Limited Government vs. the “New Order”

This chapter focuses on the problem of defining the relationship between politics and economy, state and society and the boundaries of government action. It explores in which way and to what degree the general crisis of liberalism (political and economic) and the region-specific radicalization of politics (including totalitarian experiments in its vicinity) reflected in social and economic models and paragons, advocated by the national liberal heirs. Asking how far did the departure from the basic liberal assumptions regarding the relationship between the state and society go in each of the three cases, it closely scrutinizes the studied parties’ attitudes toward representative democracy on the one and alternative models of political order on the other side. In particular, it looks into the solidarist conceptions that distinguished their 1920s economic orientations and the corporatist ones that entered the foreground during the early 1930s, showing that the latter acted primarily as rhetorical adjustments to the current political trends and in most of the cases did not signify a break with liberal democracy and market economy. Lacking clear ideological fundaments, facing disorientation, coupled with eroding social bases the national liberal heirs were quite susceptible to flirtation with new ideological currents, some of them radically illiberal, and adoption of some of their discursive elements. Generally, they however remained within the frame of representative democratic order.