Robust support, exuberance, is required for the development and stabilization of democratic states. However, similar support could result in the destabilization of democratic states. There are two divergent outcomes, stability and instability. This is paradox of democratic divergence (Magagna 1/26/18). Democratic exuberance is required for the success of a democracy; however, it could result in the failure of a democracy. Fascism is explained through the circumstances that cultivate the instability of democratic states. Generally, the circumstances establish pro-democratic and anti-democratic oppositions. The polarization between the pro-democratic and anti-democratic oppositions is significant in the cultivation of the instability. Consequently,
…show more content…
Mann characterizes “fascism [as] a response to the post–World War I ideological, economic, military, and political crises” (Mann 5). Basically, Mann emphasizes that fascism was the consequence of the varying crises of power subsequent to World War I. Otherwise, Mann concluded that a "moderate nation-statism" would have developed throughout Europe and fascism would not have developed to the same extent (Mann 36). The culmination of the different circumstances enabled pro-democratic coalitions to impose a democratic constitution. This would have had to occur without a social consensus, not all social would have agreed with the shift. Often, the imposition of a democratic order is linked to radical redistributive programs. Effectively, this is the “linkage effect.” The result is the polarization between the pro-democratic and the anti-democratic oppositions through coalitions and movements. This further enhanced the development of democratic instability, escalates into collective violence, and creates constitutional deadlock. Eventually, Democracy would decline into either an authoritarianism of the left (communism) or right (fascism). Additionally, groups will only mobilize and form pro-democratic or anti-democratic coalitions if the respective movements are linked to real benefits that exceed the costs. In the case of an anti-democratic movement, groups of people would normally have a stake in the system and …show more content…
This is possible because of the historical context of the post–World War I period. Indeed, fascism “would not have grown large without war-induced crises faced by dual states and panicking old regimes and possessing classes generating nation-statist values” (Mann 358). In the case of Germany, subsequent to the defeat in World War I, the previous political structure were unable to maintain their place. This enabled conflict between the pro-democratic and anti-democratic oppositions. Additionally, there was the Nazis’ claim to transcend the class structure that generated the nation-statist values that mobilized the anti-democratic movement. On the other hand, I think it would have been significant to consider the other states in northern and western Europe where fascism was unable to develop. This would serve as a counterargument that would explain the circumstances that allowed these states as cases that were able to establish and maintain a stable democracy. This would give insight into how any state could break down, and that it would depend on the resiliency of the people in the state when faced with external and internal threat (Magagna 1/31/18). Going back, “though fascists did not believe in democracy, it was vital in their success” (Mann 358). The paradox of democratic divergence was able to highlight the logic and appeal of fascism during
Mann characterizes “fascism [as] a response to the post–World War I ideological, economic, military, and political crises” (Mann 5). Basically, Mann emphasizes that fascism was the consequence of the varying crises of power subsequent to World War I. Otherwise, Mann concluded that a "moderate nation-statism" would have developed throughout Europe and fascism would not have developed to the same extent (Mann 36). The culmination of the different circumstances enabled pro-democratic coalitions to impose a democratic constitution. This would have had to occur without a social consensus, not all social would have agreed with the shift. Often, the imposition of a democratic order is linked to radical redistributive programs. Effectively, this is the “linkage effect.” The result is the polarization between the pro-democratic and the anti-democratic oppositions through coalitions and movements. This further enhanced the development of democratic instability, escalates into collective violence, and creates constitutional deadlock. Eventually, Democracy would decline into either an authoritarianism of the left (communism) or right (fascism). Additionally, groups will only mobilize and form pro-democratic or anti-democratic coalitions if the respective movements are linked to real benefits that exceed the costs. In the case of an anti-democratic movement, groups of people would normally have a stake in the system and …show more content…
This is possible because of the historical context of the post–World War I period. Indeed, fascism “would not have grown large without war-induced crises faced by dual states and panicking old regimes and possessing classes generating nation-statist values” (Mann 358). In the case of Germany, subsequent to the defeat in World War I, the previous political structure were unable to maintain their place. This enabled conflict between the pro-democratic and anti-democratic oppositions. Additionally, there was the Nazis’ claim to transcend the class structure that generated the nation-statist values that mobilized the anti-democratic movement. On the other hand, I think it would have been significant to consider the other states in northern and western Europe where fascism was unable to develop. This would serve as a counterargument that would explain the circumstances that allowed these states as cases that were able to establish and maintain a stable democracy. This would give insight into how any state could break down, and that it would depend on the resiliency of the people in the state when faced with external and internal threat (Magagna 1/31/18). Going back, “though fascists did not believe in democracy, it was vital in their success” (Mann 358). The paradox of democratic divergence was able to highlight the logic and appeal of fascism during