Contesting Democracy

1. World War I Shattered the Old Order and Unleashed Mass Politics

The whole state of society is more or less molten and you can stamp upon that molten mass almost anything as long as you do it with firmness and determination.

The Age of Security ended. The pre-war European order, characterized by relative peace, economic interdependence, and the persistence of monarchical and aristocratic power, collapsed with the outbreak of World War I. This era, remembered by some as a "golden Age of Security," rested on assumptions of progress and contained political challenges within established frameworks.

Mass mobilization transformed states. The war demanded unprecedented state intervention and the mobilization of entire populations, blurring the lines between state and society. Millions served, civilians were regimented, and economies were centrally directed. This vastly increased state power and created a sense of social possibility, but also fueled anxieties about the rise of "the masses" in politics.

Old legitimacies vanished. The war swept away the great continental empires (German, Habsburg, Russian, Ottoman) and discredited dynastic and divine right legitimacy. Republics became the norm, and political rule now required mass justification. The war also exposed the limits of traditional liberal approaches, which struggled to cope with the scale of social conflict and the demands for broader political participation.

2. Interwar Europe Became a Laboratory for Radical Political Experiments

The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and that the new cannot be born. In this interregnum the most varied phenomena appear.

A vacuum of legitimacy. With traditional authority gone and liberal democracy struggling to take root or maintain stability, the interwar period became a time of intense experimentation with new political forms. Thinkers and politicians sought alternatives to perceived failures of both liberal parliamentarism and the unrealized socialist revolution.

Contesting democracy's meaning. Even regimes explicitly opposed to liberal democracy, like fascism and state socialism, often claimed to embody true democratic values such as:

• Substantive equality beyond formal legal rights
• Genuine inclusion in a political community
• Real, ongoing participation in politics
  They promised to create new collective subjects capable of mastering their fate.

Searching for new foundations. Intellectuals across the spectrum grappled with how to build stable states without the "transcendent element" of monarchy. Some explored pluralism and decentralized power, while others focused on harnessing state power for social transformation or cultivating a shared national culture as a basis for legitimacy.

3. Fascism Forged a Myth of the Total State and a Purified National Subject

National Socialism is nothing but applied biology.

Beyond traditional conservatism. Fascism, emerging from the post-WWI "molten mass," differed from older right-wing movements by embracing mass mobilization, youth, and a glorification of violence and struggle. It presented itself as a revolution against the decadence of liberal bourgeois society and sought to create a new, heroic man.

The nation as myth. Drawing on thinkers like Georges Sorel, fascists replaced class struggle with the nation as the central myth capable of mobilizing populations. They transposed the idea of struggle to national groups, viewing war as essential for national vitality and moral renewal. This led to concepts like the "proletarian nation" and the pursuit of "spazio vitale" (living space).

The total state and the racial body. Italian Fascism theorized the "ethical state" as a spiritual force encompassing all, aiming for a "totalitarian" synthesis of state and individual. Nazism radicalized this, centering its ideology on race and biology. The "Volksgemeinschaft" (national community) was conceived as a racial body, requiring purification and the elimination of "Gemeinschaftsfremde" (community aliens), culminating in unprecedented anti-universalism and biopolitical control.

4. Stalinism Aimed to Create a New Soviet People Through Party Control and Terror

One death is a tragedy, a million just statistics.

From commune to state capitalism. Lenin's initial vision of a decentralized "commune state" quickly gave way to the imperative of survival and modernization, leading to a centralized, bureaucratic party-state emulating "German state capitalism." The party, not the working class, became the heroic subject, embodying the "objectification of the proletariat's will."

Building socialism in one country. Stalin consolidated power by emphasizing "socialism in one country," justifying forced industrialization and collectivization as necessary steps. This involved the brutal "liquidation of the kulaks as a class" and widespread famine, revealing a deep anti-peasant bias within the Bolshevik leadership.

Terror and the New Soviet Person. The regime used systematic terror, show trials, and purges to eliminate perceived enemies and witnesses, creating a climate of fear and complicity. Simultaneously, it sought to forge a new "Soviet people" through mass participation (albeit controlled) and the promotion of the "new Soviet person," ideally a disciplined, productive "shock worker." This aimed for a total fusion of state and society, though often resulted in bureaucratic chaos and a "dictatorship of the secretariat."

5. Post-War Western Europe Built Constrained Democracies Focused on Stability

It is obvious that the vitality nurtured on impassioned battles of ideas cannot be maintained in the successful democracy’s atmosphere of levelling and compromise. We cannot have it both ways...

Anti-totalitarian imperative. Haunted by the experience of fascism and the perceived dangers of unlimited popular sovereignty, Western European elites prioritized stability and built a new, highly constrained form of democracy after 1945. This involved limiting parliamentary power and relying on unelected institutions.

Constitutionalism and judicial review. Key innovations included the widespread adoption of constitutional courts with powers of judicial review, often seen as necessary "guardians" against potential democratic excesses. This reflected a distrust of pure majority rule and aimed to protect individual rights and the rule of law, sometimes justified by a revival of natural law thinking.

Consensus politics and technocracy. The era was marked by a move towards consensus politics, where major parties converged on core goals like economic growth, social welfare, and stability. Technocratic approaches to governance, emphasizing expert management and planning, were seen as ways to reduce ideological conflict and ensure prosperity, leading some to speak of the "euthanasia of politics."

6. Christian Democracy Emerged as a Key Force Reconciling Faith and Democracy

No political thinker did more to reshape the Catholic Church’s attitude towards liberal democracy and human rights: Jacques Maritain consults with Pope Paul VI in 1964.

Reconciliation with modernity. Post-war Christian Democracy represented a momentous shift, reconciling Catholicism with liberal democracy and human rights after centuries of conflict. Figures like Jacques Maritain provided philosophical justifications for this, arguing that democracy was a "moral manifestation of the inspiration of the Gospel."

Building mass parties and welfare states. Christian Democratic parties became central to constructing the post-war order, forming broad alliances (often between the middle class and peasantry) and implementing welfare state policies. They presented themselves as anti-Communist bulwarks and proponents of a "social market economy," balancing economic liberalism with social safety nets.

European integration as a Christian Democratic project. Leaders like De Gasperi, Adenauer, and Schuman, often from border regions marked by past conflicts, spearheaded European integration. Distrustful of the nation-state and traditional sovereignty, they favored supranational institutions and a gradual, technocratic approach to building a united Europe based on a shared "Christian-humanist" heritage.

7. Post-War Eastern Europe Developed Bureaucratic 'People's Democracies'

The basic lesson is that no people should be written off – and so many have been, from Germans to Malaysians – as lacking the desire for freedom.

Soviet template imposed. Regimes in Central and Eastern Europe initially adopted "people's democracy" models, featuring anti-fascist coalitions and nationalization. However, under Stalin's influence, they largely conformed to the Soviet model, characterized by a leading party, centralized control, and suppression of dissent.

Ideological facade and bureaucratic rule. While invoking democratic values and mass participation, these regimes were dominated by the Communist Party, whose leading role was constitutionally enshrined. Ideology often became a rigid facade, and power increasingly rested with a privileged bureaucratic "New Class," as analyzed by Milovan Djilas.

Limited reforms and persistent control. De-Stalinization after 1956 brought intermittent periods of limited reform and a shift towards "socialist legality," but fundamental challenges to party control were brutally suppressed, as seen in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968). Despite some moves towards "welfare Communism," the core structure remained authoritarian, prioritizing stability over genuine political change.

8. The 1960s Challenged Consensus Politics and Technocracy with Demands for Autonomy

The State exercises the monopoly of physical violence and claims thereby the exorbitant privilege of distinguishing what belongs to the commerce of ideas and what constitutes an exchange of blows... Monopolizing the use of force, and thereby determining the use of ideas, the State proclaims in the last analysis: ‘I am the only philosopher.’

Rebellion against the "system". The 1960s saw widespread discontent, particularly among youth and intellectuals, challenging the perceived suffocation of post-war consensus politics, technocracy, and the constrained nature of Western democracy. This "existential disgust" was fueled by issues like the Vietnam War and the perceived hypocrisy of Western powers.

Autonomy and direct action. A central demand was for autonomy – individual and collective self-direction – in contrast to bureaucratic control and consumerist conformity. This led to calls for "direct democracy," "self-management" in various spheres (universities, factories), and "direct action" outside traditional political institutions, often rejecting the very idea of delegated power.

Critique of the spectacle and one-dimensionality. Thinkers like Guy Debord and Herbert Marcuse provided theoretical frameworks for this critique. Debord analyzed "the society of the spectacle" where life was reduced to representation, while Marcuse diagnosed "one-dimensional man" adapted to a repressive industrial society. They sought new revolutionary subjects beyond the traditional working class and emphasized cultural critique and the "revolution of everyday life."

9. Late 20th-Century Crises Fueled Neoliberalism and Critiques of the State

Economics are the method; the object is to change the soul.

Crisis of governability. The economic shocks and social unrest of the 1970s led to a perceived "crisis of democracy," with governments struggling to manage demands and maintain stability. This weakened confidence in Keynesian policies and state planning, opening the door for alternative economic and political ideas.

Neoliberal challenge. Thinkers like Friedrich von Hayek, long marginal, gained prominence, arguing that state intervention inevitably led to serfdom and that only free markets could ensure liberty and prosperity. While not always fully implemented, these ideas influenced politicians like Margaret Thatcher, who sought to reduce the power of unions and introduce market logic into public life, aiming for a "remoralisation" of society through market discipline.

Critiques of state power. Philosophers like Michel Foucault offered sophisticated critiques of state power, viewing it not just as repression but as a productive force shaping individuals through "governmentality" and "biopolitics." This resonated with a broader distrust of centralized authority and contributed to a climate where the state's role was increasingly questioned, even by those not aligned with free-market ideology.

10. Dissident 'Antipolitics' in the East Undermined Totalitarian Regimes

Being a democrat means, primarily, not to be afraid...

Taking regimes at their word. Dissidents in Central and Eastern Europe, learning from past failures, adopted a strategy of "antipolitics," focusing on human rights and civil society rather than direct confrontation for state power. Inspired by figures like Alexander Yessenin-Volpin and Václav Havel, they sought to expose the hypocrisy of regimes that signed international human rights accords while violating them.

Living in truth. Havel's concept of "living in truth" encouraged individuals to refuse complicity with the state's ideological lies, demonstrating the fragility of "post-totalitarianism." This moral stance, rooted in thinkers like Jan Patočka's "care for the soul," aimed to rebuild trust and solidarity from below, creating a "parallel polis" of independent civic associations.

Self-limiting action. Dissident movements like Charter 77 and Poland's KOR consciously limited their goals to defending rights and fostering civil society, avoiding calls for revolution or challenging geopolitical realities. This pragmatic "radical reformism" proved effective in mobilizing citizens and exposing the regimes' lack of legitimacy, paving the way for peaceful transitions when Soviet support waned.

11. The Fall of Communism Marked the End of an Ideological Age, Not History

I think the end of communism is a serious warning to all mankind. It is a signal that the era of arrogant, absolutist reason is drawing to a close, and that it is high time to draw conclusions from this fact.

Peaceful transitions. The revolutions of 1989 saw the collapse of state socialism across Central and Eastern Europe, largely without the violent insurrection of earlier revolutions. This was facilitated by the regimes' internal decay, the rise of civil society, and the Soviet Union's unwillingness to intervene militarily.

Triumph of liberal democracy. The post-1989 period saw the widespread adoption of Western European models of liberal democracy and market economies. This was often seen as a vindication of Western political and economic systems and led some to declare the "end of history," suggesting no viable ideological alternatives remained.

New challenges and old anxieties. While marking the end of the 20th century's major ideological contests, the post-1989 era revealed new challenges for liberal democracy. These included the weakening of mass parties, the rise of populism, and anxieties about the ability of constrained democracies to address complex social and economic issues, echoing some of the concerns raised by thinkers like Max Weber decades earlier.

Last updated: May 10, 2025