A blueprint for democracy to defend itself against fascism from 1937 – more important now than ever…
In 1937, Karl Loewenstein, a German Lawyer published an essay in the American Political Science Review that can only be described as a blueprint for democracy to defend itself against fascism. You probably never heard of the essay entitled “Militant Democracy and Fundamental rights” and despite having a (highschool) degree in history, neither have I. And my topic of my final paper was the mistakes of Hindenburg that led to the rise of Hitler… Interestingly this paper was never translated into German. As we live in times that worry me, I thought it would be a good idea to convert the essay to markdown/HTML and translate it.
Give it a read, it is scarily modern and describes current happenings in worrying detail. The only difference is that with social media and AI, those who are against freedom, democracy and openness to the world have far better weapons than the Nazis had in the 1920s.
You can read the full essay and its follow up or stick with the summary. Here is a short gist of the learnings and definitions Loewenstein managed to distill quite nicely:
- You can’t argue with fascists on the basis of facts – it is all about emotion
- Fascists are incredibly good at blaming others and will repeat the same “big issues” caused by “those in power who abuse you” whenever they can
- Fascism is not a national thing, it is a world-wide issue and needs collaboration across borders to repel
What is Fascism?
Loewenstein insists fascism is not an ideology or a program but a political technique for gaining and holding power. Unlike socialism or liberalism, it has no coherent philosophy or set of values behind it — its “programs” are invented after the fact to justify a seizure of power already underway. He calls it the “true child of the age of technical wonders and of the emotional masses”: a set of tools for arousing, directing, and exploiting mass emotion, deployed with calculated rationality by leaders who themselves remain unmoved by the emotions they manufacture in others.
How does Fascism succeed?
- Exploiting legality itself. Fascist parties operate openly and “legally,” using the very freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and parliamentary participation that democracy extends to all comers — treating democratic tolerance as a Trojan horse.
- Manufactured grievance and scapegoating. Vague, shifting complaints (corruption, chaos, national decline) are focused onto concrete targets — Jews, freemasons, bankers, chain stores — through relentless repetition, overstatement, and oversimplification.
- Paramilitary organization. A party militia forms, ostensibly for “self-protection,” but its real function is to intimidate the public, forge an unbreakable in-group loyalty that eventually exceeds loyalty to the state, and prepare a fighting force for an eventual coup.
- Publicity, not secrecy. Unlike older revolutionary movements, fascism thrives in the spotlight — constant self-advertisement and propaganda are the whole method, not a cover for conspiracy.
- Proportional representation and parliamentary immunity as tools. Fascists win seats and then use parliamentary privilege to attack the very institution that seats them, paralyzing normal governance until it appears unworkable.
What can we do against Fascism?
- Recognize fascism as a technique, not a legitimate ideology or ordinary party. Loewenstein argues the paralysis of Weimar came from treating fascism as just another political viewpoint entitled to full legal protection. Once democracies understand it instead as a hostile technique for destroying democracy from within, the response becomes conceivable.
- Pass targeted anti-fascist legislation aimed at the specific techniques, not general ideas. He points to actual measures adopted by democracies of his day: banning political uniforms and party militias, restricting the use of parliamentary immunity to sabotage parliament, curbing incendiary propaganda, and requiring paramilitary-style organizations to register their bylaws with authorities.
- Restrict or eliminate proportional representation where it hands legislative footholds to anti-democratic parties. He singles this out as “that gravest mistake of democratic ideology” because it lets small extremist minorities gain an outsized platform inside the very institutions they intend to destroy.
- Refuse to let democratic tolerance extend to parties that deny democracy’s own rules. The essay argues that formal equality before the law should not mean fascist and democratic parties get treated identically when one openly seeks to abolish the system granting it standing.
- Suppress party militias and paramilitary symbolism before they mature into a rival armed force. Loewenstein treats this as one of the most urgent fronts, since an unchecked party militia becomes the instrument of an eventual coup.
- Act early, not reactively. The German illustration is presented explicitly as a warning: half-measures, delayed bans, and reluctance to enforce laws already on the books let the movement outgrow the point where ordinary legislative correction still worked.
- Pursue international cooperation among democracies, which he criticises as badly lacking in 1937 — currency and trade agreements among democratic states were treated as narrowly economic rather than as part of a shared defence against a transnational fascist movement that was, by contrast, coordinating closely across borders (Berlin and Rome supporting fascist movements elsewhere).
When I look around social media and election posters, I worry. You should, too. Take a look at the programs of some of the parties people insist on voting for to “get some change” and “show the lazy politicians who is boss”. If their party program includes separating from other countries and border-crossing institutions, that’s a red flag. If they keep blaming one thing that came from outside your country on all that is wrong and sell themselves as the only ones who will do something about it, that’s another red flag. If parts of their political program actively violate current law in your country or of the group it is part of, that’s a proper no.
The rise of fascism in the 20s and 30s lead to one of the worst wars and unspeakable crimes against humanity. Never again, we should be much, much more intelligent and open eyed than back then. Alas, I don’t see that happening.
