By Manolis Pimplis
Prompted by events in Iran, analyses are being made about how many and what kinds of conditions must converge for an authoritarian regime to fall — for example, a fiscal crisis, the fragmentation of the ruling elite, and so on. Perhaps, however, we should now be analyzing the opposite question: what conditions must exist for the collapse of democracy to become possible.
And it seems that many such conditions have indeed come together. The best period for Western democracies was undoubtedly the Keynesian era — up until the mid-1970s — the so‑called Golden Thirty Years. Economic growth then was driven both by the need and optimism of postwar reconstruction and by a compromise between capital and labor that was considered necessary at the time.
With the rise of the neoliberal model, things took a different turn: the balance shifted sharply in favor of capital — all kinds of capital. State debts continued to grow because, in this model, not only are expenses sometimes reduced, but government revenues decrease as well. Meanwhile, to citizens, the political class came to appear less as an arbiter of competing interests and increasingly as their servant.
In such a climate, where no solutions can be found, it is often — and tragically — the people themselves who deliver the final blow to democracy. Sometimes this happens through direct vote — as in Hitler’s case — and sometimes through their elected representatives — as in Metaxas’ case. The “ring” is handed to legitimately elected leaders whom everyone knows have a serious chance of turning into dictators. A similar example is Trump, who was twice elected by the people and is now seeking excuses to postpone the midterm elections and then attempt a third term — something constitutionally prohibited.
This happens because people have grown exasperated with the indecision and mediocrity of referee-type leaders. They see in authoritarian right‑wing figures a kind of revival of politics’ primacy over capital. It is, after all, an option that the power of money permits — even if only as an exception — while ruthlessly suppressing the left‑wing alternative. This is why a portion of the electorate gravitates toward wherever resistance seems possible. A futile effort, of course, and a disastrous choice.
For what cannot be seen immediately with the naked eye, yet always becomes clear in the end, is that the Trumps of this world can afford to attack parts of capital precisely because they ally themselves with the very top of the corporate pyramid. Hitler allied with Germany’s largest industrialists; Trump with the giants of high technology. At first, some of these corporations seemed hesitant — accustomed as they were to a different model — while others celebrated from the very start. In the end, all followed along, because as global oligopolies, they too understand or even trust the authoritarian model.
In the end, of course, it is the people who pay the price — both those who elected such leaders and those who suffer from their aggressiveness.