 The group was supposed to

help promote an expansion and deepening of demo cratic norms throughout

the world, and it eventually expanded, in 2004, to create a democracies’ cau-

cus at the United Nations.10 Still, despite a request from Washington, India

declined to serve as the leader of the UN democracy caucus.11

The community of democracies established some shared demo cratic

norms and, at the UN, created a fund to help support civil society groups

that monitor elections and take other steps to promote freedom.12 At roughly

the same time, America’s National Endowment for Democracy, working

with civil society groups in many other nations, launched the World Move-

ment for Democracy, which brought together democracy activists from

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

156 Failure of the Emerging Powers

around the globe to support prodemocracy organizations within autocratic

nations, as well as groups operating in existing democracies. And some

regional democracy organizations sprung up as well, from the Inter-

Parliamentary Caucus of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to the

Offi ce for the Promotion of Democracy of the Or ga ni za tion of American

States. At one gathering of the World Movement for Democracy, held in Ja-

karta in the spring of 2010, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono

struck all the right rhetorical notes. “I am convinced,” Yudhoyono declared,

“that ultimately the 21st century instinct is the demo cratic instinct. . . . No

po liti cal system can ignore this.”13 Indonesia also hosted the annual Bali

Democracy Forum, at which representatives of many different emerging

democracies come together to share their experiences and learn from each

other’s stories.14

In 2008, Arizona Senator John McCain would propose a League of De-

mocracies that would strengthen cooperation among demo cratic nations.15

This concept previously had been outlined in several essays by foreign policy

specialists James Lindsay and Ivo Daalder, who argued that a “Concert of

Democracies” could work together on a range of security and economic chal-

lenges that require multilateral cooperation, as well as on promoting democ-

racy and human rights.16 Such a concert, they noted, need not be a formal

structure, with a permanent infrastructure, but could be more of an infor-

mal grouping of democracies.

Enlisting emerging powers like Brazil, India, or Indonesia in an inter-

national partnership of democracies made obvious sense; the concept of a

Concert of Democracies, in theory, could promote more effective multilat-

eral cooperation. Not only would the emerging powers’ cooperation in such

an initiative reduce any fears that democracy promotion was a stealth Amer-

ican plan for regime change around the world, but the emerging powers

often wielded far more infl uence in their own regions than the United States

or other Western democracies did. The United States slapped sanctions on

Burma in 1997 that, since that time, have signifi cantly reduced America’s

role in the country, but India, Thailand, and Indonesia, three democracies

near Burma, implemented no sanctions, and enjoy sizable trade and security

relationships with the Burmese junta.17 South Africa provides Zimbabwe

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the Emerging Powers 157

with electricity, food aid, and other lifelines, and so Pretoria carries by far

the most weight in Harare, no matter how much Robert Mugabe rails at

imagined diabolic American and British intervention in his country.18 And

while the United States wields enormous infl uence in the imagination of

many Latin American leaders, due to Washington’s history of interventions

in the Western Hemi sphere, it is Brazil’s increasingly powerful economy,

and left- leaning leaders, that now have greater infl uence over many South

and Central American leaders, particularly those from socialist backgrounds

like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega.

At times, the enthusiasm responsible for concepts like a League of De-

mocracies has seemed warranted. Besides the growth of these new inter-

national organizations of democracies, some emerging powers had taken a

stand, at times, in their own neighborhoods. In the late 1990s, under the

government of Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai, Bangkok took a tougher ap-

proach to the Burmese junta than it had under any previous administration.

Distancing itself from other Southeast Asian countries’ engagement with

Burma, Chuan’s government began criticizing the junta’s human rights

abuses and offering mea sured support for Suu Kyi and her National League

for Democracy.19 Chuan himself told American offi cials, “As prime minister

he never visited Burma. . . . He didn’t want to demonstrate any form of sup-

port or sense of legitimacy to the [Burmese] regime.”

But these examples are relatively rare. Besides its see- no- evil Burma

policy, India took a hands- off approach to its neighbor Sri Lanka, which

under the government of President Mahinda Rajpaksa crushed the Tamil

Tiger rebel movement in the spring of 2009, and in the pro cess tried to de-

stroy Sri Lanka’s press, civil society, and opposition parties, as well as indis-

criminately shelled Tamil civilians in the north of the country.20 At the UN,

Delhi blocked a resolution tabled in the Human Rights Council that would

have condemned Rajpaksa’s actions.21 Instead India praised the Sri Lankan

government for its handling of the aftermath of the war against the Tigers,

during which the Sri Lankan government allegedly executed Tigers who

surrendered and garrisoned tens of thousands of Tamil civilians in prison-

like camps.22 And after Chuan’s party lost in the 2001 national elections to

Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand once again launched close ties with the

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

158 Failure of the Emerging Powers

Burmese military regime and all but ignored human rights abuses by its

neighbor. Thaksin claimed his government “worked to bring Myanmar

[Burma] in from the cold,” and helped push the junta to draft a proposal for a

transition to democracy— a proposal widely criticized by international hu-

man rights groups as actually paving the way to a sham election in Burma

that installed the military’s favored party in power.23 Under Thaksin, Thai-

land also drastically increased its trade with and investment in Burma: Be-

tween 2003 and 2008, Burma’s exports to Thailand more than doubled,

including sizable exports of natural gas.24

After a coup deposed Thaksin in 2006, a military- backed government

in Bangkok continued the policy of engagement, with Thai companies in

2010 making a $13.3- billion investment in a new Burmese deep- sea port,

the largest- ever Thai investment in its neighbor.25 Indeed, in 2010 and 2011,

Burma received some $20 billion in new foreign investment, the highest

year- on- year fi gure in its history; the vast majority of that investment came

from neighboring nations, including democracies like India, Thailand, and

South Korea.26 Thailand, which during the Vietnam War era sheltered tens

of thousands of Indochinese refugees, in 2009 also forced some three thou-

sand Hmong, an ethnic minority group, back to Laos, even though many

of the Hmong, who once fought against the communists in Vientiane,

might face persecution back at home.27 And in fact, after being pushed

back to Laos many of the Hmong were corralled into areas that appeared

to be prison camps, and foreign reporters who attempted to visit these areas

were banned. Some of the Hmong refugees simply vanished.28

Like Thailand and India, South Africa, Turkey, and Brazil sometimes

mouth the rhetoric of rights and democracy promotion. After the end of

apartheid, many human rights activists had high hopes for South Africa’s

ruling African National Congress (ANC), which after all had benefi ted

from a global pressure movement when its members were fi ghting against

white rule. Under Mandela, the ANC passed one of the most progressive

constitutions in the world, and South African leaders helped broker an end

to confl icts across the continent. ANC leaders at times condemned atrocities

in Zimbabwe, as well as abuses in other countries like Burma and Sri

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the Emerging Powers 159

Lanka.29 Yet in recent years Pretoria has used its infl uence at the UN, and

at African organizations, not only to protect the regime in Zimbabwe but

also to veto a UN Security Council resolution condemning rights abuses in

Burma.30 Asked during a visit to Harare about Zimbabwe’s co ali tion gov-

ernment, in which Mugabe used security forces to intimidate and kill mem-

bers of the opposition Movement for Demo cratic Change, South African

President Jacob Zuma blithely told reporters that “it is indeed very encour-

aging to note the signifi cant progress that has been made under the auspices

of the inclusive government” in Zimbabwe.31 Perhaps unable to conceal his

delight, Mugabe, speaking after Zuma, declared, “The inclusive government

is alive and well.”32 Mugabe’s allies would continue beating supporters of

other po liti cal parties, using trumped- up criminal charges to intimidate op-

position politicians, and persecuting independent- minded judges, reporters,

and civil society activists, according to a comprehensive investigation by

Human Rights Watch.33

In 2011, Zuma seemed to take a slightly tougher line toward Zimbabwe,

declaring at a regional conference in March 2011 that state violence against

opposition politicians must stop; one of Zuma’s top advisers, Lindiwe Zulu,

declared that “people [in Zimbabwe] want to see democracy.” Still, Zuma

took few concrete actions to pressure Zimbabwe to hold free and fair elec-

tions, even as Zimbabwean researchers released reports showing that voter

rolls in the country were stuffed with at least two million ineligible voters,

all likely to “support” Mugabe’s party.

Pretoria also opposed the multinational effort to end the brutal regime

of Libya’s Muammar Qadaffi , ignored international efforts to bring Suda-

nese leader Omar al- Bashir to justice for crimes against humanity at the

International Criminal Court, and generally remained mute about reports

of massive rights violations in other young African democracies, from Kenya

to Nigeria.34 Even after Qadaffi ’s regime had already fallen, and the dictator

and his family were on the run, Zuma’s government refused to recognize the

new, transitional government of Libya and played a lead role in getting the

African Union to delay recognition. The South African leadership refused

even to allow the Dalai Lama to make a visit to the country in 2009 for a

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

160 Failure of the Emerging Powers

conference of Nobel laureates, presumably for fear of angering China— a

decision that drew the rebuke of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, South Afri-

ca’s own Nobel Peace laureate.35

While Brazilian President Lula did speak out against some egregious

human rights abuses, and offered asylum to an Ira ni an woman sentenced

to be stoned to death for adultery, his government mostly ignored democ-

racy promotion and human rights in other nations. Lula called on Venezu-

elan leader Hugo Chavez to tone down his fi ery anti- American rhetoric,

according to one U.S. embassy cable released by Wikileaks, but he did not

push the Venezuelan to address some of his autocratic tendencies.36 Ques-

tioned by a Newsweek reporter about why Venezuela was allowed to partici-

pate in a South American trade bloc that is supposed to be open only to full

democracies that respect human rights, Lula responded, “Give me one ex-

ample of how Venezuela is not demo cratic.” When the reporter listed Chavez’s

crackdown on in de pen dent media, trade unions, and po liti cal rivals, Lula

casually said, “That’s not the [Venezuelan] government’s version.”37 On an-

other occasion, Lula called Chavez “the best president of Venezuela in the

last 100 years.”38 And even though Lula himself got his start in trade unions

and opposition politics during what was a relatively repressive atmosphere

in Brazil at that time, he also pointedly refused to join regional condemna-

tion of human rights abuses in Cuba. When a prominent Cuban po liti cal

prisoner named Orlando Zapata Tamayo went on a hunger strike (he ulti-

mately died in the midst of his strike, approximately two and a half months

later), Lula seemed to ridicule Tamayo’s struggle, likening the activist to a

criminal who was trying to gain publicity to get out of jail. Meeting with

Cuban leader Raul Castro, Lula pointedly declined to even mention the

hunger strike or other abuses.39 Along with Turkey, Lula also took a simi-

larly accommodating view toward Ira ni an leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,

even after Ahmadinejad’s government crushed the Green protest movement

that erupted in mid- 2009, jailing hundreds of opposition supporters and al-

legedly torturing and even killing some of the most prominent opposition

leaders.40 Together, Lula and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdo-

gan traveled to Tehran, where they appeared in an embrace together with

Ahmadinejad after allegedly brokering a solution to the Ira ni an nuclear

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the Emerging Powers 161

program— one that most experts on Iran believed simply bought Tehran

more time to develop a nuclear weapons program.41 Lula’s successor, Dilma

Rouseff, who also had been persecuted by past military governments in

Brazil, stepped back from some of Lula’s most obvious embraces of abusers,

such as his courting of Iran. But she continued the country’s close ties to

Chavez, rarely criticizing the Venezuelan leader.

There are exceptions to the emerging powers’ abdication. Poland, the

largest and most powerful of the newer entrants to the Eu ro pe an Union,

and a country that had its own demo cratic revolution, has used its infl uence

to support reformers in other Central and Eastern Eu ro pe an nations, such

as Belarus. As the Belorus sian government cracked down on opposition

movements in the winter of 2010– 11, Poland’s leaders decried the repression

and called for the Eu ro pe an Union to enact strict punishments against Be-

larus, including travel bans on its leaders and bank account freezes. Poland

also bankrolled opposition radio and tele vi sion stations broadcasting un-

censored news into Belarus.42

But Poland is an exception; Brazil and South Africa are the norm.

Often, these weak policies drew international condemnation, like Amnesty’s

chastising of India for is approach to the Burmese junta. Even President

Obama, who wanted to consolidate his pre de ces sor’s historic outreach to

India, chided Delhi mildly during a trip to India in the fall of 2010. “If I can

be frank, in international fora, India has often shied away from some of

these issues [like Burma],” Obama said, to the annoyance of his hosts.43 (The

Obama administration would later launch its own engagement with the

Burmese government, but would take a cautious approach, retaining sanc-

tions on new investment in the country and keeping American aid fl ows

into Burma to a trickle.) But the most stinging critiques came from the citi-

zens of affected countries themselves, men and women like Myo who had

hoped for more from the new demo cratic powers. “I am saddened with

India. I would like to have thought that India would be standing behind us.

That it would have followed in the tradition of Mahatma Gandhi and

Jawaharlal Nehru,” Suu Kyi told the Indian Express newspaper.44 Or as

another Burmese exile said, after years of living like a fugitive in Thailand

and watching the Thai government coddle the Burmese generals: “Thai

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

162 Failure of the Emerging Powers

people will protest for democracy here [in Thailand] but in Burma they’d

just as soon watch us die.”45

The emerging powers’ abdication of interest in international human

rights or democracy did more than just hurt the efforts of activists like Suu

Kyi or Myo. By taking a limited— or nonexistent— role in international

democracy promotion efforts, countries like South Africa or Brazil or Tur-

key made it easier for autocratic leaders to paint democracy promotion as a

Western, and alien, activity, or even to portray it as an illegal intervention

similar to Western meddling in the Cold War in such places as Iran, Gua-

temala, and Chile, where Western intelligence organizations backed coups

against left- leaning leaders. Eva Golinger, a prominent Venezuelan- American

attorney who often advocates the worldview of Chavez’s government, charged

that democracy promotion was the latest American excuse for forceful re-

gime change, a view echoed by leaders of many other autocratic regimes.46

Again, as Western powers bombed Libya in the winter and spring of 2011, to

assist rebel forces battling Muammar Qadaffi ’s regime, many emerging

demo cratic powers harshly criticized the intervention, creating space for

some of Qadaffi ’s closest friends, like Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, to

condemn the intervention as neo- imperialism.47 Turkey, for example, strongly

opposed the Libya intervention, with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan call-

ing it “unthinkable” and “absurd.” South Africa did the same, calling for an

investigation into the war crimes committed in the toppling of Qadaffi , and

mostly ignoring that Qadaffi himself had not only committed massive

abuses over his forty- year rule but also played a role in stoking sub- Saharan

African confl icts from Chad to Liberia.

Indeed, by studying the voting patterns of the major emerging democ-

racies at the United Nations, the Democracy Co ali tion Project and Ted

Piccone of the Brookings Institution clearly show that most of these new

giants adhere to strict principles of nonintervention and sovereignty.48

India’s voting record at the United Nations— the General Assembly, the

Rights Council, and the Security Council— shows that while it occasionally

supports democracy, it “maintains that democracy must not be imposed on

other countries” and so still favors nonintervention, the study revealed. In-

donesia’s voting record reveals that it opposes nearly every human rights

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the Emerging Powers 163

and democracy initiative at the United Nations, even though within the

Association of Southeast Asian Nations, where Indonesia is the leading

member, Jakarta has forcefully pushed for the creation of a human rights

body. Brazil’s voting patterns, though more unpredictable, also tend to

favor nonintervention, unless “supporting democracy or human rights will

help [Brazil] to further its own goals of consolidating regional leadership,”

Piccone’s study notes. Turkey, which benefi ted signifi cantly in the 1990s

and early 2000s from democracy assistance from Eu rope and the United

States, also generally has avoided pushing for rights in its UN votes, al-

though in the past year it has become more critical of Arab autocracies, such

as Syria, that have brutalized their own citizens. (In October 2011, Turkish

Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu criticized the UN for not forcefully

condemning Syria’s crackdown on its citizens, saying, “What is taking place

in Syria is not a domestic issue of Syria. It has become a tragedy for the hu-

manity.”)49 And South Africa is perhaps the most disappointing in the study

of UN voting rec ords. Repeatedly at the United Nations, South Africa’s

postapartheid leadership has allied itself with autocratic regimes in votes,

generally ignoring democracy movements in these authoritarian countries.50

Like India and Indonesia, South Africa normally just abstained from any

resolutions scrutinizing human rights abuses in other nations, even in such

extreme examples as North Korea and Sudan, whose governments alleg-

edly had committed massive crimes against humanity including, potentially,

genocide. South Africa also refused to join a call for a special UN Human

Rights Council session on Burma, whose abuses ranked on par with those of

North Korea and Sudan.51 Among emerging demo cratic powers studied by

Piccone, only South Korea consistently voted for resolutions condemning au-

thoritarian regimes like Burma and Sudan, or for resolutions creating man-

dates to monitor human rights abuses in these authoritarian states.52

Though they attracted criticism, the policies of these emerging demo cratic

powers made some sense— in their own domestic contexts. The concept of

nations’ absolute sovereignty, promoted by authoritarian nations like China,

also resonated intensely with the new emerging demo cratic powers. Many of

them, like India and Indonesia, had been leading members of the nonaligned,

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

164 Failure of the Emerging Powers

anti- imperialism movement during the Cold War, and felt extremely un-

comfortable joining any international co ali tion that sought to undermine

other nations’ sovereignty, even if potentially for a good reason.53 “The inter-

nal anticolonial strain in the newly in de pen dent India morphed into sus-

tained anti- imperialist posturing within the po liti cal discourse on world

affairs [during the Cold War],” notes India specialist C Raja Mohan.54 India

allied itself with the Soviet Union, while the United States tilted toward

Pakistan. Though the end of the Soviet empire, and the bankruptcy of In-

dia’s state- dominated economic model in the early 1990s, would undermine

some Indian leaders’ faith in nonalignment and socialism, among Indian

elites and, particularly, older members of the Indian left this antipathy

toward any international efforts led by Western powers, and this defense of

absolute sovereignty, remained strong. What’s more, India— like China,

Indonesia, and many other newer powers, demo cratic or not— still wor-

ries about maintaining its own territorial integrity, particularly in relation

to Kashmir, and so it wondered whether any international effort, even on

democracy or human rights, might eventually rebound against Delhi.

India’s attitudes were hardly unique. Other emerging powers, includ-

ing Indonesia and Turkey, want to avoid criticism of their own human rights

abuses, in restive regions like Papua, a province in eastern Indonesia where

security forces have harshly repressed dissent, or in Kurdish regions of Tur-

key. And during the Cold War, African National Congress leaders like

Zuma and his pre de ces sor, Thabo Mbeki, watched as the United States

vetoed congressional legislation that would have punished apartheid, and as

Western nations pursued a relationship with South African scientists even

as some government- linked apartheid era scientists pursued programs to

poison ANC leaders.55 Not surprisingly, many ANC leaders developed an

intense animus toward the West; some close associates of Mbeki believed

that his fear of outside powers, including scientists, trying to destroy the

ANC was one factor behind his strange, highly counterproductive beliefs

about AIDS, including questioning whether HIV causes AIDS and allow-

ing his government to recommend natural remedies, including garlic and

lemons, to treat HIV.56 Other emerging powers today also were victimized

by Western interventions during the Cold War: the Eisenhower adminis-

tration backed an ill- fated rebellion by outlying Indonesian islands against

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the Emerging Powers 165

the Sukarno government in the late 1950s. So, in countries like Indonesia,

where a younger, post– Cold War generation of po liti cal leaders has not yet

taken power, most of the po liti cal class still instinctively views aggressive

democracy promotion— and virtually any Western initiatives that threaten

countries’ sovereignty— with suspicion, even if some Indonesian liberals

supported efforts like the Bali Democracy Forum.

Combined with this lingering suspicion of the West, leaders in many

emerging powers realize that, on issues other than democracy and human

rights, their interests do not always coincide with those of established

democracies— and that, even on democracy promotion and rights advo-

cacy, the institutions and structures were created by Western powers, dur-

ing the Cold War, with little input from countries like Brazil or India.

If democracies are going to challenge autocracies’ sovereignty, nations like

South Africa, Brazil, and India want to have the authority to help decide

when such challenges to sovereignty are appropriate and when they are not.

And as long as they are not granted that authority, whether through the

United Nations or other international institutions, Pretoria or Brasilia will

take stands at the United Nations supporting the sovereignty of even atro-

cious regimes like Burma or Iran. At summits of the so- called BRIC nations

(Brazil, Rus sia, India, and China), these emerging powers have challenged

many established international institutions, including the makeup of the UN

Security Council and the use of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.57

Though two of these BRIC members are autocracies, the demo cratic mem-

bers supported challenges to international institutions just as strongly.

Indeed, as a developing nation that does not want to be penalized for

polluting the environment as severely as a developed country, India has

allied with China to push developed nations, like the United States, to play

a larger role in reducing emissions, and to argue that Delhi and Beijing

cannot afford prohibitive emissions caps, which would undermine their

growth. India also has allied itself with China and Saudi Arabia, among

other autocracies, in trying to reduce the power of the International Mone-

tary Fund in managing global fi nancial crises.58

In many cases, too, these new demo cratic powers, less secure in their

regional environments than, say, Britain or Norway, are more willing to live

with stable but autocratic neighbors than to risk destabilizing their regions.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

166 Failure of the Emerging Powers

The British and Norwegian governments need not fear, today, that problems

in Sweden or Ireland could destabilize the United Kingdom or Norway. But

India and South Africa do not enjoy such luxury. The chaotic border be-

tween India and Burma allows a myriad of armed insurgent groups, includ-

ing several fi ghting for their own homelands in India’s fractious northeast,

to smuggle weapons, people, and narcotics; the porous frontier between

South Africa and Zimbabwe includes large networks of people smuggling.59

And, the instability that already exists makes leaders in these emerging

democracies very wary of encouraging any more change, even if that change

might ultimately benefi t a vast majority of people.

Democracy advocates inside Burma or Zimbabwe would argue that

these autocratic regimes, by their nature, foster instability— massive refugee

outfl ows that suck up neighbors’ resources, waves of pop u lar unrest that

occasionally spill over borders, illicit economic activity like drug smuggling.

After all, at least a million Burmese refugees already have fl ed to Thailand

(the real number is probably much higher), and some two million Zimba-

bweans have crossed the border into South Africa.60 Yet despite the dangers

Burma or Zimbabwe exports, sizable fear exists among leaders in Bangkok

or Delhi or Pretoria that, in a po liti cal transition, the chaos and instability

exported would be far worse. “The situation [on the Thai- Burmese border]

isn’t good now, but it’s been mostly the same for de cades,” one Thai offi cial

said. “So no one wants to mess with it.”61

Of course, in some cases, certain constituencies within the emerging

powers prosper from their relationships with autocracies, and so have no

reason to support democracy promotion and human rights advocacy. The

Thai military and police, for example, long have utilized their presence

along the Burmese border, and their connections in Burma, to exploit natu-

ral resources and drugs that trade across the border. (In the 1950s, Thai

Police General Phao Sriyonand allegedly became one of the largest opium

traffi ckers in Asia.)62 Brazilian construction companies have established a

large presence in Venezuela, a presence that necessarily requires some court-

ing of Chavez’s government.63 Such interests exist in Western democracies,

too: American oil fi rms do business in Equatorial Guinea, where they lav-

ishly support that petro- state’s thuggish regime, and French oil companies

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the Emerging Powers 167

prosper from their ties to Gabon, where they enjoy a cozy relationship with

Gabon’s nepotistic regime.64 But in these longer- established democracies,

businesses’ relationships with authoritarian regimes often are balanced by

the advocacy of well- established human rights groups, democracy promo-

tion organizations, muckraking journalists, and other civil society associa-

tions. American oil fi rms may invest in Equatorial Guinea, but Mother

Jones will write a biting story chronicling their dealings, and human rights

groups will make sure this article gets into the hands of congressional in-

vestigators probing Equatorial Guinea; French oil companies may do busi-

ness in Gabon, but oil transparency organizations based in Paris and London

will make sure that sunlight is thrown on their corporate practices. But in

younger or weaker democracies like Thailand or South Africa or even Brazil,

civil society and the press are not necessarily so strong, and so powerful

groups that favor doing business with authoritarian neighbors can prevail

more easily. In Thailand, offering any criticism in the media of the army’s

policies, even over a subject like doing business in Burma, could prove haz-

ardous to a reporter’s health.

All these concerns— that change fosters instability, that Indian or

Brazilian or South African business groups will be hurt by their govern-

ments advocating democracy, that democracy promotion will link leaders

too closely with the United States— are exacerbated by having to compete

with authoritarian powers for the resources and the friendship of nations

like Burma, Venezuela, or Iran. In the early 1990s, the period when some

Indian offi cials like George Fernandes more strongly backed the Burmese

prodemocracy movement, Delhi could in some ways afford to antagonize

the Burmese government. At that time, the Burmese junta was still strug-

gling to attract investment following years of xenophobic socialism, and

India’s potential rival, China, had not yet established a sizable economic

presence in Burma. But by the early 2000s, when India sharply altered its

Burma policy, engaging the generals, it did so in large part because it feared

it was losing to China in a battle for Burma’s resources— its oil, gas, deep-

sea ports, and other attractions. In the 2000s and early 2010s, Chinese com-

panies built a new petroleum pipeline for annually transporting roughly

240,000 barrels of oil to China per day, as well as some twelve billion cubic

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

168 Failure of the Emerging Powers

meters of gas. Smaller Chinese fi rms came to dominate business across

northern Burma, where they imported electronics, industrial goods, and

virtually every other fi nished product and exported gems, logs, and other

natural resources to China.65 Chinese fi rms built a port in Burma that

could help Chinese intelligence gather information on Indian activities and,

feared some Indian strategists, could be part of a larger plan to encircle

India with Chinese ports.66

Concerned it was losing out strategically, eco nom ical ly, and diplomati-

cally, India changed course with Burma. The Burmese regime made sure

that its giant demo cratic neighbor received some benefi t from its policy

shift, though India certainly never gained the type of economic infl uence in

Burma that China has. India obtained the right to build several hydro-

power dams in Burma, and was given a chance to modernize a different

Burmese port.67 “This is a major strategic victory for us,” Indian power and

commerce minister Jairam Ramesh told Indian reporters.68

This fear of losing out to China on business and strategic deals if

an  emerging democracy focused too much on promoting democracy was

hardly restricted to Burma. Indian concerns about China’s growing infl u-

ence in Sri Lanka, where Beijing also was building new ports, added to

Delhi’s decision to remain quiet, in 2008 and 2009, as Colombo committed

massive human rights abuses in the waning days of the battle against the

Tamil Tigers.69 A desire to push back against the rising infl uence of China

in Central Asian states like Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, where many people

are of Turkic heritage and have cultural ties to Turkey, surely was a factor

in Ankara’s diplomatic overtures to the region, which also make little men-

tion of democracy or human rights abuses, even though Turkey routinely

positions itself as a kind of model Muslim democracy. And China’s rapid

and sizable investments across sub- Saharan Africa, where it has gone from

having little presence two de cades ago to being the continent’s largest trad-

ing partner and greatest source of fi nance and aid, has made other emerg-

ing powers in Africa, including South Africa and India, reconsider whether

they might lose commercial deals if they prioritize human rights and de-

mocracy in places like Angola and Congo, two countries where China has

made billions in investments.70

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the Emerging Powers 169

In Delhi, Pretoria, Brasilia, and other capitals of emerging powers,

some opinion leaders argue that, in the long run, democracy would be these

states’ competitive advantage, and that they would devalue that advantage

by seeking to out- China China, which they could never do anyway. “We

came to be seen as no different from China in pursuing a policy of uncon-

ditional support to the [Burmese] junta,” wrote Indian strategic analyst B

Raman, a former se nior offi cial in the Indian intelligence agency— a senti-

ment confi rmed to me by many Burmese activists, who wonder why India

would try to match China’s policy toward Burma when it could naturally

appeal to Burma’s reformers, who one day, most likely, will run the Bur-

mese government.71 After all, China’s support for the Burmese govern-

ment, along with an infl ux of Chinese businesspeople into central Burma,

led to a spike in anti- China sentiment, symbolized by a near- riot in the

Burmese city of Mandalay in the spring of 2011, after an argument between

Burmese and Chinese gem traders.72 Activists instead urge their leaders to

look back to their nations’ demo cratic heritage, or to their history of opposi-

tion to their own military dictatorships. And they suggest that, in the long

run, when citizens of nations like Zimbabwe or Iran or Burma have freed

themselves of their current autocratic rulers, those demo crats now in power

would remember— and reward— nations that stood by them when they

were fi ghting in opposition. But how could they be so sure? After all, when

they, the leaders of the ANC, or the Brazilian trade union opposition, had

fi nally reached the presidential palace, they quickly seemed to forget demo-

crats in other countries.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Yale University Press

Chapter Title: Failure of the West

Book Title: Democracy in Retreat Book Subtitle: The Revolt of the Middle Class and the Worldwide Decline of Representative Government Book Author(s): Joshua Kurlantzick Published by: Yale University Press. (2013) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bh31.13

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Democracy in Retreat

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

A s we have seen, democracy in the early part of the twenty- fi rst

century faces a serious range of threats, from empowered authori-

tarians to conservative middle classes to emerging giants uninter-

ested in democracy promotion. Yet the idea that democracy eventually,

ultimately, will be the end state of every nation on earth remains a powerful

concept. This idea of the inevitability of progress has existed for centuries,

since the Enlightenment, but in the past twenty years it was enunciated so

clearly by Fukuyama— an inevitability still publicly embraced by nearly

every major Western leader, despite the global democracy recession of the

past de cade, and despite the West’s own unwillingness to actually come to

the aid of embattled demo crats around the world. Obama himself, in a

2010 speech to the United Nations General Assembly captured this con-

cept of the inevitability of demo cratization, even if he was not prepared to

stake his presidency on promoting this idea in the Middle East. “History is

on the side of liberty,” Obama told the gathering of world leaders. “Democ-

racy, more than any other form of government, delivers for our citizens.”1

As we will see in the next chapter, in the long run democracy probably

is the best po liti cal system— not only because it allows people essential free-

doms but also because it provides the transparency and rule of law that in

the long run foster prosperity. Still, it is a mistake to assume that just be-

cause democracy has survived previous reverse waves in the 1930s and late

1960s— and in other times when undemo cratic governments gained global

power and nascent democracies in places like Germany and Latin America

and Greece fell prey to coups and other government takeovers— it is

predestined to survive in the developing world today. As po liti cal scientist

Failure of the West

10

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the West 171

Azar Gat notes in his study of the history of democracy, the Allies did not

win the Second World War because (excepting the Soviet Union) they were

demo cratic and held some moral high ground. They won because they

were the world’s industrial powers, facing off against two medium- sized

powers, Germany and Japan, which had nowhere near the industrial might

or the population of the Allies.2 Similarly, the Soviet Union collapsed in the

late 1980s not primarily because of its lack of po liti cal freedom, though its

collapse did trigger demo cratic change in other Eastern Eu ro pe an states,

but because its noncapitalist economic model, always fl awed, had reached

its limits and fi nally had begun to die.

What’s more, today democracy faces greater challenges than in the

previous two major reverse waves mentioned above. Though the Cold War

is now long over and some of the strategic factors that led the United States

and other Western powers to support autocratic rulers around the world

have vanished, other developments have empowered autocracy, including

the growing power of China, the global economic crisis, the decline of the

West, and the poor leadership of emerging democracies. These challenges

have no easy solutions, particularly when the United States’ democracy pro-

motion efforts have proven so shortsighted and infl exible.

We have touched upon some of the reasons why this current reverse wave of

antidemo cratization may be more serious than the reverse waves in the

1930s, 1960s, and early 1970s. But it is important to look at these threats to

democracy today together, and at how Western nations are failing in their

democracy promotion efforts. For one, the third and fourth waves are

vulnerable partly because democracy proliferated to a larger, more diverse

group of countries— in parts of the developing world like the Middle East

and Africa that had not played a part in the previous waves. In some ways,

of course, this spread strengthens democracy— when only a tiny handful

of countries, primarily in Eu rope and North America, fi t the defi nition of

democracies enunciated in the fi rst chapter, the possibility always existed

that, due to war or po liti cal change, democracy could be wiped off the

planet entirely. This is not going to happen today, since democracy, at least

in some form, has spread so widely around the globe. But, as we have seen,

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

172 Failure of the West

in the third and fourth waves, democracy came far faster to many nations

than in the previous waves, to countries that had only recently gained in de-

pen dence, or still lacked the foundations for solid growth, or remained

quite poor, or had such a weak rule of law that demo cratization made graft

worse. Because their demo cratic foundations are so weak, these third and

fourth wave nations are far more vulnerable to reversals than are many of

the countries in the fi rst and second waves of democracy’s spread, many

of which had more time to consolidate change and create stable demo cratic

institutions before facing the reverse waves of the 1930s and 1960s.

Because of the weakness of the newest democracies, the duration pre-

ceding the reversal of some of their gains has shortened, compared with

previous reverse waves. And since the reverse waves come so much more

quickly today, they pose a serious threat to these young democracies. While

third wave nations like Thailand took more than a de cade before recalci-

trant, conservative elements of the middle class, combined with an aggres-

sive military, were able to undermine even the most nascent reforms, in

countries that have seen the Arab uprisings, such as Egypt, this reversal took

less than a year to occur. In other third wave nations like the countries of

Eastern Eu rope, working class anger at the lack of improvements in eco-

nomic well- being during the demo cratic, post– Berlin Wall period, eventu-

ally led, over a de cade or more, to growing dissatisfaction with democracy

and, in some countries like Rus sia and Ukraine, a revival of authoritarian

leaders who promised higher growth and stability in exchange for weak-

ened demo cratic freedoms. In fourth wave countries like Malawi and Indo-

nesia, this dissatisfaction with the lack of equitable growth, and the rise and

spread of corruption, led to pop u lar sympathy for authoritarian rule in less

than a de cade from the time of demo cratization. Only a year after the ini-

tial uprisings in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, weak growth, crime, chaos, and

growing corruption already led to authoritarian nostalgia among the mid-

dle and upper classes.

Although the role of outside actors in demo cratization can be overstated,

they can play a substantial part; American democracy promotion does

matter, especially in states where the United States historically has wielded

outsized infl uence, such as Thailand or Liberia. “The strong, positive in-

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the West 173

corporation of democracy as a mutually reinforcing goal alongside US eco-

nomic and security interests in some places . . . has helped fi rm up the idea

in these countries or regions that democracy is the normal, expected out-

come,” writes Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for Interna-

tional Peace. In addition, he notes, during the 1990s, American assistance

for reform- minded civil society groups helped promote democracy in many

nations, and American diplomatic involvement at times helped stop threat-

ened coups in places like Ec ua dor and Paraguay.3 Indeed, a study of Amer-

ican democracy aid in the 1990s by researchers from Vanderbilt University

found that U.S. democracy assistance generally helped speed the pace of suc-

cessful demo cratization in developing nations.4 Meanwhile, the Eu ro pe an

Union’s increasingly aggressive democracy promotion, as well as the allure

of joining the EU itself, created powerful incentives for nations in Eastern

Eu rope in the 1990s to maintain reformist policies and alter their laws to

conform to the progressive norms of the EU. After the end of the Cold

War, the EU also provided substantial economic assistance to former East-

ern bloc countries like Poland, offered expertise in creating new po liti cal

institutions, and monitored their progress toward democracy, as part of the

preparation for future EU accession.5

Yet Western nations have too often made critical mistakes in their

democracy promotion: they have focused too much attention on whether

countries hold regular national elections, on the emergence of one charis-

matic and reform- minded “big man” leader like Susilo Bambang Yudhoy-

ono in Indonesia or Ellen Johnson- Sirleaf in Liberia, and on the ability of

new democracies to follow a pro cess of demo cratization that has become a

one- size- fi ts- all routine. This one- size- fi ts- all demo cratization strategy rarely

takes into account local cultural and economic conditions. What’s more,

Western powers, including the United States, too often do not look at either

the quality of the elections, the strength of other institutions besides elec-

tions, the complex characteristics of their favored “big man,” or— perhaps

most important— the level of public support in that nation for demo-

cratization.

Often, the focus on regular elections con ve niently makes it easier to

argue that a developing country is a success and move on; the West has

been relatively comfortable with weak democracies. As democracy theorist

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

174 Failure of the West

Larry Diamond notes, “Despite . . . po liti cal scientists warning of ‘the

fallacy of electoralism,’ the United States and many of its demo cratic allies

have remained far too comfortable with this superfi cial form of democ-

racy.”6 Counting a developing nation as a success thus allows Western na-

tions to justify an alliance with that country, or providing aid to it, or investing

there. This despite the fact that, in many developing nations, transitioning

from authoritarianism local citizens recognize that regular elections, even

if held freely and fairly, might not be the highest priority at the outset of

their demo cratic era. Two months after the collapse of Hosni Mubarak, a

poll of Egyptians, taken by the Pew Research Center, found that only about

half of Egyptians thought “honest, multiparty elections” were most impor-

tant in the country’s transition. Nearly 80 percent, by comparison, believed

that “a fair judiciary” was most important, and over 80 percent believed that

“improved economic conditions” were most important.7

It was in Cambodia in the late 1990s and early 2000s that I fi rst noticed this

easy ac cep tance of elections as the end- all of demo cratic change. Nonprofi t

workers at that time gathered most eve nings at one of the bars in Phnom

Penh along the slow- moving, chocolaty Mekong River to drink Tiger beer

over ice and snack on bowls of sliced chicken fl avored with piquant sliced

ginger and tiny, powerful chilis. In the run- up to the election in 1999, Cam-

bodian human rights groups and opposition parties had been reporting

numerous instances of intimidation, from beatings of opposition campaign-

ers to money being handed out to village chiefs to convince people to vote

for the ruling party. This type of intimidation had become common in

Cambodia during the 1990s, where the legacy of the Khmer Rouge geno-

cide had left a shattered and traumatized population, a high incidence of

violence, and a surplus of weapons. The crime pages of the local news-

papers read like horror scripts, with stories of villages beating to death petty

thieves, or people handling disputes by taking an axe to the other person.8

All of the aid workers, many of whom had lived in Cambodia since the

beginning of the massive UN assistance program in the early 1990s, which

ultimately cost over $3 billion and was charged to Western donors, had

heard about the intimidation; some had traveled to villages and had seen

the effects in person. The enormous reconstruction effort was partly due to

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the West 175

Western nations’ guilt over having done nothing during the Khmer Rouge

era, and partly because of a desire to court Cambodia as a new strategic ally.

Many of the aid workers remembered that, back in 1993, Prime Minister

Hun Sen of the ruling party had actually lost the national election and then

used the threat of force to convince the real winner to allow him to form a

co ali tion government. Only two years earlier, in 1997, a group of Americans

working for the International Republican Institute (IRI) had attended a

rally of the opposition Sam Rainsy Party, along with around two hundred

party supporters. In what seemed to be a well- planned attack, someone

tossed four grenades into the crowd, and the explosions killed at least six-

teen people and maimed at least a hundred, scattering limbs and other

body parts in the street.9 The leader of the IRI mission in Cambodia was

seriously wounded in the attack.

But when anyone brought up the problems with the elections, and the

general chaos, intimidation, and thuggery that was coming to characterize

all of Cambodian politics, no one wanted to respond. Turning the conversa-

tion to the unpleasant, even brutal nature of Cambodian politics would

force people to put down beers or stop talking about the latest affairs in

Phnom Penh’s incestuous foreigner society, or to admit that their massive

reconstruction effort was failing. As in Af ghan i stan later, the Cambodia

effort came to revolve around national elections, one big man, and a pro-

cess— a certain sequencing of elections, list of laws to be passed, and other

proscribed reforms— developed in post- Soviet states, but which bore little

resemblance to the people and problems of Cambodia, where local- level

government, and basic education about demo cratic pro cesses, were in far

greater need than in Eastern Eu rope. “Look at how far they [Cambodia]

have come since the Khmer Rouge era,” one aid worker said. “You have to

admit it’s impressive— even if there are problems with the election, they are

having an election, one generation after a genocide.” “Sure, there are some

problems,” said another aid worker who’d spent considerable time in vil-

lages where opposing the ruling party could be tantamount to a death sen-

tence. “But they’re still holding an election.”

Of course, compared with the past— in this case a past that constituted

one of the most genocidal regimes in history— elections where people cam-

paigning are only sometimes beaten up or harassed rather than murdered

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

176 Failure of the West

en masse were a step forward, but how long could the country be mea sured

against that low standard? How would any free elections be preserved in

the long run if the country’s po liti cal culture became more and more vio-

lent and repressive? How could Western donors push a demo cratization

pro cess on Cambodia developed in post- Soviet Eastern Eu rope, where coun-

tries were far richer and more stable, and had more experience with demo-

cratic politics? How could any donors put their trust in Hun Sen, leaving

no other po liti cal options other than the big man?

When I put these questions to foreign aid experts in Cambodia, or even

to local human rights activists, no one wanted to answer. And ten years

after my experience, in the late 1990s, Cambodia had not made much more

progress. As veteran journalist Joel Brinkley shows in Cambodia’s Curse, an

exhaustive investigation of the country’s current troubles, the UN and other

Western donors in Cambodia are still falling into “the fallacy of electoralism”—

they have focused almost exclusively on holding elections as a sign of prog-

ress, all but ignoring the other, more important, foundations of a free society.

As long as the Cambodian government holds regular elections, even elections

with no pretense of fair competition, Western donors continued to support

the government with aid, and mostly ignore it otherwise: in 2010, donors

pledged over $1 billion to Cambodia, even while at the same time noting that

corruption had become endemic in the country. And in this vacuum of any

external infl uence, Cambodia’s big man, long- ruling prime minister, Hun

Sen, and his cronies have robbed the country blind, sold off much of its

valuable land to China, and used unfair laws and outright thuggery to crush

the opposition.

The opposition parties that existed in the 1990s, during the early part

of the UN period, have crumbled in the face of per sis tent pressure from

Hun Sen’s Cambodian’s People’s Party, which now dominates the legisla-

ture as a one- party giant like Mexico’s old Partido Revolucionario Institu-

cional. Other opposition politicians are simply bought off: Brinkley describes

a common stratagem in which opposition politicians who agree to throw in

with the ruling party are given control of parts of certain ministries, which

allow them to loot public coffers.

Meanwhile, powerful men and women act with total impunity— they

can grab land, steal from the public trea sury, or even kill peasants without

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the West 177

facing any repercussions. In one too- common type of incident that occurred

in August 2008, a nephew of the prime minister ran down another man on

a motorcycle with his Escalade SUV, tearing off the other man’s arm and

leg and leaving him bleeding to death in the middle of a crowded street in

the capital. As the motorcycle driver expired on the street, military police

comforted Hun Sen’s nephew and took the license plates off of his car,

making it diffi cult for anyone to report the crime.10

If Cambodia illustrated the failure of electoralism, perhaps nowhere has

the reliance upon one big man been more disastrous than in Af ghan i stan, a

country that theoretically has been the center of the Obama administration’s

foreign policy efforts, despite the fact that it fi ts few of the qualities of other

countries ready for demo cratization, like Thailand, Rus sia, or Venezuela—

stability, urbanization, a history of some demo cratic institutions. From early

after the victory over the Taliban, the United States pinned its hopes on

Hamid Karzai, a man believed to combine Pashtun legitimacy and Western

liberal ideals— he and his family had lived in the West for de cades.11 As

in Liberia, Nigeria, Indonesia, and many other developing nations, in Af-

ghan i stan American offi cials failed to invest time studying and connecting

with a broad range of opinion leaders, and identifying a wide range of

potential demo cratic allies after the fall of the Taliban. Consequently, the

White House wound up personifying hopes for reform in the being of one

supposedly transformative leader— Karzai.

Karzai’s power would be legitimized through national presidential and

parliamentary elections, which he and the West could point to as obvious

signs of Af ghan i stan’s progress. But the focus on him, and legitimizing him

through national elections, even if they were fraudulent, distracted attention—

and funding— from fostering deeper demo cratic institutions, such as in-

vesting in creating a stable judiciary like the one that was critical to the

development of democracy in Israel’s early years, a decentralized series of

local and village elections like those that have transformed Indonesia, or a

vibrant civil society of NGOs like those that emerged in Taiwan’s early

years of transition. The United States and NATO developed some small

programs in all of these areas, but they were downplayed compared with

the military offensive, the backing for Karzai, and the holding of regular

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

178 Failure of the West

national elections, which could be held up to Afghans and Americans, and

to the media, as a sign of progress toward democracy.

In fact, Af ghan i stan, like Indonesia, could have been perfect for

decentralization— giving more power to local leaders through village and

township elections. The country had a tradition of local consultation and

governance, through the jirga pro cess, and was as ethnically diverse, if not

as geo graph i cally spread out, as a place like Indonesia. Indeed, in many vil-

lages across Af ghan i stan local leaders in the mid- 2000s had themselves

established such types of decentralized democracy, often with some help

from foreign aid organizations. Called local development councils, these

small groups managed local infrastructure projects that the central govern-

ment ignored, addressed local social welfare issues, and sometimes took the

place of the local courts in adjudicating disputes. The local development

councils proved enormously pop u lar, despite their meager funding from

the national government and a few foreign NGOs. As the Economist re-

ported, in some parts of the country they had become so pop u lar that,

when central government funds for the councils ran out for one year, villag-

ers worked together to petition foreign NGOs for aid.12 But Karzai appar-

ently saw even these local councils as a threat to his rule, and the kind of

progress made through these local- level efforts— new wells, more effective

annual audits of local government— rarely got much attention in the inter-

national media, and were hard to tout in a speech explaining Af ghan i stan

policy to the American public.

Perhaps these failures of democracy promotion might have mattered less,

but unlike the reverse waves of the 1960s and early 1970s, nascent democra-

cies today have new models of development that mix successful capitalism

with undemo cratic rule. As Gat points out, from the end of World War II

until very recently such alternative models did not exist; the only alternative

for smaller countries that chose capitalism over communism (itself not a

successful economic model) was to embrace demo cratization.13 But as we

have seen, that is no longer the case: smaller countries can copy the example

of China— and, to a lesser extent, Vietnam, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar,

or other successful authoritarian capitalists— and thus delink prosperous

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the West 179

free market capitalism from demo cratization. At a time when the quality

of governance in Western democracies has plummeted, refl ected by the

constant partisan deadlock in Congress, the two de cades of paralysis in

Japan, and the Eu ro pe an Union’s inability to agree on effective mea sures to

resolve its fi nancial crises, these alternative options of governance seem ever

more alluring. After all, Western citizens themselves seem to be losing faith

in their own governing models, resulting in waves of pop u lar protest on

both the left and the right, from the Occupy movement to the Tea Party

movement to the somewhat anarchic violent antistate protests in Greece

and Italy. As Charles Kupchan notes in an essay on the governability crisis,

and the rise of the authoritarian model, Western nations will essentially

have to copy some of the Chinese strategies, such as “strategic economic plan-

ning on an unpre ce dented scale [in order to prevent po liti cal and economic

collapse]. . . . State capitalism has its distinct advantages, at least for now.”14

And certainly, Kupchan notes, as citizens of developing nations see the West’s

leaders fl oundering, and Western living standards eroding, and Western

publics protesting and rioting, they will wonder why they should listen to

anything Western democracy promotion advocates say. Or as one State De-

partment offi cial focusing on democracy promotion said, “How can with a

straight face we be telling countries in Africa and the Middle East that they

need to develop better systems for governing when we can’t even pass a

bud get [in Congress]?”15

In the long run, the lack of transparency and openness may hinder the

rise of these authoritarian capitalists. China, for one, already faces a cor-

ruption epidemic so large that one China scholar estimates puts the cost to

government at $86 billion annually, and the lack of sunlight in Dubai’s fi nan-

cial and real estate markets helped precipitate a massive crash in the emirate

in the late 2000s.16 Still, in the short run most of the authoritarian capitalists,

and particularly China, have amassed relatively successful economic rec ords,

and so smaller countries no longer have to choose between demo cratic capi-

talism and authoritarian noncapitalism. No longer having to take into

account conservative middle classes— which, as we have seen, now have

serious doubts about democracy— they can enjoy economic benefi ts without

allowing po liti cal freedom for all their compatriots, which is an increasingly

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

180 Failure of the West

attractive bargain. Many members of the People’s Alliance for Democracy,

the conservative middle class Thai or ga ni za tion that, through street protests

and other demonstrations, has debilitated democracy and called for a return

of unelected leaders, spoke favorably of China’s model of development, a

model that would allow them to maintain their businesses and their wealth

without having to deal with the pop u lar power of the working classes.17

This sentiment praising China’s model is heard over and over from middle

class men and women in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Cambodia, and

many other countries.

In the aftermath of the Arab uprisings, such sentiments were heard, too,

in places like Egypt, where growth collapsed in 2011, partly because tourists,

so critical to the economy, were scared away, and partly because crime, graft,

and uncertainty undermined business and drove some of the brightest

talents out of the country. But having seen the successes of Gulf states like

Qatar, and of China, an increasingly powerful investor in Egypt, Egypt’s

business community increasingly wondered whether it might not have

prospered more under Mubarak, said Egypt expert David Schenker of the

Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The dictator, after all, had in

the 2000s committed to liberal economic reforms. Or, Schenker said, some

Egyptian business elites wondered whether they might do better under

some future Chinese- style autocratic government, even if that meant tolerat-

ing a far less open po liti cal system than in the year after Mubarak’s fall.18

Though the exigencies of the Cold War are a memory— the divide into

Soviet and American camps that led the United States to back dictators

from Zaire to Indonesia— other strategic changes have not necessarily proven

more hospitable to democracy. The war on terror in many ways mimics the

Cold War, with Washington offering new pledges of support to undemo-

cratic nations, like Malaysia or Morocco, countries whose leaders can more

readily hold prisoners indefi nitely and conduct brutal interrogations of

suspects.19 I recent years, in fact, as the Malaysian government has launched

a wide crackdown on hundreds of opposition activists trying to hold rallies

promoting clean and fair elections, with riot police beating demonstrators

including longtime opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, the United States and

other Western governments have barely paid notice. The Clinton adminis-

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the West 181

tration had explicitly criticized the Malaysian government’s Internal Secu-

rity Act, which allowed Kuala Lumpur to detain people indefi nitely. But the

Bush and Obama administrations muted that critique as Malaysia’s ability to

hold detainees became a valuable tool in combating terrorism.

Af ghan i stan again has been the apex of how exigency has trumped

democracy— even as the United States receives few benefi ts for making sup-

posedly “strategic” decisions. In Af ghan i stan’s 2009 presidential elections,

it became obvious months before the actual vote that Karzai and his allies

would rig the election, preventing Abdullah Abdullah, the former foreign

minister and a man generally viewed as more stable and liberal than Karzai,

from having any chance of winning. Karzai had handpicked an election

commission totally biased toward him, and on voting day it became clear

that whole regions had voted for one candidate, normally Karzai. In many

cases, polling sites counted their votes without ever opening them in public

view.20 An in de pen dent election monitor concluded that 1.3 million votes

had clear evidence of fraud; of these, 900,000 were for Karzai.21 Before the

vote, the government had made little real effort to create an in de pen dent

election watchdog, a court system that could scrutinize election violations,

or even a national apparatus to get polling places open. There was no legis-

lation designed to handle the fact that many candidates had criminal,

even murderous, backgrounds; indeed, the entire electoral system lacked

credibility among most voters, according to an analysis of the pro cess by

Scott Worden of the Af ghan i stan Electoral Complaints Commission, a

UN- appointed body during the 2009 vote.22

But the White House, and American diplomats on the ground, por-

trayed the election as a triumph for democracy, since Karzai, for all his

fraud, fi nally allowed a runoff between him and Abdullah— which Karzai

won handily. Diplomats from other countries pushed the United States to

condemn the election; Canadian ambassador to Af ghan i stan William Cros-

bie apparently told the Americans in early 2010 they should be “prepared

for a confrontation with Karzai” in order to stop him from rigging the 2010

parliamentary elections as he had the 2009 presidential election.23 Ameri-

can offi cials mostly ignored this advice, and no top American leader con-

demned the cheating and fraud in the election.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

182 Failure of the West

Indeed, the United States remained convinced that Karzai alone could

deliver effective counterterrorism cooperation, help cement the offensive

against the Taliban, and keep some kind of order. As in many other devel-

oping nations, U.S. offi cials seemed to feel that, once they had bet so much

on a “great man,” they had to double and redouble that bet; there was pre-

cious little willingness to step back and examine whether any possible alter-

native would be better both for American strategic aims and for the future

of Af ghan i stan’s democracy.24 They did so even after Karzai handed over

control of much of southern Af ghan i stan to his brother, who was reported

to be one of the largest drug traffi ckers in the country (before he was killed

by insurgents), and after the Afghan president pardoned or simply ignored

other drug traffi ckers moving massive quantities of opium in and out of the

country, thereby undermining a major initiative of the NATO program to

reduce opium production and create alternative economic strategies.25 In

the vacuum of leadership, the Taliban grew bolder and bolder, putting more

and more of the weight of fi ghting the insurgency in the hands of the United

States and its NATO allies, and allowing the Taliban to gain de facto con-

trol of more and more territory.

Too often, the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before

it, fell into another democracy promotion problem: failing to work with

developing nations’ leaders to manage their citizens’ expectations of what

democracy, and assistance, would actually do for them. Rarely did the White

House work with developing world leaders to approach democracy promo-

tion a different way, like a permanent po liti cal campaign. Approaching it

like a campaign would have meant, for one, trying to help manage pop u lar

expectations about what gains in the standard of living and effective gover-

nance democracy actually would bring to a developing country, at least in

the early years of demo cratization. It might have meant admitting that now

there are viable, serious alternatives to democracy in authoritarian states

like China, and that the West’s crises of governance have undermined some

of the appeal of liberal democracy to developing nations.

But American presidents and many leaders of developing nations in-

stead often promised to developing nations not only that democracy would

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the West 183

sweep the globe, bringing enormous po liti cal and economic benefi ts to aver-

age people, but that the United States would greatly assist that transforma-

tion. As Bush declared in his second inaugural address, “The policy of the

United States [is] to seek and support the growth of demo cratic movements

and institutions in every nation and culture. . . . The survival of liberty in our

land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best

hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world”26 In

2005 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice promised, during a trip to Egypt,

that the United States would abandon its policy of backing Arab autocrats,

saying, “We are supporting the demo cratic aspirations of all people. . . .

Our goal instead is to help others fi nd their own voice, to attain their own

freedom.”27 When democracy had spread to developing nations, Bush—

and, later, Obama— repeatedly suggested it would pacify civil confl icts,

unleash new waves of prosperity, and reduce in e qual ity.

Fostering these perceptions of democracy’s infallibility mattered. A Pew

Research poll taken only months after Egypt’s initial Tahrir Square uprising

showed that more than half of Egyptians believed that demo cratization

would make Egypt more prosperous— 56 percent of Egyptians expected the

economy to improve over the next year with Mubarak gone, even though

Mubarak actually had pursued relatively liberal economic policies during

the last de cade of his rule.28 Similarly, numerous studies of African states in

the early 2000s showed that large majorities of people believed democracy

would increase growth rates and reduce societal in e qual ity. Yet as we have

seen, in the early period of demo cratization growth often stagnates as newly

empowered parties push populist mea sures and compete for spoils, graft can

get worse, and civil confl ict can intensify.

Both the Obama and the Bush administrations knew democracy could

come, in the early stages, with such problems.29 Many American offi cials

working on democracy promotion had read the literature showing that, in

its early stages, democracy is not necessarily more linked to higher growth

than is authoritarian rule; some had worked in places like Kenya or the

Balkans where the initial period of demo cratization had made civil confl ict

worse; quite a few had read the literature, such as the books and articles

by Edward Mansfi eld and Jack Snyder, suggesting that countries initially

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

184 Failure of the West

transitioning to democracy may actually be more likely than authoritarian

states to engage in confl icts because they fall prey to nationalism, ethnic

confl ict, and interclass strife, without the stable institutions to rein in belli-

cose leaders like Vladimir Putin or Slobodan Milosevic.30 But neither West-

ern offi cials nor leaders of developing nations tried to manage public

expectations for what democracy would bring.

And partly because hopes had been raised so high in many developing

nations, the reality of democracy’s early stages proved such a letdown— a

major reason, as we have seen in places from Malawi to the Philippines to

Rus sia, why public support for democracy dropped in many developing

nations in the 2000s and early 2010s. Even in the countries of Central and

Eastern Eu rope, which were far wealthier than nations like the Philippines,

the economic downturn of the late 2000s and early 2010s, combined with

populations’ overestimation of how joining the EU and building democ-

racy would help stabilize their economies, led to precipitous drops in public

support for democracy in many Central and Eastern Eu ro pe an nations.

Conversely, in countries where the fi rst group of postauthoritarian lead-

ers made a serious effort to manage expectations, the population often has

been willing to accept slower growth, slower attempts to reduce in e qual ity,

and a longer time frame for effective economic reforms. In South Africa,

for example, shortly after assuming the presidency in 1994 Nelson Mandela

made clear, in a series of speeches, that he would not begin a rapid program

of land redistribution, that white capital remained necessary to the econ-

omy, and that serious in e qual ity would remain for years due to the adjust-

ments of the postapartheid era. South Africa’s poor were not thrilled by

these speeches, and some did demand a more rapid land redistribution

program than the moderate one that was designed. But public support for

Mandela’s administration stayed strong and, more importantly (since one

could attribute that support to Mandela’s enormous reserve of public good-

will), support for democracy as the preferred po liti cal system remained

high throughout the terms of Mandela and his far less beloved successor,

Thabo Mbeki. When questioned in polls, poor South Africans expressed

anger about how democracy had not led to equitable growth, enriching

mostly a small, new black middle class, but they remained committed to

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the West 185

demo cratic governance— and often told pollsters that they understood the

slow nature of change in a new democracy, exactly the message Mandela

had emphasized. Even under the term of Mbeki’s successor, Jacob Zuma, as

grievances over the lack of redistribution built up and led to larger public

protests against the government and against Zuma himself, they never seri-

ously threatened South Africa’s democracy.

Along with some local leaders’ failure to cater to the poor, the Bush and

Obama administrations further alienated working classes critical to suc-

cessful demo cratization by failing to make their democracy promotion

efforts as inclusive as possible. This lack of inclusion went beyond simply

focusing on one big man. “It was made clear to USAID and other embassy

staff working on the ground in Jordan that, if there was civil society, democ-

racy promotion programs that the [the government] didn’t want, those would

be gotten rid of,” said Tom Melia, a specialist on democracy assistance at

Freedom House who later went to work for the State Department.31 Indeed,

a comprehensive Freedom House report, released in 2009, found that

American offi cials “have sought to distance themselves from civil society

and human rights leaders who were not favored by the host government,”

even though the very defi nition of civil society often places its leaders in

opposition to government.32 In many cases, the Obama White House now

refuses to provide funding to any local NGOs that were not registered with

host governments, even though many governments have used registration

laws as a means of weeding out civil society groups they disapproved of.33

And when American diplomats visited developing countries, they shied

away from meeting a broad swath of po liti cal parties, which they would not

have thought twice about if they had been in France or Germany or Can-

ada, where American diplomats and offi cials have regular contacts with par-

ties currently in opposition, such as Canada’s Liberals. Many of the parties

ignored by Western offi cials in developing nations— Thailand’s Thai Rak

Thai, for instance— tended to be those representing the working classes, and

led by men and women who did not speak En glish or have much knowledge

of the United States, compared with more traditional liberal, secular, and

elite parties. But as in Thailand, those more populist parties eventually would

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

186 Failure of the West

triumph in the demo cratic system since they appealed to large majorities

of the population, leaving American diplomats, and American democracy

promotion efforts, largely unprepared for their assumption of power. When

Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell visited Thailand in 2009 and

2010, he occasionally tried to meet leaders not from the ruling Demo crat

Party but from other, more populist parties. Many Demo crat Party leaders

objected to Campbell’s breakfasts with the opposition, saying that American

offi cials had set no pre ce dent of meeting anyone but top government offi -

cials. They were right— Campbell’s breakfasts were unique, and few other

American offi cials followed his lead.34

This myopia also suggested to working classes in many countries that

the United States did not care to support demo cratization if elections did

not lead to outcomes Washington felt comfortable with. At its worst, this

myopic focus on only one or two elite- led parties in developing countries led

to at least tacit American support for extraconstitutional efforts by con-

servative middle classes to overthrow demo cratically elected, if unsavory,

leaders. As pressure built up in Thailand in 2006 among middle class Thais

unhappy with the government of Thaksin Shinawatra, American offi cials

said little publicly about the possibility of a coup. Many privately told Thai

peers that it would not be a disaster to see Thaksin replaced, since it might

result in the return of Abhisit’s Demo crat Party, the favorite of the military

and the crown.35 The American ambassador at the time, Ralph Boyce, clearly

saw a potential coup coming and warned offi cials in Washington and in

other Western embassies. But even after the coup occurred, in September

2006, the United States did little to sanction Thailand, continuing to hold

high- profi le joint military exercises with the Thai armed forces, which se-

nior Thai leaders interpreted as support for their actions. (The United States

did make some token downgrades of its ties with Thailand.) In one diplo-

matic cable released by Wikileaks, the U.S. ambassador in Thailand met

privately with the coup leader shortly after the putsch. Though the ambas-

sador had not been in favor of the coup, he knew that Washington was not

going to punish the Thai government severely, and he advised the coup

leader on how he could quickly show the United States and other Western

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the West 187

nations that Thailand was still on a demo cratic track, which would result

in completely restored diplomatic relations.36

Similarly, in Venezuela the Bush administration in 2002 refrained from

condemning a coup attempt against President Hugo Chavez; before the at-

tempt collapsed, press secretary Ari Fleischer seemed to be blaming the coup

on Chavez and quickly welcoming the coup leaders as legitimate. Chavez

has since been able to portray the United States’ Venezuela policy as decid-

edly undemo cratic, undermining any efforts by the United States to reach a

broad swath of Venezuelans beyond anti- Chavez middle classes and elites

with aid programs or other democracy assistance. Then, in 2011 the Obama

administration risked making the same mistake in another region, with

administration offi cials privately briefi ng reporters and suggesting that

the administration was not happy with the victory of Islamic parties in Mo-

rocco and Tunisia and other Arab states, before enough time had passed to

determine whether these parties were willing to govern within secular and

liberal demo cratic norms, and sometimes without distinguishing between

more hard- line and more moderate Islamic parties.

Even if the White House had developed a masterful democracy promotion

strategy, any policy requires funding to back it up. But too often rhetoric,

as in George W. Bush’s Second Inaugural Address, was not matched by re-

sources, or at least the wise use of resources. In most years the Bush admin-

istration did increase bud gets for democracy promotion, but it drastically

undermined the use of those funds by linking the war in Iraq to democ-

racy promotion, as well as by undercutting Bush’s rhetoric with undemo-

cratic practices such as rendition and torture. Bush’s policies essentially

equated democracy promotion with military intervention and regime

change, poisoning the idea of democracy promotion by suggesting that it

could be touted as a reason for the United States, unilaterally, to overthrow

governments that Washington opposed. Bush himself reportedly said in

April 2004, a time when American marines were fi ghting a bloody battle in

Fallujah, “If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek

them out and kill them!”37

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

188 Failure of the West

While the Bush administration had welcomed many dissidents to Wash-

ington, a strategy that at least helped pacify some middle class and elite opin-

ion leaders from developing countries, the Obama administration seemed

strangely aloof to dissidents, which only further alienated opinion leaders

from countries like Thailand, Malaysia, China, or Egypt. When several

prominent Ira ni an dissidents came to Washington in the summer of 2009

following the massive Green uprising in Tehran, they could not obtain meet-

ings with any se nior Obama administration offi cials.38 Similarly, many

Uighurs, Tibetans, Cubans, and other dissidents found it hard to get a meet-

ing with administration offi cials. Rabeeya Kadeer, the Uighur equivalent of

the Dalai Lama who had met with George W. Bush, found herself shunted

off to low- level State Department offi cials by Obama.39 Even when the

Dalai Lama visited Washington in 2009, the Obama administration did

not allow him to meet the president, the fi rst time the Tibetan leader had

come to Washington and not seen the president in nearly two de cades.40

Determined to take a new and less confrontational approach to democ-

racy promotion, the Obama administration shifted away from Bush’s belli-

cose tone, which was probably a wise idea. Added to the desire of drawing

a line between himself and George W. Bush, and the weakened position of

a debt- ridden, febrile American economy, Barack Obama himself seems to

have a natural inclination toward pragmatism and consensus. As historian

Walter Russell Mead notes in a lengthy essay on Obama’s foreign policy, the

president fell into the Jeffersonian tradition of American leaders who want

to “reduce America’s costs and risks overseas by limiting U.S. commitments

[and] believe that the United States can best spread democracy and support

peace by becoming an example of democracy at home.” 41

But the new president, too, failed to match rhetoric with the effective

use of resources. Between 2009 and 2011, the Obama administration re-

peatedly cut funding for core democracy promotion programs in some of

the biggest battlegrounds for demo cratization, despite the fact that several

of these programs had performed well in both internal and external audits

of fi nances and delivery of results. Although the White House in fi scal year

2011 and 2012 asked for funding to support some fi ve hundred new State

Department positions, these were primarily in consular departments. The

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the West 189

White House repeatedly cut democracy funding to Egypt, halving it to

$25 million annually in 2009, and then cut it again in 2010 and 2011, while

slashing the State Department’s broader Democracy Fund by 21 percent in

early 2011. The administration also cut the most important government-

affi liated democracy promotion or ga ni za tion, the National Endowment for

Democracy, reducing subsidies for it in 2011 by roughly 12 percent.42 “The

administration was looking across the board, and looking for places to cut,

and they were choosing to cut democracy assistance, and prioritizing other

areas, it wasn’t just democracy assistance getting cut along with everything,”

said Tom Melia of Freedom House, who later went to work for the State

Department.43 The White House also eliminated high- level positions on the

National Security Council that, under the Bush administration, had been

devoted to democracy promotion.44 At the State Department, the adminis-

tration appointed an Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights,

and Labor, Michael Posner, who in his previous work had been mostly fo-

cused on cleaning up America’s own abuses.45 This was not a bad thing—

the Bush administration indeed left major issues to resolve. But it meant

that the top offi cial in the State Department focused on democracy promo-

tion actually had had little experience with promoting democracy abroad

before he came to the job.

To be sure, in a tough fi scal climate, and dealing with a Congress con-

trolled by the opposition party beginning in 2010, the Obama administra-

tion was constrained, and the White House did not necessarily always cut

democracy funds in exchange for worse- performing or less useful programs.

But in many cases, it did. Overall, foreign aid funding decreased in the 2012

bud get, and congressional staffers made clear that there was little chance for

increases in the 2013 bud get. And the White House was not exactly getting a

lot of help from its friends and allies: consumed by its own fi scal crises, the

Eu ro pe an Union failed to agree in 2011 to create its own version of the Na-

tional Endowment for Democracy, a longtime goal of Eu ro pe an democracy

advocates.46 At the United Nations, the new secretary- general, Ban Ki- moon,

seemed uncomfortable with the rhetoric of democracy, and often took a

soft line. In dealing with some of the most recalcitrant nations, Ban usually

just backed down: Ban meekly left Burma in 2009 and 2010 after the regime

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

190 Failure of the West

refused to allow him to meet opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.47 By

contrast, when Kofi Annan served as secretary- general, he was far more

willing to criticize autocratic leaders who denied the UN human rights

rapporteurs access to their countries.

But of all foreign aid, democracy promotion funding has been but a

rounding error in the federal bud get, and it might well not have been held

up in Congress because, of all foreign aid programs, democracy promotion

has tended to be the most pop u lar on the Hill and with constituents, and it

also had been thoroughly examined by internal and external auditors, far

more than most other foreign aid programs. Indeed, in interviews with se-

nior staffers for GOP senators and representatives working on appropria-

tions, most said that they would have gone along had the administration

pushed hard for stable or higher levels of democracy funding.48 “If the ad-

ministration had come to us, and made clear that wanted to restore [i.e.,

maintain] funding for democracy aid in the bud get, I don’t think that would

have been a problem on appropriations,” said one se nior congressional

staffer. “No one wants to look like they are cutting money for democracy

and for protesters and activists.” 49

Even when the Obama administration did maintain or even increase fund-

ing for democracy promotion programs, it failed to shift programming to-

ward local needs, and away from USAID and State Department formulas.

I compared USAID democracy assistance strategies in twelve developing

nations, including countries as diverse as East Timor, Mozambique, and

Bosnia. Almost without exception, the strategic planning documents, the

priorities for the programs, and the actual methods of implementation were

the same for each country. Successful democracy promotion must be fl exible,

adapting to local conditions and involving a wide range of local actors. But in

country after country, this was not happening with USAID and State.

This survey was hardly unique. In a similar study of American democ-

racy promotion efforts, Matthew Alan Hill of the University of London

found that USAID rarely employed case- specifi c strategies, in part because

it knew that if it used strategies that already had been vetted throughout the

entire bureaucracy and procurement pro cess, it was unlikely to be criticized

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the West 191

later. “Af ghan i stan had four years of drought, famine, and a greater level of

absolute poverty than Bosnia, but Bosnia had lost over half its population

during the confl ict. . . . Despite these differences there was an assumption

that democracy could be developed using the same strategy in each case,”

he found.50 “The sub- program areas [i.e., the specifi cs of assistance on the

ground] are nearly identical.” Or, as Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie

Endowment noted after participating in multiple USAID assessments,

American democracy promotion remained wedded to pro cess, leading to

“lamentable patterns of infl exibility, cumbersomeness, lack of innovation,

and mechanical application.”51

At times, Western leaders like Obama simply seemed to abdicate democ-

racy promotion, assuming that the spread of new technology would take on

the burden of fomenting po liti cal change. Indeed, many Western leaders

and writers argue that technology is a new factor and will strengthen the

third and fourth wave democracies, smoothing their paths to freedom. Cell

phones, the Web, Internet calling technologies like Skype, and social media

sites like Facebook will, in theory, allow activists to or ga nize large numbers

of people quickly and easily, and without subjecting their communications

to government surveillance. In some respects, Western leaders seem to want

to believe in the power of transformative technology because technology,

combined with globalization, would let them off the hook— if the Internet

is going to change societies, then all Washington has to do is support Inter-

net freedom in other nations, without the kind of hard choices of publicly

backing real activists in countries like Thailand or Malaysia, where the

American government has close ties with ruling governments.

What’s more, techno- optimists believe, the spread of the Internet and

mobile communications will make it nearly impossible for governments to

censor information from their publics, since savvy netizens could always

access free, unfettered information online or by calling outside the country.

The new technology also theoretically will make it easier for activists to

share their thoughts with the wider public, without having to use tradi-

tional platforms like tele vi sion and the print media. “The networked popu-

lation is gaining greater access to information, more opportunities to engage

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

192 Failure of the West

in public speech, and an enhanced ability to undertake collective action,”

wrote Clay Shirky of New York University, one of the most prominent

techno- optimist writers. In 2000 President Bill Clinton said, “In the new

century liberty will spread by . . . cable modem,” and other prominent West-

ern leaders followed up with similarly optimistic projections. Clinton’s succes-

sor, George W. Bush, promised, “If the Internet were to take hold in China,

freedom’s genie would be out of the bottle,” and, under President Obama,

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launched a new American initiative to

promote global Internet freedom. Announcing the initiative, Hillary Clin-

ton declared, “Now, in many respects, information has never been so free.

There are more ways to spread more ideas to more people than at any mo-

ment in history. And even in authoritarian countries, information networks

are helping people discover new facts and making governments more ac-

countable.”52 Some cyberactivists even got the Internet nominated for the

2010 Nobel Peace Prize, theoretically for its transformative impact on global

po liti cal life.53

The media, too, are hardly immune from techno- exuberance, touting

the growth of the Internet as a de facto sign of po liti cal opening and exu-

berantly highlighting the use of new technology in virtually every po liti cal

protest or civil society gathering. Even New York Times columnist Thomas

Friedman, a longtime cynic regarding change in the Middle East, wrote,

“The Internet and globalization are acting like nutcrackers to open societ-

ies.”54 Friedman’s colleague, columnist Nicholas Kristof, wrote that in “the

quintessential 21st century confl ict . . . on one side are government thugs

fi ring bullets [and] on the other side are young protesters fi ring tweets.”55

The impact of technology is so great, both for activists and for authori-

tarian governments, that it should be neither celebrated as a revolutionary

tool destined to promote democracy nor feared as a powerful device of

autocracy. Instead, technology can cut both ways, a prospect few of the new

techno- utopians seem to realize. Some successes by activists or ga niz ing

through the Web, or through cell phones, have stoked this enthusiasm. Fili-

pino activists gathering in Manila in early 2001 to protest corruption or ga-

nized their marches through text messages, a template that later rallies in

Manila would follow.56 In the Orange and Rose revolutions in Ukraine and

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the West 193

Georgia, many activists used mobile phones and text messages to or ga nize

demonstrations, while in Moldova in 2009, protests or ga nized largely by

text messages, Facebook, and the microblogging site Twitter helped restore

a legitimate government after a clearly fraudulent election.

In the winter of 2010– 11, Tunisian and then Egyptian and Bahraini

activists used social media and mobile technology to or ga nize antigovern-

ment protests and disseminate articles that chronicled the corruption and

repression of the governments of Zine el Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni

Mubarak. In January 2011, Ben Ali’s government collapsed, and he fl ed the

country, followed soon after by Mubarak.57 In the central areas of Tunis, ac-

tivists painted graffi ti that read, “Thank you Facebook.”58 One of the heroes

of the anti- Mubarak revolution was a local Google executive, Wael Ghonim,

who was detained for over a week by Mubarak’s security forces.59

Activists in other Arab- Muslim countries employed similar usage of

cell phones, text messages, and social media, and major technology com-

panies like Google launched divisions designed to develop tools that might

help demo cratic activists around the world.60 By the early 2010s, some activ-

ists in developing nations began to travel to other countries to share infor-

mation on the best ways to use new technology for or ga niz ing.61

The impact of the Internet, social media, and mobile communications

technology on demo cratic change is far too nuanced, and complex, to be

explored in depth here— there are entire books dedicated to this question.

But it is clear that while social media, the Internet, and mobile phones have

helped activists push for greater democracy in some developing nations,

they also at times have enabled governments to monitor and censure activ-

ists, and even to forestall demo cratization entirely.

Simply the spread of Internet access certainly has not ensured freer

politics or demo cratic consolidation. Technology often matters most in the

early stages of demo cratic change, when activists can use social media or

cell phones to or ga nize public protests and other high- profi le activities,

which rouse people out of their everyday routines, and require less long- term

commitment. But in societies that have already begun transitions to democ-

racy, and where what is required for demo cratic consolidation is sustained,

diligent reformist advocacy— such as monitoring government transparency,

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

194 Failure of the West

launching NGOs and in de pen dent media outlets, and maintaining pres-

sure on government offi cials, judges, or other civil servants— these emerg-

ing technologies, which do not develop bonds as close as those in old- fashioned

or ga niz ing, appear less effective. The weak bonds built by technology’s new

tools such as social media often wilt under pressure from governments, and

are not strong enough to keep citizens coming back to the regular, more

mundane institutions of civil society critical for a democracy— town hall

meetings, ongoing public demonstrations, or elections for local offi ces. Writer

Malcolm Gladwell has dubbed this “slacktivism”— the idea that the Inter-

net leads to casual participation in groups, since the barriers to entry are

very low, compared with old- fashioned or ga niz ing, which requires people

to leave their homes, attend meetings in another place, and participate in

rallies where they would potentially face physical danger. “The platforms

of social media are built around weak ties. Twitter is a way of following, or

being followed, by people you may never have met,” Gladwell writes. “Weak

ties seldom lead to high- risk activism.”62 In his native Belarus, writer Evgeny

Morozov, author of the prominent new techno- skeptic book The Net Delu-

sion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, saw the effect of such weak bonds.

Belorus sian activists, he found, focus on the Internet, which appears to

them capable of doing “politics remotely, anonymously, and on the cheap.”63

But, he fi nds, no social media or online or ga niz ing in Belarus has been able

to match the government’s control, or generate the type of grassroots move-

ment necessary to seriously challenge the government through consistent

and repetitive actions.

Authoritarian governments, and even elected autocrats like Hun Sen,

Putin, or Chavez, increasingly understand that, outside of charismatic street

protests, technology often creates weak bonds— bonds that they can exploit

or crush. In Thailand the growth of the Internet, while allowing some

degree of discussion of topics like labor rights, environmental concerns, cor-

ruption, the future of the powerful Thai monarchy, and military repression,

has not clearly helped boost opposition politics, except when the opposi-

tion has used technology to help or ga nize rallies in Bangkok. Thai opposi tion

activists admit that, in getting participation for regular activities like petition-

writing or weekly protests, old- fashioned methods like calling friends and

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the West 195

neighbors have proven more effective. The Thai Internet, which has pene-

trated most Thai house holds, also has given rise to hard- core, nationalist,

royalist, and progovernment activists who use the Web to attack— and

sometimes to cause the arrest of— opposition politicians who do try to dis-

cuss the future of the monarchy, even if they make only the most benign

comments about the royal family.64 And during the Arab uprisings of 2010

and 2011, many autocratic Arab regimes launched similar types of attacks

on opposition leaders. Bahrain’s government used Facebook to create a

smear campaign against Mohammed al- Maskati, a prominent human rights

activist, while Sudan’s government allegedly used Facebook to barrage

opposition movements, and anyone else, with reams of false information

about prodemocracy movements’ aims and gatherings.

Many authoritarians and elected autocrats also have developed highly

sophisticated methods of monitoring and fi ltering websites, often based on

China’s comprehensive “Great Firewall,” which make it harder for people

to use technology to or ga nize or gain access to free news. Unlike older forms

of communication, like face- to- face or ga niz ing in dissident Eastern Eu-

rope, the Internet’s bonds often prove weak enough that fi ltering and block-

ing successfully prevent activists from or ga niz ing. Thailand now blocks some

100,000 websites, according to an analysis by one Thai NGO; theoretically,

this blocking is to prevent online discourse harmful to the Thai monarchy,

but in reality it serves to censor a wide range of po liti cal opposition.65 Since

Thailand’s Internet laws banning content offensive to the monarchy are so

broad that they could be used against virtually any Internet user, they scare

all users, keeping many even from exploring sites that mention the royal

family but that otherwise are devoted to criticism of the Thai government.

Even some of the most prominent Thai academics and writers who’d con-

sidered themselves immune from po liti cal pressure now report that they

increasingly watch what they say and post online.66

Other nascent democracies, like Malaysia, have attempted or considered

similar blocks to prevent opposition parties or other civil society groups from

or ga niz ing online, or they apparently have used “denial of ser vice” attacks to

shut down opposition groups’ websites and forums.67 Singapore has drafted

broad Internet laws that could implicate many Web users, and has reinforced

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

196 Failure of the West

paranoia by occasionally notifying the public that the government- linked

Internet provider has snooped through users’ Web accounts.68

Some authoritarian or elected autocrat governments also use state- backed

commentators to control online discourse and threaten po liti cal opponents.

After all, activists have no monopoly on the Web. In emerging democracies,

as in the West, most Internet users are not logging on to join a po liti cal cause

but to play games, read soccer scores, download music, or watch pornogra-

phy. And governments can use the Internet to promote their messages, to

fl ood the Net with progovernment writings, to swamp the blogs and other

accounts of activists, or simply to create enough mindless entertainment that

average people do not focus on online politics. The Internet is perfect for

these kinds of distractions. As writers like Cass Sunstein have noted, the

Internet is particularly well suited to disseminating false and unreliable infor-

mation, since it has no fact- checking and tends to create echo chambers, in

which people with similar beliefs search for information that confi rms

their ideas.69

Rus sia seems to have particularly perfected using the Internet to

distract and confuse the populace. The Kremlin has its own funded “Web

brigades” that attack liberals and praise Prime Minister Putin, and the

Kremlin also apparently is considering creating a “national search engine”

modeled on Google but that will fi lter out content that Moscow considers

dangerous to the state.70 The Kremlin also has launched many other strate-

gies to co- opt bloggers by creating state- controlled online forums for them.

As Morozov notes in The Net Delusion, the Rus sian state not only has co-

opted bloggers but also has played a role in producing a wide range of on-

line entertainment programming that is both highly enjoyable and clearly

nationalist and pro- Kremlin. This entertainment includes a beautiful blonde

blogger named Maria Sergeyeva, who both praises Vladimir Putin and blogs

about her personal life like Paris Hilton or some comparable American ce-

lebrity.71 “At some point, economies of scale begin to kick in,” writes Moro-

zov. “The presence of paid commentators [advocating for the government

online] may signifi cantly boost the number of genuine supporters of the re-

gime, and the new converts can now do some proselytizing of their own.”72

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Failure of the West 197

Worse, by creating their own personal Web pages or Facebook pages,

activists are building the kinds of dossiers about themselves that, in the old

days, government security ser vices had to work hard to piece together,

using timely legwork and bugging of dissidents’ homes, which could take

months or even years. Now this information is easily available online. It also

has become easier for the security ser vices to follow dissidents, since they can

track groups of them online rather than having to infi ltrate actual meetings

of dissidents in people’s homes or bars. Many Syrian and Ira ni an protesters,

for example, believe that Damascus and Tehran use protest leaders’ Facebook

pages and other online identifi ers to fi nd them and their friends during anti-

government demonstrations.73 Similarly, in Thailand, many activists believe

that the government has used monitoring of social media to follow and, in

some cases, detain people opposed to the military- backed government.74

The technology that became available in earlier waves of demo cratization

was not so easy for regimes to adapt for their own purposes. Part of the

challenge for activists and foreign powers trying to support democracy is to

develop ways that new technology can mimic the strong bonds and effective

penetration of older communication technologies. Fax machines, which

dissidents in Eastern Eu rope used before 1989, and shortwave radios were

basically an upgrade on old- fashioned printing presses that could circulate

samizdat literature or advertisements for rallies, but they did not allow gov-

ernments to collate massive amounts of information about democracy activ-

ists. And although the fax machine was more modern than state- controlled

radio and television— communication methods that people in authoritarian

states tended to fi nd boring and consequently often ignored— regimes found

that faxing was neither a more complete nor more sophisticated way to fl ood

their country with their own propaganda and entertainment. The oldest tool

of all, oral messages relayed from person to person, among small groups of

friends and neighbors, remains the most effective form of communication;

when a close friend or neighbor invites someone to participate in an activity,

the likelihood that he or she will do so is high, since the person will have to

see that friend or neighbor again, and since he or she can experience a real

sense of close community by joining friends in such group activities. Indeed,

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

198 Failure of the West

recent experiments by po liti cal scientists Aaron Strauss and Allison Dale

have found that text messaging and e-mails—particularly when sent from

strangers and not from friends or relatives— are relatively in effec tive in

voter mobilization, in terms of increasing voter turnout. Numerous other

studies have found similar results, concluding that e-mail and other similar

tools are in effec tive in voter mobilization. But, if activists can transform

social media or cell phone networking to mimic the effects of more tradi-

tional or ga niz ing, authoritarian governments will have much more to fear.

This content downloaded from 169.228.74.230 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:48:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1

Introduction

In late-century Africa, things fell apart. By way of illustra-tion, consider Figure 1.1, which lists civil wars in African countries from 1970 to 1995, as judged by the World Bank.

As time passes, the list grows. Angola, Chad, Namibia,

Nigeria, and Sudan enter the 1970s war-torn; in the mid-1970s,

Sudan exits the list, but Equatorial Guinea and Zimbabwe join

it; by 1980, Zimbabwe departs from the ranks of the war-torn,

but is replaced by Mozambique, Nigeria, and Uganda. The

pattern – a few dropping off, a larger number entering in –

continues into the early 1990s. Only one country that was con-

flict ridden in 1990 becomes peaceful by 1992, while eleven

others crowd into the ranks of Africa’s failed states.

Humanitarians, policymakers, and scholars: Each de-

mands to know why political order gave way to political con-

flict in late-century Africa. Stunned by the images and realities

of political disorder, I join them in search of answers. In so

doing, I – a political scientist – turn to theories of the state and

3

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.001 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

year 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Burundi

Chad

Congo

Djibouti

Ethiopia

Kenya

Liberia

Mali

Mozambique Namibia

Nigeria Rwanda

Senegal

Sierra Leone Somalia Sudan

Uganda Congo

Zimbabwe

Figure 1.1. Civil wars, Africa 1970–1995. Source: World Bank (Sambanis 2002).

4

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO 9781316423974.001

to the Cam bridge Core term

s of use, available at https://w w

w .cam

bridge.org/core/term s.

D ow

nloaded from https://w

w w

.cam bridge.org/core. Access paid by the U

C San D iego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Introduction

locate the sources of political disorder midst the factors that

lead states to break down.

I anchor this book in the work of Weber (1958) and view

coercion as the distinctive property of politics. As will become

clear in the next chapter, I depart from Weber – and his “struc-

turalist” descendants1 – by turning to the theory of games.

Driven by the realities of Africa, I view political order as

problematic: In light of the evidence Africa offers, political

order cannot be treated as a given. Rather, I argue, it results

when rulers – whom I characterize as “specialists in violence” –

choose to employ the means of coercion to protect the creation

of wealth rather than to prey upon it and when private citizens

choose to set weapons aside and to devote their time instead

to the production of wealth and to the enjoyment of leisure.2

When these choices constitute an equilibrium, then, I say,

political order forms a state.3

To address the collapse of political order in late-century

Africa, I therefore return to theory – the theory of the state – and

to theorizing – the theory of games. I do so because proceeding

in this fashion points out the conditions under which political

order can persist – or fail. I devote Chapter 2 to an informal

1 Evans, P., T. Skocpol, and D. Rueschmeyer (1985), Bringing the State Back In, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press provides perhaps the best-known example.

2 I am drawing on Bates, R. H., A. Greif, et al. (2002), “Organizing Violence,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 46(5): 599–628.

3 The ambiguous phrasing is intended.

5

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.001 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Introduction

derivation of those conditions. In the remaining chapters, I

turn from deduction to empirics and explore the extent to

which these conditions were to be found, or were absent, in

late-century Africa. The evidence leads me to conclude that

in the 1980s and 1990s, each of three key variables departed

from the levels necessary to induce governments and citizens

to choose in ways that would yield political order.

The Literature

Following the outbreak of conflict in Serbia, Somalia, Rwanda,

and elsewhere, the study of political violence has once again

become central to the study of politics. Familiar to many, for

example, would be the attempts by Collier and Hoeffler (2004)

and Fearon and Laitin (2003) to comprehend the origins of civil

wars. Also familiar would be studies of the impact of ethnic-

ity (Fearon and Laitin 2003), democracy (Hegre, Gates et al.

2001; Hegre 2003), and natural-resource endowments (e.g.,

Ross 2004). In my attempts to comprehend why things fell

apart in late-century Africa, I draw upon these writings. But I

also take issue with them, for virtually all share common prop-

erties from which I seek to depart.

Consider, for example, the assumption that civil war can be

best treated as the outcome of an insurgency. When thinking

about the origins of political disorder in Africa, I can find no

way of analyzing the origins of insurrection without starting

6

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.001 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Introduction

with the behavior of governments. The conditions that led

to the breakdown of order in Africa include the authoritarian

nature of its states and their rulers’ penchant for predation. By

rendering their people insecure, they provoked insurgencies.

While both insurrectionaries and incumbents must necessar-

ily feature in the analysis of political disorder, in this instance it

makes sense not to focus exclusively on the rebels but to stress

as well the behavior of those whom they seek to drive from

power.

Recent contributions exhibit a second common feature:

the methods that they employ. Utilizing cross-national data,

they apply statistical procedures to isolate and measure the

relationship of particular variables with the onset and duration

of civil wars. I, too, make use of cross-national data; but rather

than collecting data for all countries in the globe, I restrict my

efforts to Africa. I do so in part because Africa provides an

unsettling range of opportunities to explore state failure and

because political disorder is so important a determinant of the

welfare of the continent. I also do so because I find it necessary

to draw upon my intuition. To employ that intuition, I need

first to inform it, be it by immersing myself in the field or in

qualitative accounts set down by observers. I have therefore

made use of a selected set of cases – those from the continent

of Africa – and my knowledge of their politics.4

4 The use of a subset of countries also eases the search for exogenous vari- ables, and thus causal analysis. For example, given the small size of Africa’s

7

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.001 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Introduction

Lastly, if only because they are based on the analysis of

cross-national data, contemporary studies exhibit a third

property: Their conclusions take the form of “findings.” These

findings are based upon relationships between a selection of

key variables and the outbreak or duration of civil wars. Collier

and Hoeffler (2004), for example, stress the importance of

“opportunities,” that is, chances to secure economic rewards

and to finance political organizations. Noting that the magni-

tude of primary product exports, the costs of recruiting, and

access to funding from diasporas relate to the likelihood of

civil war, they conclude that “economic viability appears to be

the predominant systematic explanation of rebellion” (p. 563).

Fearon and Laitin (2003), by contrast, conclude that “capa-

bilities” play the major role: “We agree that financing is one

determinant of the viability of insurgency,” they write (p. 76).

But they place major emphasis on “state administrative, mil-

itary, and police capabilities” (p. 76), measures of which bear

significant relationships to the outbreak of civil wars in their

global set of data.

In this work, I proceed in a different fashion. I start by

first capturing the logic that gives rise to political order. While

I, too, test hypotheses about the origins of disorder, I derive

economies, I can treat global economic shocks as exogenous – something that yields inferential leverage when seeking to measure the impact of economic forces on state failure.

8

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.001 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Introduction

these hypotheses from a theory. By adopting a more deductive

approach, I depart from the work of my predecessors.

Key Topics

Energized by such works as Kaplan’s “The Coming Anarchy”

(1994), students of Africa have focused on the relationship

between ethnic diversity and political conflict. At least since

the time that William Easterly and Ross Levine penned “Africa’s

Growth Tragedy” (1997), empirically minded social scientists

have sought to capture the impact of ethnicity on the eco-

nomic performance of Africa’s states. Interestingly, however,

they have found it difficult to uncover systematic evidence of

the relationship between measures of ethnicity and the likeli-

hood of political disorder.5

In this study I, too, find little evidence of a systematic rela-

tionship. And yet, the qualitative accounts – be they of the

killing fields of Darfur or of the tenuous peace in Nigeria – con-

tinue to stress the central importance of ethnicity to political

life in Africa. In response, I argue that ethnic diversity does

not cause violence; rather, ethnicity and violence are joint

5 For a discussion, see Bates, R. H., and I. Yackolev (2002), Ethnicity in Africa, in The Role of Social Capital In Development, edited by C. Grootaert and T. van Bastelaer, New York: Cambridge University Press; and Fearon, J., and D. Laitin (2003), “Ethnicity, Insurgency and Civil War,” American Political Science Review 97(1): 75–90.

9

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.001 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Introduction

products of state failure. Their relationship is contingent: It

occurs when political order erodes and politicians forge polit-

ical organizations in the midst of political conflict.

The political significance of resource wealth has also

attracted much attention. Analyzing their data on civil wars,

Collier and Hoeffler (2004) report that “dependence upon pri-

mary commodity exports” constituted “a particularly power-

ful risk factor” for the outbreak of civil war (p. 593). Africa

is, of course, noted for its bounteous natural endowments of

petroleum, timber, metals, and gemstones. And scholars and

policymakers have documented the close ties between the dia-

mond industry and UNITA (National Union for the Total Inde-

pendence of Angola) in Angola (Fowler 2000), the smuggling

of gemstones and the financing of rebels in Sierra Leone (Reno

2000), and the mining of coltan and the sites of rebellion in

eastern Zaire (present-day Democratic Republic of the Congo)

(Kakwenzire and Kamukama 2000).

And yet, using Collier and Hoeffler’s (2004) own data,

Fearon (2005) has demonstrated that their findings are frag-

ile, depending in part on decisions about how to measure

and classify cases. In this study, too, I fail to find a signifi-

cant relationship between the value of natural resources and

the likelihood of state failure.6 Once again, then, there arises

6 For both Fearon (2005) and myself (this work), only the value of petroleum deposts is related to political disorder. Even here the relationship is fragile, however.

10

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.001 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Introduction

a disparity between the evidence from cross-national regres-

sions and that from qualitative accounts. I shall argue that the

disparity suggests that the exploitation of natural resources

for war finance is a correlate rather than a cause of political

disorder.

A third factor plays a major role in the literature: democ-

ratization. Qualitative accounts, such as those of Mansfield

and Snyder (Mansfield and Snyder 1995; Snyder 2000) sug-

gest that democratization produces political instability and

leads to the mobilization of what Zakaria (1997) calls “illib-

eral” political forces. Careful empirical researchers, such as

Hegre (Hegre, Gates et al. 2001; Hegre 2004), confirm that new

democracies and intermediate regimes – those lying some-

where between stable authoritarian and consolidated demo-

cratic governments7 – exhibit significantly higher rates of civil

war. As demonstrated by Geddes (2003), many of these inter-

mediate regimes are the product of the “third wave” of democ-

ratization (Huntington 1991) and the collapse of communist

regimes and are therefore themselves new and vulnerable to

disorder.

In the 1980s and 1990s, many of Africa’s governments

reformed. Regimes that once had banned the formation

of political parties now faced challenges at the polls from

7 Using Polity coding. Available online at: http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/ polity/.

11

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.001 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Introduction

candidates backed by an organized political opposition. And

in the late 1980s and early 1990s, militias assembled, states

failed, and Africa faced rising levels of political disorder. The

experience of Africa thus appears to conform to what the liter-

ature has recorded: Electoral competition and state failure go

together.

In analyzing the impact of political reform, I employ two

measures: the movement from military to civilian rule and the

shift from no- or one- to multiparty systems. In discussions of

democracy, the followers of Schumpeter (1950) argue for the

sufficiency of party competition; those of Dahl (1971) contend

that party competition is necessary but not sufficient. Without

an accompanying bundle of political and civil rights, the latter

argue, contested elections are not of themselves evidence of

democratic politics. In debates over the relationship between

party systems and democracy, I concur with the followers of

Dahl. When addressing political reform, I pay no attention to

the number of political parties, their relative vote shares, or

the conditions under which the opposition is allowed to cam-

paign. I therefore address not the relationship between democ-

racy and political conflict but rather the relationship between

political reform and political disorder.

Lastly, there are those who emphasize the impact of pov-

erty. That poverty and conflict should go together is treated

as noncontroversial, as if disorder were simply an expected

12

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.001 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Introduction

corollary of the lack of economic development.8 But consider:

If, as many argue, lower per capita incomes imply lower wages

and therefore lower costs of rebellion, so too do they imply

fewer gains from predation; income thus cancels out the ratio

between the costs and benefits. From the theoretical point of

view, moreover, there is simply little that can be said about the

relationship between the average level of income – or, for that

matter, poverty – and incentives for violence. As I will argue

in Chapter 2, for our purposes, discussions of private income

can be set aside; for the logic of political order suggests that

the focus be placed not on private income but rather on public

revenues. Economic shocks will indeed play a major role in this

analysis, but the focus will be on their impact on the revenues

of states, not on the incomes of individuals.9 In this work, when

I measure the impact of income per capita, I treat it as a control

variable, rather than as a variable of theoretical interest.

In Chapter 2, I parse the logic of political order. I recount the

theory informally, portraying the interaction between govern-

ments and citizens and among citizens as well. Presented as a

8 Indeed, see Sambanis, N., and H. Hegre (2006), “Sensitivity Analysis of Empirical Results on Civil War Onset,” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 50(4): 508–35. The authors point to per capita income as one of the very few variables that bears a robust relationship with civic violence.

9 See the arguments in Hirshleifer, J. (1995), Theorizing About Conflict, in Handbook of Defense Economics, edited by K. Hartley and T. Sandler, New York: Elsevier.

13

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.001 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Introduction

fable, the argument is based upon rigorous foundations and

points to the conditions under which governments choose to

engage in predation and citizens choose to take up arms.10

Chapters 3 through 5 set out the conditions that prevailed

prior to the collapse of political order. They document the

social and political configurations that were in place at the

time of the impact of the economic and political shocks that

dismantled the state in Africa. In Chapter 6, states fracture

and political disorder engulfs nations in Africa. Chapter 7

concludes.

10 The informed reader will note the parallels between my analysis and that of Azam, J.-P., and A. Mesnard (2003), “Civil War and the Social Contract,” Public Choice 115(3–4): 455–75; Snyder, R., and R. Bhavani (2005), “Diamonds, Blood and Taxes: A Revenue-Centered Framework for Ex- plaining Political Order,” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 49(4): 563– 97; and Magaloni, B. (2006), Voting for Autocracy, New York: Cambridge University Press.

14

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.001 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

2

From Fable to Fact

Idevote this chapter to the exposition of a fable.1 Whilediminutive, it is incisive: It captures the incentives that drive the choices that lead to the failure of states. It is also

suggestive, for it points to the conditions under which polit-

ical order should, or should not, prevail. After expositing this

fable, I determine whether it is also informative. It can be

so only insofar as the forces that animate its central char-

acters find their parallel in late-century Africa. I devote the

last portions of the chapter to arguing that they do and that

the story communicated by the fable can therefore bear the

weight of the tragedy that befell the continent. The fable can

be used – with help – to explore the foundations of political

disorder.

1 A rigorous presentation appeared as Bates, R. H., A. Greif, et al. (2002), “Organizing Violence,” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 46(5): 599– 628.

15

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.002 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Introduction

A Fable

Consider the following scenario: A community is peopled by a

“specialist in violence” and two groups of citizens. Headed by

powerful patrons, the groups can act in a unified manner.2 The

specialist in violence earns his living from the use of force; he

either seizes the wealth of others or pockets funds they pay for

their protection. Sheltered behind their patrons, the citizens

generate incomes by engaging in productive labor; but they

too can be mobilized either to seize the income of others – or

to defend their incomes from seizure. The three personages in

this drama repeatedly interact over time. The question is: Can

political order prevail in such a setting?

The answer is: Yes. Under certain circumstances, the spe-

cialist will chose to use his control of the means of violence to

protect rather than to despoil private property. And the groups

of citizens will chose to devote their time and energies to labor

and leisure and forswear the use of arms, while rewarding the

specialist in violence for protecting them against raids by oth-

ers. In addition, under certain well-specified conditions, these

choices will persist in equilibrium, rendering political order a

state.

The primary reason for this outcome is that the players

interact over time. The specialist in violence and political

2 That is, they have solved the collective action problem.

16

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.002 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

From Fable to Fact

organizations can therefore condition their future choices on

present behavior; that is, they can make threats and inflict pun-

ishments and thus shape the behavior of others. Should one

group raid or withhold tax payments, the specialist can retal-

iate by changing from guardian to predator. And should the

specialist opportunistically seize the wealth of the member of a

group, his defection would trigger punishment by that citizen’s

confederates: They can withhold tax payments or mobilize for

fighting. If not sufficiently paid for the provision of security,

the specialist in violence can pay himself: he can turn from

guardian to warlord. And if preyed upon or left undefended,

then the citizens can furnish their own protection; they can

take up arms.

When both the specialist and the citizens turn to pun-

ishment, political order breaks down. People become inse-

cure. They also become poor; having to reallocate resources

to defense, they have fewer resources to devote to produc-

tive activity. The resultant loss of security and prosperity stays

the hand of a specialist in violence who might be tempted to

engage in predation or of a group that might be tempted to

forcefully seize the goods of another or withhold tax payments,

thus triggering political disorder.

To better grasp the incentives that animate this story, focus

on the choices open to the specialist in violence, as commu-

nicated in Figure 2.1. In this figure, the vertical axis repre-

sents monetary gains or losses. The further above zero, the

17

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.002 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Introduction

Payoffs

+

0

-

Time

Payoffs on the equilibrium path

Payoffs from defection and subsequent punishment

Figure 2.1. Payoffs from strategy choices.

greater the payoffs; the further below, the greater the losses.

The horizontal axis designates time, with the more immediate

payoffs occurring near the origin and the more distant ones

further to the right. The dotted line represents the flow of pay-

offs that result from tax payments; the flow is steady, mod-

erate, and positive in value. The dashed line represents the

18

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.002 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

From Fable to Fact

flow of payoffs that result from predation. Predation yields an

immediate benefit: The dashed line leaps above the dotted

line, indicating that the income from predation significantly

exceeds that from tax payments. But that one period spike

then gives way to a stream of losses, as illustrated by the plunge

below the zero point that separates gains from losses. Insofar

as a decision maker is forward looking, the losses that accrue

in the punishment phase caste a shadow over the returns from

defection and so temper any wish to engage in predation.

If summed over time, each line – that representing the

returns to taxation and that the returns to predation – yields an

expected payoff. What would determine their magnitudes? In

particular, what would determine whether the value of the vari-

able path, generated by predation, will be more or less attrac-

tive than that of the steady path, generated from tax payments?

The factors that determine the relative magnitude of these pay-

offs determine whether the specialist in violence will adhere

to the path of play and continue to behave as guardian or veer

from that path, engage in predation, and trigger the re-arming

of the citizenry and subsequent disorder.

The Conditions of Political Order

One factor is the level of tax revenue. If too low, the benefits of

predation may be tempting despite the subsequent costs.3 A

3 But they may also be if too high. See the discussion in Bates, R. H., A. Greif, et al. (2002), “Organizing Violence.”

19

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.002 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Introduction

second is the magnitudes of the rewards that predation might

yield. If sufficiently bounteous, the specialist in violence might

choose to deviate despite the losses. A third is the special-

ist’s rate of discount. A specialist in violence who is impatient,

greedy, or insecure will discount the future payoffs that accrue

along the path of play; and she will also discount the penal-

ties that follow an opportunistic deviation. She may therefore

find the prospect of predation more attractive than if she were

patient, prosperous, or secure.

The fable thus suggests that the possibility of political order

rests on the value of three variables: the level of public revenues,

the rewards from predation, and the specialist’s rate of dis-

count. The interplay of these forces helps to determine whether

governments safeguard or prey upon the wealth of the land;

whether groups of citizens take up arms; and whether there is

political order – or state failure.

The tale may be engaging; elsewhere it has been shown

to be logically consistent (Bates, Greif et al. 2002). But it is

informative only insofar as it captures and incorporates key

features of Africa’s political landscape. Only insofar as it does

so will it offer insight into the tribulations of that continent.

Features of Late-Century Politics

Recall that the scenario was populated by a specialist in vio-

lence and by citizens who could, should they choose, take up

20

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.002 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

From Fable to Fact

0� 5�

10� 15� 20� 25� 30� 35� 40�

1970-� 74 �

1�975�-� 79�

1980-� 84�

1985�-� 89�

1990-� 95�

Percentage�

Figure 2.2. Percentage country years in which country ruled by mili-

tary head of state.

arms. Now note a characteristic feature of late-century poli-

tics in Africa: A significant portion of Africa’s states were ruled

by their military. Turning to Figure 2.2, we find that from the

beginning of the 1970s to the end of the 1980s, in more than

30 percent of the observations, Africa’s heads of state came

from the armed forces.4 In the 1990s, U.S. president William

Clinton and British prime minister Tony Blair heralded the

emergence of a “new generation” of African rulers – Yoweri

Museveni in Uganda, Paul Kagame in Rwanda, Meles Zenawi

in Ethiopia, and Isaias Afwerki in Eritrea – while failing to men-

tion that each had come to power as the head of an armed

insurgency. In many states, then, power came from the barrel

of a gun (Ottaway 1999).5

4 For details of the sample, see Table A.1 in the Appendix. 5 Lest readers regard the link between coercion and politics to be distinc-

tive of politics in Africa, they might first recall the note sent by the father

21

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.002 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Introduction

Not only were heads of states specialists in violence, the cit-

izens, too, frequently took up arms. By way of illustration, con-

sider the case of Chad. At the beginning of our sample period,

1970, Francois Tombalbaya, head of the Parti Progressive Tcha-

dien (PPT), was president of Chad. Tombalbaya belonged to

the Sara, an agriculturalist people in the southern portions of

the country; the eastern and northern portions were popu-

lated by pastoralist peoples. As Tombalbaya consolidated his

rule, he posted administrators from the south to govern these

other regions. There they imposed policies designed to propa-

gate Sara culture and imposed new taxes on cattle. In response,

the pastoralists mounted protests, fomented riots, and formed

militias: the Front for the Liberation of Chad (FLT) in the east

and the Front for National Liberation (FROLINAT) in the north.

It was only by calling for military assistance from France that

Tombalbaya remained in power.6

of Frederick the Great to the young man’s tutors: “[I]n the highest mea- sure . . . instill in my son a true love of the military . . . and impress on him that nothing in the world can give a prince such fame and honor as the sword and that he would be the most despicable creature on earth if he did not revere it and seek glory from it. . . . ” (p. 18 of Asprey, R. B. (1986), Frederick the Great, New York: Ticknor and Fields). Recall, too, the rueful words of the dying Louis IV: “I have loved war too much.” (http://encarta.msm.com).

6 For accounts, see Buijtenhuijs, R. (1989), Chad, in Contemporary West African States, edited by D. B. Cruise O’Brien, J. Dunn, and R. Rath- bone, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press; May, R. (2003), Internal Dimensions of Warfare in Chad, in Readings in African Poli- tics, edited by T. Young, Oxford: James Currey; Lemarchand, R. (1981), “Chad: The Roots of Chaos,” Current History (December); Nolutshungu,

22

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.002 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

From Fable to Fact

Whereas the militarization of Chad marks the opening of

the sample period, conflict between militias in Congo (Braz-

zaville) marks its end. In 1992, a southerner, Pascal Lissouba,

became president of Congo(B); in the run up to the next pres-

idential election, the strongman and former president, Denis

Sassou-Nguesso, declared his candidacy. As political tensions

mounted, each politician mobilized a private army: the Cobras,

who supported Sassou-Nguesso, and the Zulus, who sup-

ported Pascal Lissouba. Kindled in the provincial towns, fight-

ing between these groups erupted in the capital where the

mayor, Bernard Kolelas, had organized his own militia, the

Njinjas. Combat between these militias lay waste to one of

the major cities of French-speaking Africa.7

As seen in Figure 2.3, over the course of the sample period

1970–1995, reports of the formation of militias became more

common. With increasing frequency, citizens took up arms

and states lost their monopoly over the means of violence.

The scenario depicted at the outset of this chapter

thus incorporates two major features of the politics of late

S. C. (1996), Limits of Anarchy, Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia; and Azam, J.-P. (2007), The Political Geography of Redis- tribution, Chap. 6 in The Political Economy of Economic Growth in Africa, 1960–2000: An Analytic Survey, edited by B. Ndulu, P. Collier, R. H. Bates, and S. O’Connell, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

7 One of the best accounts appears in Bazenguissa-Ganga, R. (2003), The Spread of Political Violence in Congo-Brazzaville, in Readings in African Politics, edited by T. Young, Oxford: James Currey.

23

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.002 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Introduction

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 year

95% CI Fitted values

Figure 2.3. Reports of militias by year, percent of observations.

twentieth-century Africa: rule by specialists in violence and

the militarization of civic society. In accounting for political

disorder, it pointed to three key variables: the level of public

revenues received by governments; the magnitude of tempta-

tions they face, as determined by the rewards for predation;

and the relative weight placed upon them. A moment’s reflec-

tion leads to the recognition of the possible significance of

these variables for the politics of late-century Africa.

Revenues

In the 1970s, a sharp increase in the price of oil triggered global

recession. The increased price of energy led to higher costs of

production in the advanced industrial economies, resulting in

24

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.002 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

From Fable to Fact

the laying off of labor and a lowering of incomes. For Africa,

the result was a decrease in the demand for exports.

In Africa, as in many other developing regions, taxes on

trade constitute one of the most important sources of public

revenue. As the value of exports from Africa declined, so too

did the taxes collected by Africa’s governments. In the latter

decades of the twentieth century, then, while Africa’s people

faced a “growth tragedy” (Easterly and Levine 1997), its states

faced a crisis of public revenues. The break in the global econ-

omy was sharp and unanticipated; and the recovery of pub-

lic finance required comprehensive and protracted restructur-

ing, involving changes not only in tax rates but also in policies

toward trade and industrial development.

The economic forces at play in late-century Africa thus

aligned with the conditions in the fable, reducing the revenues

of governments. Within the framework of the fable, the decline

in public revenues represents a decline in the rewards from

public service. In the face of such a reduction, those who con-

trol the means of violence find the income derived from the

protection of civilians declining relative to the returns from

predation. By the logic of the fable, they would therefore be

more likely to turn to predation. Rather than providing secu-

rity, those who controlled the state would become a source of

insecurity, as they sought to extract revenue from the wealth

of their citizens.

25

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.002 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Introduction

Discount Rate

In the fable, if the government becomes more impatient or

insecure, the rewards that accrue to those who act as guardians

decline in value; so, too, the penalties that would be imposed

were they to revert to predation. As the “shadow of the future”8

thus dissipates, the level of temptation rises: Immediate ben-

efits weigh more heavily than future losses, and incumbents

may become more predatory, provoking state failure.

Returning to the empirical record, in the late 1980s, Africa

underwent a period of political reform. With the end of the

Cold War, the “third wave” of democratization9 swept across

the continent and governments that in the 1980s had been

immune to political challenges now faced organized polit-

ical opponents. As seen in Figure 2.4, whereas from the

early 1970s to the mid-1980s, more than 80% of the country-

year observations contained no- or one-party systems, by the

mid 1990s, more than 50% experienced multiparty systems.

With the shift to multiparty politics, those who presided over

Africa’s authoritarian governments faced an unanticipated

increase in the level of political risk. Few had prepared them-

selves to compete at the polls; some surely would have chosen

8 The phrase comes from Axelrod, R. (1985), The Evolution of Cooperation, New York: Basic Books.

9 Huntington, S. P. (1991), The Third Wave, Norman, OK: Oklahoma Uni- versity Press.

26

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.002 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

From Fable to Fact

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1970- 74

1975- 79

1980- 84

1985- 89

1990- 95

Percentage of Country Years

No-Party

One-Party

Multiparty

Figure 2.4. Political competition over time.

to govern with more restraint had they known that they might

someday be forced from political office and shorn of the pro-

tection it afforded. Incumbents became less secure. And by the

logic of the fable, they would therefore find the modest rewards

that accrue to political guardians less attractive, and the fear

of future punishment less daunting, increasing the temptation

to engage in predation.

Resources

To a degree that exceeds any other region of the world, the

economies of Africa are based on the production of precious

minerals, gemstones, petroleum, and other precious com-

modities. These resources pose a constant temptation to those

with military power. Were they to shift from guardian to preda-

tor, their future prosperity would nonetheless be ensured,

underpinned by the income generated by natural resources.

27

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.002 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Introduction

Consider the case of Nigeria, where, in the words of Bill

Dudley (1982, p. 92): “[T]he oil boom was a disaster . . . ” – one

made worse by military rule. As Dudley states:

[T]he effect of the oil boom was to convert the military polit-

ical decision-makers . . . into a new property-owning, rentier

class working in close and direct collaboration with foreign

business interests with the sole aim of expropriating the sur-

pluses derived from oil for their private and personal benefit

(Dudley 1982, p. 116).

Consider, too, the Sudan or Chad, following the discov-

ery of oil. In both, incumbent regimes turned to repression,

the one harrying the Dinka and the other the Sara. Resource

wealth thus appears to shape the behavior of elites. In the

face of dwindling public resources or insecure political futures,

given the availability of wealth from appropriable resources,

they could greet with equanimity a future of political disorder.

Those immersed in environments richly endowed by nature

would therefore be willing to take actions that rendered others

insecure, thus triggering state failure.

Conclusion

The logic of the fable highlights the importance of public

revenues, democratization, and natural resources and the

manner in which they impinge upon the possibility of political

order. As we have seen, the elements that affect political order

28

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.002 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

From Fable to Fact

in the fable parallel political forces that shaped the politics of

the continent in the later decades of the twentieth century.

While many who have studied Africa have emphasized

the political importance of economic collapse, the “resource

curse,” and the relationship between political competition and

political conflict, this account focuses on the logic that system-

atically links these forces to the political incentives that under-

lie state failure. Being abstract, the logic is also adaptable; it

can play out in a variety of forms. Consider the nature of the

groups that may – or may not – transmute into militias. In

one setting, they may be the youth wings of political parties;

in another, regional coalitions; and in a third, ethnic groups.

The same applies to the specialists in violence. In some set-

tings, the military rule; clearly the military specialize in the

use of violence. In other instances, it is civilians who gov-

ern. Even a civilian head of state presides over police, public

prosecutors, and a prison system; by bringing them to bear

upon citizens, he too can transform the state into an instru-

ment for predation. In still other instances, the civil service

assumes the role of a specialist in violence, using its command

of the bureaucracy to redistribute income from the citizens

to themselves. Different actors can thus fulfill the major roles

in the fable, but their parts are inscribed in a common script.

By the choices they make, they animate the sources of political

order, induce state failure, thereby enacting the tragedy that

engulfed late-century Africa.

29

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.002 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.002 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Part Two

Sowing the Seeds

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

3

Political Legacies

By convention, 1960 marks the year of independence inAfrica.1 Shortly after independence, Africa’s new states faced two withering critiques, one mounted by Franz Fanon

(1963) and a second by Rene Dumont (1962). Although their

indictments overlap, Fanon’s targeted their politics whereas

Dumont’s focused on their policies. In this chapter, I ana-

lyze the nature of post-independence politics, emphasizing

in particular the nature of political institutions. In Chapter 4,

I address the policies chosen by Africa’s governments in the

post-independence era.

As reported in Chapter 2, by the late 1970s, in more than

eighty percent of the country years,2 opposition parties failed

to challenge incumbent heads of state, most often because

it was illegal for them to do so (Figure 2.4), and in roughly

1 Of the forty-six states in our sample set of countries, only six had achieved independence prior to 1960; in 1960 alone, fifteen became sovereign.

2 The sample covers a panel of forty-six countries over twenty years. A single observation therefore constitutes a country year, e.g., Zimbabwe in the year 1970. Thus the origins of this awkward term.

33

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

one-third of the country years, military officers served as

heads of state (Figure 2.2). The political institutions of post-

independence Africa were thus authoritarian. For late-century

Africa, the consequence was an increased likelihood of politi-

cal disorder.

Throughout this chapter, I repeatedly draw illustrations

from Zambia’s political history. Box 3.1 provides a synopsis,

to which the reader may refer while seeking to master the sev-

eral narratives. Map 3.1 outlines the boundaries of Zambia’s

provinces, whose political leaders jockeyed for top positions

in the ruling party and national government.

The Incumbent’s Dilemma

When colonial regimes departed from Africa, they orchestrated

their retreat by holding elections and exiting midst the polit-

ical din. While competitors for office championed the cause

of independence and denounced the evils of colonialism, a

notable feature of their campaigns was the stress they placed

on seizing the “fruits of independence.”

In a careful study of the city of Abidjan, Michael Cohen

(1974) explores the use of power in Cote d’Ivoire. Rural back-

ers of the ruling party, he noted, used their political connec-

tions to move from provincial towns to the national capital

(Cohen 1974). Some had been appointed to the boards of state-

owned corporations, which produced “palm oil, hardwood,

34

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Political Legacies

Box 3.1. Political highlights, post-independence Zambia

– Zambia achieved independence in 1964, with the UNIP (the United National Independence Party) as the governing party and ANC (the African National Congress) as the opposition.

– High office in the governing party translated into high posts in the gov- ernment. Kenneth David Kaunda, president of UNIP, became presi- dent of Zambia as well, and Reuben Kamanga, a politician from the Eastern Province and vice president of UNIP, served also as vice president of Zambia.

– In 1967, UNIP held internal party elections. A Bemba-speaking bloc captured a majority of the seats in the Central Committee of the ruling party and Simon Kapwepwe, a Bemba-speaker from Northern Province, displaced Reuben Kamanga as vice president.

– In the subsequent general election, Barotse Province (also known as Western Province) joined the Central and Southern provinces in support of ANC.

– In 1969, the president dissolved the quarrelsome Central Committee of UNIP, Eastern Province politicians resumed their posts, and Reuben Kamanga returned as vice president.

– In 1971, the Bemba-speaking politicians, led by Simon Kapwepwe, defected from UNIP, the ruling party, and joined the opposition.

rubber . . . and construction equipment” (ibid., pp. 24–5). Oth-

ers received prized plots of land in the low-density town-

ships, where they built homes, and in the high-density areas,

where they constructed new enterprises. As they worked their

way up the political hierarchy, Cohen writes, the backers of

35

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

Map 3.1. Provinces of Zambia. Note: Ndola is the capital of the

Copperbelt. Source: www.answers.com/topic/ZM-Provinces.png.

the ruling party achieved even more desirable addresses.

“[A]dministrative and political control of urban land conces-

sions . . . turns out to be an extraordinarily sensitive measure

of political status within the ruling class,” he writes: “Admin-

istrative appointments or promotions are often accompanied

by approval of an individual’s application for land. . . . ” (ibid.,

pp. 44–5). Cohen concludes with a depiction of a housing pyra-

mid, in which the “ministers live in luxurious European-style

villas” (p. 47) while their subordinates dwelt in “smaller but

36

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Political Legacies

very luxurious homes in Cocody,” a prosperous suburb (p. 48).

To the powerful, he writes, went the rewards: “[T]he winning

coalition” used its power to achieve “wealth and position . . . ”

(p. 6).

Cote d’Ivoire achieved independence in 1960; Zimbabwe,

two decades later. As documented by Norma Kriger (2003),

freedom fighters, political organizers, and rank-and-file mem-

bers of Zimbabwe’s ruling party began agitating for the rewards

of independence. Under intense political pressure from the

ruling party, the Ministry of Home Affairs hired 3,500 freedom

fighters; the Ministry of Local Government, 2,600 more. The

Ministry of Health had to sign on 2,000 and the Central Intelli-

gence Organization more than 1,000 (ibid., p. 178). Once they

secured jobs, Kriger writes, the militants agitated for additional

benefits: compensation for losses incurred during the strug-

gle for independence, pensions, loans, and land. The political

movement that seized the state thus subsequently “built a vio-

lent and extractive political order” (ibid., p. 5), as the victors

continued to agitate for the fruits of independence.

The pattern has been documented for socialist Zambia

(Szeftel 1978) as well as capitalist Nigeria (Schatz 1977). As

described by Dumont (1962) and Fanon (1963), independence

represented the capture of the state by local political elites who

then used power to accumulate wealth.

The ambitions of the elites was equaled by the aspirations

of the electorate. Thus Barkan, in his study of elections in

37

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

post-independence Kenya (1976, 1986); Hayward and Kandeh,

in their study of Sierra Leone (1987); and Hayward, when he

turned to the study of Ghana (1976), report that constituents

viewed politicians as their agents whose job it was to bring

material benefits to the local community – jobs, loans, or cash.

Those in Kenya, Barkan notes, stoked the fires of political ambi-

tion, inciting candidates to bid for political support by con-

tributing funds for the construction of local projects (Barkan

1976). The result, as Allen writes of Benin, was “the exchange

of blocs of votes . . . for valued goods. . . . ” (1989, p. 22). Com-

petitive elections came to resemble a political marketplace, in

which votes were exchanged for material benefits.

Analysis

In 1983, Gerald Kramer (1983) explored the nature of political

competition in a world in which incumbents and challengers

compete by distributing material benefits.3 In his analysis, the

voters value private consumption and party labels and the

politicians control a fixed stock of material goods. In the com-

petition for votes, the incumbents move first: They distribute

benefits in a way designed to return to office, while preserving

as large a portion as possible for their own consumption. Once

3 See also Groseclose, T., and J. M. Snyder (1996), “Buying Supermajorities,” American Political Science Review 90(2): 303–15.

38

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Political Legacies

the governing party has proposed its allocation, the opposition

then responds with a counteroffer. In this competition, Kramer

asks, how will incumbents and challengers behave? How will

they play the game?

When seeking to unseat the incumbent and to do so at least

expense, Kramer argues, the challenger will bid for the support

of those who may be disadvantaged under the incumbent’s

rule. By offering slightly more than what the incumbent has

provided, the challenger can capture their votes and weaken

the incumbent’s coalition. He can then devote the rest of his

resources to obtaining the additional votes necessary to secure

a majority. The costs of this strategy will of course be higher the

greater the degree to which the voters identify with the party

in power.

Anticipating the strategy of the challenger, Kramer argues,

the incumbent’s best strategy will be to distribute benefits

widely. Should he fail to give a segment of the electorate bene-

fits equal to those enjoyed by others, then he simply will have

lowered the costs to the challenger of assembling a sufficient

number of votes to unseat him.4 The incumbent will therefore

distribute his resources uniformly across all members of the

electorate.

4 In addition, if he spends more on one segment of the electorate than upon others, he could lower his own costs – and increase the resources that he could retain for his own consumption – by reducing the differential.

39

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

Turning to the voters, Kramer advances the argument an

additional step by asking: What if they were to behave stra-

tegically? What if they were to back political parties instru-

mentally, rather than out of an unreasoned sense of loyalty?

Behaving strategically, Kramer argues, the voters, in pursuit of

private benefits, would reduce their level of party loyalty. The

incumbent can purchase the votes of those who strongly iden-

tify with the ruling party relatively cheaply; the support of those

less loyal would command a higher price. As Kramer demon-

strates, when the voters learn to play the system to their advan-

tage they will then extract all the benefits on offer. Thus the

incumbent’s dilemma: Pursuing power to accumulate wealth,

they find themselves having to surrender their ill-gotten gains

to retain political office.

Did not the history of political competition in Zambia lend

support to Kramer’s argument, it would be easy to dismiss his

analysis as overstylized, abstract, and therefore divorced from

the realities of African politics.

The Example of Zambia

When Zambia became independent in 1964, it was governed

by UNIP (the United National Independence Party), which

had won majorities in all but Central and Southern provinces,

where the opposition ANC (the Africa National Congress)

held sway. In local council elections, legislative elections,

40

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Political Legacies

bi-elections, and general elections, the governing party relent-

lessly targeted the opposition’s bailiwick. In each round of the

elections, it flooded the two provinces with organizers, provid-

ing them with housing, running money, and access to petrol

from the government’s stores. Most relevant for this discus-

sion was the theme of the government’s campaigns: “It pays to

belong to UNIP.” From the government’s point of view, those

who supported the opposition had merely increased the price

of their political loyalty. By refurbishing schools, grading roads,

and distributing public monies through local development

agencies, the government vigorously bid for votes from the

heartland of the opposition.

Naturally, political leaders in other regions deciphered the

lesson to be drawn from the government’s efforts. Most rele-

vant is the response of those from Luapula, a province long

loyal to the governing party. While politicians from the North-

ern Province dominated the Central Committee and therefore

the cabinet as well, the government built a well-surfaced road,

a railway, and an oil pipeline through Northern Province to the

coast. Political leaders from Luapula Province began to feel

that their colleagues from Northern Province were reaping a

disproportion of the benefits from holding office. By lowering

the level of their loyalty to UNIP, the politicians from Luapula

reasoned, they could increase the price of their support for

the incumbent regime and secure a larger share of the spoils

(Bates 1976). The flirtation of the “Luapulaists” with defection

41

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

adumbrated later revolts, as other regional blocs listed their

grievances and maneuvered to extract benefits from those in

power.

From the government’s point of view, the costs of retaining

office had risen. Threatened with additional provincial defec-

tions and thus with the loss of power, the president empan-

elled a commission to explore the electoral rules; he charged

the commission with enquiring into the merits of single-party

rule. As documented by Larmer (2006), the commission

solemnly convened hearings in each and every region. Having

heard testimony in favor and against the abolition of opposi-

tion parties, it sensibly performed the task for which it had in

fact been convened: It recommended that Zambia become a

one-party state.

While the case does not map as clearly onto the matrix of

Kramer’s model as does that of Zambia, the post-indepen-

dence politics of Benin suggests similar forces at play. “Re-

sources,” Allen writes (1989), “were necessarily limited, but ex-

pansion and retention of support implied an ever-increasing

pressure for allocation of resources. . . . ” (p. 25). The compe-

tition for support led to a twenty percent increase in public

employment and a forty percent increase in public expendi-

ture – all in the first five years of independence. But then the

government encountered a critical constraint: the unwilling-

ness of the central bank, which was controlled by France, to

underwrite further increases in spending. By the late 1960s,

42

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Political Legacies

Allen writes, it had become apparent to all that the system

based on the competitive supply of “pork” could no longer be

sustained (ibid.). The governing elite then put an end to elec-

toral competition.

As in Zambia, in Benin – and elsewhere – incumbents

formed single-party regimes. In other instances, and espe-

cially under military rulers, the incumbents formed no-party

systems. In the single-party regime, the cabinets were dom-

inated by top officials from the ruling party; in the no-party

system, the presidents formed cabinets as if picking a per-

sonal staff. In either case, in response to the crisis of clien-

telism, in Allen’s phrasing (Allen 1989), or to the high costs

of securing wealth from power, in the language of this study,

incumbents changed the structure of the political game. They

created authoritarian governments.

The New Political Game

Even after the banning of party competition, competitive polit-

ical forces remained, but they played out within the regime. It

was the head of state, rather than the voter, who now became

the object of competitive bidding, as minor apparatchiks jock-

eyed for recognition and competed for political favor and,

while doing so, marked down the price of their political loy-

alty. Political sycophancy replaced constituency service as the

best strategy for those with ambitions for office.

43

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

Given the new structure of political competition, it was the

supplier rather than the demander of political favors who now

held the advantage. In the game of authoritarian politics, the

head of state controlled both access to material benefits and

control of the means of coercion. And it was to the chief exec-

utive that wealth and power now flowed.

In most African states, major financial institutions fell

under the control of the chief executive. Allen (1989) notes

that presidents in Francophone West Africa kept the ministry

of planning in their portfolios, not because they were com-

mitted to the formulation of development plans but rather

because these ministries received, and disbursed, foreign aid;

by controlling them, the president controlled a major source

of foreign exchange. In the case of Benin, he noted, the foreign

aid channeled through this ministry totaled $600 million in

1980–83 and “thus matched the size of the recurrent budget”

(Allen 1989, p. 52). In countries outside of the Francophone

zone, the president often controlled the central bank. Accord-

ing to Erwin Blumenthal,5 the national bank of Zaire main-

tained such accounts in Brussels, Paris, London, and New York

registered in the name of the national president (Blumenthal

1982).

5 Blumenthal had been dispatched by the International Monetary Fund to restructure and manage the finances of Zaire.

44

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Political Legacies

In addition to the financial bureaucracy, the president con-

trolled the means of coercion. Policing remains a national, not

a local, activity throughout most of Africa. The office of the

president oversaw the ministry of interior. The attorney gen-

eral, the official prosecutor for the state; the special branch;

and the prison system – in most countries, these agencies

lodged within the office of the president. In addition, the pres-

ident controlled special military forces, many organized to

suppress internal opposition rather than to defend against

external threats. Examples would include Robert Mugabe’s

Fifth Brigade, which unleashed a reign of terror in opposi-

tion areas within five years after independence, or Kwame

Nkrumah’s President’s Own Guard Regiment (POGR), some-

times referred to as his “private army” (Meredith 2005, p. 19).

Consider, too, the military units that reported to the president

of Zaire. Among them numbered:

A Civil Guard, commanded by his brother-in-law, Kpama

Baramoto;

A Special Research and Surveillance Brigade, commanded

by General Blaise Bolozi, also related to the President by

marriage;

A Special Action Forces, a paramilitary unit, commanded

by Honore Ngabanda Nzambo-ku-Atumba, a close aide

of Joseph Desire Mobutu and his chief of intelligence;

45

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

and a Special Presidential Division, by all accounts the

most effective unit of them all, commanded by Gen-

eral Nzimbi Ngabale, also a “close relative” (Nzongola-

Ntalaja 2002, p. 154).

With control over wealth and the means of coercion,

authoritarian regimes were able to play a game that differed

from that played in the era of multiparty politics. As a mo-

nopoly supplier of political favors, the president could indi-

vidually tailor his political offers. Thus Kenneth Kaunda could

secure the loyalty of Mainza Chona at lower cost, given the

latter’s lack of a strong political base, than he could Simon

Kapwepe, who enjoyed a large following. Or Joseph Desire

Mobutu could recruit Barthelemy Bisegimana to serve as his

chief of staff at low cost, given the latter’s ambiguous standing

as a “citizen” of Rwandan extraction, but had to tolerate the

barbs and indulge (some of) the whims of Étienne Tshiesekedi

with his strong local backing (Nzongola-Ntalaja 2004). And

rather than having to allocate resources in a universalistic and

egalitarian manner, the chief executive could employ them to

assemble a team of just sufficient political weight for winning.

With control over the means of coercion, the president was

positioned to make take-it-or-leave-it offers; with control over

bounteous benefits and fearsome sanctions, he could prevent

efforts by others to collude. The winning coalition would there-

fore not be egalitarian and universalistic, but rather unequal

46

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Political Legacies

and minimum winning (Baron and Ferejohn 1989). And by

assembling a ruling coalition of small size, the president could

divert a larger portion of the “national pie” to his own bank

account.

The Shrinking Political Arena

In post-independence Africa, most states became authoritar-

ian (see Figures 2.2 and 2.4): Rather than having to distribute

benefits in a universalistic manner, incumbents could now

allocate them more narrowly, thereby retaining a greater por-

tion for themselves.

Once thus reconfigured, the political order appeared in-

creasingly to narrow; in the words of Kasfir (1976), in the 1970s,

it was “shrinking” in size.6 In search of resources to consume

and to expend in the pursuit of power, elites continued to en-

gage in extraction; their taxes were levied universally. But by

channeling benefits to those whom they favored, the elites

could offset the costs they inflicted upon those in whose loyalty

they sought to invest. The value of the (net) benefits would

increase as the number of clients declined, thus generating

incentives for the insiders to narrow the definition of what it

meant to be loyal.7 Incentives thus dictated a logic of exclusion.

6 The phrase is taken from Kasfir, N. (1976), The Shrinking Political Arena, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

7 This analysis draws upon Adam, C. S., and S. A. O’Connell (1999), “Aid, Taxation, and Development in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Economics and

47

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

The criterion for exclusion varied. Politicians often played

the nationality card: They thereby sought to exclude foreigners

from employment, as in Cote d’Ivoire (Cohen 1974), or from

ownership of land, as in Zaire (Lemarchand 2003; Nzongola-

Ntalaja 2004). In Zambia and Cote d’Ivoire, they invoked

national origins to discredit presidential candidates – Kenneth

Kaunda and Alassane Öutarra, respectively – arguing that they

had been born to immigrant parents.

Politicians also sought to restrict the benefits provided by

government to members of the ruling party. In single-party

states, those who were not members could not aspire to pub-

lic office or to a position in the public portion of the economy.

In Sierra Leone, Kpundeh records, clause 139 (3) of the cons-

titution of the ruling party provided that “no one can be

appointed or continue to be a permanent secretary ‘unless he

is a member of the recognized party’” that is, of the All People’s

Congress (APC), the governing party (Kpundeh 1995, p. 65). So,

too, in Zaire: When drafting the 1973 regulations for the ser-

vice, the civil service commissioner stated “special emphasis,

among the conditions required for recruitment, is placed on

party militancy and Zairian nationality” (Gould 1980, p. 67).

And in Senegal, Boone writes, “licenses were granted to the

Politics 11(3): 225–54; and Bueno de Mesquita, B., A. Smith, et al. (2003), The Logic of Political Survival, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. See also Kasara, K. (2007), “Tax Me If You Can,” American Political Science Review 101(1): 159–72.

48

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Political Legacies

bons militants of the UPS [the Senegalese Progressive Union,

the ruling political party]” (Boone 1990, as quoted in Tangri

1999, p. 75).

To achieve a deeper familiarity with the meaning of single-

party rule, I turn once again to the case of Zambia. After Pres-

ident Kaunda reinstated the Eastern Province politicians to

their posts in UNIP’s Central Committee (see Box 3.1), sev-

eral Bemba-speaking leaders defected and formed an oppo-

sition party. The government responded by filing trumped-

up charges of murder and assault and detained the dissident

leaders.

When Simon Kapwepwe, the Bemba-speaking vice presi-

dent, also defected from UNIP, the government realized that

it stood to lose political support in the Luapula, Northern, and

Copperbelt provinces – all dominated by Bemba-speakers –

and so it could be left in control of fewer than one-half of

the provinces in Zambia. The government therefore sought to

manipulate the electoral process. Seats in Parliament, it was

ruled, belonged to the party, not the person; and when a mem-

ber crossed the floor, her seat then became vacant, neces-

sitating a bi-election, which it contested vigorously and vio-

lently, supporting its candidates with the resources of the state.

The government also reverted to repression. When those who

defected from the ruling party sought reelection to Parliament,

they found their permits for meetings denied, their campaign

posters defaced, and their supporters intimidated by gangs

49

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

of youths and squads of police. In January 1972, one such

gang assaulted Simon Kapwepwe. In February, the government

banned his party and rounded up and imprisoned more

than 100 of its leaders. Many were beaten, some were tortur-

ed, and, as already noted, Zambia became a one-party state

(Gertzel, Baylies et al. 1984; Larmer 2006).

Following the end of multiparty politics, membership in the

ruling party became a form of citizenship. In 1970, the Provin-

cial Conference of UNIP resolved that “the UNIP membership

card should be made a legal document for the purpose of iden-

tification and holders of the card should be given preferential

treatment over non-holders in such spheres as employment,

promotions, markets, loans, business, housing and all socio-

economic activities” (Larmer 2006, pp. 36–7). Ordinary people

could not board public transport, cross bridges or pontoons,

or transact in public markets without producing a party card.

Those with educations and finances could not hold director-

ships or posts in state industries, qualify for bursaries or loans,

or secure the kinds of positions to which they aspired: ones

with a housing allowance, a limousine, and opportunities for

travel abroad. By tightly circumscribing the range of poten-

tial political beneficiaries, Zambia’s political elite more tightly

restricted access to economic opportunities.

In some instances, the logic that drove the politics of exclu-

sion appears to have culminated in the formation of a truly

50

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Political Legacies

miniscule elite. In Rwanda, for example, President Juvenel

Habyarimana, close family members, and senior members of

the family of his wife dominated the financial ministries, the

security services, and the ruling party. That the word akasu, or

small house, came to refer to this group underlines the diminu-

tive size of the inner circle (Prunier 1998). In Kenya, Jomo

Kenyatta, his sons, his wives, and their relatives were referred

to as the “royal family.” Burundi was governed by a small group

from Bururi; Zaire by the “Ngbandi” clique from Equateur; and

Togo by the Kabye from Kara in the north.

To comprehend the capacity of such small groups to remain

in power, it is useful to recall that the security services in

Kenya were headed by the president’s in-law; that Equateur,

Bururi, and Kara provided the military elite in Zaire, Burundi,

and Togo, respectively; and that the akasu headed a security

apparatus that in April 1994 proved capable of killing 800,000

Rwandans.

The restructuring of African political institutions thus trig-

gered a logic of exclusion, resulting in political privilege and

economic inequality. Implicit in these transformations lay as

well the strengthening of incentives for political elites to deal

in private rather than public goods.

Consider a district of 20,000 people, each expecting “his”

or “her” politician to provide one dollar in benefits. The crea-

tion of one public good, producing a dollar’s worth of benefits

51

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

for each resident, would be likely to cost less than the placing

of a dollar in the pocket of each resident. In general, as the

number of persons who claim benefits from the political elite

rises, the cost advantage to politicians of providing benefits in

the form of public rather than private goods increases as well.

As Africa’s political elite restricted the scope of those entitled

to the benefits of independence, this advantage declined. The

shrinking of the political arena thus led to a reduction in the

incentives for those who sought positions of power to reward

their followers with public goods. Private benefits drove out

public goods as the coin of the political realm.8

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have argued that searching for wealth and

power, political elites reconfigured African political institu-

tions, transforming them from multi- to single- or no-party sys-

tems or replacing civilian governments with military regimes.

They also narrowed the range of those entitled to political ben-

efits. Rather than political independence serving the collec-

tive welfare, then, it instead conferred narrowly circumscribed

privileges upon those who won out in the competition for polit-

ical office.

8 This analysis builds upon Adam, C. S., and S. A. O’Connell (1999), “Aid, Taxation, and Development in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Economics and Poli- tics 11(3): 225–54; and Bueno de Mesquita, B., A. Smith, et al. (2003), The Logic of Political Survival, Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

52

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Political Legacies

During the struggle for independence, Africa’s citizens

had embraced politics. In response to the political realities

about them, however, in the post-independence era, they

increasingly came to view their leaders as a source of insecurity

and the state as a source of threat rather than of well-being.

53

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.003 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

4

Policy Choices

Focusing on the determinants of economic growth in thepost-independence period, researchers from the Africa Economic Research Consortium (AERC) isolated a set of “anti-

growth” syndromes: styles of policymaking that reduce the rate

at which national economies could grow (Ndulu, Collier et al.

2007). Most common is the combination of policies that they

designate as “control regimes,” which led to:

1. A closed economy.

2. The distortion of key prices in the macroeconomy.

3. The promotion and regulation of industries.

4. The regulation of markets.

In this chapter, I shall describe these policies and discuss

their origins and their consequences. Control regimes are eco-

nomically costly, and I shall explain why incumbents nonethe-

less retained them, even after their costs were known. The

reason, I argue, is that the policies generated political ben-

efits for Africa’s authoritarian regimes. They provided elites

55

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

with sources of income and furnished means for transform-

ing even declining economies into political organizations,

enabling politicians to recruit political dependents, willing to

fight – if necessary – to keep them in power. While yielding

political advantages, however, these policies contributed to

the subsequent collapse of Africa’s states.

The Content of Control Regimes

As reported by the AERC researchers, governments that adopt

control regimes regulate trade, manipulate the interest and

exchange rates, and develop close ties with urban-based

industries.

The Control of Trade

In the post-independence period, governments imposed tar-

iffs and quantitative controls on a wide range of industrial pro-

ducts. To sell their goods in Africa’s markets, foreign firms then

had to “jump over” these barriers and to invest in the plant and

equipment that would enable them to produce and thus mar-

ket their goods locally. These policies most frequently targeted

the goods most commonly consumed by the residents of poor

societies: processed foods, beverages, textiles, shoes, blankets,

kerosene, and other consumer products. In at least one case,

56

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Policy Choices

Zambia, the government severely restricted the importation of

automobiles; and for a brief and inglorious moment, automo-

biles were produced in Livingstone, a small urban center on

the southern border of the country (Elliott 1971).

Macroeconomic Policies

Given the low level of industrialization, investors wishing to

establish new firms had to import plant and equipment from

abroad. To lower the costs of such investments, governments

restructured financial markets. Creating banks that targeted

“commerce,” “industry,” or more broadly “development,” they

made available loans at low rates of interest to those seeking

to invest in projects to which they accorded a high priority.

Outside of the Franc zone, they issued their own currencies.

Many then employed their control over the banking system to

set the rate at which this currency could be exchanged for cur-

rencies from abroad. By overvaluing their currency, they set

the exchange rate to the advantage of importers: Because they

could purchase foreign “dollars” more cheaply, those seeking

to invest in local industry could then import plant and equip-

ment at lower cost. Trade barriers having already been set in

place, their goods remained protected against foreign compe-

tition, whose products would have gained a price advantage

as a result of the revaluation of the local currency.

57

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

Industrial Regulation

Governments that implemented control regimes also imple-

mented regulatory policies that enhanced the profitability

of firms. By licensing, they discouraged entry and protected

established producers. When governments themselves owned

firms, the governments were certain to prevent new firms

from competing with established producers; public enter-

prises then remained as the monopoly suppliers of their prod-

ucts. Moreover, because governments subsidized the costs of

capital, many firms adopted capital-intensive technologies;

they then tended to operate most profitably when producing

near full capacity. Because the protected markets of Africa were

small, the result was the creation of highly concentrated indus-

tries, with but one or two large firms in each, with firms operat-

ing at low capacity and therefore at high cost. But because the

noncompetitive structure of the domestic market conferred

on firms the power to set prices, they could remain privately

profitable, even while highly inefficient.

The Incidence of Costs and Benefits

When governments artificially increased the value of their cur-

rencies, the benefits that they conferred upon the importers

of capital equipment were matched by the costs they inflicted

58

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Policy Choices

on exporters. When foreign dollars converted into fewer cedi

(the unit of currency of Ghana), or other African currencies,

exporters experienced a reduction in their incomes. In Africa’s

agrarian economies, most exporters were farmers, who pro-

duced coffee, cocoa, sugar, cotton, sisal, and other crops for

foreign markets. When governments artificially increased the

value of their currencies, they may have protected the prof-

its of industrial firms by imposing tariffs and quantitative

restrictions on imports, but they rarely offered similar pro-

tection to farmers. Producers of rice in West Africa therefore

found themselves competing in local markets with imports

from Louisiana, and producers of cassava in Central Africa

faced competition from bakers advantaged by the low costs of

imported wheat. Trade policies were thus biased against the

exporters of cash crops and the producers of food crops as

well.

When governments regulated urban industries, they pro-

tected the profits of urban firms: By limiting competition,

they granted them the power to set prices to their advantage.

When governments regulated agriculture, they conferred mar-

ket power on consumers: They created monopsonies for the

purchase of both export and food crops. Governments pur-

chased the cash crops at a low domestic price, sold them at

the prices prevailing in international markets, and deposited

the difference in the public treasury. They purchased the food

59

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

crops at prices set to ensure that soldiers, bureaucrats, and

urban workers would be assured of low cost food.

In the 1960s, the majority of Africa’s population lived in

the rural areas and agriculture constituted the largest single

industry. The policies thus favored the interests of a minority

over those of the vast majority of the population in most states.

As noted by Dumont (1966), “In May 1961 a number of farmers

north of Brazzaville said to me: ‘Independence isn’t for us; it’s

only for the city people’” (p. 17). It was precisely this property

of post-independence policies that Dumont condemned.

Control regimes thus benefited the urban and industrial

sector; indeed, given the aspiration for industrial development

that motivated many policymakers, this was their intent. But

they did so at the expense of the great majority of Africa’s pop-

ulation – those who lived in the rural areas – and the greatest

of Africa’s industries – agriculture.

For these policies to persist, opposition to them had to be

demobilized. The most likely opponents would be farmers;

and because they constituted a political majority, the farmers

were dangerous. The political commitment to control regimes

could persist, then, only insofar as political challengers

lacked an incentive to pursue electoral majorities. Authoritar-

ian institutions thus underpinned the imposition of control

regimes.

The relationship between political institutions and public

policies is captured by the data in Figures 4.1 and 4.2.

60

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Policy Choices

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Military Civilian All

P er

ce n

t O

b se

rv at

io n

s

Percent Control Regimes

Figure 4.1. Control regimes and military government.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

No-Party One-Party Multiparty All

P er

ce n

t O

b se

rv at

io n

s

Percent Control Regimes

Figure 4.2. Control regimes and party system.

As indicated in Figure 4.1, military governments were far

more likely than civilian ones to adopt control regimes. From

the period 1970–1995, in more than 50% of the country years,

if the data registered the presence of military regimes, they

registered the presence of control regimes as well. As shown

in Figure 4.2, one- and no-party regimes were also more likely

to adopt control regimes, with more than 50% of the observa-

tions that centered on no- or single- party systems exhibiting

control regimes as well, as compared with but 30% of those

with multiparty systems. In this study, I label as authoritarian

governments that are headed by soldiers rather than civilians

61

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

and those civilian regimes that have banned the formation of

opposition parties. The data thus suggest an elective affinity

between authoritarian politics and interventionist policies in

the post-independence period.1

Economic Costs and Political Benefits

Given that agriculture is the largest single industry in most

African countries, it is not surprising that the economies of

countries that imposed control regimes appear to have grown

more slowly than others. The AERC research team measured

the economic impact of four major “anti-growth” syndromes

(Ndulu, Collier et al. 2007). The first was state failure. Next

came “inter-temporal redistribution,” which most commonly

occurred when governments would consume rather than save

the proceeds of resource booms. A third was ethnic or regional

redistribution, when governments became the political agents

of subnational minorities. The fourth was the adoption of con-

trol regimes.

Controlling for a variety of factors that might affect growth –

the growth rate of trading partners, for example – and

1 See, too, the Appendix. Turn as well to Chapters 4 and 11 of the first vol- ume of Ndulu, B., P. Collier, et al. (2007), The Political Economy of Economic Growth in Africa, 1960–2000, 2 vols, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.

62

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Policy Choices

correcting for the impact of the growth rate on the choice

of policies, the researchers confirmed what most would have

expected: that state failure was the most damaging to growth.

When states failed in late-century Africa, growth rates fell

between 1.8% and 1.9% per annum. More surprising, perhaps,

was that they found that the imposition of a control regime

led to a loss of roughly 1.6 percentage points per annum in the

growth rate, thus rivaling the impact of state failure. State fail-

ure was relatively rare, occurring in just more than 10% of the

country years, 1970–1995. The imposition of control regimes,

however, was most decidedly not: They appear in more than

60% of the country year observations in the late 1970s and

early 1980s. The adoption of control regimes thus imposed

high costs on Africa’s economies.

If the policies harmed the economic interests of most

Africans and lowered the growth rate of national economies,

then why were they chosen? And, once chosen, why did they

remain in place? The answer, I argue, is that the policies served

political rather than economic interests.The interventionist

style of policymaking enabled governments to target benefits

to important constituencies, thus – in the short term, at least –

promoting political order. And by transforming industries and

markets into political organizations, it enabled governments

to spin webs of political obligation and thus forge the political

machines that kept them in power.

63

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

Political Benefits

In West Africa, the richer regions lie in the southern portions,

which are heavily forested. The Sahelian regions – dry and with

uncertain rainfall – have little to offer the international econ-

omy2; lying inland from the coast, what little they have to offer

has necessarily to be shipped at high cost, leaving few prof-

its for producers. Throughout West Africa, then, there exists a

disparity between the economies of the coast and interior.

Illustrative is the case of Nigeria. At the time of indepen-

dence, the economy’s most important exports – cocoa, palm

oil, and other agricultural products – flowed from the south.

Not only did the south have prosperous farmers, but it also was

home to the merchants, bankers, and lawyers who provided the

services for the export industries. While the north was not rich,

it was powerful. It contained more than one-half of Nigeria’s

population. It was relatively homogeneous: The great major-

ity of its people followed Islam and considered themselves to

be Hausa-Fulani. And its emirates provided a means for orga-

nizing its people. While relatively poor, then, the region could

marshal formidable political forces.

By dint of the north’s large size and degree of organization,

following independence, its politicians assumed control of the

executive branch of the federal government. Pursuing a policy

2 The exception is cotton, which long has faced high tariff barriers in global markets.

64

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Policy Choices

of import substituting industrialization (Helleiner 1966; Little,

Scitovsky et al. 1970; Schatz 1977), the government promoted

the formation of domestic industries, many of which it con-

vinced to locate in the north. It also placed a disproportion of

its development projects in the region. The costs of these ini-

tiatives fell largely upon the south, whose consumers paid the

higher prices that resulted from tariff protection and whose

farmers paid the taxes that financed public investments.

The south’s reaction is captured in a statement issued in

1964 by the government of the eastern region:

Take a look at what they [the North] have done. . . . Kainji Dam

Project – about £150 of our money when completed – all in the

North. . . . Bornu Railway Extension – about £75 million of our

money when completed – all in the North. . . . Military training

and ammunition factories and installations are based in the

North, thereby using your money to train Northerners to fight

Southerners. . . . Building of a road to link the dam site and the

Sokoto cement works – £7 million, when completed – all in the

North. . . . Total on all these projects about £262 million (italics

in original Gboyega 1997, p. 161).

The regional tensions that marked the politics of Nigeria

found their parallel elsewhere in Africa. In Togo, General

Gnassingbé Eyadéma held power for thirty-eight years; him-

self from the north, Eyadéma used the powers of the state to

extract the wealth of the south for the benefit of his family, the

military, and his region. In Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire, it was the

65

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

south that tended to control the national government; but by

choosing northerners for the vice presidency (as in the case of

Ghana) or by intervening in the economy and channeling pub-

lic funds into the interior (as in Cote d’Ivoire), political leaders

sought to ease regional tensions.3

Turning to East Africa, Uganda, too, was marked by north-

ern poverty and southern prosperity. In Tanzania, the pro-

ducers of export crops cluster at the higher elevations, where

they enjoy bounteous and reliable rainfall and moderate

temperatures; the dry climate and arid lands at lower eleva-

tions sustain subsistence production. Both Milton Obote in

Uganda and Julius Nyerere in Tanzania built their political

base in the poorer regions, propounded socialist principles,

and imposed control regimes in an effort to redistribute the

wealth of the prosperous regions to the semi-arid zones.

While these examples are suggestive, the evidence from

Zambia is more compelling. It enables one to observe “in real

time,” as it were, the process by which regional tensions shaped

policy choices. Within a half decade of independence, the

United National Independence Party – UNIP, the governing

party – was wracked by conflict between regional blocs of

3 For an analysis of similar tensions in Cameroon, see Bayart, J.-F. (1989), Cameroon, in Contemporary West African States, edited by John Dunn, Donal B. Cruise O’Brien, and Richard Rathbone, London: Oxford Uni- versity Press; and Levine, V. T. (1986), Leadership and Regime Changes in Perspective, in The Political Economy of Cameroon, edited by M. G. Schatzberg and I. W. Zartman, New York: Praeger.

66

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Policy Choices

politicians, each of whom sought to seize high offices in the

ruling party and thus in the government as well. Politicians

from the Bemba-speaking districts made up one faction. They

came from the Northern and Luapula provinces, and also

from Copperbelt Province, the mineral rich region to which

Bemba speakers had long migrated in search of employment

(see Map 3.1). Another faction consisted of politicians from

the Nyanja-speaking provinces: Eastern Province and Lusaka

(which includes the city of Lusaka, the national capital). To

the side stood the leaders from Barotse, or Western Province,

in the southwest; the Central and Southern provinces, largely

controlled by the opposition party; and the North-Western

Province, which was sparsely inhabited.

At the time of independence, 1964, politicians from the

Eastern Province held the vice presidency and the largest sin-

gle bloc of seats in the Central Committee (see Box 3.1). Three

years later, the Bemba-speaking politicians coalesced with

those from Central and Southern provinces to seize the vice

presidency and capture the Central Committee. The result was

a political crisis within the ruling party, as the losers sought to

lay claim to the offices they once had held, and to the govern-

ment posts, with their attendant perquisites, that went with

them. In response to this crisis, the president, Kenneth Kaunda,

introduced the first of what became known as “economic

reforms.” In this instance, the reforms involved the takeover of

foreign-owned companies. The distribution and management

67

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

of their assets provided a resource to compensate those who

lost out in the competition for power.

In the general elections that followed those within the rul-

ing party, Barotse, whose leaders had allied with the Nyanja-

speaking bloc, defected to ANC (the Africa National Congress),

thus joining the Central and Southern provinces in the ranks

of the opposition. To consolidate support in the six provinces

that remained loyal, President Kaunda struck once again, this

time nationalizing the copper industry. In 1969, the newly

elected vice president of UNIP resigned, sparking rumors of

the withdrawal of the Bemba-speaking bloc from the govern-

ing party. The president responded with yet another economic

“reform,” adding the banking and insurance industries to the

government’s portfolio (see Elliott 1971; Szeftel 1978; Burdette

1988).

In the years following independence, regional conflict thus

punctuated the politics of Zambia. In response to the open-

ing of each political fissure, the president extended the scope

of the government’s control of the economy. By nationalizing

firms, gaining control over key sectors, and building a regu-

latory apparatus about publicly owned firms,4 the president

multiplied the political resources at his command. He posted

4 The firms were known as INDECO (Industrial Development Corporation), FINDECO (Finance and Development Corporation), and MINDECO (Min- ing Development Corporation), all under ZIMCO (Zambia Industrial and Mining Corporation).

68

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Policy Choices

politicians to the boards of each firm in which the government

held an interest. And he staffed the bureaucracy that superin-

tended each group of firms with directors chosen from within

the ruling party.

Interventionist policies, the example of Zambia suggests,

confer upon governments the resources with which to ame-

liorate political tensions, many arising from conflicts between

regions. Control regimes may be expensive, then; they may

reduce the rate of economic growth of the national econ-

omy. But their costs appear to represent the costs of forging

viable political bargains. In Africa, political order is expensive

to maintain.

The Maintenance of Authoritarian Regimes

If conflicts between regional political delegations help to

account for the adoption of control regimes, the question still

remains: Why, once chosen, did they remain in place?

A major reason for the retention of these policies, I would

argue, is that they were economically rewarding for those in

power – and politically useful as well. They provided the liga-

ments that bound together Africa’s authoritarian regimes.

As we have seen, when imposing control regimes, govern-

ments often pegged their currency at a value higher than that

which would have been generated by a competitive market.

When doing so, they created an excess demand for foreign

69

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

“dollars.” Those in possession of local currency could then

purchase foreign currencies at a price that lay below that pre-

vailing in currency markets. Because the demand for foreign

exchange exceeded the supply at official prices, the foreign

currencies then had to be rationed: Whoever controlled their

allocation was now in a position to reward his political follow-

ers, his family, and his friends. Control over the central bank

creates the opportunity to increase one’s wealth and to build

a political network.

By appreciating the value of the domestic currency, gov-

ernments that intervened in currency markets increased the

demand for imports. When the currency was set at an artifi-

cially high level, those who secured it at the official price could

purchase foreign goods more cheaply. By importing those

goods and selling them in the domestic market, they could

then pocket in local currency the benefit created by the gov-

ernment’s manipulation of the exchange rate. But because the

currency was set at an artificially high level, those who export

earned less in foreign markets: Each dollar earned abroad gen-

erated less local income. With the demand for imports increas-

ing and the incentives to export decreasing, governments that

set the value of their currency too high soon began to incur

trade deficits. To stem these deficits, they began to regulate

imports. They blocked the importation of “luxuries” to facili-

tate the continued importation of “essential” goods, banning

the import of liquor, for example, to enable the purchase of

70

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Policy Choices

medicines or banning the importation of motorcars to safe-

guard the purchase of tractors.

Governments that sought to control the value of their

money in international markets thus soon found themselves

regulating the flow of trade as well. One result was the growth

of a bureaucracy to ration access to foreign exchange and the

importation of foreign goods. Another was the growth of politi-

cal machines, as those who controlled and enforced trade regu-

lations conferred the right of access to foreign markets, thereby

creating clients: people who owed them their economic for-

tunes and whose political loyalty they could therefore expect

in return.

The intersection of the borders between Rwanda, Uganda,

and eastern Zaire (present-day Congo) provides an apt illustra-

tion. In 1973, General Juvenal Habyarimana deposed Gregoire

Kayibanda as president of Rwanda. Already commander of

the armed forces, the new president sought control over the

economic bureaucracy as well, including – and perhaps espe-

cially – the central bank.

To the west of Rwanda lie some of the most productive

lands of Zaire: temperate, well watered, and endowed with

rich, volcanic soils. There grows some of the best coffee pro-

duced in East Africa. Near the border also lie deposits of gold

and some of the last major herds of elephants in Africa. Able to

purchase hard currencies at advantageous rates, those upon

whom Habyarimana conferred access to foreign exchange at

71

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

the official rate were at an advantage in the scramble for the

riches of eastern Zaire. The president targeted his largesse on

his family, his wife’s family, and his subordinates in his mili-

tary, many of whom, like Habyarimana and his wife, came from

the northern districts of the country. Funded by members of

Rwanda’s inner circle, traders and businessmen crossed the

border to Zaire and purchased coffee, ivory, and gold. Trans-

porting these goods to the coast, they returned laden with

luxuries: liquor, automobiles, appliances, and expensive cloth-

ing, to be sold in shops, boutiques, and showrooms owned

by friends of the president.5 Each member of the president’s

circle then assembled his own political retinue from among

those to whom they had extended favors: the granting of for-

eign exchange, the “right” to market shoes or liquor purchased

abroad, or to sell their coffee to private buyers instead of to the

state monopoly. The politicians thus cast webs of political obli-

gation about the informal markets to which the government’s

interventionist policies gave rise.

Recall that the ruling elite controlled not only the economic

agencies but also the security services. The political ties that

ramified about the regulated economy were forged not only

from selective benefits but also from targeted sanctions. Many

5 Meredith, M. (2005), The State of Africa: A History of Fifty Years of Independence, London: Free Press. Interviews by the author, Rwanda, 2000.

72

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Policy Choices

of the most valuable sources of wealth were illegal: Riches were

gleaned in the “shadow economy.” Those who secured their

income illegally were liable to seizure, prosecution, and deten-

tion – or worse, and their vulnerability grew in proportion to

their bank accounts. Given that they had violated the law, their

prospects – financial and political – lay at the discretion of those

who controlled the coercive apparatus of the state.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have argued that there is an elective affin-

ity between political institutions and policy choices in post-

independence Africa. The banning of opposition parties and

the end of multiparty politics enabled political elites to adopt

and retain economic policies that harmed farmers, even

though in many states the rural producers formed a major-

ity of the population. Because politicians competed for the

favor of the state house rather than for the backing of citizens,

the numerical supremacy of Africa’s rural population posed no

threat to those in power and so failed to alter their choice of

policies.

Because of the incidence of the costs, control regimes effec-

tively constituted a tax on agriculture. If only because agricul-

ture represented the single largest industry in most of Africa’s

economies, the policies thereby lowered the continent’s rate of

73

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

economic growth. That these policies nonetheless remained

in place reflects the political advantages that they conferred:

resources that authoritarian elites could employ to ameliorate

political tensions, to recruit political clients, and to build polit-

ical machines, and thereby remain in power.

74

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.004 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

5

Subnational Tensions

Beneath the political surface of Africa’s authoritarianregimes, there were forces at work that sowed the polit- ical landscape with multitudinous opportunities for conflict.

The economies of Africa’s rural communities rendered them

politically expansionary, and therefore generated competing

claims for land. So long as political order reigned at the national

level, and so long as the incumbent regimes could marshal

the resources with which to purchase or to compel political

restraint, the resultant conflicts could be contained. When

states began to fail, however, local conflicts then acquired

national significance. They offered opportunities to politicians

The argument in this chapter should be viewed as a contribution to the study of Africa’s “political geography,” as pioneered by Herbst, J. (2000), States and Power in Africa, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; Boone, C. (2003), Political Topographies of the African State: Rural Authority and Institutional Choice, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press; and Azam, J.-P. (2007), The Political Geography of Redistribution, Chapter 6 in The Political Economy of Economic Growth in Africa, 1960–2000, edited by B. Ndulu, P. Collier, R. H. Bates, and S. O’Connell, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

75

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

seeking to consolidate political followings, and as national

elites were drawn to parochial disputes, Africa’s rural citizens,

in search of political champions, flocked about them. When

political order declined in late-century Africa, it therefore did

so precipitously. Competition between local communities thus

increased the costs of governing by authoritarian regimes and

the pace with which they subsequently collapsed.

Rural Dynamics

To apprehend the forces at play, consider a family and its

choice of where to settle.1 The family will naturally choose to

farm the highest-quality land, where its efforts will result in

the greatest return. Alternatively, by working such lands, it

can secure sufficient food to feed itself at least effort. Now let

another family arrive and the population increase. This fam-

ily must choose between being the second family to settle on

the highest-quality land or the first to settle on the land of the

next-best quality. Where it settles depends upon the relative

magnitude of the output that it can secure in the two loca-

tions. For purposes of argument, assume that the differential

in land quality is such that this second family, as did the first,

1 This analysis follows Ricardo, D. (1821), On the Principles of Political Econ- omy and Taxation, London: John Murray.

76

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Subnational Tensions

secures a higher return to its labor in the highest-quality land.

It will then choose to locate adjacent the first family. As the

cycle repeats itself over time, a settlement will therefore grow

in the lands of higher quality.

A second pattern will also emerge, however: a trickle of set-

tlers to the periphery. Because of diminishing returns, as more

families crowd onto the lands of high quality, the increment

in production that results from each additional unit of labor

declines. New arrivals will therefore eventually find it more

attractive to be the first to settle on the lands of lesser quality

rather than to be the last to settle on lands of superior quality.

There therefore begins a process of dispersal in the settlement

pattern.

Arable and Pastoral Production

In Africa, as elsewhere, agriculture involves more than the

planting and harvesting of crops. It also involves the breed-

ing and herding of livestock, and this activity too induces the

shifting of population to the periphery. When livestock graze,

they make extensive use of land. As the core becomes more

densely settled, land becomes scarce; it therefore increases in

value. To conserve on the use of this resource, farmers there-

fore tend to shift their livestock to less densely settled areas. In

addition, when grazing, cattle, goats, and sheep may wander

77

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

into the fields, and pastoralism can therefore lower the return

from arable production. Farmers therefore seek to separate

the two activities, shifting their livestock from the core to the

periphery. In the absence of “mixed farming,”2 the two activi-

ties – arable and pastoral production – will be most productive

if managed apart.

Investment

Families combine persons of different genders, ages, and gen-

erations, and this property furnishes an additional reason for

territorial expansion: the opportunity to invest and thereby

escape a future dominated by diminishing returns.

As time passes and population increases, without technical

change, each additional unit of labor adds less to the total prod-

uct. If labor is paid its marginal product, then wages fall. Even

were the total product to be divided equally, insofar as output

increases more slowly than does population, per capita con-

sumption will fall. In either case, the society becomes poorer

with the passage of time.

In the face of diminishing returns, out-migration offers an

escape from poverty. Because migration is costly, it is likely to

2 This is the change that marked the commercial revolution in European agriculture. See, for example, Timmer, C. P. (1969), “The Turnip, the New Husbandry, and the English Agricultural Revolution,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 83: 375–96.

78

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Subnational Tensions

be the younger rather than the older generation that migrates,

for the younger generation can amortize the costs of migra-

tion over a longer stream of earnings. To treat migration as a

choice made solely by the younger generation, however, is to

fail to recognize other incentives at play. The elders, too, are

subject to the consequences of diminishing returns; as popu-

lation grows, they, too, experience a fall in the wage rate and

in average income. As elders, they may be less likely to emi-

grate. But they, too, would benefit from the out-migration of

the young, as their departure would reduce the quantity of

labor and therefore raise the earnings of workers in the core.

Diminishing returns thus creates an incentive for the elders

to invest in the out-migration of the young. The search for an

escape from diminishing returns strengthens the incentives to

invest in expansion in Africa’s rural economies.

Variations in Form

Thus far I have emphasized the economics of territorial expan-

sion. It is important to address the politics as well. In doing

so, I draw the conventional distinction between decentralized

and centralized societies in Africa (Fortes and Evans-Pritchard

1987). In decentralized societies, politics is dominated by fam-

ily heads; there is no chief and no bureaucracy. In centralized

societies, there exists a chief executive, a retinue of palace offi-

cials, and bureaucrats who levy taxes and make war. I note as

79

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

well a third kind of political system, one in which there is no

bureaucracy but the society is spanned by formal institutions

called age grades. Despite the variation in the way the societies

are structured, each type can be regarded as offering an alter-

native political solution to a common problem: the need for

intergenerational contracts that will promote the peopling of

the periphery.

The Family

Migration requires infusions of capital. If a farmer, the junior

member will have to be supported until he claims, clears, and

cultivates a piece of land. If a pastoralist, he will need to be given

stock with which to build a herd. In either case, repayment is

deferred. In some instances, the returns to such investments

take the form of increased land holdings and a lowering of risk,

as the family estate comes to ramify across different ecological

zones; in others, it yields a flow of milk, curds, and hides from

flocks consigned to the young for safekeeping, or of cattle with

which to pay bride price and increase the size and prestige

of the lineage. In either case, the elder investors incur costs

today; the young recipients later repay; and there arises a flow

of resources back to senior members of the family.

The transformation of the family into a means of invest-

ment confronts a major dilemma, however. The transactions

80

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Subnational Tensions

are separated temporally: The costs fall upon the elders in

present time while repayment must of necessity be delayed.

In addition, the parties to the transaction are separated by

space. The elders cannot monitor the efforts of the young; they

cannot assess the validity of excuses for non-repayment, such

as the loss of livestock to disease or of crops to grazing wildlife.

The potential for opportunism is therefore high, weakening

the incentives to invest.

In African societies, the politics of gerontocracy provide one

solution to this dilemma. The solution takes the form of the

conferral upon the elders of resources and sanctions sufficient

to enable them to counter the attractions of defection by the

young.

In many African societies, only those who are married and

have fathered children of their own can hold seats in polit-

ical councils, take part in policy debates, and lay claim to

prestigious honors. And often it is the elders who control the

resources required for the payment of bride wealth. Because of

polygamy, they also control a large portion of the stock of mar-

riageable women, and thus the opportunities for the young

men to find suitable brides. The elders’ control over the possi-

bility of marriage therefore yields them power over the political

prospects of the young (see Meillassoux 1981).

If an elder rules that certain rituals have not been prop-

erly observed or that certain ceremonies have been improperly

81

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

performed, then a marriage – or a birth – might not be legit-

imate. Those whose standing in the family is thus rendered

uncertain may therefore lose access to the property or to the

political offices controlled by their lineage. That the elders

interpret family law therefore places them in a position to gov-

ern the allocation of both wealth and power.

Gerontocratic political institutions thus shape the incen-

tives that govern the conduct of the young. Whereas they may

prefer to avoid their obligations, given the power of the elders,

the young are unlikely to choose to do so. Within a political

gerontocracy, the elders control sufficient sanctions to make

it in the interests of the young to keep their pledges. Knowing

that the young will not defect, the elders are therefore will-

ing to invest; they are willing to sponsor the movement to the

frontier. Political structures thus shape economic incentives

in ways that strengthen the forces of territorial expansion in

rural Africa.3

3 See Fortes, M. (1958), Introduction, inThe Developmental Cycle in Domes- tic Groups, edited by J. Goody, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univer- sity Press; Kenyatta, J. (1953), Facing Mount Kenya, London: Secker and Warburg; Sahlins, M. D. (1961), “The Segmentary Lineage: An Organization of Predatory Expansion,” American Anthropologist 63: 322–45; Sahlins, M. D. (1968), Tribesmen, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; Sahlins, M. D. (1971), Tribal Economies, in Economic Development and Social Change, edited by G. Dalton, Garden City, NY: Natural History Press for the Amer- ican Museum of Natural History: 43–61; and Bates, R. H. (1989), Beyond the Miracle of the Market, Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.

82

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Subnational Tensions

Age Grades

In some societies, relationships between generations are

explicitly marked by the presence of age grades. In such soci-

eties, youths pass through a series of stages before being

allowed to marry and assume senior positions in the tribe.

Toward the end of their “probationary period,” they serve as

warriors. One of their tasks is to provide defense; a second is

to conquer, seizing cattle and appropriating land. Each age set

adds an increment to the total population of the tribe; each is

expected to add as well to its productive holdings. As stated by

Waller and Sobania, writing of the Masai:

[T]raditions of nineteenth-century expansion and warfare are

structured to link successive stages in their occupation of

Maasailand and control of its resources to the progression of

age-sets. The advances made by one set are consolidated and

exploited by their successors, land resources of stock, graz-

ing and water captured are utilized by elders. In this [process

of] . . . individual maturation, the continuous flow of age-sets,

and community growth and expansion are woven together. . . .

(Waller and Sobania 1994, p. 58).

States

Those who study the origins of political centralization in Africa

often stress the role of conflict: The lineages that can conquer

83

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

or subvert are those that furnish kings (see, for example,

Wrigley 1996). They also stress the willingness of followers to

obey, that is, to cede power and wealth to the ruling lineage.

In search of the factors that shape the level of deference, it is

useful to return once again to the role of land, and in particular

to the significance of differences in its productivity.

As stressed by Carneiro (1970) and Reyna (1990), when land

is of uniform quality, those who feel oppressed can resist sim-

ply by exiting. As stressed by Turner (1957), the existence of

this option limits the power of headmen and promotes polit-

ical schism rather than political centralization. When there

is a differential in the productivity of the best and next-best

lands, however, then political centralization becomes possible.

When the high-quality lands are circumscribed by unproduc-

tive ones, people will be reluctant to exit, even though coerced

or taxed. Thus it is that states formed in the highlands of the

Sahara, where the rains fall midst the desert, but rarely in the

savannahs, where the uniform productivity of the land made

exit a viable strategy (Vansina 1966). Thus, too, the location of

states in the richly endowed river valleys, where alluvial soils

and abundant moisture promises returns far greater than those

in adjacent territories.

Not only do communities in such favored settings tend to be

more highly centralized; they also tend to be more densely pop-

ulated (Stevenson 1968). The price of land is therefore high rel-

ative to that of labor. As a result, the monarch can accumulate

84

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Subnational Tensions

power. He can do so by exchanging the protection of land rights

for political services, such as the payment of taxes or the levy-

ing of conscripts.

Like their decentralized counterparts, centralized king-

doms tended to expand. Rather than dispatching youths to

settle lands on the periphery, in states, monarchs recruited

them into the military and sent them to conquer new terri-

tories. The occupation of newly seized territories decreased

the pressure of population on the lands of the core; it there-

fore increased the wage rate in the center. And it brought an

influx of wealth from assets captured by the military: taxes

from traders and miners, as in Ashanti (Wilks 1975); on ports,

as in Dahomey (Polanyi 1991) and Uganda (Wrigley 1996); and

on ivory, as in Central Africa (Vansina 1966). By the forceful

seizure of resources abroad the military added to the stock of

wealth at home. Centralized societies thereby secured higher

incomes for their members through expansion and conquest.

Impact on Contemporary Politics

Because of the “imperial peace,” traditional states now rarely

mobilize for conquest or warfare in Africa; nor, in most cases,

do age-grade societies continue to keep their youths under

arms. Nonetheless, past conquests by monarchs and warriors

created territorial disputes that reverberate to this day and so

shape contemporary politics. And even in the present, families

85

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

organize the out-migration of junior kin, generating conflicts

between “strangers” and “sons of the soil.” Beneath the sur-

face of national politics there thus lie the political tensions

produced by the dynamics of agrarian societies.4

Kenya

The Kikuyu of Kenya exemplify the decentralized mode of

expansion. In the nineteenth century, the Kikuyu resided on

the slopes of Mt. Kenya, where the soils were rich, the tem-

peratures moderate, and where rains fell both in spring and

the autumn, enabling the production of two crops a year. As

described in detail by Ensminger and Leakey (Leakey 1977), as

their numbers rose, families opened up new territory, moving

to lower-lying lands at the base of Mt. Kenya. With yet further

increases in population, the Kikuyu spread outward. Young

people, entrusted with the family herds, were among the first

to be dispatched to the frontier; they were soon followed by

young couples who planted gardens. Crossing the mountains

of Aberdare range, they settled along the upper margins of the

escarpment bordering the Rift Valley (Mbithi and Barnes 1975).

Doing so, they penetrated into contested terrain: lands grazed

by the pastoralists – the Masai to the north and south and the

Kalenjin-speakers to the west.

4 The argument just offered can be viewed as providing “micro- foundations” for Fearon’s findings regarding the origins of ethnic warps. See Fearon (2004).

86

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Subnational Tensions

In “normal” years, the pastoralists tend to graze on the

valley floor; during the dry season, they drive their herds to

higher elevations. In periods of drought, they enter forested

areas along the rim of the valley, which offers browse that could

replace the grasses. For their part, the Kikuyu had found the

lands unsettled; when the pastoralists and their herds took

refuge in the wooded fringe, the Kikuyu then felt that they had

been invaded. By contrast, from the pastoralists’ point of view,

the Kikuyu had reduced their options for dealing with the risks

of nature.

In the 1990s, the conflicts in the Rift Valley moved from

the local to the national political agenda. Following violent

demonstrations at home and mounting pressures from abroad

(Hempstone 1997), President Daniel arap Moi agreed in 1991

to an end to single-party rule. The pastoralists composed the

political base of the Kenya African National Union (KANU), the

governing party; the Kikuyu steadfastly backed the political

opposition. Campaigning for votes in the Rift Valley, oppo-

sition politicians backed the cause of the Kikuyu settlers;

the incumbents backed the communities whose lands they

had “invaded.” “Majimboism” – meaning federalism – became

a code word for this dispute. Were federalism to be adopted,

the more numerous pastoralists would have gained control

over the provincial government, leading to the extinguish-

ing of Kikuyu land rights in the Rift Valley – and to ethnic

cleansing.

87

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

In the midst of growing insecurity, ambitious elites hurried

to build competing political organizations. In the five months

that passed from the end of single-party rule to the time of

multiparty elections, the Rift Valley became a breeding house

for the formation of armed militias, as politicians sought to

build reputations for being able to defend rights to land.5

Ethiopia

In northwestern Kenya and eastern Uganda, young Karama-

jong, Pokot, and Samburu, carrying AK-47s rather than spears,

pillage the cattle of their neighbors and compel agricultural-

ists to allow their cattle to graze on their fields (Fratkin, Roth

et al. 1994; Jalata 2005). Further north lie the Oromo who, by

tradition, initiate a new age set of warriors every eight years.

5 Daily Nation, Constituency Review: Laikipia District, July 16, 2002, pp. 11–14; Rutten, M. (2001), “Fresh Killings”: The Njoro and Laikipia Violence in the 1997 Kenyan Elections Aftermath, in Out for the Count: The 1997 General Elections and Prospects for Violence in Kenya, edited by M. Rutten, A. Mazrui, and F. Gignon, Kampala, Uganda: Fountain Pub- lishers; Mwakikagile, G. (2001), Ethnic Politics in Kenya and Nigeria, Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers; Kimenyi, M. S., and N. Ndung’u (2005), Sporadic Ethnic Violence: Why Has Kenya Not Experienced a Full Blown Civil War? in Understanding Civil War: Evidence and Analysis, Vol- ume 1 (Africa), edited by P. Collier and N. Sambanis, Washington, DC: The World Bank; Finance Magazine, “Kalenjin Liberation Army,” September 15, 1992, pp. 20–6; National Council of Churches of Kenya (1992), The Cursed Arrow, Nairobi: NCCK; Republic of Kenya, Parliamentary Select Committee (1992), Report of The Parliamentary Select Committee to Inves- tigate Ethnic Clashes in Western and Other Parts of Kenya, Nairobi: Kenya Parliament.

88

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Subnational Tensions

Over the centuries, their youthful fighters have helped the

Oromo to spread from their homeland in Borena throughout

the Ethiopian lowlands, occupying the northeastern territo-

ries near the Red Sea and the southwestern regions bordering

Kenya.

Until the revolution of 1974, the Ethiopian state rested

on foundations forged from traditional states on the high-

lands. The highland kingdoms embodied the “high culture”

of Ethiopia. They defended the elaborate ecclesiastical hier-

archy of the Coptic Church, lived off incomes extracted from

peasants, and participated in the culture of the imperial court.

The Oromo, by contrast, embodied the “low” culture. While

a large number are Christian, few Oromo staffed the hierar-

chy of the church. Their economy is based on pastoralism, not

farming, and their society is egalitarian, not hierarchical.

Propelled by the expansionary dynamics of the age-grade

system, the Oromo peopled the margins of the Ethiopian state,

territorially and ideologically. They became the object of cam-

paigns mounted by the hegemonic center. In the times of the

empire, they were forced to convert to Christianity and to tithe

to the church; following the revolution, they were forced to sur-

render their lands to a socialist state. They have been subject to

forceful occupation by clients of the national government. In

the era of the empire, the center granted court favorites lands

on the frontier and the right to enserf the Oromo who occu-

pied them; following the revolution, the central government

89

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

stationed military units in the periphery and commandeered

food and livestock to feed its soldiers and bureaucrats. Seek-

ing economic development, the present government invests

in the growing of cotton, sugar, and wheat. More often than

not, it locates its projects not in the highly populated center

but rather in the less crowded periphery, resulting in the loss of

land and water rights for the Oromo (de Waal 1991; Salih and

Markakis 1998; Lewis 2001; Marcus 2002).

The politics of Ethiopia is thus marked by conflicts between

a dynamic and expansionary society, which has extended its

territory and claims to land, and a state system that champions

what it regards as the interests of the center. Powerful issues of

culture underlie these conflicts. Central, too, are disputes over

land.

Uganda

When colonizing East Africa, the British had found it bet-

ter to work through rather than to displace the kingdom of

Buganda.6 Conferring upon it the status of a protectorate, they

employed its administration and police to govern other por-

tions of Uganda. And they rewarded the Baganda for their ser-

vices by acceding to their territorial claims, which included

6 Uganda is the country, Buganda the territory of the Baganda, one of the tribes that dwell in Uganda. By the same construction, Bunyoro is the kingdom of the Banyoro people.

90

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Subnational Tensions

ownership of several “counties” that Buganda had seized from

Bunyoro, a neighboring kingdom. When Milton Obote sought

Uganda’s independence from Britain, he found it useful to

ally with the Baganda, and he allied his UPC (Uganda Peo-

ple’s Congress) with the KY (Kabaka Yekka), the court party of

the Kabaka, their paramount chief. Implicit in the agreement

was his government’s support for the land claims of Buganda.

By championing the cause of a party to this dispute, junior

politicians could build political ties with a political kingdom,

secure a powerful political ally, and thereby accelerate their rise

to political prominence. More senior politicians, particularly

those within the upper ranks of the UPC, also took advantage

of the dispute between the two kingdoms. By threatening to

champion the cause of the Bunyoro, they could threaten to

alienate the KY, thus destabilizing the Obote regime. In this

manner, they sought to extort favors from the central govern-

ment. The conflict between two of the most powerful states

in Uganda thus destabilized the Obote government, driving

Uganda close to state failure – and to single-party rule (Kasfir

1976; Kasozi 1994; Hansen and Twaddle 1995; Kabwegyere

1995; Khadiagala 1995).

Conclusion

Africa’s peoples, like the rest of us, desire higher incomes. In

the absence of technical change, the law of diminishing returns

91

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Sowing the Seeds

ensures that the growth of population results in immiseration

rather than prosperity. To elude the power of that law, people

flee to the periphery. In the conditions that prevail in rural

Africa, the search for prosperity thus fuels territorial expansion

and competing claims to land. In times of political disorder,

these local conflicts can accelerate the failure of states.

The dynamics depicted in this chapter are not unique to

Africa, of course. They resemble those that shape political con-

flict in South Asia, although there the protagonists are char-

acterized as “strangers” and “sons of the soil” (Weiner 1978;

Brass 1985) rather than as “tribes,” as in the literature on Africa.

They find their parallel in pre-industrial Europe as well, espe-

cially at the time of the migration of the Germans and Goths

(Bartlett 1993). That the migrants were known as jovenes –

or youths – highlights the role that generational succession

played in the political dynamics of these societies. The feudal

order that emerged in response to these invasions was based

on the exchange of protection of property for political service

(Bloch 1970). That this exchange characterizes political con-

tracts in much of Africa highlights the broader significance of

the dynamics discussed in this chapter.

In the chapter that follows, I turn to the outbreak of political

disorder in late-century Africa. As adumbrated in the fable of

Chapter 2, it was triggered by elite predation – something ren-

dered more likely because of the lowering value of the resources

at the elite’s command, their rising level of political insecurity,

92

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Subnational Tensions

and the high levels of temptation they faced, given Africa’s

resource endowments. While triggered at the elite level, polit-

ical disorder was marked by the rapid spread of insecurity to

the local level, as popular movements rapidly formed and their

members took up arms. The nature of Africa’s societies helps to

account for the speed with which political disorder cascaded

from the center to the periphery of Africa’s states.

93

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.005 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Part Three

Things Fall Apart

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

6

Things Fall Apart

This chapter gathers together the threads of the argu-ment. It highlights the impact of changes in key vari- ables – the level of public revenues and the elite’s rate of dis-

count – arguing that sharp, exogenous shocks helped to drive

their value into ranges that threatened the underpinnings of

political order. That these changes took place in an environ-

ment richly endowed by nature meant that the payoffs to the

incumbent elites from defection could rapidly become more

attractive than those to good governance. In the context of

Africa’s resource endowments, the value of these variables

needed to alter but little before predation became more attrac-

tive than stewardship, thus leading to choices that triggered

state failure.

The changes in the values of these variables resulted in

part from the impact of previous choices: the forging of

The title purposely echoes Achebe, C. (1975), Things Fall Apart, New York: Fawcett Crest.

97

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

authoritarian political institutions and the choice of control

regimes. It also resulted from sharp external shocks, the first

economic recession, resulting from the rise of energy prices,

and the second political, resulting from the geo-political

realignment that followed the end of the Cold War.

The Decline of Public Revenues

In late-century Africa, governments faced a decline in public

revenues, resulting from past policy choices, changes in the

global economy, and the predatory behavior of political elites.

The Untaxed Economy

Emizet (1998) notes the web of regulations and controls that

Zaire (present-day Congo) imposed upon the producers of pri-

mary products. “The goal of these institutional arrangements

was to expropriate economic surplus . . . ,” he writes (Emizet

1998, p. 105). But, he notes,

Citizens . . . reacted to the existing institutional arrangements

by exiting the official economy, especially in coffee growing

and gold regions of Kivu, Upper Congo (Haut Congo) and

Lower Congo (Bas Congo), as well as in the diamond regions of

Eastern Kasai (Kasai Oriental). . . . The central bank reported

that these activities in the second half of the 1970s cost the

government an annual average of 15 percent equivalent in tax

revenues. (Emizet 1998, pp. 105–6)

98

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

In 1982 Zaire had exported 2,000 kg of gold to Belgium;

neighboring Burundi had exported less than 1,000. By 1990, it

was Zaire that exported less than 1,000 kg of gold to Belgium

and Burundi that exported 2,000. Evidence from the dia-

mond industry also suggests high levels of smuggling, with the

amount exported illegally being “50 to 100 percent of recorded

exports” (Emizet 1998, p. 122). The regulation and taxation of

economic activity thus led to the flight of the real economy

from the reach of the government.

The Global Economy

In response to sharp increases in energy prices and the costs

of capital, in the early 1980s, the level of unemployment in

the advanced industrial (OECD; Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development) nations rose by 50% and the

rate of economic growth fell to less than 1%. The demand for

imports therefore plummeted and the value of Africa’s exports

declined. So too, did the revenues generated by taxes on trade,

the single largest source of public revenues for most of Africa’s

governments (see Figure 6.1).

As producers of oil, several African states in fact gained

from the rise in petroleum prices; producers of coffee and

cocoa also benefited from a late-century price rise, resulting

from a sharp drop in exports from Latin America. The gov-

ernments of the nations that thus prospered launched new

99

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart 25

30 35

40 45

P er

ce nt

G ov

er nm

en t R

ev en

ue s

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 year

95% CI Fitted values

Revenues from Trade by Year

-. 01

0 .0

1 .0

2 R

at e

of G

ro w

th

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 year

95% CI Fitted values

Growth of Government Revenues by Year

Figure 6.1. Government revenues.

projects, but following the later return of petroleum prices to

normal levels, they then found themselves burdened by the

costs of these ventures. Many then borrowed, finding willing

lenders among banks now flush with deposits from the oil-

producing states. When the commodity booms receded, these

governments were then faced with the costs of servicing their

debts. As had the governments of nations whose export earn-

ings had declined, governments in nations that initially ben-

efited from changes in the global economy therefore found

themselves financially strapped.

The late twentieth century marked a time of fiscal crisis for

the state in Africa.

100

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

Predation

As stated by Sahr John Kpundeh (1995, p. 24), “during the

period 1983–1986, it was difficult to distinguish the Sierra

Leone government from a private enterprise. . . . ” Resisting any

attempt to form an independent central bank, Siaka Stevens, its

president, pegged the national currency at an artificially high

level and began rationing access to it. He allocated a major por-

tion to the National Trading Company, to which he assigned the

exclusive rights to import of nearly 100 commodities. As joint

owner of the company, Stevens shared in its monopoly prof-

its. Had foreign exchange been allocated by the market rather

than by discretion, its sale would have swelled the coffers of

the state rather than the bank account of its president.1

Even more dramatic was Stevens’s plundering of the dia-

mond industry (Reno 1995). Sierra Leone’s diamond deposits

lay in a region that supported the Sierra Leone People’s Party

(SLPP), the political opposition, and were worked by a private

corporation, the Sierra Leone Selection Trust. As a member

of De Beers, the international diamond cartel, Selection Trust

tightly regulated diamond production so as to underpin prices

1 See also Reno, W. (1995), Corruption and State Politics in Sierra Leone, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press; and Reno, W. (2003), Sierra Leone: Warfare in a Post-State Society, in State Failure and State Weakness in a Time of Terror, edited by R. I. Rotberg, Cambridge, MA, and Washing- ton, DC: The World Peace Foundation/Brookings Institution: 71–100.

101

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

in the global market. The taxes it paid constituted a major por-

tion of the public revenues of Sierra Leone.

Siaka Stevens reconstituted Selection Trust as the National

Diamond Mining Company, however. Ostensibly representing

the nationalization of the industry, the restructuring instead

represented its privatization: Stevens and his cronies domi-

nated both the board and management. By dismantling the

controls imposed by Selection Trust, Stevens permitted the

working of the alluvial deposits by private individuals, tak-

ing care to allocate licenses to political loyalists. Those who

entered diamond production formed political colonies in the

heartland of the opposition. Serving as local units of the ruling

party, they helped to convert – or to intimidate – those about

them into supporting the government in power.

Stevens thus benefited financially and politically from the

transformation of the diamond industry; the state lost out.

Indicative of the magnitude of the diversion of funds is the

magnitude of the decline of reported diamond production,

which fell from 595,000 carats in 1980 to 48,000 in 1988 (Smillee,

Giberie et al. 2000). Also indicative is the decline in tax pay-

ments, which fell from $200 million in 1968 to $100 million in

1987 (Musah 2000).

As indicated in Figure 6.2, the share of central government

revenues in Sierra Leone’s gross domestic product eroded,

falling to less than 5% at one point in the 1990s.

102

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart 0�

5� 10

� 15

� 20

R ev

en ue

s as

P er

ce nt

o f G

D P

19�75� 19�80� 19�85� 19�90� year�

Figure 6.2. Fall of government revenues, Sierra Leone.

The Impact of Declining Revenues

The decline in public revenues adversely impacted the

incomes of public employees. Returning once again to Sierra

Leone, Sahr Kpundeh provides a vivid example. Interview-

ing the Freetown Commissioner of Taxes in the md-1980s,

he “was shown his pay stub. . . . If he buys a bag of rice . . . to

feed his family [or] pays . . . for transportation to and from work

every day, his expenses exceed his earnings” (Kpundeh 1995,

p. 67). The commissioner therefore worked fewer hours in his

public office and more in the private economy. Janet Mac-

Gaffey reports similar findings for Kinshasa in 1986. Employees

103

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

simply could not survive on the salaries paid them by the gov-

ernment, she concludes (MacGaffey 1991).

Given the erosion of public sector salaries, the quality

of public services declined. Teachers abandoned their class-

rooms, nurses left clinics untended, and offices stood empty

while public servants turned to private trade in search of

income. In addition, the level of corruption rose. In economies

in which the government regulated prices, goods disappeared

from the shelves; those in charge would sell the product to

those willing to pay the market as opposed to the official

price. The same was true in post offices, where stamps might

be scarce at the window but be available on the street; or in

medical or veterinary offices, where pharmaceuticals might

be in short supply but available in private clinics. In schools,

children found themselves paying for supplies that once were

freely provided; in hospitals, patients found it necessary to

“tip” to secure a towel, a washcloth, or a bed pan.

A bureaucracy that had been created to facilitate the lives

of the citizens began instead to undermine their welfare. Its

members began to feed themselves by consuming the time

and money of those they once had served.

The most visible of those endowed with the power to coerce

was, of course, the military. Their salaries, too, eroded or

fell into arrears. Their uniforms became tattered, the qual-

ity of food declined in their mess halls, and their equipment

104

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

malfunctioned and, for want of funds, could not be repaired.

In his account of the events leading up to the attempted coup

in Kenya in 1982, James Dianga (2002) stresses the lack of such

basics as proper clothing, palatable food, and affordable hous-

ing. The soldier “has signed a contract with the State,” he argues

(p. 48). The soldier will defend the state; the state will ensure a

decent life for the soldier. But with the “decline in the supply of

uniforms,” Dianga writes, soldiers began “to wonder why the

contract was not being honored” (Dianga 2002, p. 49).

As the value of their salaries declined, soldiers began to pay

themselves. Like doctors and nursing aides, they sold services

to which the citizens were formally entitled. Most commonly,

they regulated access to public thoroughfares. As Kasozi states

for Uganda in the mid-1980s:

Any soldier who needed money . . . would just pick an isolated,

strategic part of the road, put logs or chains across it, and

wait for unfortunate travellers. These twentieth-century high-

waymen would rob everyone of anything they fancied: cash,

watches, casette radios, clothes, and the like. (Kasozi 1994,

p. 152)

In Zaire, soldiers turned to looting. In the early 1990s,

Mobutu attempted to draw Étienne Tshisekedi, the leader of

the opposition, into his ruling clique. Tshisekedi sought not

only an illustrious title – that of prime minister – but also power

105

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

and therefore demanded control over the military and the

central bank. Mobutu conceded to Tshisekedi’s demands, but

he pressured him to direct the bank to pay off long-standing

debts: arrears built up with utility companies, bills submit-

ted by suppliers of petroleum, transport services, and gov-

ernment stores, and salaries owed civil servants and soldiers.

When Tshisekedi refused, Mobutu fired him and then ordered

the central bank to pay. The result was a flood of emissions.

Soldiers received their salaries in the form of new banknotes;

but local merchants, knowing the government to be bankrupt,

refused to accept them. Having been paid in scrip deemed to

be worthless, the armed forces responded by going on “looting

sprees” (Lemarchand 2003), p. 40.2 They demolished down-

town Kinshasa, the national capital, cordoning off commercial

blocks, chasing shopkeepers from their premises, smashing

windows, and carting off food, clothing, furniture, and appli-

ances. Similar disturbances broke out in Lubumbashi in 1991;

in Mbanzu-Ngungu, Goma, and Mbandika in 1992; and in

Kisangani, Goma, and Rutshuru in 1993. On the one hand,

these “pillages,” as they were called, signaled the paucity of

the resources with which to pay public servants; on the other

they heralded the breakdown of the state.

2 See also Pech, K. (2000), The Hand of War: Mercenaries in the Former Zaire 1996–97, in Mercenaries: An African Security Dilemma, edited by A.-F. Musah and J. K. Fayemi, London: Pluto Press; and Nzongola-Ntanlaja, G. (2002), The Congo from Leopold to Kabila, London: Zed Books.

106

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

Managing Regionalism

The decline of public revenues also made it more difficult

to manage regional tensions. In Cote d’Ivoire, for example,

political order rested on a series of pacts negotiated between

regional elites and the center (see Azam 1994; Boone 2003).

Southerners, and in particular the Akan, controlled the center.

Prominent in the periphery were the Senoufo, who possessed

a well-organized polity in the north. “The complaint of the

northerners,” Boone writes, was that “their region was impov-

erished and relegated to backward status in the national polit-

ical economy. . . . ” (2003, p. 263). To counter mounting discon-

tent, President Houphouët-Boigny launched a series of public

initiatives starting projects that led to the opening of paras-

tatal agencies, the construction of roads, and the founding

of cotton and livestock industries in the region. Channeling a

massive flow of benefits to the area dominated by the Senoufo,

the government recruited members of the ruling clans into the

agencies that managed these projects (Boone 2003, pp. 267ff).

Should revenues fall, however, the government would be

unable to fulfill the periphery’s demands. And indeed with

the end of the coffee boom of the late 1970s, those in the

center could no longer credibly pledge to target the north with

largesse (Rapley 1993). The north therefore began to organize

against the central government. After the death of Houphouët-

Boigny, the forces of the north gathered about Allasane

107

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

Öuttara; once prime minister, he now sought to become

president. Led by Laurent Gbagbo, southern politicians rallied

to check the rise of Öuttara, portraying him as a non-national

and therefore ineligible for high office. The courts agreed.

Following a coup by soldiers, whom the government had

failed to pay, the rival politicians transformed their political

organizations into armed militias. Cote d’Ivoire collapsed.3

When public revenues begin to decline, then, the likelihood

of political disorder increases. When poorly reimbursed, pub-

lic servants use political power to raise their own pay; they

become more predatory. Fiscal dearth also renders it more

difficult to induce those who are dissatisfied to continue to

participate in the political game, rather than withdraw from it;

regional tensions therefore rise, and with them, threats to the

integrity of the state. As a result, political order is threatened

by the conduct of the elite in the core and of politicians in the

periphery of Africa’s states.

Political Reform

The decline of public revenues not only triggered efforts by

public employees to pay themselves, it also incited popular

opposition to those in power. In response to the declining

3 For an incisive analysis, see Azam, J.-P. (2001), “The Redistributive State and Conflicts in Africa,” The Journal of Peace Research 38(4): 429–44.

108

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

quality of public services – and public life – in Africa, people

demanded political reform. Citizens called for changes in the

institutions that structured political life. They sought to render

government the servant of the citizen, rather than her master,

and viewed the introduction of multiparty politics and com-

petitive elections as the way of achieving that end. While the

impulse for reform originated within Africa itself, it also arose

among the continent’s creditors, as those who held its debt

sought ways to alter the policy choices of its regimes. By ren-

dering governments accountable to their people, they sought

to create incentives for them to choose policies that would

promote the growth of Africa’s economies and bring greater

prosperity to its people.

While the reforms were designed to secure political ac-

countability and economic prosperity, they also contributed

to political disorder. By raising the level of insecurity for those

in power, they strengthened the incentives for them to defect,

engaging in predation and thus provoking their citizens to take

up arms.

The Local Impulse

Oquaye (1980), writing about life in Ghana, recalls blackouts

because of the “breakdown of . . . electricity supply” (p. 38).

Children, he writes, had to drink “from filthying pools” . . . and

“septic tanks remained un-flushed,” raising the risk of disease

109

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

(ibid., p. 38). Shortages of petrol led to the breakdown of the

transport system, resulting in increased prices for food (ibid.).

Life in Sierra Leone traced a similar trajectory, as roads and

railways in the interior fell into disrepair (Richards 1995); pub-

licly owned companies shut down for lack of power and main-

tenance (ibid., p. 26). Most galling, Richards reports, was the

decline of the educational system, which deprived youths of

what their families had regarded as their “birthright” (ibid.,

p. 177): the chance to acquire skills, to improve their future

prospects, and to enhance the quality of their lives. Again

and again students rallied in protest against the low quality of

their schools. In some instances, their parents joined in these

demonstrations. And in reaction, the government dispatched

troops to beat, arrest, and detain those taking part (ibid.,

pp. 54ff).

Growing dissatisfaction with the quality of public services –

and punitive response to calls for their improvement – gen-

erated calls for political reform. Benin provides an apt illus-

tration. In 1975, the ruling party had endorsed “Marxist-

Leninism” and the government had expanded the range of its

services and the size of its civil service accordingly. By the late

1980s, however, the government lacked the resources to pay

its workers. The result was wave after wave of demonstrations

by government employees and increased indiscipline amongst

soldiers. While unable to meet the salaries of those it employed,

110

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

the political elites did manage to find ways to pay itself: In 1988,

the issuance of $500 million in unsecured loans to the presi-

dent and his cronies led to the collapse of three state-owned

banks. Such acts inspired further demonstrations, encouraged

and cheered on by ambitious challengers to the incumbent

regime.

Paralyzed by the mounting waves of protest, the president

of Benin, Mathieu Kerekou called for a “Conference Nationale

des Forces Vives . . . at which business, professional, religious,

labor, and political groups, together with the government,

would be given an opportunity to draw up a new constitutional

framework” (Meredith 2005, p. 388).4 Kerekou had expected to

dominate the proceedings of the conference, but he failed to

do so. Declaring themselves a sovereign assembly, the confer-

ees dissolved the government, appointed a new prime min-

ister, and laid down a schedule for new elections – elections

that Kerekou lost to Nicephone Soglo, the assembly’s preferred

candidate.

An intriguing feature of the reform movement in Africa was

the tendency for events in one country to respond to, or to

trigger, events in another. Benin’s national conference opened

February 19, 1990; February 25, a second opened in Congo.

4 See also Heilbrunn, J. (1993), “Social Origins of National Conferences in Benin and Togo,” Journal of Modern African Studies 31(2): 227–99.

111

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Table 6.1. The spread of political reform

Election Outcome: Incumbent

Country Conference Date Duration Month Free and Fair Ousted Retained

Benin Feb-90 1 week Feb-91 yes √

Mar-96 yes √

Congo Feb-91 3 months Aug-92 yes √

Gabon Mar-90 3 weeks Dec-93 no √

Mali Jul-91 2 weeks Apr-92 yes √

Niger Jul-91 6 weeks Feb-93 yes √

Burkina Faso Aug-91 2 months Dec-91 no √

Ghana Aug-91 7 months Dec-92 yes √

Togo Aug-91 1 month Aug-93 no √

Zaire Aug-91 1 year – –

Central African

Republic

Oct-91 2 months Aug-92 yes √

Chad Jan-93 3 months Jun-96 no √

112

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO 9781316423974.006

to the Cam bridge Core term

s of use, available at https://w w

w .cam

bridge.org/core/term s.

D ow

nloaded from https://w

w w

.cam bridge.org/core. Access paid by the U

C San D iego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

The national conference of Benin closed on February 28, 1990;

on March 1, that of Gabon opened (Robinson 1994).

As shown in Table 6.1, following five of the first six national

conferences, the incumbent head of state was compelled to

leave office. The climax came in Zambia, where the national

conference called for multiparty elections. News of Kaunda’s

defeat in these elections (October 1991) resounded throughout

the continent: The forces of political reform had claimed one

of Africa’s “founding fathers.” On the one side, those still in

office found reason to revise upward their assessment of the

magnitude of the threat posed by those clamoring for political

reform. On the other, the reformers took heart, finding reason

to redouble their efforts.

External Forces

By the end of the 1970s, the international community was

fully aware of Africa’s economic plight. Emboldened by the

reformist mandate bestowed by its president, Robert Mc-

Namara, the World Bank had financed a dazzling array of

small-farmer and community-level projects. As recounted in

its official history, the World Bank’s own evaluations revealed

a distressingly low rate of return for its Africa projects: “More

than any other task the Bank had undertaken, its engage-

ment with Sub-Saharan Africa sapped the institution’s . . .

confidence,” it reports (Kapur 1997, p. 720). When seeking

113

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

reasons for the failure of its projects, the Bank found them

in “the policy environment.” In its famed “Berg Report,”5

the Bank documented the tendency of Africa’s governments

to adopt policies that distorted market prices and under-

mined economic incentives and so crippled growth and

development.

In addition to being a financer of projects, the World Bank

then became an advisor to governments. In pursuit of policy

change, it drew upon two sources of strength. The first was

expertise. Through publications, seminars, and the training

of public servants, the Bank sought to expose the economic

costs of prevailing policies and to offer alternatives. The sec-

ond was capital. In any given country at any given time, the

Bank would normally finance a multitude of projects, the can-

cellation of any one of which would go largely un-noticed by

the national government. To gain the attention of policymak-

ers, Please (1984) writes, the Bank therefore began to bundle

its projects into sectoral programs; more would then be at risk

were the Bank to suspend its lending. Sectoral programs soon

gave way to country programs and to conditionality, as the

Bank sought to strengthen further its leverage over policymak-

ers in debtor nations and to sharpen the incentives for policy

reform.

5 World Bank (1981), Accelerated Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Agenda for Action, Washington, DC: The World Bank.

114

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

As Africa’s creditors focused on the behavior of African

governments, they struggled with the question: Why would

these governments adopt policies that undermined economic

prosperity? Over time, a consensus emerged: that the behavior

of these governments reflected their lack of political account-

ability. Not being accountable, governments in Africa could

adopt policies that conferred concentrated benefits on the

elites while imposing widely distributed costs on others.

Increasingly, then, the World Bank focused not only on pol-

icy choice but also on political reform.6

Among the most active of those championing political

reform was Keith Jaycox, vice president of the World Bank. In

meeting after meeting, conference after conference, and inter-

view after interview, he called for the introduction of political

reforms. As reluctant as he may have been to call openly for

the introduction of democratic institutions, he left but little

doubt that Africa’s creditors would welcome the legalization

of opposition parties and the holding of competitive elections

for political office.

The economic crisis that alienated Africa’s citizens thus

impelled Africa’s creditors to champion political reform as

well. Lending further impetus to the two political currents

6 See, for example, World Bank (1989), Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth, Washington, DC: The World Bank; and World Bank (1991), Governance and Development, Washington, DC: The World Bank.

115

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

was a second shock at the global level. With the collapse of

the Soviet Union, diplomats and security specialists who dur-

ing the Cold War had been disinclined to unseat authoritarian

regimes no longer had reason to object to efforts of economic

technocrats to displace them.7

The disintegration of the Soviet Union strengthened the

position of those inclined to bully rather than to cajole Africa’s

governments. By way of illustration, consider the demise of

Joseph Desire Mobutu, president of Zaire. In the midst of

the Cold War, foreign observers had averted their gaze from

Mobutus’s depredations, largely because of his support in

fighting “communism” in southern Africa. Following the fall

of the Soviet Union, the hands of those pushing for politi-

cal reform in Zaire were no longer stayed by those seeking

Mobutu’s political services. To receive further financial aid,

Mobutu – like other tyrants – had now to reform.

In the 1980s, changes in the international environment

thus amplified the impact of local political forces that had

been calling for reform, and the grasp of Africa’s authoritarians

on political power became less secure. Abandoned by foreign

patrons and facing increasing threats at home, incumbents

had increased reason to fear for their political futures. Their

time horizons therefore shortened. In the long run, repression

7 See the discussion in Dunning, T., “Conditioning the Effects of Aid: Cold War Politics, Donor Credibility, and Democracy in Africa,” International Organization 50(2): 409–23.

116

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

might increase the level of political disorder, but incumbents

had less reason to place great weight on the long run. That even

a founding father like Kenneth Kaunda could be turned out of

office wondrously focused their minds.

Elite Responses

In response to the call for multipartyism, wily cynics, like

Mobutu, sponsored the formation of political parties, rather

than banning their formation. Where plurality voting pre-

vailed, the incumbent could then prevail against a fragmented

opposition. Others, like Daniel arap Moi of Kenya, took more

sinister measures. The shift from Jomo Kenyatta to arap Moi

had entailed a shift from a political base centered in the Central

Province to one located in the Rift Valley and from an old guard,

largely Kikuyu, to a new guard, largely Kalenjin-speaking. The

rise of the reform movement imparted new energy to those

who had been marginalized. To counter their attacks on his

regime, Moi increasingly made use of the coercive powers at

his command. Invoking the Preservation of Public Security Act,

he jailed his political opponents. His security services were

implicated in the killing of a cleric, who was an outspoken pro-

ponent of political reform, and a civil servant, who appears to

have been too diligent in his enquiries into corruption. When

opposition politicians called for an end to the bullying tactics

of Moi and his henchmen, they, too, were arrested, tortured,

117

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

and detained (Hempstone 1997; Anguka 1998; Nnoli 1998;

Mwakikagile 2001; Meredith 2005).

Moi was not the only incumbent to bring the powers of

the state to bear upon his challengers. So, too, did Gnassingbé

Eyadema, the longtime president of Togo. Inspired by events

in neighboring Benin, parliamentarians in Togo had also called

for a national assembly; to the surprise of many, they suc-

ceeded in stripping the president of many of his powers, trans-

ferring them to the office of the prime minister – a figure whom

they, as legislators, would install in office. As befits a military

man, Eyadema fought back. His artillery shelled the palace of

the prime minister; his infantry trampled upon those who took

to the streets in protest; his police closed newspapers and jailed

professionals, party workers, and priests. Eyadema forcefully

repressed those who had challenged him and re-appropriated

the powers of the presidency (Heilbrunn 1997).

As intimidating as Moi or Eyadema might have been, nei-

ther matched the ferocity of the elites of Burundi or Rwanda.

While officially a one-party state, throughout the last decades

of the twentieth century, Burundi in the 1980s was ruled by

its army, and indeed by a small coterie of officers from the

province of Bururi. Pressured by donors abroad and, it would

appear, misperceiving his popularity at home, Pierre Buy-

oya, army major and president, agreed to legalize the forma-

tion of opposition political parties and to call for elections.

118

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

The Front pour la démocratie du Burundi (FRODEBU) consti-

tuted the largest challenge to the incumbent regime. Headed

by Melchior Ndadye, FRODEBU appealed to the majority Hutu

and defeated Buyoya, a Tutsi, in the 1993 elections, win-

ning close to two-thirds of the vote. The elections took place

July 10, 1993; on October 2, 1993, Ndadya was assassinated

and the military, slaying tens of thousands of Hutu, returned

to power (Lemarchand 1993; Ngaruko and Nkurunziza 2000;

Ould-Abdallah 2000).

The slaughter in Burundi resonated ominously with events

in neighboring Rwanda. Rwanda, itself divided between Hutu

and Tutsi, was also ruled by its military, clothed in the guise

of a political party, the Mouvement révolutionnaire national

pour le développement (MRND). But whereas Burundi’s polit-

ical elite was drawn largely from the minority Tutsi, that in

Rwanda came from the Hutu, the ethnic majority. More pre-

cisely, it came from the portion of the Hutu who originated

in Ruhengiri, a prefecture in the northwestern portion of the

country. The danger posed by reform in Rwanda, then, was not,

as in Burundi, revolution by those long suppressed; rather, it

was that the Hutu majority would split, with the “moderates”

aligning with the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) – the milita-

rized political movement that championed the interests of the

Tutsi – to dislodge their northern brethren from power. And

indeed, as the process of political reform proceeded, such an

119

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

alignment became more likely. In the transition government,

negotiated under international auspices in Arusha, both the

MRND and the RPF gained eleven seats. Should the RPF draw

support from one of the minor parties included within the

transitional government – the Liberal, the socialist, or the

Christian Democratic parties – it could then form a govern-

ment. The allocation of posts generated at Arusha thus left

the hardliners insecure, and they determined to render any

alliance between Tutsi and Hutu infeasible.

In neighboring Burundi, the Tutsi-led military had returned

to power by assassinating the leadership of the opposition and

slaughtering their Hutu supporters. The incumbent regime in

Rwanda broadcast these facts widely and portrayed them as

foreshadowing the fate of the Hutu, should the RPF come to

power. They also launched massacres of their own. By attacking

Tutsi in the name of the Hutu, they rendered improbable the

forging of political alliances between the RPF and other politi-

cal parties and incredible the promises of good faith necessary

for their construction. In Rwanda, as in Burundi, attempts to

introduce political reform thus triggered vindictive reprisals

and incumbents inflicted terror and pain upon their citizens

in an effort to forestall the loss of power (Prunier 1998; Jones

1999; Jones 2001). Figure 6.3 suggests the level of co-variation

between political reform on the one hand and the militariza-

tion of civic society on the other.

120

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart .2

� .2

5� .3

� .3

5� .4

� Li

ke lih

oo d

of R

ep or

t o f M

ili tia

1970� 1975� 1980� 1985� 1990� 1995� year�

1. 6�

1. 8�

2� 2.

2� 2.

4� 1=

N o-

2 =

S in

gl e-

3 =

M ul

tip ar

ty �

1970� 1975� 1980� 1985� 1990� 1995� year�

Figure 6.3. Political reform and militarization.

Natural Resources

With the loss of public revenues, governments became more

predatory. With the loss of their political monopolies, they

became less secure. Recall, once again, the opening fable and

the third and last of the variables whose values define the

possibility of political order: the level of temptation. Because

of their rich endowment of natural resources, many govern-

ments in Africa were tempted to abandon their role as guardian

and to embrace the role of predator, employing the power

of the state to extract wealth from the continent’s natural

resources.

121

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

In the midst of economic decline, an alternative source

of income lay close at hand: the continent’s rich deposits of

petroleum, gemstones, and precious metals. To seize such

prizes might require the use of force; it might provoke resis-

tance, particularly in the region in which the resources lay. But

the short-term benefits would readily outweigh the long-term

costs, particularly at a time when governments were finding

increasing reason to discount their political futures.

Consider, for example, the Sudan. In 1962, politicians and

military from the south rebelled against the central govern-

ment, protesting its refusal to agree to a federal form of gov-

ernment and its forced incorporation of southern troops into

the national army. When Jafar Numeri seized the presidency

in 1969, he negotiated an end to the conflict. But in 1978, oil

was discovered in a region lying in the south. Numeri then

redrew the provincial boundaries of Sudan, effectively placing

the oil fields in the portion of the country controlled by the cen-

tral government. The south’s perception of Numeri abruptly

changed; once regarded as a guardian of their interests, he

now appeared a threat. The south soon took up arms again.8

8 See Johnson, D. H. (1995), The Sudan People’s Liberation Army and the Problem of Factionalism, in African Guerillas, edited by C. Clapham, Oxford, U.K.: James Currey; Johnson, D. H. (2003), The Root Causes of Sudan’s Civil War, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press; and de Waal, A., and A. H. A. Salam (2004), Islamism, State Power, and Jihad in Sudan, in Islamism and its Enemies in the Horn of Africa, edited by A. de Waal, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

122

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

Consider, too, the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo

(previously Zaire). A centralized state under Belgian rule, it

fragmented soon after independence. At the forefront of those

who sought to dismantle the state was Katanga, a region richly

endowed with copper, cobalt, and other minerals. Following

Katanga’s forceful reintegration into Congo, however, the prof-

its from the mines accrued to the central government – a gov-

ernment presided over by Joseph Desire Mobutu.9 Succumb-

ing to the temptations offered by these riches, Mobutu became

one of the wealthiest men in the world while presiding over the

disintegration of Zaire.

For a last example, turn to Angola. In the 1960s, a group

of intellectuals, some based in Lisbon and others in Angola’s

capital city, Luanda, formed the Popular Movement for the

9 See Gould, D. (1980), Bureaucratic Corruption and Underdevelopment in the Third World: The Case of Zaire, London: Pergamon Press; Blumenthal, E. (1982), “Zaire: Rapport sur sa Credibilite Financiere Internationale,” La Revue Nouvelle 77(November 11): 360–78; MacGaffey, J. (1991), The Real Economy of Zaire, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; Weiss, H. (1995), Zaire: Collapsed Society, Surviving State, Future Policy, in Col- lapsed States, edited by I. W. Zartman, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner; Thom, W. G. (1999), “Congo-Zaire’s 1996–1997 Civil War in the Context of Evolv- ing Patterns of Military Conflict in Africa in the Era of Independence,” The Journal of Conflict Studies 19(2): 93–123; Otunnu, O. (2000), An Historical Analysis of the Invasion of the Rwanda Patriotic Army, in The Path of a Genocide: The Rwanda Crisis from Uganda to Zaire, edited by H. Adelman and A. Suhrke, London: Transaction Publishers; and Pech, K. (2000), The Hand of War: Mercenaries in the Former Zaire 1996–97, in Mercenaries: An African Security Dilemma, edited by A.-F. Musah and J. K. Fayemi, London: Pluto Press.

123

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

Liberation of Angola (MPLA). Part political party, part military

force, the MPLA were well positioned when the Portuguese

retreated from Africa. Its leaders quickly seized the national

capital, the central bureaucracy – and Angola’s oil fields. As

described by Birmingham (2002), Chabal (2002), and others

(Dietrich 2000; Meredith 2005), while the MPLA speaks of serv-

ing “the needs of the people,” it in fact channels little of Angola’s

oil wealth to them. The president has retreated to his palace;

the party elite to their villas; and their Mercedes and Land

Cruisers course through streets of Luanda, which is strewn with

garbage and broken glass and inhabited by maimed soldiers.

Other cases could be adduced, each suggesting the manner

in which the temptation to defect – that is, to employ the means

of violence to engage in predation – can overpower the incen-

tives to employ the means of violence to safeguard life and

property. In the midst of fiscal crisis, the temptation increased.

So great are the riches offered by Africa’s natural resources that,

in these instances at least, the rewards to be gained by seizing

them appear to have outweighed the prospects of living in the

midst of political disorder.

Reverberations

Public revenues declined, political elites became insecure,

and the temptation to engage in predation therefore rose in

124

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

Africa, amidst abundant opportunities to do so. In the face of

increased threats from above, citizens found reason to search

for patrons who could help them to safeguard life and prop-

erty. While inflicting widespread costs, disorder also offered

attractive prospects for those willing to invest in the build-

ing of political organizations.10 Among the strategies they

could employ, one stood out: the championing of claims to

land.

To illustrate the process, we return to the politics of east-

ern Zaire. During the colonial period, Rwandans settled in the

district of Masisi in the northern part of the region, attracted

by jobs in the coffee farms and mines of the area. Local chiefs

conferred land rights on the aliens in exchange for the payment

of tribute. By the 1990s, the Bahunde – the local population –

comprised a mere 15% of the population of Masisi and realized

that they now constituted a minority, disadvantaged politically

by their small numbers and economically by the appropriation

10 This is, of course, a central argument in the work of David Keen. See, for example, Keen, D. (1998), The Economic Functions of Violence in Civil War, Adelphi Paper 320, Oxford, U.K.: International Institute for Strategic Studies; Keen, D. (2000), Incentives and Disincentives for Vio- lence, in Greed and Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars, edited by M. Berdal and D. Malone, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner; and Keen, D. (2001), The Political Economy of War, in War and Underdevelopment: The Economic and Social Consequences of Conflict, Vol. 1, edited by F. Stewart, V. Fitzgerald, and Associates, Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

125

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

of their lands. They therefore began to organize. The Bahunde

demanded the dismissal of immigrants from local government

offices; some had become chiefs. They demanded a change in

the land laws, claiming their rights as “sons of the soil” for

the return of properties sold to “strangers.” And when Rwanda

disintegrated in the east and Zaire beneath them, they took up

arms. They grouped their local militias into a loose but armed

coalition, called Mayi-Mayi, and backed the fortunes of local

politicians who championed the expulsion of the Rwandan

immigrants from eastern Zaire (Pech 2000; Mamdani 2001;

Nzongola-Ntanlaja 2002; Lemarchand 2003).

Further south in Kivu, the thread that tied the region to

Kinshasa, the national capital, had long run through the hands

of one Barthelemy Bisengimana, chief of staff for President

Joseph Desire Mobutu. Kivu was the home of the Banyamu-

lenge, a group that had migrated from Rwanda and Burundi

and taken residence in Zaire. Bisengimana was himself a Tutsi

and championed the rights of the Banyamulenge, defending

in particular their claims to citizenship and land. But when in

the 1980s nationality became a prerequisite for citizenship,

Bisengimana became vulnerable. Labeled a Rwandan and

therefore a foreigner, he was squeezed out of Mobutu’s inner

circle. And with the downfall of their advocate in Kinshasa,

the Banyamulenge, too, became vulnerable. After the fall of

Bisengimana, his enemies – many in search of wealth and

power in the frontier territories of eastern Zaire – revoked the

126

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

citizenship of the Banyamulenge. Because they now could

not vote, they could not secure representation on the local

councils. Gladly taking their place, others allocated to them-

selves the perquisites of office: licenses for vehicles, permits

for shops, and housing. More important still, given the density

of settlement in the region, by labeling the Banyamulenge for-

eigners, they deprived them of land rights and so themselves

gained access to one of the most valuable of resources in Kivu’s

agrarian economy (Nzongola-Ntanlaja 2002; Lemarchand

2003).

As aliens, the Banyamulenge were thus left exposed to the

whims of those with access to power. In response, they took up

arms. And when Rwanda invaded Zaire in 1996, their militias

joined in the crossing of Zaire, the entry into Kinshasa, the

toppling of Mobutu – and the dismembering of the Zairian

state.

Conclusion

In late-century Africa, external shocks and forces set in motion

by previous decisions led to the erosion of the fiscal founda-

tions of the state. In response to the declining quality of pub-

lic life, citizens called for political reform, Africa’s creditors

echoed their demands; and in the early 1990s, both were able

to slip the restraints formerly imposed by foreign powers, now

less motivated by concerns arising from the Cold War.

127

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

In the latter decades of the twentieth century, then, the

values of the variables that define the possibility of the state

altered. Order gave way to disorder, as elites attacked their

own citizens, the latter sought to provide their own security,

and states failed in late-century Africa.

128

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.006 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

7

Conclusion

In the last decades of the twentieth century, the sinisterlyclownish garb of teenage killers in Liberia, the theatri- cal rage of mobs in Mogadishu, and the dignified suffering of

refugees in camps throughout Africa vividly underscored the

significance of political order. The power of these images cried

out for a response from humanitarians and policymakers. It

challenged scholars as well by posing that most innocent and

unsettling of questions: Why? Why in late twentieth-century

Africa did states fail and things fall apart?

To address these questions, I have retreated to the founda-

tions of my field, which focus on coercion and the properties

of the state. I have also re-immersed myself in the politics of

Africa. From the first came a theory; from the second, the evi-

dence with which to explore – and to test – its answers.

The realities of contemporary Africa compel us to realize

that political order is not a given; it is the product of decisions.

There is political order when citizens choose to turn away from

129

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.007 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

military activity and to devote their energies to productive

labor and when those who govern – specialists in violence –

choose to employ their power to protect rather than to prey

upon the wealth that their citizens create. Political order

becomes a state when these choices persist as an equilibrium.

The foundations of the state lie in the conditions that support

that equilibrium; so, too, then, must the origins of state failure.

The fable that framed this analysis highlights the condi-

tions that rendered possible political order. It also suggests the

importance of forces unleashed in the late twentieth century.

Changes in the global economy and economic mismanage-

ment at home resulted in fiscal dearth: The decline in public

revenues led to predation by those in positions of power and to

resistance by those whom they ruled. The fall of communism

permitted erstwhile patrons to abandon abusive incumbents

and enabled those who had protested the quality of gover-

nance to lay claim to the rights of political opposition. Loos-

ing support from abroad and facing new threats from within,

incumbents faced a sharp and unanticipated increase in the

level of political risk. And in many states, the political elite

dwelt in the midst of resources bestowed by nature. Those

in power could seize control of petroleum deposits or dia-

mond fields and be better off, even though bearing the costs

of fighting, than had they continued to subsist on the salaries

paid to those who served the public. It was within this ambi-

ence of temptation that the value of public finances and the

130

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.007 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Conclusion

time horizons of elites sharply altered. And it was within the

ambience of local tensions, arising from competition over land

rights and over the power to allocate them, that political dis-

order rapidly spread. The conditions that rendered political

order an equilibrium no longer prevailed and states collapsed

in late-century Africa.

Changing Perspectives

In advancing this argument, I depart in several ways from

the current literature on political violence. Rather than focus-

ing on the protest from below – as do Collier and Hoeffler

(2004), Fearon and Laitin (2003), Kalyvas (2006), Weinstein

(2007), and their predecessors, such as Popkin (1979) and

Scott (1976) – I explore its origins “at the top.” Rather than

probing the motives of rebels or the nature of their organiza-

tions, I instead ask: Why would governments adopt policies

that impoverish their citizens? Why would they “overextract”

wealth from their domains? Why would they alter the distri-

bution of income so grossly that it would become politically

unsustainable? By addressing such questions, I explored the

ways in which incumbent regimes prepared the field for the

forces of political disorder.

Not only do I thus change the point of entry, focusing on

the behavior of incumbents rather than insurgents, but I also

recast the role of the economic forces. In this work, I did not

131

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.007 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

focus on national income, as do Fearon and Laitin (2003), Col-

lier and Hoeffler (2004), and Sambanis and Hegre (2006)1; by

the same token, neither did I focus on the impact of poverty,

as do the contributors to the World Bank studies of civil war

(Collier, Hoeffler et al. 2003). Rather, I traced political disorder

to crises in public revenues.

Not only does this work thus depart from contemporary

treatments of the role of economic forces. It also offers new

perspectives on ethnicity, the resource curse, and democra-

tization, several of the central topics addressed in studies of

violence.

Ethnicity

The level of ethnic diversity is greater in the African conti-

nent than in other regions of the world.2 The level of disorder

is high. Many therefore hold ethnicity responsible for Africa’s

political conflicts. To this line of reasoning, I offer two alterna-

tives. The first flows from the inherently expansionary nature

of local societies in rural Africa. Because the search for eco-

nomic well-being underpins a strategy of territorial expan-

sion, groups file competing claims for land rights and political

1 But see Alexander, M. (2007), Is Poverty to Be Blamed for Civil Wars? Cam- bridge MA: Department of Government, Harvard University.

2 See the regional comparisons offered in Easterly, W., and R. Levine (1997), “Africa’s Growth Tragedy: Policies and Ethnic Divisions,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(4): 1203–50.

132

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.007 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Conclusion

fissures crisscross the nations of Africa. When states are sta-

ble, property rights are secure; when states begin to fail, cit-

izens turn to other sources for their protection. At times of

state failure, politicians can therefore marshal political follow-

ings and recruit armed militias by championing the defense of

land rights. In the midst of state failure, ethnicity may therefore

come to the fore. But by this reasoning, it is the product rather

than the source of political disorder.

Secondly, given that in most African countries some regions

are better endowed than others and that ethnic groups tend

to occupy distinct territories, demands for regional redistribu-

tion take on an ethnic coloring and regional conflicts assume

the guise of ethnic discord. Ethnic conflict is not a “clash of cul-

tures,” then, but rather a struggle over the regional allocation

of resources.

In discussing ethnicity, I have also noted – and stressed –

the disparity between the conclusions drawn from qualitative

accounts of political disorder and those drawn from cross-

national studies of the relationship between ethnicity and state

failure.3 The first emphasizes the significance of ethnicity; the

other, its failure to correlate with measures of political disorder.

3 See also the evidence that the scale of measurement employed in quanti- tative measures – that is, the use of national averages – fails to capture the variability of interest, which occurs at the subnational level. When such variability is captured in the measurements, then statistical estimates of the relationship between ethnic differences rise. See Murshed and Gates (2003) and Cederman and Girardin (2007).

133

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.007 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

Rather than arguing for the superiority of a particular method

of research, however, I choose instead to combine the two sets

of findings. Ethnic tensions do in fact relate to political con-

flict in Africa, I would argue, but they do so at times of state

failure.

The Resource Curse

Just as Africa is the continent most blessed with ethnic diver-

sity, so, too, is it the continent most blessed with natural

resource wealth: By one reckoning, 30% of Africa’s population

live in resource-rich economies, as opposed to 11% elsewhere

in the developing world.4 It is natural, then, that its politics is

frequently employed to illustrate the power of the “resource

curse”: the link between natural resource wealth and political

disorder (Collier 2000; Herbst 2000).

Just as observational data for the importance of ethnicity

is contradicted by statistical evidence, so, too, do qualitative

accounts of the role of precious metals and gemstones contra-

dict the quantitative findings. While Collier and Hoeffler (2004)

suggest a close link between the value of primary products

and civil wars, their findings have been called into question

4 Collier, P., and S. O’Connell (2007), Opportunities, Choices and Syn- dromes, Chapter 2 in The Political Economy of Economic Growth in Africa, 1960–2000, edited by B. Ndulu, P. Collier, R. H. Bates, and S. O’Connell, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

134

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.007 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Conclusion

by Fearon (2005). They are also called into question by my

research, which, like that of Fearon (2005), finds only oil pro-

duction to be significantly related to the likelihood of politi-

cal disorder (see Appendix). But just as a combination of the

two kinds of evidence generates a deeper understanding of

the relationship between ethnicity and conflict, so, too, does

it teach us more about the political importance of natural

resources.

Qualitative accounts repeatedly link rebel movements to

the working of deposits of minerals, gemstones, and other

commodities. Statistical investigations largely find little by way

of a relationship between natural resource wealth and political

violence.5 The conflicting evidence suggests to me, at least, the

importance of the temporal course of political disorder. The

first step involves the disintegration of the state; the second,

the turmoil that follows. The quantitative evidence bears upon

the first; it indicates that states whose economies have been

richly endowed are no more likely to fail than are others. The

case materials pertain to the subsequent period of disorder. At

this stage rival forces seek to seize control over timber, metals,

5 See Fearon, J. D. (2005), “Primary Commodities Exports and Civil War,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 49(4): 483–507. See also Snyder, R., and R. Bhavani (2005), “Diamonds, Blood and Taxes: A Revenue-Centered Framework for Explaining Political Order,” The Journal of Conflict Resolu- tion 49(4): 563–597; and Snyder, R. (Forthcoming), “Does Lootable Wealth Breed Disorder? A Political Economy of Extraction Framework,” Compar- ative Political Studies.

135

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.007 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

and gemstones, and to employ the resources that flow from

their possession. Resource wealth and political conflict then

co-vary.

On the one hand, this revision stands as a critique: Implic-

itly it charges the earlier literature with having mistaken a

symptom of state failure for a cause. On the other, it stands

as a positive contribution, suggesting an important feature of

the consequences of state failure.

Democratization

In the broader literature on political conflict, scholars treat

political reform with caution. New democracies, they find, are

politically unstable; far more secure are authoritarian regimes

and “consolidated” democracies.6 By contrast, in the literature

on Africa, political reform is widely celebrated and democrati-

zation viewed as valuable, both inherently and instrumentally.

6 See Hegre, H., S. Gates, et al. (2001), “Toward a Democratic Civil Peace? Democracy, Political Change and Civil War, 1816–1992,” American Political Science Review 95(1): 33–48; Hegre, H. (2003), Disentangling Democracy and Development as Determinants of Armed Conflict, paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Portland, Oregon; Goldstone, J., R. Bates, et al. (2005), A Global Forecasting Model of Political Instability, McClean, VA: State Failure Task Force, SAIC; Bates, R., D. Epstein, et al. (2006), Political Instability of Task Force Report, Phase IV Findings, McLean VA: SAIC; and Epstein, D. L., R. Bates, et al. (2006), “Democratic Transitions,” American Journal of Political Science 59(3): 551–69.

136

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.007 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Conclusion

Clearly, this book can be read as supportive of the argu-

ments of those who are skeptical of the benefits of political

reform. By provoking a sharp, upward revision in the level of

political insecurity of incumbent regimes, I have argued, polit-

ical reform provoked political disorder. But further reflection

suggests an alternative reading. Recall that it was authoritar-

ianism that lay the foundations for state failure; multiparty

political systems would have been less likely to impose control

regimes as governments that advocated such policies could not

have retained the support of the political majority. Insofar as

authoritarian governments can champion policies that under-

mine their economies, political reform thus removed a major

source of political instability. Moreover, because the evidence

linking political reform to political disorder derives from less

than a decade of data, it may be misleading. We need further

evidence before we can determine whether the relationship

between political reform and political disorder reported here

represents the turbulence associated with transitional dynam-

ics or constitutes, as the skeptics would have it, the properties

of a new steady state.

State Failure

In the late twentieth century, the political foundations of Africa

were hit with shocks, both economic and political, and subject

137

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.007 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Things Fall Apart

to forces that eroded political order. Posed dispassionately,

Africa was subject to an experiment, as these forces pushed

the value of key variables into ranges in which the possibility

of political order became vanishingly small. It was the misfor-

tune of Africa’s peoples to be caught in a perfect storm – one

in which political fundamentals were so altered that the foun-

dations of the state lay nakedly revealed: a sight that was both

horrible – and instructive.

In closing, we return one last time to the fable and turn to

a portion that, until now, has remained un-read. The state has

collapsed. And in the midst of the disorder that then engulfs

the specialist in violence and the citizenry, the government

turns to predation while the citizens enlist behind champions

who offer protection in exchange for political services. People

now dwell in a world wherein the government has turned into

a warlord and where they themselves have picked up arms.

Following the logic delineated by Bates, Greif et al. (2002),

we can learn more about the subsequent fate of these people.

Among the insights we achieve is that in the midst of political

disorder, they must trade off between peace and prosperity.

When private individuals provide their own protection, one

way they can achieve security is by being poor: They can “deter”

attacks by having few possessions worth stealing. In the midst

of state failure, then, poverty becomes the price of security.

Cruelly, the opposite also follows: The price of prosperity is

being prepared to fight. In a world in which people provide

138

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.007 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Conclusion

their own protection, if they wish to accumulate wealth, they

must be prepared to defend it. They must be willing to pick up

arms.

Whereas those who live in states can enjoy both security

and prosperity, those who live where states have failed must

choose whether to be wealthy or secure; without being willing

to fight, they cannot be both. The formation of militias midst

diamond fields is thus emblematic of the way in which people

must live when states fail.

139

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.007 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.007 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Part Four

Appendix

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Cross-National Regressions

This study has drawn on a combination of argument,narrative, and quantitative data. The narratives form the body of the manuscript and the formal arguments ani-

mated the opening fable, but until now the statistical evidence

has lurked in the background. It is time for it to step forward.

In this appendix, I first discuss the data and the inferential

challenges they posed. I then bring statistical analysis to bear

upon the three central phenomena addressed in the study:

policy choice, political reform, and political disorder.

The Data

The data form a time series, cross-sectional panel, drawn from

46 countries (see Table A.1) and 26 years (1970–1995).

Most states in Africa achieved independence in the early

1960s, and many initially were unable to gather and report

data of key interest to this study. I judged 1970 to offer a suitable

143

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Appendix

Table A.1. Countries in the forty-six-nation sample, 1970–1995

1. Angola 24. Madagascar

2. Benin 25. Malawi

3. Botswana 26. Mali

4. Burkina Faso 27. Mauritania

5. Burundi 28. Mauritius

6. Cameroon 29. Mozambique

7. Cape Verde 30. Namibia

8. Central Africa Republic 31. Niger

9. Chad 32. Nigeria

10. Comoros 33. Rwanda

11. Congo, Republic of 34. São Tomé and Principe

12. Cote d’Ivoire 35. Senegal

13. Djibouti 36. Seychelles

14. Equatorial Guinea 37. Sierra Leone

15. Ethiopia 38. Somalia

16. Gabon 39. Sudan

17. The Gambia 40. Swaziland

18. Ghana 41. Tanzania

19. Guinea 42. Togo

20. Guinea-Bissau 43. Uganda

21. Kenya 44. Dem. Rep. of the Congo

22. Lesotho 45. Zambia

23. Liberia 46. Zimbabwe

compromise between the depth of the panels and the prob-

lems posed by missing data, and 1970 therefore became the

initial year of the sample. Beginning this project in 1997, I ini-

tially adopted 1995 as the terminal year; the data come from

144

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Appendix

published sources and a two-year time lag between the time of

writing and the date of the most current observation seemed

the best that could be achieved. As no other end date would be

any less arbitrary and as attempts at currency would run afoul

pauses for analysis and publication, I have therefore stuck with

1995 as the cutoff date for the sample.1

The panel is composed of all independent countries in sub-

Saharan Africa, with the exception of South Africa. The mag-

nitude of the South African economy and the character of its

politics rendered it a major – and potentially highly influen-

tial – outlier.

Working with a talented team of graduate students, I

gathered economic and financial data from sources com-

monly employed by those building cross-national samples of

country-level data. Tables A.2, A.6, and A.9 describe the char-

acteristics of the measures employed in each portion of the

analysis and the sources from which they were taken.

General Overview

Shaping the strategy of estimation were the extent and inci-

dence of missing data, difficulties of measurement, and pat-

terns of dependence among the observations.

1 The data can be found at http://Africa.gov.harvard.edu. Macartan Humphreys built the original Web site; Maria Petrova updated it. As I write, I am continuing to update the data.

145

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Appendix

Missingness

Some countries in some years failed to report statistics. To

the extent that the problem originated from the institutional

weakness of Africa’s newly independent states, limiting the

depth of the panel provided a remedy. The problem also arose,

however, from the subsequent collapse of some of these states.

Because of the potential for selection bias, this source required

a more sophisticated response.

Until recently, scholars, when faced with missing data,

have reverted to “list-wise deletion”: If data for a variable

were missing, then the case was dropped from the data set.

Not only does the dropping of cases throw information away

and thus render estimates inefficient, but also, should the

data not be missing completely at random, then list-wise

deletion may render the estimates biased (King, Honeker et

al. 2001). For the reasons just discussed, in this instance,

the likelihood of bias approaches certitude. Employing the

methods championed by Rubin (1996) and implemented by

Schafer (1997), I therefore created multiple data sets that

incorporate values for missing observations that have been

statistically imputed using variables whose values could be

observed. I have posted the resultant data sets on my Web

site (http://people.iq.harvard.edu/∼Rbates/), along with the R-scripts employed to generate them.

146

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Appendix

Qualitative Dependent Variable

Having reviewed the problems confronting those who seek

accurate body counts, I simply could not bring myself to use

reported deaths as a measure of disorder.2 I attempted to cal-

culate the percent of a nation’s territory controlled by rebels,

but accurate estimates of this variable also proved difficult to

devise. Data on refugees and displaced persons appeared to

be much more precise; but the systematic reporting of these

data began late in the sample period and would therefore have

necessitated a severe truncation of the panel.

I sought to use the formation of militias as my indicator of

state failure. I could not use the number of militias as a depen-

dent variable, however: Given that militias often change their

names, I ran the risk of double-counting; and given that some

sought to hide their identity, I ran the risk of undercounting.

Nor could I make use of the number of combatants; public esti-

mates varied wildly, reflecting the incentives of the rebel side

to claim popular backing and of the government to deprecate

such claims.

2 For an illuminating discussion of the accuracy of battle death data in the Liberian civil war, see the appendix to Ellis, S. (1999), The Making of Anarchy, New York: New York University Press. For more general and technical discussions, see the papers made available through the House- holds in Conflict Network, which can be accessed on the World Wide Web (www.hicn.org).

147

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Appendix

In the end, I therefore chose to employ a categorical mea-

sure. I created an indicator that took on the value of “1” if there

was any report3 of an armed militia in a given country in a given

year and a “0” otherwise.

Patterns of Dependence

To correct for the impart of correlation across time periods

and within countries on the standard errors, I made use of

robust standard errors, clustering by country. The presence of

militias at one time might well affect the likelihood of their

being reported at another. I therefore adopted the techniques

devised by Beck, Katz et al. (1998), introducing cubic splines to

correct my estimates for the impact of temporal dependence

arising from the events themselves.

Possibilities also arise for interdependence among coun-

tries within the cross sections. I introduced “period dummies”

to control for the impact of shocks that might be common to

the whole sample set of countries: the rise of oil prices in the

1970s, for example, or the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s.

For each observation, I also computed4 the value of the depen-

dent variable in neighboring states, allowing me to control for

the possibility, say, that the likelihood of political reform or

3 Reports are from the sources listed in Table A.9. 4 Computations were conducted with the assistance of James Habyarimana.

148

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Appendix

disorder in a country in a given year was related to the extent

of political reform or disorder in its neighbors.

Discussion

Given the nature of the data, the challenge therefore became to

draw precise and unbiased estimates from multiple, imputed

sets of time series, cross-sectional data, with a binary depen-

dent variable, controlling for the sources of error discussed

above. Given the state of the art, the properties of the data set

limited my choice of models.

The following three sections present the estimates that I

have obtained.5

Policy Choices

I attributed the initial choice of control regimes in part

to demands for regional redistribution. Their persistence I

attributed to the authoritarian nature of governments, which

virtually disenfranchised those who bore the costs of these

policies. Table A.2 presents the variables employed in the anal-

ysis of policy choices. Table A.3 presents estimates from a

5 I was assisted in these labors by Matthew Hindman and Marc Alexander, plus others who labored ’round Gary King’s shop at Harvard University, Olivia Lau and Rebecca Nelson in particular. I owe special thanks to Jas Sekhon.

149

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Table A.2. Variables employed in analysis of policy choices

Standard Measure Mean Deviation Source

Dependent Variable Control regime 1 = Yes 0.51 0.500 Ndulu, Collier, et al. 2007

0 = No Syndrome-free 1 = Yes 0.251 0.434 Ndulu, Collier, et al. 2007

0 = No Independent Variables Authoritarian regime 1 if no- or single-party. 0.704 0.456 Keesings Contemporary Archives

0 otherwise Africa Confidential

Economist Intelligence Unit

Military government 1 if head of state is 0.441 0.497 Keesings Contemporary Archives

or ever has been Africa Confidential

military professional. Economist Intelligence Unit

0 otherwise

150

Privileged region 1 = yes 0.891 0.331 Harvard research team 0 = No

President from non- 1 = yes 0.570 0.495 Harvard research team privileged region 0 = No

Period1 1 if 1970–74

0 otherwise

Period2 1 if 1975–79

0 otherwise

Period3 1 if 1980–84

0 otherwise

Period4 1 if 1985–89

0 otherwise

Note: The variables “authoritarian regime?” and “military government?” have been lagged by one year. Ndulu, B., P. Collier, et al. 2007. The Political Economy of Economic Growth in Africa, 1960–2000. 2 vols. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

151

https://w w

w .cam

bridge.org/core/term s. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO

9781316423974.008 D

ow nloaded from

https://w w

w .cam

bridge.org/core. Access paid by the U C San D

iego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject to the Cam bridge Core term

s of use, available at

Table A.3. Correlates of policy regimes, pooled sample

Control Regime Syndrome-Free Policy Choices

Coefficient P > t Coefficient P > t Coefficient P > t Coefficient P > t (1) (2) (3) (4)

Authoritarian regime 0.214 0.636 −0.826 0.106 (0.473) (−1.614)

Military government 0.143 0.774 −1.390 0.016 (0.287) (−2.415)

Privileged region 2.198 0.082 2.207 0.084 −3.530 0.004 −3.547 0.000 (1.746) (1.735) (−2.877) (−3.503)

President from non- 0.982 0.028 0.971 0.036 −0.329 0.552 −0.185 0.748 privileged region (2.191) (2.100) (−0.596) (−0.322)

Period1 1.102 0.005 1.122 0.005 −0.586 0.131 −0.779 0.047 (2.825) (2.817) (−1.512) (−1.984)

Period2 1.609 0.000 1.646 0.000 −1.580 0.001 −1.819 0.000 (5.129) (5.150) (−3.278) (−3.907)

Period3 1.540 0.000 1.573 0.000 −1.796 0.000 −1.989 0.000 (5.048) (5.147) (−3.614) (−4.159)

Period4 1.148 0.000 1.171 0.000 −1.153 0.001 −1.235 0.001 (4.575) (4.650) (−3.311) (−3.386)

Constant −3.704 0.004 −3.631 0.004 3.561 0.006 3.530 0.000 (−2.909) (−2.907) (2.757) (3.526)

Observations 1150 1150 1150 1150

Note: t statistics in parentheses. Robust standard errors, grouped by country.

152

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO 9781316423974.008

to the Cam bridge Core term

s of use, available at https://w w

w .cam

bridge.org/core/term s.

D ow

nloaded from https://w

w w

.cam bridge.org/core. Access paid by the U

C San D iego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Appendix

pooled set of data; given the qualitative nature of the depen-

dent variables (see Table A.2), the estimates are based upon a

logit model. When, I introduce country-specific fixed effects

(Table A.4), I employ a conditional logit model.

The dependent variables are policy choices: the choice

of “control regime” in the left-hand panel (equations 1 and

2) and “syndrome-free” policymaking on the right (equa-

tions 3 and 4).6 In both sets of equations, the period dummies

(Period 1 . . . Period 4) help to control for time-specific effects,

such as changes in the global economy or the interna-

tional balance of power. The reference category is 1990–95

(Period 5).

In Table A.3, the variable “privileged region” takes the value

1 when there exists major regional inequality in a country and

0 when there does not. Such inequalities can arise because

of differences in soil quality (in 53% of the cases in which

such inequalities were judged to exist), mineral deposits (in

47% of the cases), or a climate favorable to the production of

export crops (in 92% of the cases). As this variable is time invari-

ant, it could not be incorporated into fixed effects equations

(Table A.4). I therefore make use instead of a variable that

takes on the value 1 if the incumbent president is from a non-

privileged region and 0 if not. In Table A.4, the coefficients on

6 For details concerning the content of these policies, see Chapter 4.

153

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Table A.4. Correlates of policy regimes, conditional logit

Control Regime Syndrome-Free Policy Choices

Coefficient P > t Coefficient P > t Coefficient P > t Coefficient P > t (1) (2) (3) (4)

Authoritarian regime 0.434 0.268 −0.081 0.835 (1.113) (−0.209)

Military government 0.070 0.859 −0.30791 0.517 (0.177) (−0.652)

President from non- 0.823 0.051 2.024 0.037 −1.567 0.020 −1.5256 0.029 privileged region (1.972) (2.104) (−2.657) (−2.498)

Period1 2.060 0.000 2.024 0.000 −1.161 0.001 −1.1956 0.001 (6.029) (5.873) (−3.291) (−3.287)

Period2 3.981 0.000 4.047 0.000 −3.609 0.000 −3.6319 0.000 (9.153) (9.315) (−5.411) (−5.668)

Period3 4.300 0.000 4.310 0.000 −4.571 0.001 −4.5604 0.001 (9.128) (9.204) (−3.904) (−5.504)

Period4 2.604 0.000 2.657 0.000 −2.215 0.000 −2.1527 0.000 (7.262) (7.406) (−5.532) (−5.504)

Constant −3.704 0.004 −3.631 0.004 (−2.909) (−2.907)

Observations 700 700 675 675

Note: t statistics in parentheses.

154

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO 9781316423974.008

to the Cam bridge Core term

s of use, available at https://w w

w .cam

bridge.org/core/term s.

D ow

nloaded from https://w

w w

.cam bridge.org/core. Access paid by the U

C San D iego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Appendix

the variable therefore indicate the changes in the likelihood of

choosing a particular policy regime when a president from a

non-privileged region enters office.

“Authoritarianism” takes on the value 1 when no- or single-

party systems are in place. The variable “military government”

takes on the value of 1 when the head of state is, or was, a

professional soldier, and the coefficient indicates the differ-

ence in the likelihood of the respective policy being chosen

by a military as opposed to civilian regime. In Table A.3, the

coefficients therefore indicate the difference in the likelihood

of a given policy being chosen when a government is “author-

itarian” or military as opposed to when a government is not.

In Table A.4, the coefficients indicate the changes in the like-

lihood of a given policy choice when associated with changes

in the type of government.

The estimates in Table A.3 indicate that countries char-

acterized by regional inequality are significantly more likely

to adopt control regimes and significantly less likely to

adopt “syndrome-free” or market-oriented economic poli-

cies. The coefficients on the period dummies confirm that

control regimes were abandoned following the end of the

Cold War and that syndrome-free policymaking became more

common.

In Table A.4, the temporal dummies remain highly signif-

icant when country-specific fixed effects are introduced into

the estimates. They strongly underscore the impact of “global”

155

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Table A.5. First differences – determinants of policy choice, pooled sample

Change in Probability of Adopting Control Regime

Change in Probability of Adopting Syndrome-Free Policies

Percentage Change in Probability

95% Confidence

Interval

Percentage Change in Probability

95% Confidence

Interval

Percentage Change in Probability

95% Confidence

Interval

Percentage Change in Probability

95% Confidence

Interval

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Authoritarian regime 0.031 0.009 0.059 −0.067 −0.114 0.034 Military government 0.023 0.197 0.31 −0.135 −0.212 −0.075 Privileged region 0.233 0.18 0.289 0.254 0.003 0.051 −0.515 −0.581 −0.452 −0.500 −0.574 −0.444 Period1 0.053 0.02 0.095 0.065 0.025 0.112 −0.012 −0.034 −0.009 −0.025 −0.057 −0.003 Period2 0.125 0.069 0.195 0.15 0.09 0.227 −0.100 −0.174 −0.047 −0.132 −0.215 −0.068 Period3 0.138 0.077 0.218 0.159 0.094 0.24 −0.132 −0.225 −0.066 −0.153 −0.254 −0.08 Period4 0.092 0.044 0.154 0.11 0.057 0.174 −0.069 −0.137 −0.022 −0.07 −0.15 −0.03

Note: In each instance, the coeffiicent indicates the percentage change in probability of the choice of policy regime resulting from a movement from 0 to 1 in the value of the independent variable.

156

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO 9781316423974.008

to the Cam bridge Core term

s of use, available at https://w w

w .cam

bridge.org/core/term s.

D ow

nloaded from https://w

w w

.cam bridge.org/core. Access paid by the U

C San D iego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Appendix

forces on the choice of policy regime. The estimates confirm

that when presidents from a non-privileged region assume

power, the likelihood of adopting a control regime signifi-

cantly increases. The coefficients on the type of government

(Table A.3) indicate that authoritarian governments and mil-

itary rgimes are less likely to adopt syndrome-free styles of

policymaking.

Table A.5 provides data on the magnitude of the relation-

ships between the independent and dependent variables and

is based upon the coefficients in equation 1 of Table A.4. The

estimates are produced by varying each variable from 0 to 1

while holding all others at their modal values (in this instance,

0).7 Countries with a privileged region are roughly 25% more

likely to impose a control regime and 50% less likely to lack

syndrome-free policies. The late 1970s to early 1980s emerges

as the period in which governments were most likely to adopt

interventionist policies; countries were roughly 12 to 15% more

likely to adopt control regimes and 13 to 15% less likely to adopt

market friendly economic measures in the late 1970s and early

1980s by comparison with the 1990s. Authoritarian govern-

ments were roughly 3% more likely to adopt control regimes

and 7% less likely to adopt syndrome-free policy regimes; mil-

itary governments, 2% and 14%, respectively.

7 The first two numbers in a given row indicate the lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval of these estimated magnitude of the response of the dependent variable.

157

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Table A.6. Variables pertaining to political reform

Standard Measure Mean Deviation Source

Dependent Variable Multiparty system 1 = Yes 0.208 0.406 Data collected by research team from

0 = No- or single-party Keesings Contemporary Archives Africa Confidential

Reform 1 = Yes: Civilian government 0.637 0.481 Economist Intelligence Unit 0 = Professional soldier head of state

Independent Variables Income Log of GDP per capita (PPP) 1173.38 974.723 Penn World Tables Mark 5.6

Urban population Percent of population living 25.849 13.476 World Development Indicators

Literacy Percent of adult population 58.917 19.921 World Development Indicators

that is illiterate

Modernization Factor score derived from −0.018 0.022 principal components

analysis of INCOME,

LITERACY, and URBAN

POPULATION

Petroleum Value of exports per capita 87.010 14.331 Data collected by research team

in constant U.S. dollars (’000) from commercial sources

158

Trade taxes Percentage central government revenues 34.23 0.659 World Development Indicators

from taxes on trade

Business cycle Weighted average growth rate of G7 0.021 0.019 Data created by research team

economies using data from

Penn World Tables Mark 5.6

Aid dependence Foreign aid percent of central government 53.643 68.934 World Development Indicators

expenditure

Duration

No-party system Length of time in years 2.405 4.685 Data collected by research team from

of duration of political system Keesings Contemporary Archives

Africa Confidential

Economist Intelligence Unit

One-party system ditto 3.415 5.551 ditto

Multiparty system ditto 1.271 3.934 ditto

Neighbor average Average level of reform among neighboring 2.741 1.112 Data collected by research team from

states, where 0 = no-party system, Keesings Contemporary Archives 1 = single-party system, and Africa Confidential 3 = multiparty system Economist Intelligence Unit

1990–95 1 if 1990–95

0 otherwise

Note: All independent variables lagged by one year.

159

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO 9781316423974.008

D ow

nloaded from https://w

w w

.cam bridge.org/core. Access paid by the U

C San D iego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject to the Cam

bridge Core term s of use, available at https://w

w w

.cam bridge.org/core/term

s.

Appendix

Political Reform

The fiscal crisis of the states of late-century Africa, I have

argued, led to a declining quality of public services and to

increased predation by pubic officials, both of which sparked

popular resentment and increasing demands for political

reform. Within Africa, political reform was contagious, dissem-

inating rapidly across national boundaries and into neighbor-

ing states. It was lent impetus from abroad, as Africa’s cred-

itors chided its authoritarian regimes. The power of finance

rose sharply when the interests of Western foreign policy-

makers aligned with those of the fiscal technocrats with the

end of the Cold War.

Table A.6 presents the variables employed to test this line of

argument. Reform is marked by the movement from military

to civilian regimes and from no- and single-party to multiparty

systems among the latter. To analyze the determinants of such

movements, I employ a conditional logit model (Table A.7).

As a result of this specification, several countries drop out

of portions of the analysis, some – like Botswana – because they

remained multiparty systems throughout the sample period;

others – such as Swaziland – because they never reformed;

some – such as the Democratic Republic of Congo – because

they were “always” governed by a professional soldier; and still

others – such as Tanzania – because they consistently remained

under civilian rule.

160

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Table A.7. Correlates of political reform, conditional logit

Adoption of a Multiparty System Adoption of a Civilian Regime

Coefficient P > t Coefficient P > t Coefficient P > t Coefficient P > t (1) (2) (3) (4)

Income 0.000 0.344 0.001 0.042

(0.956) (2.222)

Urban population 0.071 0.116 −0.020 0.585 (1.648) (−0.554)

Literacy −0.003 0.915 −0.004 0.867 (−0.109) (−0.172)

Modernization 0.218 0.807 0.393 0.557

(0.252) −0.597 Petroleum 0.001 0.363 0.001 0.405 −0.002 0.171 0.000 0.825

(0.909) (0.832) (−1.393) (−0.221) Trade taxes 0.018 0.211 0.017 0.192 −0.033 0.012 −0.029 0.045

(1.308) (1.343) (−2.767) (−2.204)

(continued )

161

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO 9781316423974.008

to the Cam bridge Core term

s of use, available at https://w w

w .cam

bridge.org/core/term s.

D ow

nloaded from https://w

w w

.cam bridge.org/core. Access paid by the U

C San D iego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Table A.7 (continued )

Adoption of a Multiparty System Adoption of a Civilian Regime

Coefficient P > t Coefficient P > t Coefficient P > t Coefficient P > t (1) (2) (3) (4)

Business cycle −14.782 0.048 −14.523 0.048 0.359 0.952 0.838 0.888 (−1.987) (−1.983) (0.060) −0.141

Aid dependence −0.002 0.712 0.000 0.996 −0.008 0.234 −0.010 0.051 (−0.369) (0.004) (−1.246) (−1.992)

Duration

No-party system −0.124 0.010 −0.094 0.033 −0.246 0 −0.256 0.000 (−2.588) (−2.132) (−5.023) (−5.641)

Single-party system −0.100 0.004 −0.082 0.016 0.104 0.018 0.100 0.024 (−2.898) (−2.407) (2.396) (2.277)

Neighbor average 0.328 0.054 0.358 0.025 0.545 0.006 0.596 0.000

(1.954) (2.250) (2.939) (3.647)

1990–1995 1.938 0.003 2.292 0.000 0.741 0.074 0.643 0.094

(3.579) (5.388) (1.810) (1.686)

Number of observations 980 728 728 675

Note: t statistics in parentheses. Estimates derived from a conditional logistic model, grouped by country.

162

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO 9781316423974.008

to the Cam bridge Core term

s of use, available at https://w w

w .cam

bridge.org/core/term s.

D ow

nloaded from https://w

w w

.cam bridge.org/core. Access paid by the U

C San D iego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Appendix

As seen in Table A.7, the analysis suggests that political

institutions in Africa exhibit historisis. As indicated by the

coefficients on the duration variable, the longer a country has

been subject to a no- or single-party system, the less likely it

is to change to a multiparty system. The estimates also sug-

gest a relationship between political reform and fiscal dearth.

In the case of civilian regimes, declines in the growth rate

of the advanced industrial nations (“business cycle”) signifi-

cantly and negatively correlate with increases in the likelihood

of changing to a multiparty system; in the case of military gov-

ernments, declines in “trade taxes” significantly and negatively

relate to the likelihood of converting to a civilian form of gov-

ernment.

The coefficient on “urban population” suggests the role

played by urban dwellers in the movement to multiparty

systems; that on “income,” the role played by the middle and

upper classes in overturning military regimes. That protest

diffused across political boundaries is confirmed by the pos-

itive and significant coefficient on “neighbor average,” which

provides a measure of the degree of political liberalization in

neighboring states (see Table A.6).

Interestingly, aid dependence appears not to bear a statis-

tically detectable relationship with the likelihood of change to

a multiparty system; and in the movement to civilian regimes,

the strength of its relationship varies depending upon the vari-

ables included or dropped from the analysis. More robust is

163

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Table A.8. Marginal effects, political reform

Change in Probability

95% Confidence Interval

Income From min to max −0.057 −0.666 0.031 296 6,965

Urban population From min to max 0.105 0 0.87 2.4 81.7

Literacy From min to max −0.049 0.543 0 17.1 100

Petroleum 0.08 −0.052 0.858 From min to max 0 6,574

Trade taxes 0.044 0 0.443 From min to max .022 76.51

Business cycle −0.029 −0.294 0 From min to max −0.018 .052

Aid dependence From min to max −0.025 −0.352 0.034 0 513

Duration of party system No-party system From min to max −0.109 −0.782 0 0 25

One-party system From min to max −0.101 −0.731 0 0 25

Neighbor average From min to max 0.024 −0.005 0.295 0 6

1990–95 From 0.048 0 0.383 0 1

Note: Estimates derived from simulations of a probit that included country dummies. Consult Fernandez-Val. (2004), “Estimation of Structural Parameters and Marginal Effects in Binary Choice Panel Data Models with Fixed Effects,” Cambridge, MA: Department of Economics, MIT.

164

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Appendix

the relationship between the time dummy and the likelihood

of reform: the coefficient on the variable “1990–95,” which may

capture the impact of the end of the Cold War, is positive in sign

and statistically significant.

Table A.8 reports the magnitudes of the coefficients of equa-

tion 1 of Table A.7. The coefficient on the measure of dura-

tion under single-party rule suggests that those long subject

to single-party rule, such as Tanzania, would be roughly 10%

less likely to reform than would others, such as Kenya, whose

experience with single-party rule was more limited. The data

in Table A.8 also suggest that countries such as Rwanda or

Burundi, where urban dwellers constitute less than 5% of the

population, were 10% less likely to adopt multiparty rule than

were those, such as Botswana or Cape Verde, where they com-

posed over 60% of the population.

Political Disorder

The analysis of political disorder focused on the impact of three

forces. The first was public revenues: When deprived of suffi-

cient payments for the provision of governance, I argued, elites

would use their power to pay themselves. They would veer from

the equilibrium path, in the words of the fable, and behave

in ways that would render citizens insecure. The second was

political reform: When compelled to allow political opponents

to organize in an effort to displace them, political elites, feeling

165

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Table A.9. Variables pertaining to political disorder

Standard Measure Mean Deviation Source

Dependent Variable

Militias 1 = Yes 0.247 0.431 Data collected by research team from 0 = No Keesings Contemporary Archives

Africa Confidential Economist Intelligence Unit

Independent Variables Revenues Central government’s revenues as

percent of GDP 18.489 0.382 World Development Indicators

Petroleum Value of exports per capita in constant U.S. dollars

87.010 14.331 Data collected by research team from commercial sources

Party System No-party system 1 = Yes 0.355 0.015 Data collected by research team from

0 = No Keesings Contemporary Archives One-party system ditto 0.445 0.015 Africa Confidential

Economist Intelligence Unit Multiparty system ditto 0.205 0.013

Duration No-party system Length of time in years 2.405 4.685 Data collected by research team from

of duration of political system Keesings Contemporary Archives Africa Confidential Economist Intelligence Unit

One-party system ditto 3.415 5.551 ditto Multiparty system ditto 1.271 3.934 ditto

166

Neighbor average Number of neighboring states 1.514 1.953 Data collected by research team from reporting militias or civil or international wars

Keesings Contemporary Archives Africa Confidential Economist Intelligence Unit

Privileged region 1 = yes 0.891 0.331 Harvard research team 0 = no

President from non- privileged region

1 = yes 0.570 1.953 ditto

0 = no Period1 1 if 1970–74

0 otherwise Period2 1 if 1975–79

0 otherwise Period3 1 if 1980–84

0 otherwise Period4 1 if 1985–89

0 otherwise Time since last report Count 5.993 6.235 Instrumental Variables Business cycle Weighted average growth rate of

G7 economies 0.021 0.019 Data created by research team using data from

Penn World Tables Mark 5.6 Trade taxes Percentage central government

revenues from taxes on trade 34.210 16.32 World Development Indicators

Revenues Central government’s revenues as percent of GDP

World Development Indicators

Two-year lag 19.272 9.871 Three-year lag 19.100 9.618

Note: All independent variables lagged one year, unless otherwise noted.

167

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO 9781316423974.008

D ow

nloaded from https://w

w w

.cam bridge.org/core. Access paid by the U

C San D iego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject to the Cam

bridge Core term s of use, available at https://w

w w

.cam bridge.org/core/term

s.

Appendix

insecure, would increase the rate at which they would discount

the future, thus fearing less the disorder that might be provoked

by their predatory actions. The last was resource abundance:

in an environment richly endowed with natural resources, the

potential economic losses following state failure could readily

be offset by using the power of the government to appropriate

the deposits. In such a setting, political elites would more read-

ily succumb to the temptation to deviate from the equilibrium

path and to change from guardians to predators.

Table A.9 defines and describes the variable employed to

test this argument and lists the sources from which they were

taken. Table A.10 presents the coefficients derived from two

models: A logit model applied to the pooled sample and a

conditional logit model, which incorporates country-specific

effects. I attempted to locate instruments that would enable

me to correct for the impact of political disorder on public rev-

enues, but I failed to do so. Table A.11 records first differences,

calculated from the first equation in Table A.10, which provide

measures of the magnitude of the coefficients.

The coefficients on “revenues” are of the sign anticipated

but significant only in the first model. The difference in the

estimates from the two models suggests that it is the quantity

rather than changes in the quantity of public revenues that

counts. Note the data in Table A.11 regarding the magnitude

of the coefficients. In the case of “revenues,” the data suggest

that a shift from the level of revenues garnered in Sierra Leone

168

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Table A.10. Changes in the probability of militias

Pooled Model Conditional Logit

Coefficient (1) P > t

Coefficient (2) P > t

Revenues −0.039 0.061 −0.017 0.556 (−2.04) (−0.609)

Petroleum 0.000 0.743 −0.001 0.727 (−0.328) (−0.349)

No-party system −0.459 0.246 −0.788 0.107 (−1.166) (−1.616)

One-party system −1.017 0.045 −2.166 0.000 (−2.004) (−4.071)

Duration No-party system 0.096 0.006 −0.019 0.649

(2.789) (−0.455) One-party system 0.038 0.238 0.146 0.000

(1.179) (3.642) Multiparty system −0.024 0.600 0.065 0.357

(−0.524) (0.920) Privileged region 1.403 0.014

(2.491) President from non- −0.567 0.093 −0.807 0.043

privileged region (−1.679) (−2.027) Neighbor average 0.092 0.161 −0.052 0.552

(1.401) (−0.595) Period1 −1.504 0.000 −1.611 0.002

(−3.526) (−3.169) Period2 −0.914 0.009 −1.398 0.000

(2.615) (−3.565) Period3 −0.039 0.883 −0.076 0.819

(−0.148) (−0.228) Period4 −0.183 0.505 0.015 0.959

(−0.667) (0.051) Time since last report −0.188 0.000 −0.017 0.497

(−5.089) (−0.68) Constant −0.385 0.559

(−0.584) Number observations 1048 813

Note: t statistics in parentheses. In equations 1 and 3, robust standard errors, clustered by country.

169

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Table A.11. Magnitude of effects

Pooled Model (First Differences)

Percent Change in Probability

95% Confidence Interval

Revenues −0.314 −0.634 −0.089 From min to max 3.5 53.5

Petroleum −0.121 −0.897 0.403 From min to max 0 6547.48

No-party system −0.070 −0.209 0.010 From 0 to 1

One-party system −0.111 −0.315 −0.007 From 0 to 1

Duration No-party system 0.486 0.171 0.734 From min to max 0 25 One-party system 0.182 −0.056 0.548 From min to max 0 25 Multi-party system −0.054 −0.351 0.312 From min to max 0 25

Privileged region 0.231 −0.006 0.428 From 0 to 1

President from non- privileged region

−0.072 −0.232 0.006

From 0 to 1 Neighbor average 0.191 −0.047 0.518

From 0 to 1 Period1 −0.137 −0.353 −0.030

From 0 to 1 Period2 −0.103 −0.268 −0.017

From 0 to 1 Period3 0.005 −0.071 0.103

From 0 to 1 Period4 −0.023 −0.114 0.054

From 0 to 1 Time since last report −0.382 −0.708 −0.127

From min to max 0 25

170

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Appendix

in the mid-1980s to that in Botswana in the same period would

be associated with a 30% reduction in the likelihood of state

failure. Given that political disorder is likely to depress the

level of public revenues, these estimates are likely to be biased

downward.

The coefficients for “petroleum,” a measure of natural

resource endowments, offer little evidence of a relationship

between either differences or changes in the level of the value

of natural resources and the likelihood of reports of militias.

Insofar as the coefficient on “privileged region” (equation 1)

incorporates the effect of natural resource endowments, its

sign and significance does offer evidence in favor of such a rela-

tionship.7 The coefficient on “president from non-privileged

region” is negative and significant in both equations, suggest-

ing that political tensions decline when the poorer region gains

control of the state. As seen in Table A.11, countries contain-

ing a “privileged region” are 23% more likely to experience

state failure. Having a president from a non-privileged region

reduces the likelihood by 7 percentage points; the estimate is

imprecise, however.

The two sets of findings – that having to do with regional

differences and that with the origins of heads of state – warrant

7 The variable “privileged region” should be viewed as an imperfect first step toward capturing within country variation. Better is the rapidly increasing use of geographic information systems, as by Buhaug, H. and G. Gates, “The Geography of Civil War,” Journal of Peace Research 39(4): 417–33.

171

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Appendix

additional discussion. Acemoglu and Robinson (2001) and

Azam and Mesnard (2003) view politics as centering on redis-

tribution. Economic inequality – class, in the case of Acemoglu

and Robinson and region, in the case of Azam and Mesnard –

animates threats and the use of power. In response to threats

and to forestall violence, those with wealth may offer to share

it; but in the absence of credible means to commit themselves

to fulfill such promises, such offers may well be discounted.

What makes such promises credible, they argue, is the restruc-

turing of institutions. In Acemoglu and Robinson (2001), the

restructuring takes the form of empowering the poor, as by

broadening the franchise or increasing the powers of popular

assemblies. In the context of Africa, the lodging of executive

power in the hands of poorer regions may play an analogous

role to empowerment of the lower classes in industrial states.

The greater credibility of pledges to use the power of the state

to redistribute the wealth of the nation may help to account

for the negative relationship between our measure of disor-

der and the holding of the presidency by the poorer regions of

the nation; by the same token, the negative relationship may

provide evidence in support of their arguments.

The last of the “theoretical” variables is the party sys-

tem. A change to a competitive party system, I have argued,

leads to an increase in the level of political risk. Most rele-

vant, then, are the coefficients of Table A.10 that are based

on within-country changes; both the coefficients on the

172

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Appendix

“no-party” and “one-party” are negative, and the latter is highly

significant. The estimates of the magnitude of the coefficients

(Table A.11) are based on equation 1; because they pertain to

differences between rather than to changes in levels, they can

have but little bearing on this discussion.

The control variables also yield coefficients of interest.

Those of “Period1” and “Period2” (1970–74 and 1975–79,

respectively) are significantly lower than those of “Period5”

(1990–95, the reference category), thus offering evidence of

an increase in the likelihood of disorder over time. The esti-

mates in Table A.11 indicate that reports of militias were 10

to 14% less likely in the 1970s than in the 1990s. As seen in

the coefficient to “neighbor average,” countries whose neigh-

bors experienced more violence were more likely to experience

disorder, although the coefficient is not statistically significant.

The data in Table A.11 suggest the magnitude of the effect: A

country such as Mauritius, being an island and therefore iso-

lated from unruly neighbors, would be roughly 20% less likely

to experience political disorder than, say, Zaire in 1994, which

bordered six neighbors engulfed in political conflict.

The estimates remain robust to the inclusion of additional

control variables. These include the standard “modernization”

variables: measures of education, income, and urbanization.

They also include measures of shocks: economic shocks, such

as terms of trade or growth shocks; climatic shocks, such as

droughts; and political shocks, such as national elections. They

173

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Appendix

include as well such standard controls as population, to cap-

ture the size of the country; and such non-standard controls, as

a measure of the extent to which ethnic groups sprawl across

national borders.

In conclusion, I would draw attention to the “duration” vari-

ables. In any given year and for any given party system, these

variables indicate the number of years that the system has been

in place. When the duration variables are excluded from the

models, the coefficients on the party system dummies fail to

behave in a systematic manner. When they are included, the

coefficients behave in ways that are meaningful and are highly

robust to the inclusion of other variables and to the choice

of model. Why should this be the case? The pattern may be a

statistical artifact, and therefore of little significance, or it may

suggest something about the nature of political institutions

and therefore be important. I continue to be puzzled – and

tantalized – by this finding, but I leave the issue unresolved

while drawing it to the attention of others.

174

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.008 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:33, subject

Bibliography

Acemoglu, D., and J. A. Robinson (2001). “A Theory of Political Transitions.” American Economic Review 91(4): 938–63.

Achebe, C. (1975). Things Fall Apart. New York: Fawcett Crest. Adam, C. S., and S. A. O’Connell (1999). “Aid, Taxation, and Development in

Sub-Saharan Africa.” Economics and Politics 11(3): 225–54. Alexander, M. (2007). Is Poverty to Be Blamed for Civil Wars? Cambridge, MA:

Paper submitted to gov. 2782, Spring Term. Department of Government, Harvard University.

Allen, C. (1989). Benin. In Benin, The Congo, Burkina Faso: Economics, Politics, and Society. Edited by C. Allen, M. S. Radu, K. Somerville, and J. Baxter. London and New York: Pinter Publishers: 1–137.

Anguka, J. (1998). Absolute Power: The Ouko Murder Mystery. London: Pen Press.

Asprey, R. B. (1986). Frederick the Great. New York: Ticknor and Fields. Axelrod, R. (1985). The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books. Azam, J.-P. (1994). “How to Pay for Peace? A Theoretical Framework with Ref-

erence to African Countries,” Public Choice 83(1–2): 173–84. ———. (2001). “The Redistributive State and Conflicts in Africa.” The Journal

of Peace Research 38(4): 429–44. ———. (2007). The Political Geography of Redistribution. Chapter 6 in The

Political Economy of Economic Growth in Africa, 1960–2000: An Analytic Survey. Edited by B. Ndulu, P. Collier, R. H. Bates, and S. O’Connell. Cam- bridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Azam, J.-P., and A. Mesnard (2003). “Civil War and the Social Contract.” Public Choice 115(3–4): 455–75.

Banks, A. (1999). Cross-National Times Series Data Archive. Binghamton, NY: Center for Social Analysis, State University of New York at Binghamton.

175

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.009 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Bibliography

Barkan, J. D. (1976). “Further Reassessment of ‘Conventional Wisdom’: Polit- ical Knowledge and Voting Behavior in Rural Kenya.” American Political Science Review 70(2): 452–55.

———. (1986). Politics and the Peasantry in Kenya. Nairobi: Institute for Devel- opment Studies, University of Kenya.

Baron, D., and J. Ferejohn (1989). “Bargaining in Legislatures.” American Polit- ical Science Review 83(4): 1181–1206.

Barro, R., and J.-W. Lee (1993). “International Comparisons of Educational Attainment.” NBER Working Paper 4349, April.

Bartlett, R. (1993). The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization, and Cultural Change, 950–1350. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bates, R. H. (1976). Rural Responses to Industrialization. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

———. (1989). Beyond the Miracle of the Market. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Bates, R. H., A. Greif, et al. (2002). “Organizing Violence.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 46(5): 599–628.

Bates, R. H., and I. Yackolev (2002). Ethnicity in Africa. In The Role of Social Capital in Development. Edited by C. Grootaert and T. van Bastelaer. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bates, R., D. Epstein, et al. (2006). Political Instability of Task Force Report, Phase IV Findings. McLean, VA: SAIC.

Bayart, J.-F. (1989). Cameroon. In Contemporary West African States. Edited by Donal B. Cruise O’Brien, John Dunn, and Richard Rathbone. London: Oxford University Press.

Bazenguissa-Ganga, R. (2003). The Spread of Political Violence in Congo- Brazzaville. In Readings in African Politics. Edited by T. Young. Oxford: James Currey.

Beck, N., J. Katz, et al. (1998). “Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross- Section Aanalysis with a Binary Dependent Variable.” American Journal of Political Science 42(4): 1260–88.

Birmingham, D. (2002). Angola. In A History of Postcolonial Lusophone Africa. Edited by P. Chabal. London: Hurst & Company: 138–84.

Bloch, M. (1970). Feudal Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Blumenthal, E. (1982). “Zaire: Rapport sur sa Credibilite Financiere Interna-

tionale.” La Revue Nouvelle 77(November 11): 360–78. Boone, C. (1990). Merchant Capital and the Roots of State Power. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

176

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.009 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Bibliography

———. (2003). Political Topographies of the African State: Rural Authority and Institutional Choice. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Brass, P., ed. (1985). Ethnic Groups and the State. London: Croom, Helm. Bueno de Mesquita, B., A. Smith, et al. (2003). The Logic of Political Survival.

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Buhaug, H., and S. Gates (2002). “The Geography of Civil War.” Journal of Peace

Research 39(4): 417–33. Buhaug, H. and J. K. Rod (2006). “Local Determinants of African Civil Wars,

1970–2001.”Political Geography 25: 315–35. Buijtenhuijs, R. (1989). Chad. In Contemporary West African States. Edited by

John Dunn, Donal B. Cruise O’Brien, and Richard Rathbone. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Burdette, M. (1988). Zambia. Boulder, CO: Westview. Carneiro, R. L. (1970). “A Theory of the Origin of the State.” Science 169(3946):

733–38. Cederman, L.-E., and L. Girardin (2007). “Beyond Fractionalization: Mapping

Ethnicity on Nationalist Insurgencies.” American Political Science Review 101(1): 173–85.

Chabal, P. (2002). A History of Postcolonial Lusophone Africa. London: Hurst and Company.

Cohen, M. (1974). Urban Policy and Political Conflict in Africa: A Study of the Ivory Coast. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Collier, P. (2000). Doing Well Out of Civil War. In Greed and Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil War. Edited by M. Berdal and D. Malone. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Collier, P., A. Hoeffler, et al., eds. (2003). Breaking the Conflict Trap: Civil War and Development Policy. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Collier, P., and A. Hoeffler (2004). “Greed and Grievance in Civil Wars.” Oxford Economic Papers, New Series 56(4): 563–95.

Collier, P., and S. O’Connell (2007). Opportunities, Choices and Syndromes. Chapter 2 in The Political Economy of Economic Growth in Africa, 1960– 2000. Edited by B. Ndulu, P. Collier, R. H. Bates, and S. O’Connell. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Dahl, R. (1971). Polyarchy. New Haven: Yale University Press. Daily Nation. “Constituency Review: Laikipia District.” July 16, 2002, pp. 11–

14. de Waal, A. (1991). Evil Days: Thirty Years of War and Famine in Ethiopia. New

York: Human Rights Watch.

177

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.009 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Bibliography

de Waal, A., and A. H. A. Salam (2004). Islamism, State Power, and Jihad in Sudan. In Islamism and Its Enemies in the Horn of Africa. Edited by A. de Waal. Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press.

Dianga, J. W. (2002). Kenya, 1982: The Atttempted Coup. London: Penn Press. Dietrich, C. (2000). Inventory of Formal Diamond Miniing in Angola. In

Angola’s War Economy. Edited by J. Cilliers and C. Dietrich. Pretoria, South Africa: Institute for Security Studies.

Dumont, R. (1962). L’Afrique Noire est Mal Partie. Paris: Editions Seuil. ———. (1966) False Start in Africa. New York: Praeger. Dudley, B. (1982). An Introduction to Nigerian Government and Politics.

Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Dunning, T. (2004). “Conditioning the Effects of Aid: Cold War Politics, Donor

Credibility, and Democracy in Africa.” International Organization 58(2): 409–23.

Easterly, W., and R. Levine (1997). “Africa’s Growth Tragedy: Policies and Ethnic Divisions.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(4): 1203–50.

Elliott, C., ed. (1971). Constraints on the Economic Development of Zambia. Nairobi: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, S. (1999). The Making of Anarchy. New York: New York University Press. Emizet, K. N. F. (1998). “Confronting Leaders at the Apex of the State: The

Growth of the Unofficial Economy of the Congo.” African Studies Review 41(1): 99–137.

Epstein, D. L., R. Bates, et al. (2006). “Democratic Transitions.” American Jour- nal of Political Science 59(3): 551–69.

Evans, P., T. Skocpol, and D. Rueschmeyer (1985). Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Fanon, F. (1963). The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Presence Africaine. Fearon, J. D. (2004). “Why Do Some Civil Wars Last So Much Longer than

Others?” Journal of Peace Research 41(3): 275–301. ———. (2005). “Primary Commodities Exports and Civil War.” Journal of

Conflict Resolution 49(4): 483–507. Fearon, J. D., and D. Laitin (2003). “Ethnicity, Insurgency and Civil War.” Amer-

ican Political Science Review 97(1): 75–90. Finance Magazine. “Kalenjin Liberation Army.” Septemberr 15, 1992, pp. 20–6. Fortes, M. (1958). Introduction. In The Developmental Cycle in Domestic

Groups. Edited by J. Goody. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Fortes, M., and E. E. Evans-Pritchard, eds. (1987). African Political Systems.

New York: KPI in association with the International African Institute.

178

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.009 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Bibliography

Fowler, R. R. (2000). “Report of the Panel of Experts on Violations of Secu- rity Council Sanctions Against UNITA.” New York: S. Council, The United Nations.

Fratkin, E., E. A. Roth, et al. (1994). Introduction. In African Pastoralist Sys- tems. Edited by E. Fratkin, E. A. Roth and K. A. Galvin. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Gboyega, A. (1997). Nigeria: Conflict Unresolved. In Governance as Conflict Management. Edited by I. W. Zartman. Washington, DC: Brookings Institu- tion Press.

Geddes, B. (2003). Paradigms and Sand Castles. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Gertzel, C., C. Baylies, et al., eds. (1984). The Dynamics of the One-Party State in Zambia. Manchester: U.K.: University of Manchester Press.

Goldstone, J., R. Bates, et al. (2005). A Global Forecasting Model of Political Instability. McClean, VA: State Failure Task Force, SAIC.

Gould, D. (1980). Bureaucratic Corruption and Underdevelopment in the Third World: The Case of Zaire. London: Pergamon Press.

Groseclose, T., and J. M. Snyder (1996). “Buying Supermajorities.” American Political Science Review 90(2): 303–15.

Hansen, H. B., and M. Twaddle (1995). Uganda: The Advent of No-Party Democracy. In Democracy and Political Change in Sub-Saharan Africa. Edited by J. Wiseman. London: Routledge.

Hayward, F. (1976). “A Reassessment of Conventional Wisdom about the Informed Public: National Political Information in Ghana.” American Polit- ical Science Review 70(2): 917–41.

Hayward, F. M., and J. D. Kandeh (1987). Perspectives on Twenty-Five Years of Elections in Sierra Leone. In Elections in Independent Africa. Edited by F. M. Hayward. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Hegre, H. (2003). Disentangling democracy and development as determinants of armed conflict. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Portland, Oregon.

———. (2004). “The Duration and Termination of Civil War.” Journal of Peace Research 41(3): 243–52.

Hegre, H., S. Gates, et al. (2001). “Toward a Democratic Civil Peace? Democ- racy, Political Change and Civil War, 1816–1992.” American Political Science Review 95(1): 33–48.

Heilbrunn, J. (1993). “Social Origins of National Conferences in Benin and Togo.” Journal of Modern African Studies 31(2): 277–99.

179

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.009 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Bibliography

———. (1997). Togo: The National Conference and Stalled Reform. In Political Reform in Francophone West Africa. Edited by J. F. Clark and D. E. Gardiner. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Helleiner, G. (1966). Peasant Agriculture, Government, and Economic Growth in Nigeria. Homewood, IL: R. D. Irwin.

Hempstone, S. (1997). Rogue Ambassador. Sewanee, TN: University of the South Press.

Herbst, J. (2000). “Economic Incentives, Natural Resources and Conflict in Afruca.” Journal of African Economies 9(3): 270–94.

Herbst, J. (2000). States and Power in Africa. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Heston, A., R. Summers, et al. (2002, October). Penn World Tables Version 6.1. Philadelphia: Center for International Comparisons, University of Pennsyl- vania.

Hirshleifer, J. (2001). The Dark Side of the Force. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

———. (1995). Theorizing about Conflict. In Handbook of Defense Economics. Edited by K. Hartley and T. Sandler. New York: Elsevier.

Huntington, S. P. (1991). The Third Wave. Norman, OK: Oklahoma University Press.

Jalata, A. (2005). Oromo and Ethiopia: State Formation and Environmental Conflict, 1868–2004. Trenton, NJ: Red Sea Press.

Johnson, D. H. (1995). The Sudan People’s Liberation Army and the Problem of Factionalism. In African Guerillas. Edited by C. Clapham. Oxford, U.K.: James Currey.

———. (2003). The Root Causes of Sudan’s Civil War. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Jones, B. D. (1999). Civil War, the Peace Process, and Genocide in Rwanda. In Civil Wars in Africa. Edited by T. M. Ali and R. O. Matthews. Montreal: McGill-Queens Press.

———. (1999). Military Intervention in Rwanda’s Two Wars: Partisanship and Indifference. In Civil Wars, Insecurity, and Intervention. Edited by B. F. Walters and J. Snyder. New York: Columbia University Press.

———. (2001). Peacemaking in Rwanda: The Dynamics of Failure. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Kabwegyere, T. (1995). The Politics of State Formation and Destruction in Uganda. Kampala, Fountain Publishers.

Kakwenzire, J., and D. Kamukama (2000). The Development and Consolidation of Extremist Forces in Rwanda. In The Path of a Genocide: The Rwanda

180

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.009 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Bibliography

Crisis from Uganda to Zaire. Edited by H. Adelman and A. Suhrke. London: Transaction Publishers.

Kalyvas, S. (2006). The Logic of Violence in Civil War. Cambridge, U.K.: Cam- bridge University Press.

Kaplan, R. D. (1994). “The Coming Anarchy.” The Atlantic Monthly 273(Febru- ary 2): 44–76.

Kasara, K. (2007). “Tax Me If You Can.” American Political Science Review 101(1): 159–72.

Kasfir, N. (1976). The Shrinking Political Arena. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Kasozi, A. B. K. (1994). The Social Origins of Violence in Uganda, 1964–1985. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Keen, D. (1998). “The Economic Functions of Violence in Civil War.” Adelphi Paper 320. Oxford, U.K.: International Institute for Strategic Studies.

———. (2000). Incentives and Disincentives for Violence. In Greed and Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars. Edited by M. Berdal and D. Malone. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

———. (2001). The Political Economy of War. In War and Underdevelopment: The Economic and Social Consequences of Conflict, Vol. 1. Edited by F. Stew- art, V. Fitzgerald and Associates. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Kenyatta, J. (1953). Facing Mount Kenya. London: Secker and Warburg. Khadiagala, G. M. (1995). State Collapse and Reconstruction in Uganda. In

Collapsed States. Edited by I. W. Zartman. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Kimenyi, M. S., and N. Ndung’u (2005). Sporadic Ethnic Violence: Why Has

Kenya Not Experienced a Full Blown Civil War? In Understanding Civil War: Evidence and Analysis, Volume 1 (Africa). Edited by P. Collier and N. Sambanis. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

King, G., J. Honeker, et al. (2001). “Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation.” American Political Science Review 95(1): 49–69.

Kpundeh, S. J. (1995). Politics and Corruption in Africa: A Case Study of Sierra Leone. New York: University Press of America.

Kramer, G. H. (1983). “Electoral Politics in the Zero-Sum Society.” Social Sci- ence Working Paper 472. Pasadena, CA: Division of Humanities and Social Science, California Institute of Technology.

Kriger, N. (2003). Guerrilla Veterans in Post-War Zimbabwe: Symbolic and Violent Politics, 1980–1987. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Larmer, M. (2006). “A Little Bit Like a Volcano”: The United Progressive Party and Resistance to One-Party Rule in Zambia, 1964–1980. Typescript.

181

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.009 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Bibliography

Leakey, L. S. B. (1977). The Southern Kikuyu before 1903. London: Academic Press.

Lemarchand, R. (1981). “Chad: The Roots of Chaos.” Current History 80(470): 414–18, 436–38.

———. (1993). Burundi in Camparative Perspective. In The Politics of Eth- nic Conflict Regulation. Edited by J. McGarry and B. O’Leary. London: Routledge.

———. (2003). The Democratic Republic of the Congo: From Failure to Potential Reconstruction. In State Failure and State Weakness in a Time of Terror. Edited by R. I. Rotberg. Cambridge, MA, and Washington, DC: The World Peace Foundation/Brookings Institution: 29–70.

Levine, V. T. (1986). Leadership and Regime Changes in Perspective. In The Political Economy of Cameroon. Edited by M. G. Schatzberg and I. W. Zartman. New York: Praeger.

Lewis, H. (2001). A Galla Monarchy. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Little, I. M. D., T. Scitovsky, et al. (1970). Industry and Trade in Some Developing Countries. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

MacGaffey, J. (1991). The Real Economy of Zaire. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Magaloni, B. (2006).Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and Its Demise in Mexico. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mamdani, M. (2001). When Victims Become Killers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mansfield, E., and J. Snyder (1995). “Democratization and War.” Foreign Affairs 74(3): 79–97.

Marcus, H. G. (2002). A History of Ethiopia. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univer- sity of Los Angeles Press.

Marshall, M. G., and K. Jaggers (2000). Polity IV Project: Political Regime Char- acteristics and Transitions, 1800–1999 Dataset Users’ Manual. College Park, MD: CIDCM, University of Maryland.

May, R. (2003). Internal Dimensions of Warfare in Chad. In Readings in African Politics. Edited by T. Young. Oxford: James Currey.

Mbithi, P. M., and C. Barnes (1975). The Spontaneous Settlement Problem in Kenya. Kampala, Uganda: East African Literature Bureau.

Meillassoux, C. (1981). Maidens, Meal, and Money. Cambridge, U.K.: Cam- bridge University Press.

Meredith, M. (2005). The State of Africa: A History of Fifty Years of Independence. London: Free Press.

182

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.009 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Bibliography

Murshed, S. M., and S. Gates (2003). Spatial-Horizontal Inequality and the Maoist Insurgency in Nepal. Paper commissioned by The Department for International Development, UK. London.

Musah, A.-F. (2000). A Country Under Siege: State Decay and Corporate Military Intervention in Sierra Leone. In Mercenaries: An African Security Dilemma. Edited by A.-F. Musah and J. K. Fayemi. London: Pluto Press.

Musah, A.-F., and J. K. Fayemi (2000). Africa in Search of Security. In Mercenaries: An African Security Dilemma. Edited by A.-F. Musah and J. K. Fayemi. London: Pluto Press.

Mwakikagile, G. (2001). Ethnic Politics in Kenya and Nigeria. Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

National Council of Churches of Kenya. (1992). The Cursed Arrow. Nairobi: NCCK.

Ndulu, B., P. Collier, et al. (2007). The Political Economy of Economic Growth in Africa, 1960–2000, 2 vols. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Ngaruko, F., and J. D. Nkurunziza (2000). “An Economic Interpretation of Conflict in Burundi.” Journal of African Economies 9(3): 370–409.

Nnoli, O. (1998). Ethnic Conflicts in Africa: A Comparative Analysis. In Ethnic Conflict in Africa. Edited by O. Nnoli. Dakar, Senegal: Codesria.

Nolutshungu, S. C. (1996). Limits of Anarchy. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

Nzongola-Ntanlaja, G. (2002). The Congo from Leopold to Kabila. London: Zed Books.

———. (2004). The Politics of Citizenship in the DRC. Paper prepared for the annual International Conference. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.

Oquaye, M. (1980). Politics in Ghana, 1972–1979. Accra, Ghana: Tornado Pub- lications.

Ottaway, M. (1999). Africa’s New Leaders. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endow- ment for International Peace.

Otunnu, O. (2000). An Historical Analysis of the Invasion of the Rwanda Patriotic Army. In The Path of a Genocide: The Rwanda Crisis from Uganda to Zaire. Edited by H. Adelman and A. Suhrke. London: Transaction Publishers.

Ould-Abdallah, A. (2000). Burundi on the Brink, 1993–1995. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Pech, K. (2000). The Hand of War: Mercenaries in the Former Zaire 1996–97. In Mercenaries: An African Security Dilemma. Edited by A.-F. Musah and J. K. Fayemi. London: Pluto Press.

Please, S. (1984). The Hobbled Giant. Boulder, CO: Westview.

183

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.009 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Bibliography

Polanyi, K. (1991). Dahomey and the Slave Trade. New York: AMS Press. Popkin, S. L. (1979). The Rational Peasant. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University

of California Press. Prunier, G. (1998). The Rwanda Crisis: History of a Genocide. London: Hurst. Rapley, J. (1993). Ivoirien Capitalism: African Entrepreneurs in Côte d’ Ivoire.

Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Reno, W. (1995). Corruption and State Politics in Sierra Leone. Cambridge,

U.K.: Cambridge University Press. ———. (2000). Shadow States and the Political Economy of Civil Wars. In Greed

and Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars. Edited by M. Berdal and D. Malone. Boulder, CO: Lynne Riennner.

———. (2003). Sierra Leone: Warfare in a Post-State Society. In State Failure and State Weakness in a Time of Terror. Edited by R. I. Rotberg. Cambridge and Washington, DC: The World Peace Foundation/Brookings Institution: 71–100.

Republic of Kenya, Parliamentary Select Committee. (1992). Report of the Par- liamentary Select Committee to Investigate Ethnic Clashes in Western and Other Parts of Kenya. Nairobi: Kenya Parliament.

Reyna, S. P. (1990). Wars Without End: The Political Economy of a Precolonial African State. Hanover: University Press of New England for the University of New Hampshire.

Ricardo, D. (1821). On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London: John Murray.

Richards, P. (1995). Rebellion in Liberia and Sierra Leone: A Crisis of Youth? In Crisis in Africa. Edited by O. Furley. London: I. B. Tauris.

Robinson, P. (1994). “The National Conference Phenomenon in Francophone Africa.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 36(3): 575–610.

Ross, M. L. (2004). “How Does Natural Resource Wealth Influence Civil Wars? Evidence from Thirteen Cases.” International Organization 49(4): 508–37.

Rubin, D. B. (1996). “Multiple Imputation after 18+ Years (with discussion).” Journal of the American Statistical Association 91(434): 473–89.

Rutten, M. (2001). “Fresh Killings”: The Njoro and Laikipia Violence in the 1997 Kenyan Elections Aftermath. In Out for the Count: The 1997 General Elections and Prospects for Violence in Kenya. Edited by M. Rutten, A. Mazrui, and F. Gignon. Kampala, Uganda: Fountain Publishers.

Sachs, J., and A. Warner (1995). “Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1): 1–118.

Sahlins, M. D. (1961). “The Segmentary Lineage: An Organization of Predatory Expansion.” American Anthropologist 63(2): 322–45.

184

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.009 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Bibliography

———. (1968). Tribesmen. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ———. (1971). Tribal Economies. In Economic Development and Social

Change. Edited by G. Dalton. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press for the American Museum of Natural History: 43–61.

Salih, M. A. M., and J. Markakis. (1998). Ethnicity and State in Eastern Africa. Uppsala, Sweden: Nordiska Afrikainstutel.

Sambanis, N., and H. Hegre (2006). “Sensitivity Analysis of Empirical Results on Civil War Onset.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 50(4): 508–35.

Schafer, J. L. (1997). Imputation of Missing Covariates in Multivariate Linear Mixed Model. University Park, PA: Department of Statistics, The Pennsylva- nia State University.

Schatz, S. P. (1977). Nigerian Capitalism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.

Scott, J. C. (1976). The Moral Economy of the Peasant. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Smillee, I., L. Giberie, et al. (2000). The Heart of the Matter: Sierra Leone, Dia- monds, and Human Security. Ottowa: Partnership Africa-Canada.

Snyder, J. (2000). From Voting to Violence. New York: W. W. Norton. Snyder, R. (2006). “Does Lootable Wealth Breed Disorder? A Political Economy

of Extraction Framework.” Comparative Political Studies 39(8): 943–68. Snyder, R., and R. Bhavani (2005). “Diamonds, Blood and Taxes: A Revenue-

Centered Framework for Explaining Political Order.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 49(4): 563–97.

Stevenson, R. F. (1968). Population and Political Systems in Tropical Africa. New York: Columbia University Press.

Szeftel, M. (1978). Conflict, Spoils, and Class Formation in Zambia. Ph.D. Dis- sertation. Manchester, U.K.: University of Manchester Press.

Tangri, R. (1999). The Politics of Patronage in Africa: Parastatls, Privatizaton, and Private Enterprise. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.

Thom, W. G. (1999). “Congo-Zaire’s 1996–1997 Civil War in the Context of Evolving Patterns of Military Conflict in Africa in the Era of Independence.” The Journal of Conflict Studies 19(2): 93–123.

Timmer, C. P. (1969). “The Turnip, the New Husbandry, and the English Agri- cultural Revolution.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 83(2): 375–96.

Turner, V. (1957). Schism and Continuity in an African Society. Manchester, U.K.: University of Manchester Press on behalf of the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute.

185

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.009 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Bibliography

Vansina, J. (1966). Kingdoms of the Savanna. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Waller, R., and N. W. Sobania (1994). Historical Perspectives. In African Pas- toralist Systems. Edited by E. Fratkin, K. A. Galvin, and E. A. Roth. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Weber, M. (1958). Politics as a Vocation. In From Max Weber. Edited by H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.

Weiner, M. (1978). Sons of the Soil: Migration and Ethnic Conflict in India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Weinstein, J. (2007). Inside Rebellion. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Weiss, H. (1995). Zaire: Collapsed Society, Surviving State, Future Policy. In Collapsed States. Edited by I. W. Zartman. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Wilks, I. (1975). Asante in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

World Bank. (1981). Accelerated Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Agenda for Action. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

———. (1989). Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth. Wash- ington, DC: The World Bank.

———. (1991). Governance and Development. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

———. (2006). World Development Indicators 2006. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Wrigley, C. (1996). Kingship and the State, The Buganda Dynasty. New York and London: Cambridge University Press.

Zakaria, F. (1997). “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy.” Foreign Affairs 76(November–December): 22–43.

186

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423974.009 to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UC San Diego Library, on 07 Jan 2020 at 19:42:32, subject

Get help from top-rated tutors in any subject.

Efficiently complete your homework and academic assignments by getting help from the experts at homeworkarchive.com