Democracy's End

Democracy spreads power around society, without it a clique clustered around a figurehead has absolute power.  "Western democracy" has spread power to most of adult society as a vote on who is to govern.  How do democracies end?

The majority of countries for most of history have had little or no democracy.  If we omit very small countries and tribes the first democratic state was Athens in around 500BC.  Its democracy was limited but it did spread power outside of the clique. Rome also devised a weakly democratic Republic at about the same time. Democracy failed in the first millennium AD and did not occur in any significant State until the Dutch founded a Republic in 1588 and the English Civil War of the 1640s led, almost 50 years later, to the "Glorious Revolution" and the "Bill of Rights" which enshrined Parliament as the Sovereign Power.  Modern democracy is an Anglo-Dutch invention and Britain was lucky that the Stuart who inherited the throne in the seventeenth century was married to a Dutchman who was happy to be a figurehead for domestic rule.

It is very important to remember that democracy is rare and precious.  It can never be taken for granted. Most of history has no democracies operating at all. Democracy relies on the tolerance of other people's views even if you do not respect them.  Freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy.

Democracies both start and end with civil war.  The Athenian democracy died in the Greek Social War (357–355 BC) although lingering on until 338 BC, the Roman democracy was killed by Augustus largely as a result of the Liberators' Civil War (43–42 BC).  In more modern times French democracy was overthrown by Napoleon I and later by Napoleon III in civil wars. Spanish democracy ended in civil war in the 1930s.   In the 20th century there were exceptions to civil war: Mussolini rose to power in the coup d'etat of 1922 and the Weimar Republic was overthrown in an election.

If civil wars and coups tend to end democracy what causes these civil wars and coups?  It is easiest to focus on the democracies that fell in the past century because they have a clear historical record however, there are pointers to the end of democracy from classical times.

We could point to unemployment, depression etc. but democracies happily survive such events. Money is inevitably involved in the demise of democracies but as the cash that purchases power.  The Athenian democracy began its fall after the Athenians started levying taxes on its allies and began to support oligarchs against the people. The Roman Republic fell after Julius Caesar diverted taxes to his personal coffers to finance an extravagant lifestyle and political ambition.  

In the twentieth century Mussolini was supported by the northern industrialists to provide an "answer" to the ever increasing industrial unrest of socialists and communists in 1920-22.  He used the "squadristi" - blackshirt thugs - to intimidate the press and trade unionists. In 1923 the Italian employers organisation, Confindustria, gave Mussolini full support.  The Fascists became a major political force, backed not only by landowners but also by many members of the urban middle class, including students, artists, shopkeepers, and clerical workers (See Britannica). The NAZIs in the early 1930s rose to power on a similar pattern of industrialist, middle class and student support, they also benefited from funding from the USA via "philanthropists" such as Ford and Rockefeller.  In Italy and Germany charismatic leaders led the process and avowed that they were socialist, both Mussolini and Hitler had led socialist parties ( if you don't believe this see Note 1).  In the UK in the 1930s Oswald Moseley, who led the British Union of Fascists but failed to overturn democracy, was an ex Labour Minister.

The pattern is clear.  Democracies are overthrown by money from industrialists, bankers etc. and the overthrow is supported by hired thugs, students, artists and the middle class.  The overthrow of democracy begins with the intimidation of opponents in the workplace, in demonstrations and through direct violence. Those leading the overthrow avow that they are socialist.  The  overthrow of democracy in Spain was documented by George Orwell in his essays and in "Homage to Catalonia" where he records how truth becomes the first victim of the process. 

If we are worried about the overthrow of our current democracy we have many of the elements in place such as the undermining of truth and increasing violence against those who oppose "socialist" groups but we are lacking the emergence of a charismatic leader.  The industrialists and bankers are backing Maoist groups such as the Black Liberation Movement (BLM). Readers might recall that Maoists have probably murdered and oppressed more people than any other group in world history.   BLM got renamed to "Black Lives Matter" and has subsequently been renamed back to the Black Liberation Movement.   These shenanigans with the name of the movement are quite comical, especially when the corporate press and broadcasters started berating and sacking people who mentioned that "white lives matter".  None of it had anything to do with lives mattering, it was just a case of the Maoists being concerned about using their proper name, the Black Liberation Movement.  However, the complete reviling and shutdown of any opposition to BLM is very reminiscent of the early stages of overthrowing democracy.  We should be deeply worried that the Corporate Broadcasters have made very little effort to explain the nature of BLM.

The upending of truth is proceeding apace with those who want a coffee coloured world with no diversity declaring that they are anti-racist and the media saying that the Balance of Payments has no effect on national economies. This is coupled with everyone accusing everyone of fake news and lying.  The students, artists and middle classes are being polarised against the people with ID politics.

What is lacking at present is a charismatic left wing leader who can morph into a right wing leader.  Dictators arise on the left because they can promise sympathy with and rewards for ordinary people (although these are not delivered).  When a charismatic leader arises on the Left we should be very worried because the ground is being well prepared by the bankers and industrialists (yes, really).  Fortunately Biden and Starmer are not the dictators of the future.

6/12/2020

Note 1: Many people flatly refuse to believe that Mussolini and Hitler started out as leaders of socialist parties or that Mosley was a Labour minister.

Mussolini: "From 1912 to 1914, Mussolini headed up the Bolshevik wing of the Italian Socialist Party who purged moderate or reformist socialists." Wikipedia In 1914 Mussolini was the most powerful socialist in the world and arranged and financed the meetings in Switzerland that launched Lenin on his way. 

Hitler: "As an army political agent, he joined the small German Workers’ Party in Munich (September 1919). In 1920 he was put in charge of the party’s propaganda.".." In July 1921 he became their leader with almost unlimited powers." Britannica  Hitler renamed the German Workers Party the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis)

Mosley: "..when Labour won the 1929 general election he was appointed only to the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster"  (a ministerial position). Wikipedia 

Three out of three taking their followers from the left to the far right seems more than chance.  Anti-semitism was rife on the left in the 1920s and 30s (Communist Russia deported Jews) and was not the hallmark of a far right movement as it became after WWII. Those who are upset about Mussolini being socialist might reflect on Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, Mengistu and the Baathists.

Postscript: is it possible that banking and industry now see the Chinese system as better for their bottom line than democracy?  Business supporting Maoists would have been unthinkable 50 years ago.