Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy and Franco in Spain - examples of Christian Conservative politics to Fascism and Authoritarianism.

All three Baltic States at first adapted to constitutional systems, each with its own freely elected parliament, and they seemed to very the essence of a modern democracy. For example, in Estonia, the head of state held no veto right over parliament and the parliament could be dissolved only if parliament voted for it. In all essence, it was Estonia which looked the least likely to fall to Authoritarian rule. Latvia too seemed to seize its chance of democratic rule and parliament was granted extensive powers. However, the president had the power to initiate legislation and appoint his own prime minister, and the government could rule by decree when parliament was not in session, and the president could dissolve parliament if he so wished. Latvia then, while being democratic to an extent, did seem to be open to Authoritarian rule as the President had the right to dissolve parliament and initiate legislation.

We know that in Germany, the threat and peoples fear of communism was a big factor in Hitler’s rise to power, this was a factor which also played its role in Balkan politics too. To combat the ‘red threat’ it was essential for the new democracies to secure “social stability” and economic condition of their countries. This involved extensive land reforms and economic planning. Perhaps in doing so paving the way for Authoritarian rule, as it is easier to rule absolutely if you have control of the economy and land. In Estonia over 95 per cent of the land was taken over. Another factor that helped Authoritarian Conservatism in the Balkans were the sheer number of political parties, none of which were capable of giving a strong opposition. For example, in Estonia alone there were three socialist parties and the communists, in comparison to the traditional catholic Christian democrat type parties on the right. Minorities were also divided in their political groupings, in Latvia the Russian minority were split between five different parties, and between 1922 and 1934, thirty-nine parties were represented in parliament. The move to Authoritarianism started in 1926 in Lithuania, where a military coup saw the rise to power of Antanas Smetona and Augustinas Voldermaras. Perhaps the most intriguing of the cases of devolution to Authoritarian rule was Estonia. With calls for change in Estonia being heard at the onset of the great depression in 1929, Konstantin Päts and the Farmers Party called for constitutional change. This sentiment was echoed by the extreme right-wing fascist paramilitary League of Freedom Fighters, led by Artur Sirk and General Andreas Larka. Under the terms of the new constitution in 1933, the president was to be elected for five years by the public and now crucially had the right and power to appoint the Cabinet and pass emergency legislation, thus Estonia “…passed from a system of parliamentary democracy to one of presidential dictatorship”. What followed in Estonia could also be described as traditional Fascism, all other political parties were banned, a secret police was set up and Päts also created his own organisation, the Fatherland league.

The road to Authoritarian rule in the Balkans was seemingly straightforward. Countries which were not long before democracies became Authoritarian almost automatically, and with genuine public support, especially in Estonia. The dictators were all familiar on the political scene and crucially, did not echo the events in Germany and Spain, where intimidation and violence were part and parcel of the coming to power of an Authoritarian dictator.    

 Hungary also followed the path to Authoritarian Conservatism in the inter war period. Admiral Horthy governed the Authoritarian state of Hungary, which he maintained was in fact a kingdom, though it no longer had a crown and the state remained parliamentary, but not democratic. Soon after the end of World War One, a Soviet republic was formed in Hungary. It was weak and gained little support because of its reluctance to redistribute land, its excessive nationalisation and its anti church campaign. After its 133 day rule the soviet republic collapsed, and right radicalism, pioneered by Admiral Horthy took shape. Horthy, who had governed Hungary before 1914, was strongly against socialism, and a largely middle class movement. Mass anti-Semitism was also taking shape, which was the case right across most of Conservative and fascist Europe. Crucially, the right had the support of the army, “… they were extremely susceptible to Right-radical views…[they had] a strong belief in the special responsibilities which fell on the army as the embodiment of the national interest”. In March 1920 authoritative rule was effectively put into place in Hungary as Horthy was elected to the Regents office, and his powers were immense. “He was not only the head of the armed forces, the members of which swore an oath of loyalty to him personally, but he had the right to dissolve parliament and appoint and dismiss the prime minister”. Horthy could also veto legislation. Although the right radicals had considerable power and public support in Hungary, Horthy was not actually one of them, although he was undoubtedly a far right Conservative. Perhaps his greatest feat in fending off the right radicals was his virulent opposition of the fascist state which they wished to impose on Hungary. Horthy then, was elected as leader and accepted by his people, his path to Authoritarianism seemed exceedingly easy, although he was not quite the dictatorial leader people envisage when to word ‘Authoritarian’ is used.        

 One thing is for certain then, the majority of Eastern European and Baltic States succumbed to authoritarian rule during the inter war period. “When popular discontent assumed alarming proportions, the remnants of Democracy were liquidated and bare Dictatorships took their place”. These dictatorships did not follow those of the fascists in Germany or Italy, although there were similarities in some cases. Extreme nationalism and mass mobilisation were not present nearly near as much in fascist countries. In the Eastern European authoritarian regimes, the police state was particularly evident and “they were able to survive because they had a firm grasp on the bureaucratic and military machines”, which was particularly true in Hungary.  

 The conditions of Eastern Europe in the aftermath of World War one were not those which suited democratic institutions. “The countries of the area were for the most part poor, and in many cases their poverty had been intensified by the devastation caused by the war”. These countries were also economically poor, which made them ripe for authoritarian rule. These countries were also devoid of any meaningful political tradition, especially the Baltic States after Russian rule, and a fresh start was needed in Hungary too after the collapse of its empire. Land reform or the lack of it also played its part in the coming of authoritarian rule in Eastern Europe, it created huge problems not only for the advocators of it, but for the victims and its supporters. The threat of Fascism also reared its head in many East European and Baltic States, with such powerful regimes in strong states such as Germany and Italy it was possible that the threat would manifest itself in these states too, which Horthy was particularly worried about, but fortunately, a real Fascist state in the true sense of the word never really developed in Eastern Europe.

 Europe’s march to Authoritarian Conservatism then seems to be somewhat correlated. All countries were economically poor or backwards, many were new states or those who had little experience of democracy before, which may have led them down the Authoritarian route. Many, if not all the dictators were strongly connected to the army, and with the full backing of the Army, and in many cases, the right to dissolve parliament, the promise of total rule was perhaps too good an opportunity to pass up.

Word count: 1970.

Bibliography.

• Norman Davies, Europe: A History, Pimlico, 1997.
• Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism: 1914 – 1945, University of Wisconsin Press, 1995.
• John Hiden & Patrick Salmon, The Baltic Nations And Europe: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the Twentieth Century, Longman, 1991.
• Eric Hobsbawm, Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century 1914 – 1991, Abacus, 1994.
• Antony Polonsky, The Little Dictators: The History of Eastern Europe since 1918, Routledge & Kegan, 1975.
• Hugh Seton-Watson, Eastern Europe 1918 – 1941. Cambridge University Press, 1946.
• Rod Hague & Martin Harrop, Comparative Government and Politics, Palgrave, 2001.
• Mark Mazower, Dark Continent: Europe’s Twentieth Century, Penguin, 1998.
• Roger Griffin, Fascism, Oxford University Press, 1995.

---