DEMOCRACY VERSUS AUTHORITARIANISM: A ROMANIAN INTERWAR DEBATE
DEMOCRACY VERSUS AUTHORITARIANISM: A ROMANIAN INTERWAR DEBATE

Summary/Abstract: After the Great Union of 1918 was accomplished and a supreme national ideal was fulfilled, Romania channeled all its energies towards its next goal: the political and economical modernization of the country. Essentially, the ways to materialize this purpose boil down to two major principles: democratic liberalism and authoritarian interventionism. However, if we theoretically apply these two guidelines to a country (interwar Romania) which has a certain historical context and has had a different historical evolution from the western model, the effects of these principles become ever so foggy and muddied altogether. Several historians, economists or politicians from interwar Romania, but also from times closer to the present have theorized solutions to achieve this goal, arguing that it is more difficult for a non-interventionist democratic regime to realize a social consensus towards a durable and sustainable common goal which is not overturned by potential political instability caused by frequent changes in power and government. On the other hand, a planned social consensus devised by a small circle of politicians hailing from an authoritarian and interventionist system, which exhibit a limited liability towards the citizens is seen as being un-organic and destined to fail because it hinders private initiative and innovation. The present study explores these concepts by applying them the historical context of Romania.

• Details
• Contents