That public debate is increasingly impoverished, due to, is something widely recognized. Regarding issues such as fascism, democracy and blows, the problem is exponentially enhanced due to the lack of consensus on its meanings. The difficulty already exists within the community of political scientists itself, but it is mitigated by the recognition of their own divergences between alternative definitions. The problem is exacerbated in the public debate for the absence of socially shared minimum vocabulary.
The problem is not trivial or academic. The problem is the transposition of concepts between academic domains (from political science to law, and vice versa). A, for example, has implications for international sanctions. Political liability, in turn, has nothing to do with criminal liability. Not to mention the confusion between positive analysis of normative or jurisdictional phenomena and analysis.
In fact, the problem is not new. Karl Loewenstein in “Brazil Under Vargas”, published in 1942 (dedicated to his great friend Thomas Mann), concluded his analysis in a chapter entitled “A Discourse on Political Terminology: Is Brazil a fascist state?”, Saying that the regime was clearly authoritarian but not totalitarian or fascist: “Nothing could be further from the truth than the assumption that Brazil is in Vargas is Totalitarian, in the sense of sacrificing the individual’s sphere to the Leviathan State. Private Life, Private Law, Business Life and Culture are not affected by the regime if they do not hinder public policies. “
The author of “Hitler’s Germany” (1939), himself pursued by the regime, knew what he was talking about. Loewenstein was the main intellectual articulator of the idea of militant democracy and had influence in the elaboration of the 1949 German Constitution. Knowing the Italy of Mussolini stated “abroad the Estado Novo is often called fascist. Once again, a misunderstanding that needs correction.” And he wondered, among other things, how could not even be seated in a political party being called a fascist? “Fascism on paper” – some laws, he recognized, showed the influence of fascism – “it does not convert the regime into fascist.”
The same goes for the concept of coup. They show that the explosion of the use of the expression “blow” with adjectives – white golpe, parliamentary blow – occurred in reverse proportion to the virtual disappearance of state blows in the classic sense. Abuse has made the concept worthless. Illinois data data Bank for the period between 1945 and 2024 show that the blows – all the successful successful have practically disappeared – fell from an annual average over 11 to 1, between 1975 and 2020, and are restricted to the African continent.
The very use of the expression is politically determined, as covering all cases between 1975 and 2014: blow is the expression used by those in power; and revolution, movement or release by those in opposition.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
