With the rise of far right populism and seen from a distance, right-wing anti-democratic forces may look a bit like real democrats. But far right populism remains dead set at manipulating and hollowing out democracy.
While play-acting to be democrats, these pretend-to-be democrats can play a rather decisive role in the manipulation and unhinging of democracy.
In general, the outmanoeuvring and undermining of democracy comes once right-wing populists are in power or close to it in, for example, a co-governing coalition government.
Meanwhile, democracy is under threat, globally. Worldwide, the prerequisites, such as an open society, for the functioning of democracy are dwindling more and more. This is flanked by the rise of right-wing authoritarianism.
Meanwhile, democratic politicians and political parties committed to the survival of democracy are all too often ambushed by right-wing populism. To fight such far right traps, real democrats need to meet three basic necessities:
- Elections:
True democrats must accept the result of free and fair elections whether they have won or lost in those elections. Democratic political parties must acknowledge defeats without hesitation.
- Political Violence:
Accepting democracy also means democratic political parties must unambiguously reject political violence, including the threat of violence when achieving political goals. In other words, democratic politicians who support military coups, organise coups, instigate uprisings, plan murders and bomb attacks and other terrorist acts. Democratic politicians cannot set up militias, thugs, and killer squads to intimidate, beat up and kill political opponents. Any party and political actor violating even “one” of these two basic rules must be considered as a peril to democracy.
- Repelling Far Right Henchmen:
It remains imperative for committed democrats to repel, reject and break up with all anti-democratic forces. Those who attack democracy often have – stealthy and otherwise – collaborators, sidekicks, and henchmen. In many cases, these are political insiders pretending to adhere to democratic rules. Yet, they secretly or – less likely – openly undermine democracy. These are the “pretend-to-be”, but ultimately fake democrats.
In the third group are established politicians who “outwardly” appear to live up to democratic rules and, worse, can be rather successful in doing so.
On the surface, they never take part in all too obvious anti-democratic actions. Far right façade democrats achieve their goal of outwitting honest and true democrats by manipulating – but not by all too obviously eliminating – democracy.
Yet, their anti-democratic thumbprints are rarely found on the murder weapon that turned democracy into a tool of far-right authoritarianism.
Yet, democrats should not be fooled, these pretend-to-be democratic politicians can still play a rather decisive – albeit hidden – role in the wanted breakdown of real democracy.
True democrats always and most definitely condemn anti-democratic behaviours. Meanwhile, pretend-to-be democrats behave ambivalently.
It is precisely this ambiguity of presenting themselves as democrats while – simultaneously – working towards the destruction of true democracy that renders them extremely dangerous.
Openly far right authoritarian and Neo-Nazi figures, on the other hand, are easily recognisable. By contrast, right-wing populists aren’t.
However, far right populists often lack enough public support and democratic legitimacy to destroy a true democracy on their own – just as Hitler failed to get above 50% of voter support in 1933.
Yet, when far right democrats – natively, ideologically, or otherwise – give the enemies of democracy and far right populists their patronage, openly and “not-so-openly” authoritarian forces become even more dangerous to democracy.
Democracies can also get into trouble when established democratic parties tolerate – for ideological, tactical reasons, or otherwise – right-wing authoritarian extremists. In some cases, democrats can pave the way towards far-right authoritarianism.
In fact, the cooperation between authoritarian forces and seemingly respectable pretend-to-be democrats has, historically, always been a harbinger of the collapse of democracy. The Nazi strategist Carl Schmitt believed: democracy can make fascism possible.
Beyond the Nazi’s destruction of democracy remains one of the key problems on how to distinguish true democrats from pretend-to-be democrats.
Potentially, one element is their attitude towards political violence. Anti- and pretend-to-be democrats secretly or openly support violence while truly democratic political parties work inside the democratic system and reject violence.
The next test is the difference between true democrats and pretend-to-be democratic politicians’ reaction to violent and anti-democratic behaviours.
It remains relatively easy to condemn violence and authoritarian behaviours of outright Neo-Nazis and far right terrorists. In general, traditional conservatives, for example – rather frequently and rather reliably – tend to condemn violent and radical acts.
Another key aspect of political violence is the fact that far right populist’s political parties often feature a more radical, anti-democratic, and a more violent youth wing. Many party leaders and activists of far-right parties have previously belonged to such organisations.
The transition of MSI-style Italo-fascism to prime minister or the transition of German Neo-Nazis into democratic parliaments for the AfD are no exceptions. Unlike such Neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, and most importantly, also pretend-to-be democrats, true democrats, on the other hand, obey four democratic rules:
Firstly, Repelling anti-democratic focuses:
truly democratic political parties remove anti-democratic elements from their ranks, and they do this even when they turn their own party base against them. In sharp contrast, pretend-to-be democratic political parties tolerate anti-democratic extremists and, worse, offer them a political home and even worse, an institutional home. The neo-fascist AfD offered 100 Neo-Nazis a home in German parliaments.
Secondly, Rejecting alliances and coalitions with the far right:
real and true democrats cut off “all” links to groups, individuals, and political parties that behave anti-democratically. True democrats never enter into alliances with far-right populists. They refuse in supporting right-wing populists and avoid public appearances with them. Real democrats do not conduct secret tactical conversations with far-right populists – not openly and not behind closed doors. Unlike real democrats, pretend-to-be democrats cooperate with anti-democratic extremists. Worse, they also enter into political cooperation, alliances and even coalitions with the far right. More often and this is harder to detect, their cooperation can be casual or unofficial. Worse, pretend-to-be democrats keep a – publicly displayed – distance from far-right extremists. Yet, secretly cooperate with far-right populists and accept their support.
Thirdly, Eliminating violence:
true democrats unreservedly denounce political violence and other anti-democratic behaviours. They do so even when these are political allies or are ideologically close. In times of political polarisation and real or invented threats, fears and crises, the far right finds it all too easy to engineer anti-democratic attitudes among a given population. But even in these cases, true democrats resist the temptation to endorse and justify such attitudes. Instead, real democrats openly confront them.
Fourthly, Isolating the far right:
true democrats also do not shy away from joining forces with the opposite side of the political spectrum to fight, isolate, and defeat anti-democratic far right extremist parties. This is not an easy task but it supports democracy rather than the far right’s Nietzsche-like Will to Power. To establish a political coalition in defence of democracy, true democrats must overcome ideological goals and political principles and work together with politicians from the opposing camp. In other words, progressives need to engage with conservatives to defend democracy. By contrast, pretend-to-be democrats and far right populists refuse to cooperate with ideological “enemies” as they see democratic political parties.
These four rules of true democratic politics are simple and straightforward. Yet, when parts of a conservative party’s base, for example, identifies with anti-democratic extremists, party bosses condemning these far right extremists take a significant political risk. It remains imperative to note that true democrats do it anyway.
By doing that, they preserve democracy. They repel rather than normalise far right extremism. On the surface, pretend-to-be democratic behaviour often appears to be rather harmless. This type of behaviour can even be portrayed by the so-called “respectable” politicians.
However, normalising and mainstreaming the far right can be dangerous. By taking a seemingly “convenient pathway” of tolerating anti-democratic extremists, progressives, democrats and conservatives can strengthen anti-democratic forces. By doing this, they can contribute to the collapse of an – even seemingly rather solid – democracy.
Willingly, they also protect anti-democratic forces. When, for example, violent and even not-so-violent far right extremists have the tacit or open backing of a respected party, they are more likely to be safe from prosecution and dismissal from public office.
Worse, they are more likely to engage in political violence. In addition to enabling anti-democratic forces, pretend-to-be democrats also legitimise their anti-democratic ideologies.
Overall, anti-democratic extremists are treated as outsiders in a healthy democracy. Mainstream media ban them while democratic politicians, businessmen, and other individuals of the democratic community avoid them. In true democracies, those sections of the media that are committed to democracy begin to report on far right populists.
Importantly, media committed to democracy no longer invite them for interviews and discussions as if they are politicians, like democratic politicians.
Primarily, democratically oriented businessmen may decide to put money into the election campaigns of democratic politicians. At the same time, democratically oriented political advisers will avoid far right populists – no longer returning their calls.
Even more important is that when democratic politicians reject anti-democratic behaviours, far right extremists become ever more isolated. They lose momentum and others – like the politically naïve, those easy to manipulate, the inexperienced, and the so-called non-political – are deterred from joining the far right.
This, sadly, also works the other way around. When democratic parties tolerate, approve, and even tacitly support anti-democratic and pretend-to-be democratic parties, democratic parties make it clear that anti-democratic behaviours can be acceptable.
Worse, the deterrent effect fizzles out. It becomes even more problematic when pretend-to-be democrats with their shifting stance only help anti-democratic forces to normality. This encourages them and even radicalises them.
Meanwhile, many of the politicians who can cause the downfall of democracy are simply over-ambitious careerists who want to keep their current office, win higher offices or have a sheer insatiable Will To Power.
And because of some sort of deep-rooted anti-democratic convictions, they aren’t ideologically opposed to democracy – they are simply indifferent to democracy.
Yet, they tolerate and even approve anti-democratic extremism simply because this is the path with least resistance. They – wrongly – often tell themselves that they only do what is necessary to get ahead.
Meanwhile, pragmatism can become a dangerous ideology. Worse, they are indispensable accomplices in ruining democracy.
In other words, even established politicians can contribute to the destruction and hollowing out of democracy by, for example, promoting far right anti-democratic extremism.
But democracy can also be undermined by behaviours that – superficially – adhere to the letter of a democratic constitution. Simultaneously and, worse, deliberately, they assist in the hollowing out of the democratic spirit of a constitution.
This is not an open struggle against the existence of a democratic constitution. Worse, it is a pretend-to-be democratic behaviour that “uses” a democratic constitution as a political weapon. Far right pretend-to-be democrats use democracy against democracy.
Most constitutions – even the most brilliantly formulated – can be (mis)used to destroy a democracy. This is exactly what makes the far right’s claim to be “constitutional” so dangerous.
Yet, this also means that far right populists may not need to openly violate the constitution and no law needs to be broken to end democracy.
The poster boy of the pretend-to-be democratic far right is not Adolf Hitler, Mussolini and Pinochet but Victor Orbán’s Art of Eroding Democracy keeping the façade of democracy intact while destroying it from the inside.
What works for far right populists is that even well-drafted constitutions and democratic laws – almost inevitably – can contain ambiguities and potential loopholes for anti-democratic activities.
Laws and constitutions are, after all, subject to different interpretations and can be enforced in different ways. This drove Donald Trump to get his hands on the US constitution by appointing “his” supreme court judges.
Far right and anti-democratic politicians can – and have – exploited these ambiguities in a way that distorts or even reverses the very raison d’être of a democratic constitution and of democratic laws. Again, there are four techniques that anti-democratic far right populists use to scam democracy:
1) Abusing legal provisions:
Anti-democratic right-wing populists can exploit gaps in legal texts. Ultimately, no legal regulation can cover “all” eventualities. There are always circumstances that are not specifically covered by law. For example, if a political behaviour isn’t expressly prohibited, the anti-democratic far right considers their anti-democratic action as permissible. If democratic rules don’t determine exactly how a democratic process should be carried out, there are opportunities for the anti-democratic far right to take advantage of this to the detriment of democracy.
2) Using legal provisions against democracy:
There is also an excessive or inappropriate use by the anti-democracy right to apply legal provisions against democracy. Some rules require tact and restraint in their use. Presidential clemencies and pardons are a good example. These are not for relatives, friends, donors, political aides, and allies who have committed crimes.
Misusing these rules makes a mockery of the rule of law. This is something right-wing populists claim to uphold but all too often systematically undermine. Others simply destroy it as Nazi judge Roland Freisler had shown. Impeachment procedures can also be misappropriated by the far right.
Many democratic constitutions allow the government to declare a state of emergency and revoke basic rights for its duration. In healthy democracies, this right is protected by the norm of restraint. Democratic politicians share the view that it should be used only in the most extraordinary circumstances. The anti-democratic far right sees this as completely different. To them, emergency powers are simply a tool to cement power.
3) Selective application of laws:
the anti-democratic far right will not shy away from the selective application of democratic laws. Far right governments often pursue, persecute, and even prosecute their political rivals not just by circumventing and violating existing laws, but also by the application of such laws. Meanwhile, the non-application of laws is the rule for the anti-democratic far right. It routinely cheats on tax payments, misappropriates state funds, and routinely violates democratic regulations.
Simultaneously, well-placed pro-far-right officials use their influence to give benefits to relatives, friends, and allies. Far right governments can (and do) apply laws selectively to target their rivals. To the innocent outside, this can be made to look as if right-wing populists are legally compliant. After all, they enforce laws. Yet, the enforcement of the laws is aimed only at democratic opponents. In short, the law is used as a weapon against democracy.
4) Far right lawfare:
In what became known as lawfare, legislation becomes an anti-democratic weapon against democracy. Far right politicians can introduce new laws that – at first glance – seem impartial and objective but are exclusively directed against democratic opponents. This is where ideological warfare meets the law to create: lawfare. It is the misuse of laws and legislative powers as a weapon against democracy.
In the end, there are three identifiers of far right anti-democratic political parties: right-wing populists do not accept the outcome of democratic elections; they are ambivalent about political violence – condemning it publicly but supporting anti-democratic thugs, brutalities and violence; finally, they open or by stealth support the hollowing out of democracy.
More complicated is the separation of real and truly democratic political parties from pretend-to-be democrats who use democracy to get into power.
Once in power, they do not eliminate democracy outright but hollow it out so that democracy becomes a mere shell, a façade, a cover, and a veneer.
This remains highly dangerous as it allows far right populists to present themselves as democrats while deforming, bending, manipulating, twisting, or even eliminating the raison d’être, the essence, and the spirit of democracy.
On the other side of the pretend-to-be democrats are the true democrats that live by four democratic rubrics: they remove anti-democratic elements from their parties; they fight against those displaying anti-democratic behaviours; they reject violence; and, they act in favour of democracy even when this disadvantages them and their democratic political parties.
Finally, anti-democratic (Hitler Mussolini, etc.) and pretend-to-be democrats (Orbán, Trump, etc.) apply four broad strategies while, at the same time, claiming to stand for democracy and law and order:
- they exploit legal gaps in the constitution and in law to advance their right-wing populist cause and to damage democracy;
- they abuse the legal system to favour friends and right-wing stooges;
- they refrain from applying the legal system against their friends and far right allies; and finally,
- they engage in lawfare – the use of the law in their war against their political opponents who are seen as enemies to be eliminated.
Ultimately, and unlike real neo-fascists and Neo-Nazis, far right populists and pretend-to-be democrats do not openly seek the annihilation of democracy. Rather, they leave an outer shell of democracy in place creating a kind of a façade democracy.
Simultaneously, they hollow out the inside of democracy. Democracy exists in name only. Armed with this, they can claim to be democrats supporting the rule of law while, concurrently, establishing an illiberal crypto-dictatorship.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate