Authoritarianism and Democracy in the Transition to Socialism

Abstract

Every regime intent on effecting a transition to socialism inevitably confronts the necessity to utilize both authoritarian and democratic measures. On the one hand, recent historical experiences provide ample evidence that neither local bourgeois and imperial interests nor their military and police protectors can be expected to peacefully allow themselves to be divested of privileges. Regimes that shy from utilizing authoritarian measures against such opponents can expect to find their transitions aborted, often in the most bloody fashion. On the other hand, any transition to socialism worthy of the name must entail an extension of popular democratic control over state and society and of the democratic freedoms of speech, assembly, and petition. A regime that fails to extend democracy may enhance its chances for survival, but does so, typically, at the cost of compromising the democratic essence of its socialist project. These issues of authoritarianism and democracy in the transition to socialism are mystified by two opposing, yet equally demagogic, perspectives. One sacrifices the need for democratic practice in the name of security. Typically, the regime unduly expands its definition of political enemies, and unduly extends the measures designed to deal with the exceptional circumstances of direct and serious threat to its survival. In short, the emergency and the measures put in place to deal with it become the norm. Democracy is judged an expendable luxury, impugned as a lower form of political practice, or redefined to include authoritarian centralized rule. The other perspective rejects the use of