Democratic Fascism

The election in America got me thinking about Democratic Fascism, not a term you hear that much, if at all, but it's currently a choice in the USA. There's Democratic Socialism, so surely there's an argument that Democratic Fascism is a political 'thing'.

Democratic socialism and democratic fascism represent contrasting ways to merge democracy with broader ideological visions, each carrying unique benefits and inherent risks. 

Democratic socialism seeks to create a fairer society by combining democratic governance with socialist principles, including the social ownership of key industries, extensive welfare systems, and strong protections for workers’ rights. 

In this model, democratic processes ensure a more equitable distribution of resources and power, aiming to foster a socially just, inclusive society. Countries influenced by democratic socialism, such as Norway and Sweden, balance free-market practices with social protections to create stable, inclusive communities. However, critics argue that democratic socialism risks expanding government control over the economy, which can stifle private enterprise and innovation if not carefully balanced, potentially leading to bureaucratic inefficiencies and a dependency on state-provided services.

Democratic fascism, though not widely practised or fully cohesive as an ideology, might describe a system where democratic elements are preserved only as a façade to legitimise authoritarian power. 

In this structure, democratic mechanisms, such as elections, might be maintained but serve primarily to support a strong central authority that promotes nationalism, social cohesion, and state loyalty. By placing the state's ideals above individual freedoms, this model risks eroding democratic values under the guise of unity and order. 

Democratic fascism might lead to restrictions on civil liberties, a tightly controlled economy aligned with state goals, and limited political plurality, ultimately concentrating power in a manner that contradicts democratic principles. This system could easily slide into full authoritarianism if checks on power are eroded, leading to potential abuses of authority, suppression of dissent, and marginalisation of minority voices.

Russia exhibits characteristics that could, in some respects, align with aspects of democratic fascism. Russia formally maintains democratic structures, including regular elections, a constitution, and multiple political parties, but many observers argue that these institutions primarily serve to legitimise a centralised, authoritarian government rather than genuinely uphold democratic principles.

An historical precedent that mirrors some aspects of democratic fascism is the Roman Republic’s system of appointing a temporary dictator during crises. In emergencies, the Roman Senate could grant near-total power to a single individual, aiming to secure the state by overriding democratic processes temporarily. Although the dictatorship was meant to be time-bound and return to democratic rule after six months, the system exemplifies the dangers of concentrating authority, even temporarily, in a democratic society. 

Early Roman dictators like Cincinnatus, Marcus Furius Camillus, Aulus Postumius Tubertus, and Quintus Servilius Priscus upheld the tradition of the dictatorship as a temporary role, appointed to resolve specific crises and then relinquishing power back to the Senate. They exemplified the Roman ideal that dictatorship was a service to the Republic, not a path to personal power. Over time, however, this tradition eroded, with figures like Sulla and Julius Caesar using the role to secure long-term control, leading to the end of the Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire.

In essence, democratic socialism seeks to deepen democracy through equitable resource distribution, while democratic fascism, if realised, could utilise democratic structures to entrench state control. Both approaches reveal the inherent tension between democracy and state power: while democratic socialism risks bureaucratic overreach, democratic fascism risks eroding personal freedoms and descending into authoritarianism. 

The Roman model of dictatorship serves as an historical lesson, illustrating how even well-intended concentrations of power in a democratic system can lead to unintended consequences, highlighting the importance of safeguarding democratic values even amidst ideological pursuits.

It's interesting to note that for a short while, post 1943, there was a Democratic Fascist Party in Italy. It was not, however, democratic, but used the word to distinguish itself from Mussolini's more rigid fascism.