home

 

 DEMOCRACY AND  DICTATORSHIP

 

 

 

 

DEMOCRAZIA E DITTATTURA

 

Giovanni De Sio Cesari

 

la democrazia


 A un primo approccio si pensa genericamente che la democrazia si differenzi dalla dittatura perché nella prima è il popolo che si governa  ( quindi è libero) ) mentre nella seconda il governo si accentra nelle  mani di uno solo ( quindi il popolo non è libero)  Anche se orientativamente  un tale concetto può avere una certa validità,  nella  realtà  le cose sono molto, molto più complesse 

Innanzi tutto che significa che il popolo si governa?

Noi siamo animali sociali ma non è possibile pensare che ogni decisione debba essere condivisa da tutti. Per questo in qualunque gruppo sociale esistono delle autorità (delle persone) preposte a prendere ogni tipo di decisione che riguardino tutti, dall’adozione dell’euro all’inizio dell’anno scolastico, dalla guerra all’orario dei negozi.  Nelle democrazie vi sono un certo numero di cariche che sono elettive Ma le decisioni vengono sempre prese dal governo ( in senso lato) non dal popolo tranne in qualche caso particolare ( istituti di democrazia diretta: _referendum sul divorzio, Brexit, campanili e minareti in Svizzera e cosi via )

Anche in democrazia in stragrande maggioranza  dei dirigenti non sono eletti. Un professore non è tale perché eletto dagli alunni e se cerca l’appoggio degli alunni dando a tutti promozioni e voti alti è considerato un cattivo docente Lo stesso si può dire per il manager industriale, del direttore delle  poste, dell’ufficiale dell’esercito  e cosi via Nelle democrazie solo i vertici politici, un piccolo numero , sono elettivi, nelle non- democrazie non lo sono, come tutti gli altri funzionari.

La democrazia diretta non esiste e non è mai esistita tranne che in qualche piccola realtà politica, in tribù primitive, in città-stato dell’antichità, in  comuni medioevali e sempre con molti, molti  limiti. Per democrazia si intende sempre quella realmente costituita negli ultimi due secoli a partire dall’Occidente , tutte diverse ma tutte a carattere rappresentative: non è il popolo che governa ma persone elette dal popolo in elezioni multi partitiche

dittatura e assolutismo

Le dittature sono un fenomeno proprio del 900: la sovranità spetta sempre al popolo ma un personaggio viene  considerato investito da una  volontà generale con una quasi unanimità: Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin si considerarono, ed entro certi limiti, furono effettivamente investiti di questo compito dai rispettivi popoli. Stalin addirittura dall’intero movimento comunista mondiale di ogni nazione. Le folle oceaniche, le sfilate infinite, le osanni incondizionate sono la  loro legittimazioni in  quanto espressione del consenso  popolare
Le monarchie sono cose diverse. Prescindiamo che le monarchia hanno caratteri diversi (feudali, assolute, costituzionali e infinite variazioni). Il sovrano è un personaggio che per motivi ereditari o anche elettivi o una anche una combinazione dei due fattori, ha il compito, in genere considerato di origine divina, di governare con giustizia i popoli a lui affidati e ne risponde a Dio o alla sua coscienza. Il re è il primo funzionario dello stato (servus servorum, diceva il papa). Ovviamente è solo il funzionario supremo: nella   realtà il potere viene esercitato  da una serie di ministri, funzionari,  impiegati, militari.  Alcuni sovrani svolsero questo compito in modo glorioso e furono considerati grandi dalla storia (Alessandro Magno Cesare Augusto, Carlo Magno, Pietro il grande) altri furono mediocri sovrani , altri ancora pessimi

Non mi pare pero che nessun dittatore sia stato considerato grande dalla storia

Nella maggior parte dei casi in pratica i sovrani non esercitarono nemmeno effettivamente il potere  e lo lasciarono alla corte, ai ministri.

Se consideriamo dittature ( spesso diciamo : fascismo)  ogni e qualsiasi governo non democratico allora la storia dell’umanità diventa la storia delle dittature (fascismo)
No: il fascismo come le dittature sono un fenomeno limitato durato solo pochi anni e ormai quasi del tutto superato : non diamo a quel fenomeno tanta importanza storica che non ha

Non si può definire Ramses II o Luigi XIV un dittatore. Noterei che in nessun libro di storia si trova una tale definizione perché nel linguaggio storico dittatura è riferito a un fenomeno politico proprio del 900
Mussolini, Hitler Stalin si pongono come espressione diretta del popolo
mentre Ramses o Luigi XIV come espressione della divinità, della giustizia , del benessere della nazione e cosi via

Se allarghiamo il concetto di dittatura a ogni governo non democratico  la maggior parte della storia l’umanità sarebbe  retta da dittature e in quei millenni l’umanità ha fatto immensi progressi, creato civiltà, culture, arte oltre a immensi progressi materiali ( dall’Egitto dei faraoni all Europa di Galilei) La democrazia è apparsa solo qualche secolo fa e solo in una parte limitata dell’umanità

 

il dissenso


Dobbiamo soprattutto  considerare che la democrazia non si caratterizza per il consenso ma per il dissenso Ogni governo si regge perché ha il consenso , altrimenti non dura. In genere le dittature come i regimi assoluti hanno un consenso molto piu ampio delle democrazie in cui il governo raggiunge poco più del 50%, spesso anche molto meno. Ciò che distingue la democrazia è che si ammette il dissenso, che viene garantito da quelli che si chiamano diritti civili: la liberta di opinione di religione, di espressione , soprattutto la possibilità che la minoranza diventi maggioranza. In genere vi sono poi organismi che vigilano che i diritti civili non siano violati (da noi: corte costituzionale )
Se una maggioranza decide la sterminio delle minoranza NON è una democrazia : Isabella di Castiglia decise la cacciata di ebrei e di islamici: aveva il consenso della grande maggioranza ma NON era una democrazia Infatti noi non possiamo espellere cittadini italiani a causa della loro fede.

Sarebbe errato pensare che l imperatore della Cina, il faraone ,il re di Francia non avesse il consenso : anzi in pratica nessuno a quei tempi ne metteva in dubbio la autorità, in linea di principio: potevano scoppiare la rivolta perchè un singolo sovrano si mostrava indegno, incapace ma non si metteva in dubbio il fatto che vi dovesse essere un sovrano

 

il buon governo

Nemmeno si puo  dire che  governo non è  democratico se non è equo, giusto : come diceva Grozio il re è legittimo se segue la legge ( e la morale naturale) ed è un tiranno se non le segue
A me pare pero che cosi si sovrappongono due piani diversi. Un governo può fare azioni eque giuste opportune che promuovono il bene di tutti oppure no : allora lo giudichiamo un buon governo o un cattivo governo secondo i parametri che adottiamo naturalmente  La scelta di chi deve governare invece è su un piano diverso; ci sono faraoni imperatori oligarchie democrazie teocrazie ed infiniti modelli che possono agire bene o male
Non è che noi possiamo definire democrazie i governi di Traiano o Carlo Magno o Pietro il Grande perché furono giudicati ottimi governanti dai contemporanei e ancora oggi dagli storici. Nemmeno possiamo definire non democratici governi che stanno governando malissimo in assoluta confusione e provvisorietà. Una cosa è il giudizio di merito sempre dipendente da un criterio scelto, altro invece è una definizione oggettiva di forma di governo. Posso variamente giudicare il governo di Traiano ma certamente non posso dire che fosse una democrazia, cosi come posso giudicare variamente quello della  DC ma certamente era democratico

Non si deve nemmeno  assolutizzare la democrazia come  il bene in assoluto, va considerata come ogni altra cosa umana nel contesto storico e culturale Per millenni non c’è stata democrazia ma questo non ha impedito all’umanità di fare grandi progressi e elaborare grandi civiltà

La democrazia  in paesi diversi, in circostanze diversi, in tempi diversi potrebbe essere catastrofica ( vedi in Iraq) oppure altri sistemi possano essere efficaci : vedi i progressi spettacolari in Cina: da un paese di baracche è diventato una foresta di grattacieli in pochi anni

 Le leggi sono fatte per il popolo e non il popolo per le leggi: gli ordinamenti democratici non sono un fine in se a cui il popolo deve adeguarsi. La democrazia è un mezzo per assicurare il bene del popolo: se non funziona o funziona meglio un altro ordinamento  allora non va imposta.

Dire che la democrazia non è il bene in assoluto e la non democrazia il male in assoluto non  significa  affatto che si voglia tornare a un sistema feudale, oppure a una modello cinese , o una teocrazia iraniana .

 Io ritengo e sono certo che nel nostro tempo e nel nostro paese che il modello democratico sia il migliore possibile ( o il meno peggiore)

 

 

 

 

 

 

The false equivalence between dictatorship and democracy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Dictators Come To Power In A Democracy

 

Jim Powell

 

Dictatorships are often unexpected.  They have arisen among prosperous, educated and cultured people who seemed safe from a dictatorship – in Europe, Asia and South America.

Consider Germany, one of the most paradoxical and dramatic cases.

During the late 19th century, it was widely considered to have the best educational system in the world.  If any educational system could inoculate people from barbarism, surely Germany would have led the way.  It had early childhood education -- kindergarten.  Secondary schools emphasized cultural training.  Germans developed modern research universities.  Germans were especially distinguished for their achievements in science – just think of Karl Benz who invented the gasoline-powered automobile, Rudolf Diesel who invented the compression-ignition engine, Heinrich Hertz who proved the existence of electromagnetic waves, Wilhelm Conrad Rőntgen who invented x-rays, Friedrich August Kekulé who developed the theory of chemical structure, Paul Ehrlich who produced the first medicinal treatment for syphilis and, of course, theoretical physicist Albert Einstein.  It’s no wonder so many American scholars went to German universities for their degrees during the 19th century

 

After World War I, German university enrollment soared.  By 1931, it reached 120,000 versus a maximum of  73,000 before the war.  Government provided full scholarships for poor students with ability.  As one chronicler reported, a scholarship student “pays no fees at the university, his textbooks are free, and on most purchases which he makes, for clothing, medical treatment, transportation and tickets to theaters and concerts, he receives substantial reductions in price, and a student may get wholesome food sufficient to keep body and soul together.”

While there was some German anti-Semitic agitation during the late 19th century, Germany didn’t seem the most likely place for it to flourish.  Russia, after all, had pogroms – anti-Jewish rioting and persecution – for decades.  Russia’s Bolshevik regime dedicated itself to hatred – Karl Marx’s hatred for the “bourgeoisie” whom he blamed for society’s ills.  Lenin and his successor Stalin pushed that philosophy farther, exterminating the so-called “rich” who came to include peasants with one cow.

 

Why, then, did the highly educated Germans embrace a lunatic like Adolf Hitler?  The short answer is that bad policies caused economic, military and political crises – chow time for tyrants.  German circumstances changed for the worse, and when people become angry enough or desperate enough, sometimes they’ll support crazies who would never attract a crowd in normal circumstances.

Like the other belligerents, Germans had entered World War I with the expectation that they would win and recoup their war costs by making the losers pay.  The German government led their people to believe they were winning , so everybody was shocked when the truth came out.  Then U.S. President Woodrow Wilson gave a speech outlining his high-minded “14 Points,” leading the Germans to expect a peace negotiation.  But the British and the French – America’s principal allies -- were determined to avenge their losses, and vindictive terms were forced on the Germans.  They felt betrayed and humiliated.  Germany’s principal military commanders realized that whoever signed the armistice would be hated, so they resigned and let a civilian official sign it (he was subsequently assassinated).  As a result, the Weimar republic, Germany’s fragile democracy, was immediately discredited.

Hitler was among those agitating against the Weimar government.  He joined the German Workers’ Party that, in February 1920, became the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) – later shortened to Nazi.  It offered a witches’ brew of nationalism, socialism, anti-Semitism and anti-capitalism.  The German historian Oswald Spengler influenced early Nazis with his idea of “Prussian socialism.”

Hitler’s main talent seemed to be as a speech maker, so he began giving speeches that appealed to Germans embittered and disillusioned by the outcome of the war.  He denounced Jews, capitalists and other alleged villains, vowing to rebuild German greatness.

Historian Ian Kershaw observed that “Without a lost war, revolution, and a pervasive sense of national humiliation, Hitler would have remained a nobody.”

Then came the inflation crisis.  Victorious Allies demanded that Germany pay steep reparations, apparently without giving much thought about how the Germans would get the money for that. Trade restrictions made it harder for German companies to earn money through exports.  European tariffs generally tripled and were as much as 800% higher than prewar levels.

The German government defaulted on its reparations agreement.  Determined to extract reparations from the Germans, in January 1923 the French sent troops into the Ruhr where much of German industry was located.  The German government responded by subsidizing those who pursued passive resistance against the French.  Consequently, German budget deficits soared.

By itself, reparations would have been daunting, but Germany also had a financially stressed-out welfare state.  Almost 90 percent of German government spending went for a big bureaucracy, social programs, money-losing nationalized businesses and other subsidies -- a portfolio of obligations uncomfortably familiar to us.  The German government subsidized municipalities, much as U.S. states are begging the federal government for bailouts now.  Germany had a troubled government-run pension system like our Social Security.  The German government provided health insurance for millions of people.  There were German government programs for 1.5 million disabled veterans.  The government lavished subsidies on the arts.  There were government-run theaters and opera houses.  Government-owned railroads lost money.  The German government even operated factories producing margarine and sausages, which lost money.

The German central bank began printing stupendous quantities of paper money to pay for all this.  At the peak of the inflation in late 1923, only 1.3 percent of German government spending was covered by tax revenue.  The result was that in less than five years prices soared 100 billion-fold.

Inflation harmed everybody to one degree or another.  Many bank deposits were devalued to nothing.  Historian Gerald D. Feldman reported that gangs of unemployed coal miners plundered the countryside, because farmers refused to trade their produce for worthless paper money.  The government enacted rent controls that limited the ability of landlords to recover their costs and discouraged developers from building more apartments.  So cities borrowed from foreign lenders to build housing that lost money.  Libraries and museums couldn’t maintain their collections because of inflation.  Much scientific research became financially impossible, too.

Historian Konrad Heiden reported, “On Friday afternoons in 1923, long lines of manual and white-collar workers waited outside the pay-windows of German factories, department stores, banks and offices.  Each received a bag full of paper notes.  According to the figures inscribed on them, the paper notes amounted to seven hundred thousand or five hundred million, or three hundred and eighty billion, or eighteen trillion marks – the figures rose from month to month, then from week to week, finally from day to day.  People dashed to the nearest food stores where lines had already formed.  When they reached the stores, a pound of sugar, for example, might have been obtainable for two million marks; but by the time they came to the counter all they could get for two million marks was a half-pound.  Everybody scrambled for things that would keep until the next pay-day.”

People employed in the private sector were enraged when unionized government employees – who carried out the government’s disastrous economic policies -- succeeded in having their salaries pre-paid, so they could convert the currency into goods before the currency depreciated further.  The publication Soziale Praxis reported: “It seems significant to us that public opinion is now gradually turning against the civil service to an extent that gives great concern.  How much hostility is daily directed against that portion of the employed German people with civil service status is shown by the press and also even by those parties which previously supported the civil service and now press for a reduction of the civil service.”

Hitler gave speeches appealing to those he called “starving billionaires” who had billions of paper marks but couldn’t afford a loaf of bread.  Altogether, during the inflation, Hitler recruited some 50,000 Nazis and became a political force to reckon with.  Economist Constantino Bresciani-Turroni called Hitler “the foster child of the inflation.”

To be sure, he attempted a coup that failed (November 8, 1923), and he was imprisoned.  But he retained his key followers and wrote his venomous memoir Mein Kampf that became the Nazi bible.

During the late 1920s, the German economy began to recover, and there was less interest in the Nazis.  In the 1928 Reichstag (legislature) elections, they won only 2.6% of the vote.

If good times had continued, Hitler might have been forgotten.  He needed another crisis for a shot at gaining political power.

The crisis came as a succession of misguided policies created obstacles to enterprise and brought on the Great Depression.  The government promoted deflation.  It fixed prices at above-market levels that discouraged consumers from buying, and it fixed wages at above-market levels that discouraged employers from hiring.  Government-sanctioned cartels restricted competition.  High taxes made it harder for people to save and invest.  High tariffs throttled trade.  When German producers were able to export goods, they had difficulty collecting payment because of exchange controls.  All these policies made it harder for the economy to grow.

Moreover, German banks were vulnerable, since they hadn’t fully recovered from the inflation that had wiped out a substantial portion of their capital and left them dependent on short-term foreign deposits that could be withdrawn.

As the number of unemployed went up, more Germans voted for the Nazis, and the number of Nazi members went up again.

Hitler maintained non-stop agitation for power.  He travelled constantly, giving speeches throughout Germany.  He wanted his opponents destroyed, so he demonized them.  He accused them of being traitors.  Two Nazi paramilitary organizations, the S.A. and S.S., launched bloody attacks on his opponents.  This attracted more thugs who liked violence and were good at it.

Every night, there were Nazi rallies and marches. Hitler’s henchmen promoted him by publishing a Nazi magazine, distributing Nazi records and promoting Nazi movies.

They became the largest political organization  in Germany, and by January 30, 1933, with the help of a little blackmail, Hitler emerged as Germany’s chancellor – the head of government.  He proceeded to consolidate unlimited power before anybody realized what was happening.

We should understand that Hitler didn’t take over a small government with an effective separation of enumerated, delegated and limited powers.  He took over a large welfare state.  It had been created by the autocratic chancellor Otto von Bismarck, it expanded rapidly during World War I and gained total control of the economy.  War-related private businesses were turned into government bureaucracies.  The government shut down private businesses that officials considered unnecessary.  There was forced labor, and nobody could change jobs without government permission.  For the first time, this “war socialism” showed the world what a socialist economy would look like, and it became a model for Lenin and other communist theoreticians.  The Allies directed the dismantling of the German war machine, but a government-run economy substantially survived.

Although Hitler echoed Soviet-style central economic planning with a Four Year Plan, his method was suffocating regulation rather than outright expropriation.  There was nominal private ownership but government control.  He dealt with unemployment by introducing forced labor for both men and women.  Government  control of the economy made it virtually impossible for anyone to seriously threaten his regime. Hitler added secret police, death camps and another war machine.

The German educational system, which had inspired so many American progressives, played a major role in all this.  During the previous century, the government grained complete control of schools and universities, and their top priority was teaching obedience.  The professorial elite promoted collectivism.  The highest calling was working for the government.  In 1919, sociologist Max Weber reported that “The honor of the civil servant is vested in his ability to execute conscientiously the order of superior authorities.”