Question: Government Decentralization and Fascism

From what OTL history has told us, fascism has been prejudicial towards govermental balance. While other forms of government have been proven to be effective or at least honest in the ways they handled their governmental checks and balances, fascism has only spawned examples of pseudo-monarchical absolute dictatorships. I do not know how fascist theorists didn't denounce this, instead focusing on theories of national unity and monopartidarism. They didn't explain what kind of government to use in a fascist state, be it a monarchy or hereditary oligarchy or elective single-opinion democracy.
So, could a fascist government have at least theoretically implemented a decentralized government system with at least a few checks and balances (such as separation between executive, legislative, and judiciary) or was the ideology doomed from the start?
 
The "ideology wasn't doomed from the start" because of the "excesses" of real life fascist leaders. It inherently is a totalitarian ideology that despises the "vacilation and indecision" that "characterizes democracy."
 
From what OTL history has told us, fascism has been prejudicial towards govermental balance. While other forms of government have been proven to be effective or at least honest in the ways they handled their governmental checks and balances, fascism has only spawned examples of pseudo-monarchical absolute dictatorships. I do not know how fascist theorists didn't denounce this, instead focusing on theories of national unity and monopartidarism. They didn't explain what kind of government to use in a fascist state, be it a monarchy or hereditary oligarchy or elective single-opinion democracy.
So, could a fascist government have at least theoretically implemented a decentralized government system with at least a few checks and balances (such as separation between executive, legislative, and judiciary) or was the ideology doomed from the start?
There really were no fascist theorists, except people trying to codify it after it had already come to power.
 
So it was supposed from the start to be an oligarchy or hereditary monarchy in disguise, because they denounced bureaucracy. Is it basically an expansion on the ideals of absolutism (be them from Jacques Bossuet or Thomas Hobbes) with national unitarism peppered in?
Did the fascists have a problem with people joining the government and creating laws? Did they inherently defend that totalitarianism is good, without a check on if the dictator is an effective or pragmatic person and not just a greedy individual?
Could there be a strain of fascism that defended democracy, but without major conflicts in government due to its national-unitarist view?
 
Last edited:
So it was supposed from the start to be an oligarchy or hereditary monarchy in disguise, because they denounced bureaucracy. Is it basically an expansion on the ideals of absolutism (be them from Jacques Bossuet or Thomas Hobbes) with national unitarism peppered in?
Did the fascists have a problem with people joining the government and creating laws? Did they inherently defend that totalitariamism is good, without a check on if the dictator is an effective or pragmatic person and not just a greedy individual?
Could there be a strain of fascism that defended democracy, but without major conflicts in government due to its national-unitarist view?

Fascism inherently believed that there needed to be a national "Fueher" who would wield absolute power over both the party and state, with the objective of uniting the "Volk/People" against the forces that were "holding the nation back." Behind the scene there would be power plays and policy debates, but the Fueher's word (or Fueher's designated adminstor's) was abosolute (see Fueherprincipe)
 
Top