Fascism
167
had failed to resolve international conflicts and rivalries, leaving a bitter inheritance of frustrated nationalism and the desire for revenge. Finally, the Great Depression of the 1930s led to rising unemployment and economic failure, creating an atmosphere of crisis and deep pessimism which could be exploited by political extremists and demagogues. The implication of this analysis is that, as this nexus of circumstances would never be replicated, the spectre of fascism no longer hung over Europe or the wider world. In other words, fascism is an ideology without a future; in effect, it died in 1945, with the defeat of the Axis powers. Others, nevertheless, regard fascism as an ever-present threat, seeing its roots in human psychology, or as Erich Fromm (1984) called it, ‘the fear of freedom’. From this perspective, modern civilization has produced greater individual freedom but, with it, the danger of isolation and insecurity. At times of crisis, individuals may therefore flee from freedom, seeking security in submission to an all- powerful leader or a totalitarian state. This suggests that fascism could revive whenever conditions of crisis, uncertainty and disorder arise, and not just when a particular set of circumstances coincide. For example, the end of communist rule in Eastern Europe allowed long-suppressed national rivalries and racial hatreds to re-emerge, giving rise, particularly in the former Yugoslavia, to forms of extreme nationalism that sometimes exhibited fascist-type features. Similarly, figures such as Viktor Orban (see p. 181) in Hungary and Jai Bolsorano in Brazil have emerged who, while not fascists, have used rhetoric that sometimes resembles fascism. Another possibility is that a form of fascism could emerge that, while being faithful to certain core fascist beliefs and values, is more in line with the expectations and practices that prevail in the wider political system. In short, the future of fascism is neo-fascism, in some form or guise. In some respects, neo-fascism may be well positioned to prosper in the future. For one thing, in reaching an accommodation (of sorts) with liberal democracy, neo-fascists appear to no longer be burdened by the barbarism of the Hitler and Mussolini period. For another, neo-fascists still possess the ability to advance a politics of organic unity and social cohesion in the event of future economic crises or bouts of political instability. But is ‘democratic fascism’ – that is, fascism divorced from principles such as absolute leadership, totalitarianism and overt racism – ideologically viable? For critics of neo-fascism, democratic fascism is simply a contradiction in terms. On the one hand, in accepting political pluralism and electoral democracy, neo-fascism ceases to be fascist in any meaningful sense. On the other hand, the neo-fascist ‘conversion’ to democracy may merely be a tactical ruse, in which case democracy will be used to destroy democracy. This is what happened when Hitler and the Nazis were elected to power in 1933, only, subsequently, to abolish elections.
Powered by FlippingBook