AHC: Third-Worldist *Fascism

xsampa

Banned
What would an authoritarian ideology specifically adopted to Postcolonial or semi-colonized nations look like?
I am specifically drawing from Ataturk's Reforms, Imperial Japan,various developmental dictatorships (focusing on developing the economy over democracy), Brazilian Integralism, and Bose's Free India Army
  • Like Fascism, it would focus on a "rebirth" of the Nation, or more likely, the creation of a new Nation through an enforced National Identity (see Guinea in Malê Rising, although that draws on an common Creole language and culture) - which means minorities get forcibly assimilated or worse
  • One aspect of this rebirth would be a "social revolution" against traditional racial, gender etc. hierarchies and against princes/local rulers, and most elements of traditional culture
  • Another aspectr would be anti-Imperialism: the involvement of companies from former imperial powers/the US would be minimal to nil, revival of traditional culture as defined and modernized by the State, and" the exchange of experts and technical assistance for developmental projects, as well as the exchange of technological know-how and the establishment of regional training and research institutes."(from the OTL Bandung declaration).
    • These policies would be designed -in theory- to self-lift the former colonial Sphere and put them on an equal footing with the colonizers
    • For the racial aspect, "rise of the colored empires" and the like would be used as justification
  • Due to association of capitalism with foreign companies, the State would likely control large industries, with only smaller businesses allowed to operate separately
  • The subordination of religion to the state, since precolonial/traditional religious dominance would be seen as backwards, and a focus on modifying the Enlightenment to non-Western circumstances to eliminate superstition, etc.
 
Last edited:
An Thuong

An Thuong

Given how almost no countries in SSAfrica have a clear ethnic majority I guess this goes horribly wrong. The most powerful group would of course see their identity as the 'true identity' of the Nation and try to assimilate all others to it. Those who oppose wouldn't be met with much mercy and tolerance, because you've already specified that the government are fascistic.
They'd lack the human capital to have a chance at the kind of 'orderliness' we saw in Fascist Italy and NatSoc Germany, so don't expect the trains to start running on time*. It's the nature of fascism to worship leaders, fostering megalomania in them. These states would thus end up looking like Despotates, which OTL post-colonial Africa had it's fair share of anyway.
They'd perhaps have more success in Indochina or the Malay Archipelago, but the results for those who don't conform to the majority would still look bleak.

*P.S. yeah, yeah, Mussolini's trains didn't really run on time and Hitler didn't start building the Autobahns.
 
juanml82

juanml82

xsampa said:
What would an developmentalist authoritarian ideology specifically adopted to Postcolonial or semi-colonized nations look like?
It would break down colonial-era and precolonial hierarchies of caste, class and gender while stressing assimilation into the Nation
Click to expand...
Well, it sounds like peronism. But have you considered that your second line would make it rather popular? Such an ideology doesn't have to be authoritarian, because it would be poised to win elections if it develops in a democracy
 

GSD310

xsampa said:
What would an developmentalist authoritarian ideology specifically adopted to Postcolonial or semi-colonized nations look like?
Click to expand...

I think you can categorize developmentalist authoritarianism as a way of governing a country but not necessarily as an ideology with specific tenets that can be systematically identified because I think the core of developmentalist authoritarian is pragmatic rather than ideological.

Coming at this from an Indonesian perspective, Soeharto was a pragmatist. He had a vague idea that he wanted to do something about the economy but that was about it. He wasn't an ideas man and it would certainly be beyond his intellectual capacity to come up with a systematic ideology. Instead, what eventually became the "tenets" of his regime was decided at a seminar in August 1966 held by the Army. The economic strategy to be adopted, what kind of a political system (the seminar agreed on gubernatorial term limits but not presidential limits) were decided. Soeharto approved it and provided backing for it but the New Order did not sprang forth from inside his mind.

Wendell said:
Justicialismo, or Pancasila under alternate circumstances??
Click to expand...
I would say Soeharto took a different road on the economy than Soekarno. But politically, the New Order was a more refined version of Guided Democracy. Soeharto was never President for Life the way Soekarno was, just merely "re-elected" over and over again...
 

mjwebb76

Fascism is a notoriously difficult concept to define. It is obviously authoritarian but typically goes beyond this to encompass totalitarian ideas. In Other words it seeks to remake society in a way that more ordinary authoritarian governments do not. This is why inter war Poland was authoritarian while inter war Germany was not. As such I think your best candidates for a major third world fascist movement would be a more popular and wide spread Ba’ath and perhaps a more widespread And earlier BJP. Alternatively perhaps a POD where Chandra Bose somehow achieves Indian independence and is more obviously fascist would achieve your result. Both of these seem unlikely in my opinion.
 

Johnrankins

Vishnustarlord said:
BJP in india clearly fascist as hell
Click to expand...
If you are talking about this party BJP it isn't even close to Fascist. For it to be Fascist it would have to form a dictatorship, ban all other parties, censor heavily the press, ban religion, either nationalize or highly regulate private property and other things. Not everything you don't like is Fascist.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Johnrankins said:
If you are talking about this party BJP it isn't even close to Fascist. For it to be Fascist it would have to form a dictatorship, ban all other parties, censor heavily the press, ban religion, either nationalize or highly regulate private property and other things. Not everything you don't like is Fascist.
Click to expand...
Please confine current political issue to Chat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top