The first lectures have been hugely explanatory on the foundations of authoritarianism, however, they have raised some questions to me. Initially (lect 3), among the ways in which hegemonic shocks could produce regime changes (imposition, inducement, and emulation), I was surprised not to see any reason associated to trauma. For example, after WW1 (which undoubtedly is a hegemonic shock) and the Great Depression, neither emulation, imposition, or inducement, could be considered as reasons for the democratic backsliding seen in the rise of Nazi Germany. Some might argue that emulation might be a reasonable cause for this (emulating a glorious Prussia), but this idea does not account for the election of such an extremist stance. I argue that the trauma, as a form of PTSD, that drives people into choosing governmental systems they would only have chosen as a second line of approach, had the first line (democracy in this case) failed. Undoubtedly, the difficulties post-WW1 democratic Germany was facing with unemployment, rebuilding, and the posterior depression, led to the association of democracy with failure. Stemming from the hegemonic shock produced by WW1, which showcased the failure of democracy to recover from the war and the Great Depression, we see a Germany who has only bad memories on what democracy can achieve and so bends towards authoritarian rule.
In addition, and quite differently from the previous point, on lecture 4 which was dedicated to the methods totalitarian rule had in imposing itself (ideology, propaganda, and terror). This ringed a bell, isn't the foundation of our modern democratic society, the French Revolution, exactly represented by these characteristics? Of course, classic examples of authoritarian rule such as Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR were mentioned, but what of the rule of the Jacobins? The Jacobins are the perfect example of what ideology, propaganda, and terror can do. Instead, the French Revolution and the French government that resulted from it are mostly praised and little criticised. from the legislative assembly to the national convention and the liberal republic, the well known reign of terror is without any doubts comparable to the most atrocious 20th and 21st century totalitarian regimes.
Interesting points, Joao - note that the terror was very much criticised at the time, and for much of the following century. The French Revolution has often been seen as having an ambiguous outcome, only eventually leading to a democratic regime. (It's not really until the 3rd republic, really).
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Weimar Germany, the hegemonic shock of the depression motivated people to vote for anti-democratic parties; and the success of the Nazis is what was later emulated (and of course in addition the nazis imposed or induced other regimes).