Almost exactly a century after fascist leader Benito Mussolini organized the March on Rome and seized power in Italy, Giorgia Meloni, a politician whose party is a distant offshoot of the first Italian fascists, became Italy's prime minister. Are we witnessing the return of fascism - a political phenomenon that in the period after 1922 reverberated far beyond the borders of Italy?
There is nothing wrong with asking such a question, but the easy use of the F word allows radical right-wing leaders to defend themselves by claiming that their critics are prone to exaggeration, and hence probably exaggerate the threats to democracy. Quite expectedly, in her first address to the parliament, Meloni made an effort to clearly distance herself from fascism.
However, when thinking about fascism today, we must keep in mind that it went through different stages historically. There are no fascist regimes in today's Europe and America, but there are undoubtedly parties - among them the ruling ones - that could eventually evolve in the direction of fascism.
Like other political belief systems, fascism is capable of evolution. Today's liberalism is not what it was 100 years ago, and modern conservatism - which should not be confused with reactionary or merely orthodox views - finds meaning in careful adaptation to constantly changing circumstances. Such systems are defined by fundamental values that should remain recognizable over time. Liberals tell stories about freedom, and conservatives about the dangers of rapid change and the limitations of the human mind in attempts to reshape society.
And the fascists? First of all, all fascists were nationalists and all promised national revival - that is, to make the country great again. But not all nationalists are fascists; also, many politicians of other orientations promise voters some kind of revival. Fascists have historically distinguished themselves by their glorification of war and warrior courage, as well as their insistence on strict gender, national and racial hierarchies, with the belief that different races are destined for eternal and deadly conflict.
Today's radical right obviously seeks to restore traditional gender roles and hierarchies and generates a good part of its energy through strict policies of exclusion: those who are a foreign body within the nation must be suppressed, lest they eventually take the place of a dominant closed group. But there is also a danger that comes from within: these are the "liberal elites" and minorities - anyone who does not belong to what radical right-wing populists call "ordinary people".
Such policies of exclusion do not necessarily have to be associated with the glorification of violence and conflict as a way to provide men (usually men) with a meaningful, disciplined, heroic life. The glorification of violence arose out of the general mobilization of the First World War, when Mussolini celebrated the "rowocracy": an aristocracy of brave warriors who fraternized in the trenches - as opposed to today's weekend warriors who wage war with keyboards. When the war ended, Mussolini continued to use violence in the country. Likewise, we cannot understand Hitler's rise outside the context of the brutal right-wing militias that arose in Germany in the early 20s.
It is no coincidence that fascist regimes arose in countries that were defeated in the war (in the case of Germany) or felt defeated (Italy). It is not a coincidence that fascist regimes started new wars sooner or later, unlike traditional authoritarian regimes that prefer not to mobilize citizens.
The ubiquitous atmosphere of violence is absent today. Yes, veterans are overrepresented in violent radical right cohorts and their leaders contribute to what philosopher Kate Manne calls "spillover of aggression." But even where the radical right wins power, its representatives try to demobilize the citizenry and achieve a peaceful coexistence with consumerist capitalism.
Does this mean that the debate about fascism should be suspended? That would be premature. As noted historian Robert Paxton has shown, fascism develops through various stages. While, according to today's most widely accepted opinion, the early democracies of the 20th century disappeared in violent coups, democracy in the 21st century is more often the victim of ambitious authoritarian figures who use subtle legislative manipulations to make the change of power practically impossible. Such autocratization - which is an ugly but necessary neologism - is not easy to see and is all the more dangerous.
But this comparison ignores the fact that fascism - despite its glorification of violence - often did not have to resort to violence to achieve its goals. Mussolini did not march on Rome. He traveled by sleeping car from Milan, and the king and the traditional elites handed him power in the hope that he would stop the political chaos in the country at a time when it seemed that no one else could do it.
Also, it is forgotten that Mussolini ruled for years within the structures of Italian democracy, even with the help of a significant number of self-proclaimed liberals in his cabinet. He practiced a style of government known today as "autocratic legalism". He kept to the letter of the law, but violated its spirit; or passed new laws in a manner that was procedurally correct, but placed the rule of one man above the rule of law. Make no mistake, there was also horrific violence - the most famous example being the murder of socialist politician Giacomo Matteotti. But Mussolini openly acted as a dictator only in 1925. (From the first day as chancellor, Hitler clearly showed his pretensions to achieve full racist totalitarian power.)
The identification of today's radical right and fascism has no foundation as a political judgment. But we need to watch carefully how the radical right develops. The transition to fascism - to the open proclamation of authoritarianism and the glorification of violence - can happen very quickly or it can take a very long time. In any case, the most important thing is to always keep an eye on the views of the traditional elites. This is one of the lessons from the rise of Mussolini's fascism that we have not sufficiently understood to this day.
(Project Syndicate; Pečanik.net; translation: Đ. Tomić)
Bonus video:
