By Tanish Srivastava
Abstract
As the war in Ukraine rages on, the Russian regime under President Putin is criticised widely and has been called fascist often. While violating the sovereignty of a neighbouring state is absolutely wrong, it is important to understand what regimes can be referred to as fascist and which cannot. The word Fascist should not be used very casually since it holds a lot of political and historical baggage, especially in the context of European conflict. This article aims to study Fascism, particularly in the case of Nazi Germany, and assess the state of Russia under President Putin, understanding if it can be referred to as fascist.
Fascism as an ideology can be traced back to early 20th century Europe. Fascism is largely credited to Mussolini, a dictator who ruled over Italy in the 20s until the second world war. Its characteristics as an ideology include extreme nationalist sentiments, a militarist society, an autocracy, and a state that does not value human rights and constantly violates them. There is also a high amount of racism and xenophobia being exhibited as well. Putin’s regime in Russia faces similar criticisms and exhibits characteristics that fascist regimes exhibit as well. While the end of the second world war is widely regarded as the death of fascism, it is important to understand how these societies, ones that were widely regarded as democracies, fell to extremist leaders and autocratic states. Moreover, there are states in today’s world that exhibit fascist characteristics to a lower degree. This article aims to:
Define fascism and its characteristics
Study the case of Germany in the 20th century
Asses the Russian regime under President Putin
- Fascism and its Characteristics
As defined before, fascism is an ideology that emerged in Europe in the 20th century. Mussolini, the dictator of Italy, is widely regarded as the world’s first fascist. Even though various other countries would see active fascist movements, the fascist regimes from place to place would differ in the way fascist governance would work in them, which is why there is wide disagreement on what the proper definition of fascism is. However, there are a few characteristics that all fascist regimes largely exhibit. These include:
- Extreme ethnocentric nationalism
Extreme amounts of nationalism were a common trait throughout fascist regimes. These extremist sentiments would also often be ethnocentric in nature. The leaders throughout various regimes would emphasise the racial superiority of certain races over others. Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime are perhaps the most widely known examples of extreme ethnocentric nationalism. The Nazis believed that the Germanic Aryan was a superior race and also propagated extreme amounts of anti-semitism. The Nazi regime is infamous for the holocaust, which was the period in which around 6 million Jewish alongside Poles, Roma people, disabled people, homosexuals, etc; were put in concentration camps by the German state.
These regimes followed policies of extreme nationalism and would often use these nationalist sentiments to garner popular support. They portrayed a world where there was a disproportional threat coming from the outside towards their countries and painted other states as aggressors, using this worldview to justify their extreme military based order.
- Militarist order
Fascist regimes often emphasised on the importance of national security and military strength of a country. they emphasised on the idea of conquering territory as a show of strength and put vast amounts of resources into the military strength of the country. The rule itself was also military in nature, with the leaders often being of military origin themselves. Military generals were also given power and were highly involved in the state’s affairs. Conscription was active for all men of age and was an important factor in the country’s military strength. Overall the military might of the fascist state was very important and the common citizens were used to ensure the strength of the military.
- Absolutist totalitarian state
One thing for certain is the absolutist method of governance that these regimes follow. While leaders like Hitler and Mussolini had created totalitarian states, they did have to come to power in states with existing democratic institutions. Hitler’s Nazi party enjoyed widespread public support.
For example, After coming to power, Hitler passed laws giving himself high amounts of power in the state, banned all political parties, banished bureaucrats opposing the Nazi party and took control of the state institutions such as the legislature and the courts, and also entirely controlled the media. This extreme totalitarian grip on the nation prevented any opposition from arising and had been the death of democracy in post world-war one Germany.
All active democratic institutions such as the Reichstag had been dismantled and the power was vested in one man, which was the chancellor of the state. Germany was under the extreme totalitarian grip of the Nazi Party.
- Religion and the state
Fascist regimes also tend to keep close relations with high ranking religious figures as a lot of the masses tend to be fairly religious and can be attracted to supporting a particular regime if the regime chooses to use religion as a tool for attracting the people.
The above mentioned characteristics of Fascism can be seen exhibited in modern regimes as well. There are other characteristics of Fascism as well, such as the close relations of the state with the business class. While it is important to be careful with the use of the term “Fascist” to describe a certain regime, it is also equally important to understand what regimes exhibit fascist characteristics, and how to prevent the takeover of such regimes in today’s time.
II. Assessment of the Regime in Russia
There are only a few states today that openly admit to not being democratic, these include kingdoms such as Saudi Arabia. Regimes such as those of the Chinese Communist Party, or Kim Jong Un in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (or North Korea) have claimed to be democratic. While the status of democracy in these states still continues to be a point of conflict, an objective assessment of the status of democratic institutions in these states would prove that these are not full democracies.
A modern day regime that needs to be studied and assessed for fascist tendencies is the one in Russia under President Vladmir Putin. One assessment of democracy around the world is the Democracy Index by The Economist. Russia’s democracy index scores are very low and the power is vested largely in the country’s head of state. Russia’s score for the democracy index puts it at rank 146 out of 165 states. According to the report, Russia’s scores had decreased after the invasion of Ukraine. The report states that Russia invaded Ukraine due to its imperial mindset and that Russia is now showing the tendencies of a dictatorship.
According to Freedom House, which also assesses democracy around the world, Russia has an authoritarian political system. It also claims that the power in Russia is concentrated with President Vladmir Putin. This concentration of power in the hands of one head of state is a proper characteristic of fascism as well, and is actively a part of the authoritarian Russian political system.
As the democratic system is not followed in the Russian state, democratic traits such as Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not active in Russia either. While the Russian constitution provides protection of freedom of speech to the Russian citizens, it does not do it as strongly as the first amendment of the American constitution for example. The constitution also prohibits propaganda or campaigning, and also prevents inciting national or religious hate and strife. While the constitution says it prevents propaganda and inciting hate, the state uses it to arrest political opponents and unwanted comments. There is the example of Stanislav Dmitrievsky, who criticised Russia’s handling of the Chechen war, and was prosecuted by the state. He was charged with extremism for not using a capital letter “p” while critiquing Putin’s regime.
Other cases of oppression of freedom of speech include the arrest of Russian Opposition Politician Ilya Yashin, who was sentenced for eight and a half years of prison on a charge of spreading misinformation regarding the Russian Military. Yashin covered the killings of civilians in Bucha in Ukraine by the Russian Military. Other cases include the case of charging politician Vladimir Kara-Murza for treason for criticising the Russian state for bombing schools in Ukraine, or charging journalist Andrey Novashov with correctional labour for criticising the targeting of civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. Essentially, with the invasion of Ukraine, Russia has had major protests with high amounts of arrests, many Russian journalists have left the country and the freedom of speech in the country has largely declined.
Regardless of the invasion in Ukraine, Russia has had a history of charging political opponents and those who speak against the regime with charges of misinformation or treason. The Russian state is clearly authoritarian with no freedom of speech being granted to the citizens.
Russia has also dropped to the bottom 22 countries on the annual freedom of press index published by the reporters without borders this year. Russia’s military campaign against Ukraine and coordinated press spreading propaganda in support of the Russian armed forces has taken over the country. Russia also started its propaganda in occupied territories in Ukraine, stopped independent Ukrainian media and hunted down local journalists in the region.
Other characteristics of the Russian state is that it can use religion as a tool for what is in its own interest. Ukraine’s orthodox majority religion being the same as Russia’s was one of the reasons cited for Kyiv’s foreign policy being aligned to that of Moscow. While Russia’s soviet past leads it to have a population that does not participate in religion to a very high extent, the state can use religion as a method of propaganda to ask for the Russian population to side with the state on its decisions.
President Putin has also been very close to the rich business class in Russia, with many of his closest allies being rich billionaires. The rich elite also enjoy high amounts of political power in the Russian regime, given the rampant corruption that is present. Many of the rich in Russia profited from the post-soviet privatisation of state assets where the deals made for the ownership of these assets were often corrupt. From 2022 to now, in the period of one year, Russia has added 22 billionaires to its list of billionaires, and the amount of money they own together is about half a trillion dollars. According to the Economist, about 85% of the wealth that the billionaires in Russia own comes from the sector of political power and corruption. President Putin has also used this class of influential and loyal billionaires to cement his own power in Russia, which has added to the political power that the rich in Russia enjoy.
Russia also follows a fairly military oriented form of nationalism. President Putin has claimed that the West threatens Russia’s security and justifies the invasion of Ukraine. He asks for all citizens of Russia to support the armed forces in their fight in Ukraine, capturing outside territory and claiming it to be in the interest of the state.
Russia under President Putin’s regime is a state that is absolute and authoritarian. Freedom of speech and Freedom of the press are not present, with religion and the elite both being used as influential tools of solidifying power in the state.
III. Conclusion
The regime under President Putin has exhibited traits that have also been followed by fascist regimes in the past. The regime is authoritarian, has elements of militaristic nationalism, has complete control over the state’s press and frequently exercises power over political opponents and journalists. The state is also very close to the rich elite and has rampant corruption. However, the use of the word fascist to refer to regimes in a casual manner is not fair. A fascist regime is not the way President Putin’s regime should be defined, at least not according to the academic and literal definition of the word Fascist. The regime though, is for sure exhibiting traits and characteristics of fascist regimes, which is absolutely not correct. It is important for the international community to stand up for the people or Russia, as their constitution promises democracy and freedom to the people of Russia, at least as their state refuses to do so.
About the Author
Tanish Srivastava is a student at the Jindal School of International Affairs and is very interested in issues related to security and economics.
NICKELED AND DIMED 