Hazem Saghiyeh

The most dangerous element of Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s speech is not the threats and granting points to grade patriotism and treason, as this has become a staple on his rhetoric.

Rather, the most dangerous element, which did not get the attention it deserves, is his call for allowing parties that are not represented in parliament to take part in the so-called national dialogue based on their stance vis-à-vis… the Resistance. Accordingly, Khaled Hadadeh, Osama Saad and Sheikh Shaaban are more representative of public interest than elected politicians.
 
The danger here lies in the disregard of popular representation and popular will, which are expressed through parliament. This contempt for the people and its will is a constant and inalienable characteristic of fascist thinking worldwide. Indeed, some experts in fascism argue that its primary trait as an ideological and political movement is its adversity to parliamentary representation, even if it deems it ok to use it in order to reach power.

Hitler believed that parliamentary democracy outdid the “natural election” of ruling elites and that “it merely represents methodical control of human failure.” According to his Minister of Propaganda Josef Goebbels, the people never rule themselves and aristocratic elites are [always] behind historic eras and transformations. Spanish fascist [José Antonio] Primo de Rivera wrote that “our Spain will not rise from elections;” rather, it will be saved by poets “with arms.” French fascist François de la Rocque argued in 1933 that no elections should be held before “purifying” the government and the press.

Countless fascist statements and stances lampoon parliament and the results of elections, as a just “cause” does not need to ask for people’s opinion in it. Even if a vast majority rejects the totalitarian state defended by Mussolini or Hitler’s racial supremacy [doctrine], these two principles remain true as long as a certain elite has decided that it is so. The same holds true for Leninism, which did not consult with the people in order to decree the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” [The argument here is that] this dictatorship is rightful because a vanguard few said so, and the opinion of the majority of the people does nothing to change that fact.

In this sense, fascist and Leninist experiences hamper parliament and the constitution as soon as they get to power, and choose among elected members of parliament “representatives” of the people who acquire this status based on their doctrinal stance and organizational status.

In contrast, the parliamentary theory is based on making assumptions regarding conflicting facts, opinions and interests in society. These assumptions are not ruled by accusations of treason, but rather by an electoral process that decides where the majority stands in any particular political circumstance. This is the difference between democracy and fascism.

This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic site on Monday November 19, 2012