Chapter 21 Chapter 4 The Decline of Liberalism 1

1 For the elders of the former dynasty born in the 19th century, among the various changes and developments in the catastrophic era of the 20th century, what shocked them most was the disintegration of the values ​​and systems of human freedom and civilization.For many years, at least in the so-called "advanced" or "progressive" regions, people living in the nineteenth century have taken the progress of liberal civilization for granted.Values ​​of freedom and civilization, do not trust autocracy; pledge to implement constitutionalism, elect a government and representative assembly through free elections to ensure a society ruled by law; advocate a set of universally recognized national rights, including freedom of speech, press and assembly.The value of reason, public debate, education, science, and the human nature to be good (although not necessarily perfect) should be known to all nations and societies.And these value points, throughout the 19th century, are obviously constantly improving; judging from the situation, they are bound to continue to develop.isn't it?By 1914, even the last two remaining autocratic regimes in Europe—Russia and Turkey—had begun to make concessions and embarked on the road to constitutionalism; Iran even borrowed a constitution from Belgium to use. Before 1914, there were only three forces that could challenge this set of values: one was traditional forces, such as the Roman Catholic Church, who took the defensive by setting up obstacles in doctrine to guard against the superior modern spirit.The second is a small group of intellectuals who challenge the established forces and predict the death of tradition.Most of these people come from "famous families" and come from the center of traditional cultural forces. In fact, some of the objects they challenge are the old civilizations in which they once belonged.The third is the power of democracy.On the whole it is a disturbing new phenomenon (see The Age of Empires).Some ignorant and backward masses should indeed be wary of them.They wholeheartedly want to overthrow capitalist society through social revolution, coupled with the potential irrationality of human beings, I am afraid it is very easy for people to instigate and take advantage of it.But in fact, the most fanatical and dangerous elements of both the emerging mass democratic movement and the socialist labor movement share the same enthusiasm for the creeds of reason, science, progress, education, and individual liberty. No matter in theory or in action, they are no less enthusiastic than anyone else.The May Day medal of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (May Day), with a portrait of Marx on one side and the Statue of Liberty on the other.The object of the challenge of the socialist movement is the economic system, not the constitutional government and civilized education. At that time, even if the social democratic parties in France and Germany led by Bebel and others formed a government, they would never be "human beings already civilized". "The giver.At that time, the government that ruined civilization was far away.

From a political perspective, the system of liberal democracy has actually made great progress. Democracy advanced even further in spite of the barbaric war that broke out in the world between 1914 and 1918.With the exception of the Soviet Union, the countries that emerged after the World War, regardless of old or new, have basically established representative parliamentary regimes, even Turkey is no exception.From west of the Soviet borders, Europe in 1920 was full of representative states.The basic system of a free constitutional government is an elected representative assembly and/or head of state.At that time, all independent countries adopted this system.However, we must remember that between the two wars, although there were 65 independent countries in the world, most of them were located in Europe and the United States.At that time, one-third of the world's population was still under colonial rule.Among the independent countries, only five countries never held elections between 1919 and 1947.These five countries are isolated political fossils, including Ethiopia, Mongolia, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen.During this period, the other five countries had one round of elections, and their attitude towards liberal democracy was obviously not friendly. They were Afghanistan, China under the KMT, Guatemala, and Paraguay. and Thailand, which was still called Siam at the time.But then again, the existence of elections is a sign of how deeply liberal political thought has penetrated—at least in theory.Similarly, the existence and frequency of elections are only superficial phenomena, and we cannot judge whether a country has real democracy from this. Since 1930, there have been six elections in Iran and three in Iraq.Neither of these two countries can be considered a democracy.

However, electoral representative government was indeed quite common at the time.However, during the 20 years from Mussolini's so-called "March into Rome" to the peak of the Axis forces during World War II, the grand occasion of the liberal political system has undergone a catastrophe and began to fade rapidly. Between 1918 and 1920, the legislative assemblies of two countries in Europe were dissolved or ceased to function.In the 1920s, this number became 6 countries; in the 1930s, it became 9 countries.During World War II, under German occupation, constitutional governments in five other countries declared bankruptcy.Simply put, the only European countries that had uninterrupted and effective democracies in the years between the two wars were the United Kingdom, Finland (barely), the Irish Free State, Sweden, and Switzerland.

As for the Americas, which includes another group of independent countries, the situation is more inconsistent, but it is definitely far from the progress of a democratic system. The list of non-dictatorial countries that can consistently maintain a constitutional system is extremely short, only Canada, Colombia, and Costa Rica (Costa Rica). ), the United States, and the oft-forgotten "South American Switzerland" and the only true democracy in South America - Uruguay.The most we can say is that from the end of the First World War to the end of the Second World War, the political situation in South America swung to the left and then to the right.In addition, the rest of the world is mostly a colonial world, so it is not considered a liberal regime at all. Even a constitution that once had a liberal consciousness is now increasingly distant. From 1930 to 1931, the Japanese regime was handed over from the liberals to the militaristic forces.Thailand is taking tentative steps, taking a few small steps towards constitutionalism. In the early 1920s, the Turkish regime fell into the hands of the new military strongman Kemal. Kemal advocated modernization, but he would never allow any election to affect his cause.All in all, across the three continents of Asia, Africa, and Oceania, only Australia and New Zealand have always been consistently democratic.As for South Africa, which is located in Africa, since the vast majority of the people are excluded from the white constitutional government, it cannot be regarded as a real democracy.

In short, throughout the age of catastrophe, political liberalism faced a major retreat everywhere, and by 1933, when Hitler ascended to the German chancellorship, the retreat of the liberal camp was intensified. In 1920, there were about 35 countries in the world with democratically elected constitutional governments (the exact number depends on the definition of the republics in Latin America).By 1938, there were only about 17 countries left.By 1944, among the 64 countries in the world, I am afraid that there were only 12 democratic constitutional governments left.The general trend could not be more obvious.

Communism is often seen as the greatest threat to liberal regimes from 1945 to 1989.Based on this assumption, we need to remind ourselves that, going back to the interwar era, the great enemy of liberal regimes was actually the political forces of the right.The term "totalitarianism" was originally used to describe the Italian fascist regime, or originated from the confession of the party.The term, until 1945, was restricted to fascist regimes.At that time, Soviet Russia was isolated from the world (since 1922, it was renamed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, USSR), and it was impossible to expand communism outward.After Stalin came to power, the Soviet Union had no intention of developing outward.After World War I, social revolutions led by the Leninist faction (or any other faction for that matter) briefly gained momentum and then faded away.And the (Marxist) social-democratic movement transformed itself from a subversive force to a

As a force to maintain the country, there is no doubt that his heart is for democracy.In the labor movement in many countries, Communist Party members are in a minority.It is rare that there are a few powerful ones, but they often cannot escape the fate of being suppressed.The power of the social revolution is indeed formidable, and the role played by the Communist Party in the social revolution is also doubtful. The revolutionary storms during and after World War II have proved that this concern is by no means an overstatement.But going back to the 20 years of the great retreat of liberalism between the two world wars, none of the regimes that can be counted as liberal and democratic were overthrown by the left.During this time, the greatest danger comes purely from the right.At that time, the rightists not only endangered the constitutional representative system of government, but also ideologically and ideologically challenged the free and civilized structure on which democracy and freedom depended.

Become a great threat.Its momentum has become extremely popular, and it has the potential to develop into a worldwide political movement.Just using the word "fascist" is not enough to describe this trend.But if fascism has nothing to do with it, it's not entirely true. Fascism is not enough to describe this trend, because not all those who overthrew liberal regimes at that time belonged to the Fascist faction.Fascism cannot be separated from the relationship, because no matter the Italian-style fascism that first created its name, or the German-style National Socialist Party that later followed the fascist style, they all have a stimulating effect on other anti-liberal forces.The fascist party regimes in Italy and Germany not only supported the extreme right in each country, but also brought a sense of historical pride to the international right: the prosperity of the right in the 1930s seemed to be the hope for the future of mankind.A famous political scientist said it well: "The dictators, officials, soldiers in Eastern Europe, and Franco (Spain) all took fascism as their teacher... There is a reason for this, and it is not accidental." (Linz, 1975, P.206)

Military coups in Latin America are relatively traditional forms of subversion.Changing generals, the person who succeeds him is often a dictator or a military strongman who has no specific political views.Apart from this, the forces that overthrew the liberal democratic regime at that time can be divided into three categories.These three types of forces are all opposed to social revolution, and their rise is really due to the reaction against the wave of destruction of the old society from 1917 to 1920.These three powers, too, are all dictatorships, and are deeply hostile to liberty, though sometimes motivated by practical considerations rather than differences of principle.Although the old-school reactionaries will come forward to ban the activities of certain parties, especially the organizations of the Communist Party, they usually do not drive out all parties. In 1919, Hungary's Soviet-style republic was short-lived and quickly ended when the conservative Horthy came to power.Huoshi's title is admiral, and said that Hungary is still a kingdom - although this kingdom has neither a king nor a navy.The Huo family governed the country with centralized power and maintained the old form of oligarchy in the 18th century. Although there was a parliament, it was not democratic.The three types of rightist regimes also favor the military and police departments, especially relying on warriors who are powerful and able to intimidate with physical strength.Because these people can directly defend against subversive forces, in fact, they are often the biggest forces supporting the right.There is another thing in common among all kinds of rightists, that is, they all advocate nationalism.Xenophobia, defeat, and the decline of empires are certainly some of the reasons for the prevalence of state supremacy.But waving the national flag and shouting is the best way to establish a dominant position and win the hearts of the people. However, although there are many similarities, these three rightists still have their differences.

Dictators or conservatives of the old school - General Horthy in Hungary, Marshal Mannerheim in Finland Pilsudski, the liberator of Poland, and later Marshal), King Alexander of Yugoslavia (Yugoslavia is the former Serbia and other places before the Great War, which were unified into Yugoslavia at this time), and General Franco of Spain-in addition to being resolutely anti-communist, these people In addition, in politics, there is no special proposition.If there is any assertion, it is nothing more than the traditional prejudice inherent in the class.They may have combined with Hitler's German alliance, or they may have combined with their own domestic fascist movement, but these practices are only out of the extraordinary period between the two wars.Because the most "natural" comrade at that time was the rightist alliance.However, the consideration of the country's position is of course the priority, which often trumps the awareness of this alliance.Take Churchill in the United Kingdom as an example. Although his style is very special among ordinary rightists, he was still a full-fledged rightist conservative member at that time.Although he was dissatisfied with Mussolini's rightist Italy, and he was really unwilling to support the Spanish Republic's army against General Franco's team, but as soon as Germany threatened Britain, he immediately joined the international camp and became a fighter against fascism.On the other hand, let alone within their own country, these old-fashioned reactionaries may also have to face waves of opposition arising from genuine fascist movements, which sometimes enjoy considerable support from the masses.

The second right-wing force brought about the emergence of a so-called "organized state control" (organic statism, editor's note: "organization" refers to "institutions as the basic unit of political participation") (Linz, 1975, pp. 277, 306-313).This type of conservative regime does not focus on how to defend the traditional order.It has an ulterior motive, deliberately establishing a new policy that resists the liberalism of the individual and the socialist principles of labor.This kind of ideology recalls the imaginary medieval or feudal society. Although there are classes, there are rich and poor, but everyone lives in their own place, there is no class struggle, and everyone accepts their status in the class system.An organized society includes every social group or "privileged class", and these groups or classes have certain roles and functions in society, but they exist as a collective entity.This trend of thought has led to the rise of the theory of "corporatism" under various names.Corporatism advocates the replacement of individualistic liberal democracy with representation of various economic professional groups.This group-based system is sometimes called "organized" participation or "organized" democracy, and its proponents consider it preferable to a true form of democracy.However, in fact, ideals are ideals. In practice, organized democracy often cannot escape the snare of authoritarian rule.The will of the state is above all else, orders are issued and executed from above, power is mostly controlled by a group of bureaucrats, and what is more, electoral democracy is either restricted or completely eliminated in such regimes [paraphrased According to Hungarian Prime Minister Count Bethlen, the so-called "democracy is a corrective method based on the unity of the collective will"] (Ranki, 1971).The most thorough and typical example of this type of corporatist state is certain Roman Catholic countries, notably Portugal under the great dictator Oliveira Salazar.Portugal's right-wing conservative regime was the longest-lived anti-liberal regime in Europe (1927-1974).In addition to Portugal, Unionist regimes emerged in Austria after the collapse of democracy until Hitler invaded the country (1934-1938).And Spain under the rule of General Franco also has a taste of a unified country. This type of reactionary regime, in terms of origin and motivation, is longer than the later fascism. Although there are considerable differences between the two, they lack clear boundaries.Because their goals may not be the same, but they have a common enemy.As early as 1870, at the first Vatican Council (Vatican Council), which decided that the Pope was infallible, the Roman Catholic Church had expressed its resolutely reactionary position.But Catholicism is certainly not fascist.In fact, the Holy See hates secular regimes that advocate totalitarianism, and opposes fascism to the end.However, the form of the "corporate state" displayed by the Catholic countries was even more developed in (Italian) fascist circles.Italy has a Catholic tradition, which is naturally the main reason for being attracted to the idea of ​​unity.And those Catholic countries that practice corporatism are sometimes called "clerical fascists" at all.The reason why fascists gained power in Catholic countries may be directly derived from integrist Catholicism, such as the Rexist movement led by Belgian Liberal Party leader Leon Degrelle.It was often noted that the Catholic Church had an ambiguous attitude towards the racism promoted by Hitler.But there are other, lesser-known acts of the Catholic Church: After World War II, members of the Church—sometimes even high-ranking clergymen in high positions—financed Nazi remnants and fascists of all kinds. Many of them were war criminals accused of bloody crimes.The reason why the church has relations with reactionaries and even fascists is because they all hate the Enlightenment since the 18th century, the French Revolution, and all the evils derived from it in the eyes of the church: democracy, freedom, and of course the heinous "Apathetic Communism". In fact, the era of fascism has indeed become a major turning point in the history of Catholicism.At that time, in the international arena, Hitler and Mussolini were the ones who worked hardest to carry the sedan chair for the rightists.However, the Catholic Church agrees with the right at this juncture, which inevitably creates considerable moral distress for those Catholics who care about social issues.By the time fascism retreated, the clergy were not very active in opposing fascism, let alone the political problems they were suffering at the moment.On the contrary, a stand against fascism, or patriotic participation in defense against foreign enemies, established for the first time a legitimate place in the Church for the democratic Catholic sect (Christian democracy).As for countries with a minority of Catholics, based on actual needs, parties began to appear to pull the votes of Roman Catholic voters, mainly to protect the interests of the church and prevent the erosion of secular forces. Germany and the Netherlands are two examples.As for countries where Catholicism is officially the state religion, the church also strives to resist bowing to democratic and free politics.And its other major trouble comes from the advocacy of godless socialism.Catholicism is a headache for socialism.In 1891 the Church proposed a social policy—a new and unprecedented strategy for Catholicism—that emphasized the need for society to take care of the working class as well as the sanctity of the family and private property. However, capitalism The "sanctity" of the church is not recognized by the church.Catholics from all walks of life influenced by the new trend of thought, whether they advocate socialism, lean towards free thought, or others who plan to organize Catholic labor unions, have gained their first foothold through this policy of the Holy See.Originally after the First World War, Pope Benedict XV (Benedict SV, 1914-1922) briefly allowed the establishment of a large (Catholic) People’s Party (Popular Party) in Italy until the Fascist After rising, the party collapsed.But apart from Italy, democratic and socialist Catholics in other countries are all political minorities.It was not until the rise of fascist forces in the 1930s that the new-minded old-school believers officially appeared in public.Their numbers are still rare, such as the Catholics who openly support the Spanish Republic, just a very small but well-educated group of people.The vast majority of Catholics overwhelmingly support General Franco's conservative reactionary forces.Only in the underground resistance movement during World War II, the believers who lean towards democracy and socialism, can they justifiably emerge in the name of patriotism instead of ideological advocacy, and win the final victory.But all in all, the victory of the Christian democratic parties in Europe was not at the time, and only gradually appeared in the future.And it took decades to gain power in parts of Latin America.In an age of general decline in liberalism, the Church, with rare exceptions, took comfort in this phenomenon.