Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights K. Loewenstein

Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights, I
Author(s): Karl Loewenstein

Source: The American Political Science Review , Jun., 1937, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Jun., 1937),
pp. 417-432
Published by: American Political Science Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1948164
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
American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The American Political Science Review
This content downloaded from

138.117.143.173 on Tue, 31 May 2022 20:28:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The American
Political Science Review
VOL. XXXI JUNE, 1937 NO. 3
MILITANT DEMOCRACY AND

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, I*
KARL LOEWENSTEIN
Amherst College
Fascism a World Movement. Fascism is no longer an isolated

incident in the individual history of a few countries. It has de-
veloped into a universal movement which in its seemingly irresisti-
ble surge is comparable to the rising of European liberalism
against absolutism after the French Revolution. In one form or
another, it covers today more areas and peoples in Europe and
elsewhere than are still faithful to constitutional government.
Fascism's pattern of political organization presents a variety of
shades. One-party-controlled dictatorships rule outright in Italy,
Germany, Turkey, and, if Franco wins, also Spain. The so-called
"authoritarian" states may be classified as belonging to the one-
party or multiple-party type. To the one-party authoritarian
group, without genuine representative institutions, adhere at pres-
ent Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, and Portugal; while Hungary,
Rumania, Yugoslavia, Latvia, and Lithuania may be classed to-
gether as authoritarian states of the multiple-party type, with a
semblance of parliamentary institutions. Poland is at the present
time in process of being transformed from a multiple party state
into a one-party dictatorship. Without being nominally fascist, all
of these states are authoritarian to the extent that the group in
power controls public opinion as well as the machinery of govern-
ment. Moreover, for purposes of the present tabulation it is of
slight importance that in some of them the dominating group is,
at least supposedly, on the defensive against fascist movements
proper, mainly because of the threat "Ote-toi que je m'y mette."
Of democratic countries with constitutional government, there
* This article covers developments to April 1, 1937.
417

138.117.143.173 on Tue, 31 May 2022 20:28:48 UTC
418 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
remain at present only Great Britain -and the Irish Free State,
France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the Scandinavian
countries (Sweden, Norway, and Denmark), Finland, Czechoslo-
vakia, and, with some reservations, Estonia.
General characteristics and special features of dictatorial and
authoritarian government are too well known to be repeated here.
Expressed in an empirical formula, such government is a super-
session of constitutional government by emotional government.
Constitutional government signifies the rule of law, which guar-
antees rationality and calculability of administration while pre-
serving a definite sphere of private law and fundamental rights.
Dictatorship, on the other hand, means the substitution for the
rule of law of legalized opportunism in the guise of the raison
d'etat. By the fusing of private law completely into public law, no
trace of individual rights and of the rule of law is left. Positive law
is no longer measured in terms of constitutional legality, but
only in terms of unchallengeable command. Since, in the long run,
no government can rely only on force or violence, the cohesive
strength of the dictatorial and authoritarian state is rooted in
emotionalism, which thus has supplanted the element of legal se-
curity in the last analysis determining constitutional government.
The technical devices for mobilizing emotionalism are ingenious
and of amazing variety and efficacy, although recently becoming
more and more standardized. Among them, besides high-pitched
nationalist enthusiasm, the most important expedient, perhaps, is
permanent psychic coercion, at times amounting to intimidation
and terrorization scientifically applied. A pertinent illustration
chosen from the experience of a democracy may clarify the vital
difference between constitutional and emotional methods of
government. The solution of the recent political crisis in England
by the cabinet and the Commons was sought through rational
means. To have left the issue to the verdict of the people would
have been resorting to emotional methods, although general elec-
tions are manifestly a perfectly legitimate device of constitutional
government.
Fascist International in the Making. In addition to these more or
less uniform features of internal organization, a closer trans-
national alignment or "bloc" of fascist nations, a "Union of
Europe's Regenerated Nations," a fascist International of the
multi-colored shirts, is clearly under way, transcending national

138.117.143.173 on Tue, 31 May 2022 20:28:48 UTC
MILITANT DEMOCRACY AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 419
borders and cutting deeply across historical diversities of tradi-

tionally disjoined nationalisms. The modern crusaders for saving
Western civilization from Bolshevik "chaos"-a battle-cry which
in all countries gone fascist has proved invaluable-for the time
being sink their differences and operate jointly according to a
common plan. Under this missionary urge, which is one of the most
astounding contradictions of a political system based on the
superiority complex of each individual nation, what exists of
distinguishing marks in program, ideology, and nationally condi-
tioned premises of Realpolitik shrinks to insignificance. In Spain, a
melange of fascist "volunteers" and mercenaries from many coun-
tries wage war against international battalions of anti-fascists.
By the same token, close contact and cooperation between the
headquarters of international fascism in Berlin and Rome and the
outposts in the various countries still adhering to democracy is
established, expert advice is sought and readily given, semi-official
calls of the fascist leaders from foreign countries are no longer dis-
simulated, and, as reported from reliable sources, the spiritual
radiation of techniques and stratagems is intensified by substantial
monetary support. A pattern of a specific technique of fascist
penetration and conquest has been developed which, after having
proved its efficacy in the larger fascist countries, is eagerly adjusted,
to national conditions by all fascist movements in the making.
Fascist Movements in Countries Still Democratic. Be it noted that
fascist groups or parties openly or secretly exist today in all
countries which have remained faithful to the rule of law. In
Belgium, the Rexists under L6on Degrelle have become an alarm-
ing threat to the democracy; France displays a variety of semi-
fascist, authoritarian, or more modestly styled "renovation,"
movements, the most notorious of which, the dissolved Croix de
Feu, has been resuscitated as the camouflaged Parti Frangais
Social; Switzerland's public life is marked by various "fronts,"
particularly in the cantons of Zurich, Schaffhausen, and Geneva;
Norway has the National Socialists of Major Quisling; fascists in
the Netherlands follow, among others, Mynheer Mussert; Ireland
has her Blueshirts under General O'Duffy; Denmark and Sweden
have their local varieties; and in England Sir Oswald Mosley
preaches and practices the new gospel.
Without going into details, the political situation of fascism in
the various democracies may be summed up as follows: In Sweden,

138.117.143.173 on Tue, 31 May 2022 20:28:48 UTC
Norway, and Denmark, the "authoritarian" movements have thus

far been rather negligible; numerically unimportant, National So-
cialism has gained access to none of the national parliaments, al-
though occasionally representatives are elected to communal
bodies. In the Netherlands, the Nazi party in 1935 achieved con-
siderable success in the elections for the provincial legislatures and
for the First Chamber of the national parliament, polling about
eight per cent of the total vote; although since that time the move-
ment seems to have lost ground. In Belgium, at the general elec-
tions of May, 1936, the new Rexist party of Degrelle won a striking
victory, mainly at the expense of the Catholic and Liberal parties,
polling more than ten per cent of the total vote and sending twenty-
one deputies to the House of Representatives. In addition, the
Flemish Nationalists, who are equally inclined to authoritarian
methods, doubled their previous quota of eight seats. When, how-
ever, Degrelle, relying on what he believed to be a growing popu-
larity of the movement, forced a by-election in Brussels in April,
1937, the government parties took up the challenge and Premier
van Zeeland inflicted upon him a severe defeat. Some observers in-
terpret this election-perhaps prematurely-as the turning of the
fascist tide in Belgium and elsewhere.
In France, the various fascist or authoritarian groups did not
compete with the regular parties at the general elections of April-
May, 1936. Their strength cannot be measured in terms of votes,
but Colonel de la Rocque claims for his new French Social party a
following amounting to not less than two millions. The other more
outspokenly fascist groups have been dissolved, and in any case
were numerically and politically of no great importance. In the
Irish Free State, the Blueshirts are not represented in the Dail,
and in England Mosley's Union of British Fascists apparently has
attracted, by noisy propaganda, much more public attention than
its numerical strength justifies; the municipal elections in London
in March, 1937, revealed its voting strength as negligible, not a
single fascist candidate being returned. Fascist parties are pro-
hibited or under severe legal restrictions in the Baltic states, in
Finland, and in Czechoslovakia. This fact, however, is no evidence
of their actual disappearance. In Czechoslovakia, Herr Konrad
Henlein has reconstituted the dissolved German National Socialist
party in the form of a legal political party, the Sudetendeutsche
Partei; and in the general elections of May, 1935, this party polled

138.117.143.173 on Tue, 31 May 2022 20:28:48 UTC
more votes than any other and obtained forty-four seats in the
House of Representatives, i.e., only one seat less than the leading
Czech government party. Strong fascist or National Socialist move-
ments exist, although nominally proscribed or suppressed, in Ru-
mania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia.
The programmatic and ideological ingredients of this widely
ramified movement of international fascism are surprisingly uni-
form: hatred toward communism and its kin, Marxism and so-
cialism; antisemitism, with the notable exception of Italy, although
even here, evidently under the influence of the "Berlin-Rome
axis," a change in attitude is noticeable; hostility to freemasons,
pacifists, and similar international organizations; the "leadership"
principle and abolition of liberal democracy and its institutions;
a hazy sort of corporativism; general house-cleaning under the
slogans of "regeneration" and "renovation;" rampant nationalism.
Recruits are usually drawn from the depressed middle classes, from
some sections of the intelligentsia, and most of all from the youth,
with a fair sprinkling of retired army officers and disgruntled
politicians. On close observation, a similarity of the personalities
of the "leaders" is discernible also. If available, a man from the
lower middle class or from the proletarian stratum is preferable to
an intellectual, which accounts for the juxtaposition of M. Doriot
to Colonel de la Rocque in France. For technical reasons to be
shown later, the actual personality of the leader is not of primary
importance. In spite of slight national differences, the similarities
of the fascist movements in the various democratic countries are so
striking as to betoken, at least to a superficial observer, common
causations of origin and growth.
Impossibility of Explaining International Fascism by a Common
Causation. Surprisingly enough, however, none of the commonly
assumed motives of fascism holds good. No longer are only the
nationally frustrated nations breeding fascist nationalism. None
of the Scandinavian countries, nor yet France, Spain, or Belgium,
suffers from thwarted national ambitions. Nor is it true that
nations endowed with the experience and tradition of self-govern-
ment are immune from the fascist virus. France and Belgium, at
present most exposed to fascism, prove the contrary. Nor can it be
held that economic pressure is alone responsible for driving people
to political quacks and spell-binders. The depression is visibly on
the wane; very little acute misery exists in Belgium and in the

138.117.143.173 on Tue, 31 May 2022 20:28:48 U6 12:34:56 UTC
other gold-bloc countries, although postponement of devaluation

may have delayed recovery. In short, no common denominator for
the emergence of fascism can be discovered among nations differing
so widely in national character, historic tradition, and economic
structure.
Another common assumption is that private capitalism, threat-
ened by the socialist tide and the attendant loss of privileges,
builds up fascism as a protective wall of counter-revolution. Be-
yond doubt, this theory is justified empirically by events in
Germany, Italy, Austria, and recently in Spain. But it would be
an undue belief in the self-stultification of the capitalist class to
assume that it should not have fully realized the ultimate fate of
private capitalism under fascist domination in a totalitarian
regime. Private capitalism cannot have failed to understand that
at least in Italy and Germany it has fallen from the frying pan into
the fire, and that capital controlling democracy is far preferable to
corporative middle-class bureaucracy controlling capitalism. In
spite of the risks arising from universal suffrage, capitalism thrives
best under democracy with its predictability of the rule of law. In
addition, the totalitarian state leads eventually to war; whereas
democracy and capitalism need peace and safety of investment
more than anything else. Middle-class dictators, at the bifurcation
of the road, are bound to turn left. Here appears at least one of the
potential checks on fascism.
In view of the present situation, one of two conclusions imposes
itself. On the one hand, fascism may be nothing less than one of the
ground-swells of the spirit which by their universal nature irresist-
ibly transform a world more closely knit together today than ever
before. If this be true, democracy as a pattern of political organiza-
tion is doomed, as royal absolutism was once doomed when liberal
democracy conquered the globe. Resistance against the relentless
march of history would be a waste of time and energy, and would
only aggravate the disaster of the final surrender. One can never
escape the spirit. Fascist propaganda has succeeded in instilling
this belief in the masses and, like any belief, it cannot be argued.
On the other hand, if fascism is not a spiritual flame shooting
across the borders, it is obviously only a technique for gaining and
holding power, for the sake of power alone, without that meta-
physical justification which can be derived from absolute values
only. If this hypothesis is realized, the answer is equally ines-

138.117.143.173 on Tue, 31 May 2022 20:28:48 UTC
capable. If democracy is convinced that it has not yet fulfilled its

destination, it must fight on its own plane a technique which serves
only the purpose of power. Democracy must become militant.
Fascism is not an Ideology but a Political Technique. The fact that
fascism is not an ideology, but only a political technique, is abun-
dantly evidenced by the vast experience of the last decade. Fascism
is not a philosophy-not even a realistic constructive program-
but the most effective political technique in modern history. Its
conceptual barrenness is exposed clearly in connection with the
Spanish rebellion. Just as in Italy the march on Rome antedated
the formulation of a program-a fact which fascism proudly admits
-the conquest of power by General Franco and his mercenaries
is the sole objective and needs not even the pretext of a sub-
stantiated program. Fascism simply wants to rule. The vagueness
of the fascist offerings hardens into concrete invective only if mani-
fest deficiencies of the democratic system are singled out for attack.
Leadership, order, and discipline are set over against parliamentary
corruption, chaos, and selfishness; while a cryptic corporativism is
substituted for political representation. General discontent is
focussed on palpable objectives (Jews, freemasons, bankers, chain
stores). Colossal propaganda is launched against what appears as
the most conspicuously vulnerable targets. A technique of incessant
repetition, of over-statements and over-simplifications, is evolved
and applied. The different sections of the people are played off
against one another. In brief, to arouse, to guide, and to use emo-
tionalism in its crudest and its most refined forms is the essence of
the fascist technique for which movement and emotion are not only
linguistically identical. It is a peculiar feature of the emotional
technique that those who are brought into play as the instruments,
i.e., the masses, should not be aware of the rational calculations by
which the wire-pullers direct it. Fascism is the true child of the age
of technical wonders and of the emotional masses.
This technique could be victorious only under the extraordinary
conditions offered by democratic institutions. Its success is based
on its perfect adjustment to democracy. Democracy and demo-
cratic tolerance have been used for their own destruction. Under
cover of fundamental rights and the rule of law, the anti-demo-
cratic machine could be built up and set in motion legally. Calcu-
lating adroitly that democracy could not, without self-abnegation,
deny to any body of public opinion the full use of the free institu-

138.117.143.173 on Tue, 31 May 2022 20:28:48 UTC
tions of speech, press, assembly, and parliamentary participation,

fascist exponents systematically discredit the democratic order and
make it unworkable by paralyzing its functions until chaos reigns.
They exploit the tolerant confidence of democratic ideology that
in the long run truth is stronger than falsehood, that the spirit
asserts itself against force. Democracy was unable to forbid the
enemies of its very existence the use of democratic instrumen-
talities. Until very recently, democratic fundamentalism and
legalistic blindness were unwilling to realize that the mechanism of
democracy is the Trojan horse by which the enemy enters the city.
To fascism in the guise of a legally recognized political party were
accorded all the opportunities of democratic institutions.
The main principle of democracy is the notion of legality.
Fascism therefore officially annexed legality. Since experience
acquired in other countries does not commend the coup d'etat for
the immediate conquest of the state, power is sought on the basis
of studious legality. If possible, access is obtained to national and
communal representative bodies. This purpose is facilitated by that
gravest mistake of the democratic ideology, proportional represen-
tation. Democracies are legally bound to allow the emergence and
rise of anti-parliamentarian and anti-democratic parties under the
condition that they conform outwardly to the principles of legality
and free play of public opinion. It is the exaggerated formalism of
the rule of law which under the enchantment of formal equality
does not see fit to exclude from the game parties that deny the very
existence of its rules.
Concomitantly, the movement organizes itself in the form of a
semi-military corps, the party militia or private army of the party.
Under the pretense of self-protection, the original nucleus of the
personal bodyguard of the leaders, and of the stewards for the
maintenance of order in meetings, is developed into a large fighting
body of high efficiency equipped with the fullest outfit of military
paraphernalia, such as military hierarchy, uniforms and other
symbols, and if possible arms. Again, this technique has strong
emotional values and purposes. In the first place, mere demonstra-
tion of military force, even without actual violence, does not fail
deeply to impress the peaceful and law-abiding bourgeois. Its
manifestation, so alien to the normal expressions of party life, is,
as such, a source of intimidation and of emotional strain for the
citizens. On the other hand, while democratic parties are charac-

138.117.143.173 on Tue, 31 May 2022 20:28:48 UTC
terized by the looseness of their spiritual allegiance, the military

organization of the fascist parties emphasizes the irrevocable
nature of the political bond. It creates and maintains that sense of
mystical comradeship of all for each and each for all, that exclusive-
ness of political obsession in comparison to which the usual party
allegiance is only one among many pluralistic loyalties. When party
allegiance finally transcends allegiance to the state, the dangerous
atmosphere of double legality is created. The military routine,
because it is directed against despised democracy, is ethically glori-
fied as part of party symbolism which in turn is part of the emo-
tional domination. Disobedience towards the constituted authori-
ties naturally grows into violence, and violence becomes a new
source of disciplined emotionalism. The conflicts with the state-
unavoidable when this phase of active aggressiveness is reached
-increase the common sentiment of persecution, martyrdom,
heroism, and dangerous life so closely akin to legalized violence
during war. In addition, the movement is, within its own confines,
genuinely democratic. A successful roughneck forthwith rises to
distinction in its hierarchy. The uniform has a mystical attraction
also in avowedly non-militaristic countries. The effect of military
display on the "soft" bourgeois is all the more lasting because he
contrasts the firmness of purpose of accumulated force in fascism
with the uncontrolled fluctuations of normal political life. In
politics, the only criterion of success is success. Fascism has been
irresistibly successful in other countries; thus far, it has never met
with a reverse. In any democratic country, be it traditionally ever
so sober and balanced, the existence of a political movement or-
ganized as military force makes the average citizen uneasy and
creates the feeling of restiveness which emotional politics needs.
Last, but not least, the party army develops into a potential
competition with the regular armed forces in the case of a coup
d'etat which invariably follows when the period of pretended
legality has reached its aim of undermining the forces of resistance.
Repressive counteraction of the threatened state usually comes
too late and is paralyzed by fear of civil war.
In former ages, revolutionary movements operated cautiously
and in secrecy. They were dangerous because of their underground
nature. They could strike without warning. In most states, legis-
lation was passed against secret societies. In the age of the emo-
tional masses, the situation is reversed. Revolutionary fascism

138.117.143.173 on Tue, 31 May 2022 20:28:48 UTC
needs the spotlight of the utmost publicity. It could never unfold

itself in the dark. Thus fascism forces itself into the foreground,
where its emotional spell can be cast upon the masses. Its tech-
nique is relentless self-advertisement and propaganda. Democracy
could not reckon with the effects of open propaganda. While
vigilance was focussed, in fatal misunderstanding of the changed
technique of revolutionary movements, on secret actions, no legis-
lative devices existed for offsetting revolutionary emotionalism in
the garb of legality, propaganda, and military symbolism. Fascism
shrewdly capitalized this situation and won its most notable
victories by boring into the weakness of the democratic system.
The German Illustration. The causes for the failure of the
democratic experiment in Germany are by far too complex to be
measured in terms of a single denominator. But the lack of mili-
tancy of the Weimar Republic against subversive movements,
even though clearly recognized as such, stands out in the post-war
predicament of democracy both as an illustration and as a warning.
It is common knowledge that the actual hardships and the spiritual
humiliations of the folly of Versailles, so stubbornly enforced by
mediocre lawyers acting as French statesmen, in the long run
served only the purpose of helping Hitler into the saddle. But the
deeper guilt of the mediocre bureaucrats acting as German states-
men should by no means be minimized, as has become the habit of
one-sided historiographers. When the paramilitary patriotic move-
ments of the early twenties were driven underground by dictation
from Paris, Hitler rose to power by deliberately exploiting the
national predilection for military forms of community life for which
no lawful outlet existed. Caught by this tragic dilemma, no German
government could bring itself to take a strong stand against move-
ments whose professedly patriotic aims appealed even to those
who disapproved of the political methods applied. Laden with the
heritage of the Treaty, the Republic was powerless against a party
which by promoting its own interests fought for redress of the
national grievances. The bourgeoisie, after recovering from the
first shock of being exposed to the immature schemes of socialist
doctrinaires, sided wholeheartedly with the Reichswehr and big
business, which secretly connived at National Socialism. Thus
socialist and democratic cabinets of the center found themselves
fighting against the two fronts of the radicalized masses and the
patriotically inflamed saboteurs of democracy. In addition, the

138.117.143.173 on Tue, 31 May 2022 20:28:48 UTC
law-abiding mind of the German people developed the new-fangled

ideologies of democratic equality and fair play for all into a self-
destroying legalism of which the decisions of the Supreme Con-
stitutional Tribunal are a pertinent illustration.
A survey of the legislative defenses of the Republic against
the enemies of the democratic order reveals an almost tragi-
comical picture of half-hearted, laggard, and thoroughly ineffective
methods of dealing with the subversive technique. The law for the
protection of the Republic, sprung from popular indignation over
the assassination of Herr Rathenau in June, 1922, was openly
defied by Bavaria and secretly made blunt by hyper-legalistic, or
even mutinous, courts from the beginning; and when renewed in
1930, the statute emerged from Parliament insipid and feeble. The
elections in September, 1930, resulted in a political deadlock by
which any constitutional amendment was dependent on the sup-
port of those against whom it was directed; that atmosphere of
illegality and high treason was created which ultimately killed the
Republic. No government would dare to seize arms unlawfully
possessed by militarized parties, since secreting of arms was a
patriotic manifestation against the Treaty. How could legislation
for the protection of democratic institutions and symbols be en-
forced when the German bourgeoisie branded democracy with the
stigma of Versailles? Measures aimed at curbing political excesses
were futile when every radical deputy could, under the protection
of sacrosanct parliamentary immunities, employ the platform to
undermine the Republic. For less than two months, in the spring
of 1932, the wearing of political uniforms in public was unlawful
under an emergency decree of the Reich. But it was impossible to
enforce the ordinance because of the diversities in the political com-
position of the governments of the Lander entrusted with such
enforcement. In the light of later events, the decree of the cabinet
of von Papen in June, 1932, by which associations "whose members
habitually appear in public in closed formation" were required
to submit their by-laws to the Minister of the Interior, reads like a
travesty of law.
The German Republic foundered on its own concepts of constitu-
tional legality, which opened the way to power for Hitler. Democ-
racy had surrendered to National Socialism long before Hitler was
"legally" appointed Chancellor of the Reich. On the other hand, it
must be admitted frankly that National Socialism knew how to

138.117.143.173 on Tue, 31 May 2022 20:28:48 UTC
benefit from the calamitous experience of the Weimar Republic.

The one-party system was the logical answer to the democratic
tolerance of the crushed Republic.
Impossibility of Democratic Emotionalism. Once the character
of revolutionary fascism as a technique for destroying democracy
emotionally is recognized, much of its spell is broken. The induc-
tive object lesson offered by the experience of the last decade was
not entirely lost upon the countries still adhering to democracy. At
long last, democracies became conscious of the threat, and they are
now organizing defence. On the whole, the outlook for democracy
has improved considerably, both psychologically and materially.
The tide of fascism seems to be turning, although in several
countries, e.g., Belgium and France, there is still imminent danger.
One method of overcoming fascist emotionalism would certainly
be that of offsetting or outdoing it by similar emotional devices.
Clearly, the democratic state cannot embark on this venture.
Democracy is utterly incapable of meeting an emotional attack by
an emotional counter-attack. Constitutional government, by its
very nature, can appeal only to reason; it never could successfully
mobilize emotionalism; even its emotional ingredients are only a
prelude to reason. The emotional past of early liberalism and
democracy cannot be revived. Nowadays, people do not want to die
for liberty. The heroic defenders of Spain against Franco and his
fascist auxiliaries do not fight for liberty as such, but for a new
social ideal, or perhaps only for their lives. As a rational system,
democracy can prove its superiority only by its achievements,
which are obfuscated by economic distress and discredited by social
shortcomings. The values of liberty seem secure, with the result
that to many they appear worn out by routine, faded, pale, and
glamourless. Democracy could not devise emotional formulas
capable of competing with the fascist Pied Pipers. Democracy
d la recherche d'une nouvelle mystique seems hopeless, if not ridicu-
lous. Democratic romanticism is of itself a contradiction.
The Common Front Idea. Realistically, the defense of democracy
can be projected only on political and legislative lines. The two
methods are clearly distinct, although if political presuppositions
are lacking, legislative action cannot be taken. Spiritually, both
arise from the same will of self-protection and self-preservation.
But while the political attitude aims at establishing a united and
uniform action among the democratically-minded sections of the

138.117.143.173 on Tue, 31 May 2022 20:28:48 UTC
people against the common enemy, the anti-fascist legislation in

democratic states is directly pointed at the fascist technique; it can
be passed even if a formal political understanding among the vari-
ous anti-fascist parties does not exist. On the other hand, political
union alone, without the technical legislation, fails to achieve its
purpose.
In many states, democratic parties have become aware that the
very existence of democracy is at stake. The war of doctrines is at
last in full swing. It is true that fascism, in the present stage, pre-
tends to crusade mainly against Marxism. But its spokesmen de-
nounce liberalism and democracy, the germ carriers and hotbeds
of socialism and communism, as the gateway to bolshevism. The
logical result has been the rise of the Common Front idea in several
countries. Originating in Spain, it was followed up in France with,
at least for the time being, unmistakable success. In France, as in
other countries, the main difficulty in uniting the anti-fascist
parties is the strong aversion of large sections of the bourgeois
middle-classes and of the farmers towards the Left; the Communist
partner's devotion to constitutional government and to the princi-
ples of private property are justly mistrusted. The Common Front
idea, new and untried as it is, has proved a two-edged weapon, and
the ambiguity of the political alliance is widely exploited by fascist
propaganda. Thus it cannot be regarded as the final determinant
for the solution of the problem of political union against fascism.
Furthermore, for various reasons, in most countries, e.g., Eng-
land and Switzerland, the Common Front plan has little chance of
realization. In some cases, communism has been subjected to severe
restrictions; in others, it is almost non-existent. The absence of the
disturbing element of communism has facilitated a closer drawing
together of the bourgeois liberal and moderate socialist parties for
common defense without the precarious device of a political alli-
ance in the form of a common front. This accounts for the fact that
in most democratic countries, with the exception of France, the
defense of the moderate parties is directed equally against com-
munism and fascism, with the result that anti-extremist legislation
can be coordinated without flagrant violation of democratic prin-
ciples. As A. P. Herbert, M. P., humorously remarks: "A plague on
both your blouses." Thus the Catholic parties have been able to
combat the anti-religious propaganda of communism, while the
liberal center parties, which are usually the first losers to fascism,

138.117.143.173 on Tue, 31 May 2022 20:28:48 UTC
could concentrate their activities against- that enemy. In all demo-

cratic countries except France, a concurrent attitude of the consti-
tutional parties against both fascism and communism has been
established and anti-extremist legislation has been carried by par-
liamentary vote and public opinion at large.
Lack of Cooperation Among Democracies. On the other hand, while
the Fascist International seemingly operates according to a
strategic plan on trans-national lines, very little has been accom-
plished toward establishing a closer cooperation of democracies
internationally. Democracies still adhere to the belief that a war of
doctrines must be avoided at all costs. The existence of a common
danger is not fully recognized. International fascism benefits again.
In every country where fascism seized power, it was helped most
by the disunity of its opponents. International fascism is obviously
confident that the same strategy can be applied to Europe as a
whole. The currency agreement in the autumn of 1936 among the
gold-bloc countries, the sterling bloc, and the United States was
purely opportunistic and one of the many lost opportunities for
concerted action. Even the remarkable experiment of establishing
regional solidarity on this side of the ocean by the Pan-American
Conference seems less auspicious in view of the disintegrating
tendencies of local fascist movements. Efforts at mutual economic
understanding are at least under way between the Netherlands and
the Scandinavian countries and among the members of the Baltic
group. More esprit de corps is shown in Spain, where international
anti-fascists rally behind the Spanish republic. This first instance of
vigorous defense is at the same time a clear indication that the war
of doctrines can no longer be ignored. At any rate, the Spanish
example helps to convince fascism as well as democracies that in
any particular country a fascist coup d'etat means civil war.
Democracy Becomes Militant. The most important step has been
taken in a different direction. More and more, it has been realized
that a political technique can be defeated only on its own plane
and by its own devices, that mere acquiescence and optimistic
belief in the ultimate victory of the spirit over force only en-
courages fascism without stabilizing democracy. Since fascism is a
technique bolstered up ex post facto by ideas, it can be checked only
by a similar technique. It took years to break through the demo-
cratic misconception that the principal obstacle to defense against
fascism is democratic fundamentalism itself. Democracy stands
for fundamental rights, for fair play for all opinions, for free speech,

138.117.143.173 on Tue, 31 May 2022 20:28:48 UTC
assembly, press. How could it address itself to curtailing these

without destroying the very basis of its existence and justification?
At last, however, legalistic self-complacency and suicidal lethargy
gave way to a better grasp of realities. A closer study of fascist
technique led to discovery of the vulnerable spots in the democratic
system, and of how to protect them. An elaborate body of anti-
fascist legislation was enacted in all democratic countries. The
provisions were drafted precisely for checking the particular emo-
tional tactics of fascism. Step by step, each device on which the
success of fascism is grounded was met by a legislative provision
which crippled it. Furthermore, fascism as a technique went the
way of all purely technical contrivances. It became stereotyped.
Thus precaution could be taken against repetition of formulas and
patterns of action which were successful in other countries. Seen
from the angle of its international application, fascist technique
appears now rather conventional and standardized; variations of
its schematic mechanism are comparatively rare in spite of its
ingenuity in adjusting itself to the particular national situation.
Thus the legislative counteraction could definitely match the emo-
tional technique. It is a clear indication of the growing unwilling-
ness of democracies to lend parliamentary institutions to the fascist
technique of exploiting them for their selfish ends that the Belgian
parliament in March, 1937, passed a bill seeking to prevent resigna-
tions from parliamentary seats merely for the sake of facilitating
propaganda at the ensuing by-elections. Although democratic
countries could not bring themselves to concerted action on an
international basis, the prophylactic measures adopted in each
individual country are surprisingly similar. After much hesitancy
and legalistic inhibition, efficient measures against fascism reached
the statute books. In spite of the electoral successes of fascist move-
ments in several countries, such as Czechoslovakia, Belgium,
and the Netherlands, the movements are kept by legislation within
the bounds of normal political parties, and if fascism did not get
beyond control in any democratic country which adopted anti-
fascist legislation, it is because democracy finally became militant.
Can an Idea be Suppressed? At this juncture, a serious objection
may be raised. No spiritual movement can, in the long run, be
suppressed merely by legislative and administrative measures. At
most, it may be only slowed up. Liberalism survived the reaction
of the Holy Alliance, and in the second half of the nineteenth
century it conquered the world. The German statute proscribing

138.117.143.173 on Tue, 31 May 2022 20:28:48 UTC
socialism during the period 1878-90 did not prevent the resuscita-
tion of the Social Democrats after repeal. Russian communism,
outlawed before and after 1905, today rules the empire of the Czar.
Always the spirit breaks its chains. But socialism was an idea,
perhaps the strongest idea since 1789; and history teaches the
deathlessness of ideas. The same argument, however, does not
operate in favor of fascism, because it is not an ideological move-
ment but only a political technique under ideological pretenses.
There is no historical evidence that a political technique is irresist-
ible if recognized and fought as such.
Democracies withstood the ordeal of the World War much better
than did autocratic states-by adopting autocratic methods. Few
seriously objected to the temporary suspension of constitutional
principles for the sake of national self-defense. During war, ob-
serves Leon Blum, legality takes a vacation. Once more, democracy
is at war, although an underground war on the inner front. Consti-
tutional scruples can no longer restrain from restrictions on demo-
cratic fundamentals, for the sake of ultimately preserving these
very fundamentals. The liberal-democratic order reckons with nor-
mal times. The guarantee of individual and collective rights serves
as a legal basis for compromise between interests which, to be sure,
may fall into conflict, but which nevertheless are animated by
common loyalty toward the fundamentals of government. Consti-
tutions are dynamic to the extent that they allow for peaceful
change by regular methods, but they have to be stiffened and
hardened when confronted by movements intent upon their
destruction. Where fundamental rights are institutionalized, their
temporary suspension is justified. When the ordinary channels of
legislation are blocked by obstruction and sabotage, the democratic
state uses the emergency powers of enabling legislation which
implicitly, if not explicitly, are involved in the very notion of
government. Government is intended for governing. Fascism has
declared war on democracy. A virtual state of siege confronts
European democracies. State of siege means, even under demo-
cratic constitutions, concentration of powers in the hands of the
government and suspension of fundamental rights. If democracy
believes in the superiority of its absolute values over the opportu-
nistic platitudes of fascism, it must live up to the demands of the
hour, and every possible effort must be made to rescue it, even at
the risk and cost of violating fundamental principles.
[To be concluded in the next number]

138.117.143.173 on Tue, 31 May 2022 20:28:48 UTC

Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights K. Loewenstein

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights K. Loewenstein

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights K. Loewenstein

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights, I

Author(s): Karl Loewenstein

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1948164

This content downloaded from