The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Authoritative transit of the peripheral countries of interwar Europe: politological analysis



AVTORITARNY TRANSIT of the PERIPHERAL COUNTRIES of INTERWAR EUROPE

POLITOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

E.G. Ponomareva

In article the author reflects on the reasons of crisis of democratic models in CEE countries, YuVE and the Baltics and on the basis of the analysis of a complex of factors draws a conclusion about regularity of authoritative transit of the peripheral countries of Europe during the interwar period (1918 — 1939). If all authoritarian regimes of that period in the studied region were distinguished by existence of three bases of authoritarianism: leaderism, the ideas of creation of the national state and nationalism, peculiar features allow to distinguish three clusters of authoritarian regimes in interwar Europe: military and bureaucratic, corporate (shop) and dototalitarny (fascist mobilization) mode. However main conclusion following: the difficult economic, political and sociocultural situation in CEE countries, YuVE and the Baltics aggravated by consequences of globalization and the global financial crisis is capable to provoke a recurrence of authoritative transit.

New democracies" Europe to which analysts carry CEE countries, YuVE and the Baltics have in actual fact not vast experience of democratic construction, not to mention steady prerequisites of democracy in the form of developed economy, high level of political culture and tradition of pluralistic civil society. Relatively recently (for historical prospect),

From democracy the tyranny is born

Platon

Violence is povivalny babkoyvsyaky old society when it is pregnant new

K. Marx

during the interwar period, these states endured authoritative transit, namely transition from democracy to dictatorship. By the end of the 30th years of the XX century from 29 countries of Europe only 12 could keep a democratic system. Formation and transformation of political regimes of CEE countries, YuVE and the Baltics as peripheries of capitalism, certainly, gets to a classification grid of authoritarianism.

Elena Georgiyevna Ponomareva is a candidate of political sciences, the associate professor of comparative political science of MGIMO (U) the MFA of Russia, e-mail: politology@mgimo.ru.

In politological science the "classical" concept of the authoritarian regime (AR) belongs to the American scientist Juan of Lintsu1. According to him, regimes are authoritarian if such distinctive signs are inherent in them as: 1) limited irresponsible political pluralism; 2) there is no leading, accurately developed ideology; 3) extensive or intensive political mobilization, so, the level of political participation quite low does not practice; 4) vaguely, the power which borders are formally designated and predictable is kept by the leader or united group around it.

It is important that unlike the totalitarian modes the authoritarianism allows existence of various public formations which are not established by the state and not depending on it. The so-called "limited pluralism" - is the most indicative line of authoritarianism. Some ARE even allow an institutionalization of the political participation of independent groups and institutes, symbolical parties, but also in such conditions controlled from above the power remains not accountable to society. Nevertheless, the limited pluralism is enough for preservation at authoritarian regimes of institutes of civil society or some significant and enough independent segments.

Taking this line of authoritarianism for counting unit, namely, the pluralism (both political, and economic) and political mobility (activity degree), Linz offered the following typology ARE: military and bureaucratic, corporate (shop), dototalitar-ny (fascist mobilization), post-colonial and racial/ethnic democracies.

During the interwar period there are first three types which "ideal" examples, from Weber's point of view, it is possible to consider the modes in Poland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Czechoslovakia.

Sanatsionny Poland: evolution of the military and bureaucratic mode

Establishment of authoritarianism in Poland was defined by weakness and instability of the so-called democratic model of the French type defining a priority of parliament/diet, which poured out actually in a seymokratiya. The historical features of shlyakhetsky democracy which led to dispersion of parties extremely complicated work of the government that could not but affect a social and economic and political situation in the country. Left, right

and centrists were more or less counterbalanced, but the impossibility of cooperation of two first and political immaturity of the agrarian center significantly limited possibilities of reaching consensus on any question. In such situation authoritarianism with the strong power of the head of state; with a support on the movement which rejected any political etiquette and supporting "the Supreme head" who was above parties, and convinced of the mission or in the right to operate for the sake of the state interests and a national unification even not confirmed with a superiority in strength of the votes received on elections; with the ideology which was coming down to populist, but bright and desired, to slogans - had no historical alternatives.

The government camp played a role of the moderate center in the authoritative system of Poland, without accepting ideology of either communism, or fascism. It suffered existence and activity of opposition parties, did not impose any ideological monopoly and did not try to interfere with all spheres of political, economic and sociocultural life. A special role was played at the same time by army, first of all the legionaries entirely devoted to Józef Pilsudsky (an analog of "regime of colonels" though that situation is incomparable with military juntas of Latin America). Alfred of Stepan2 fairly noticed that the pretorianstvo complemented with public discontent with a social and economic situation, lack of safety and long-term inefficiency of the power of parliament promotes replacement of the civil power by the power of military, i.e. establishment voyennobyurokratichesky ARE.

I will remind that fight for borders of the Polish state came to the end with signing of the Riga peace treaty in March, 1921, a plebiscite in Silesia (though a final exit was found only after the third revolt) and adoption of the constitution on March 17, 1921. Besides,

13 September, 1922 Poland signed the Contract on military cooperation with France, and on March 26, 1926 strategically important alliance was concluded also with Rumyniyey3.

"The March constitution" was much more favorable 41921 g to diet which became actually sovereign in relation to executive power, as generated a seymokratiya. Prerogatives of the president were limited especially because of right which were afraid of the authority Pilsudsky. In the circumstances the marshal (Pilsudsky became him in 1920) refused to propose the candidature at the election of the president of the country. After

a difficult selective game in December, 1922 Gabriel Narutovich was elected the president (Vyzvolena). Using the fight methods based on kindling of international hostility right claimed that Narutovich is obliged by the election to voices of the Jewish minority and cannot be considered as the true president of the republic. The creation in the country of the atmosphere of hatred and intolerance which provoked murder of the first president of Poland became a result of considerably nationalist hysteria. The country was on the verge civil voyny5.

It was succeeded to avoid bloodshed, nevertheless, and the new president, Stanislav Voytsekhovsky, was elected with the same overweight, as his predecessor. The Polish historians claim that Narutovich's murder which shook Pilsudsky roused the last to do away with party limitation and radicalism right and with this-mokratiyey as its investigation. However for this purpose it was necessary to choose a propitious moment and to collect a power counterbalance. Therefore in May, 1923 Pilsudsky resigns to return to the power "on a white game".

From May, 1923 to May, 1926 in Poland four governments were replaced: right-centrist Vee-tsentiya Vitosa which worked against the background of a hyperinflation and the social conflicts; nonparty Vladislav Grabsky who managed to reform public finances, a monetary system and to provide to the country stability; the wide coalition of Alexander Skshinsko-go and, at last, one more government of Vitos which held on only five days before he was overthrown by Pilsudsky.

The system of parliamentary democracy could not cope with one of calls of statehood of that period: with the social conflicts generated by a difficult economic situation with rigid disagreements between political parties. Besides, right, impressed with a campaign of supporters of Mussolini to Rome, began to regard the developed system as an empty shell. The profascist moods which were followed by extreme manifestation of nationalism could not but disturb left and ethnic minorities, especially Jewish. In increasing frequency looks of Poles addressed Pilsudsky who was constantly criticizing the existing system which, according to him, was dangerous and demanded "improvement" (sanitation). According to the general G. Orley-ka-Drezera, the veterans of legions who proved in war with the Soviet Russia were ready to make without hesitation available to Pilsudsky "the sabers perfected in fights" 6.

Thanks to assistance of the Minister of War Lyutsian Zheligovsky under the pretext of maneuvers in May, 1926 in the neighborhood of Rembertov parts faithful to Pilsudsky were pulled together. On May 12 they moved to Warsaw. After three-day fights in the capital Pilsudsky seized a situation and carried out sweeping changes in management. He held positions of the Minister of War and general inspector of armed forces. Already on May 31 he was elected the president, however, proceeding from political reasons, refused a position. During the repeated vote by the president it was chosen Ignatsa Mostsitsky. Formation of the new government actually legalized a revolution.

Besides a position of the Minister of War, in 1926 — 1928 and 1930 Pilsudsky held also the prime minister's post. The set authoritarian regime (actually, dictatorship) leaning on army and Pilsudsky's supporters became history under the name "sanitation".

To qualify this mode as military and bureaucratic the defining role of the dictator (marshal) in the course of election of the president, formation of the cabinet allows, at adoption of laws. The role of parliament was significantly limited (limited pluralism). Also "the constitutional short story" (change in the constitution) of August 2, 1926 contributed to the development of authoritarianism. According to this short story the president acquired the right to independently dismiss Diet and the Senate before the expiration of their powers and also to issue the decrees which are valid the law until a statement or not a statement them by parliament. In 1926 — 1930 the government issued 276 similar decrees of the president. The diet began to work at sessional, but not at a constant basis. Only the president had the right to open and close it sessii7. Besides, the basis of the mode was formed by the being and acting army officers. Sanitation was the coalition of different political forces with emphasis on elimination of corruption and reduction of inflation. The Non-party block of cooperation with the government was the main political organization of sanitation.

ARE in Poland from 1926 to September 1, 1939 can allocate to

In evolution three stages: transitional, called "bartelyazhy" (by name the prime minister Bartel), lasted till 1930; a stage of "a firm hand" (till 1935), and a stage of "dictatorship without dictator" after Pilsudsky's death.

At the first stage the marshal who was convinced that the fascism does not suit Poland discredited and leveled diet. Its ideal was strong executive power which the parliament has to control, without interfering with it

work. The weakened national democrats from whom Pilsudsky dexterously took away conservatives (the well-known meeting at Radzivillov in the lock Nish-vits) began to evolve to a far-right wing and organized the fascist Camp of Great Poland. Left, disappointed with the fact that opportunities to taste victory fruits were deprived, gradually turned into more and more radical opposition. Having separated from other parties, supporters of the marshal created the Non-party block which after elections of 1928 became the largest group in parliament. Collision between Pilsudsky's regime and a parliamentary system was inevitable. As a result in 1930 the powerful Centrolev block was created (the center - left) which on the congress in Krakow threw down to the government a challenge, having accused him of dictatorship. In reply Pilsudsky ordered to dismiss parliament and to arrest the main heads of opposition who were ground in Brest-Litovsk. From this point the political opposition was pursued by legal and power methods.

On elections of 1930. The non-party block achieved more than 50% golosov8. In the country the authoritarianism was finally approved: the president possessed legislative, constitutional, control, executive and extraordinary (in case of war) powers, appointed the head of the government and all ministers. Also the power of the Prime Minister who had now the right to establish the general principles of public policy increased. Moreover, the mode of sanitation became more and more cruel. So, in 1931 in the country, court-martials were officially entered, and in 1934 the concentration camp in Bereze-Kartuzsky was created. Arrests for political motives (in 1931-16 thousand people, in 1932 - 48 thousand people) provoked a strong wave of so-called "osadnichestvo", migration mainly of veterans of the Polish army - political opponents of Pilsudsky to Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, East Galicia and Volyn9. In the country anti-Semitism revelry continued.

Shortly before Pilsudsky's death, in April, 1935, the created military and bureaucratic mode was formally enshrined in the new constitution. The constitution put the president over the executive, legislative and legal power, allowing it to be responsible for some actions only "to God and history" 10. Soon after Pilsudsky's death the movement faced a number of internal problems and disagreements. After all, it broke up to three separate directions: Left

sanitation with the leader Valery Slavek which strove for the agreement with opposition; The Castle group created around the president Ignatiy Mostsitsky adhering to centrist orientation; and the Right sanitation grouped around Edward Rydz-Smigla in the union with radical nationalists. The first of these directions soon lost the value, and two others continued fight for influence prior to war.

For example, the dismissed Non-party block replaced the Camp of National Association (CNA). Without having accurate ideology and trying to exploit the sonorous slogans of opposition (for example, anti-Semitism of national democrats or a cult of the earth), LNO was artificial education and did not offer any real alternative. On the contrary, the opposition amplified on the far-right flank - the National Party and its profascist branches like the National and radical camp, it is more and more being drawn towards a nationalistic and totalitarian way, and on gradually uniting left. Landowners, especially after merging of two parties ("Pyast" and Vyzvolena) in 1931, shifted to the left, and country strikes of 1937 came to the end still with big bloodshed, than during their previous demonstrations. Attempts to consolidate centrist opposition took the form of "Walrus Front" (I. Paderevsky, V. Sikorsky, Yu. Galler) and led to work party creation. One small democratic party was created on the basis of clubs with the same nazvaniyem11.

The new electoral law of July 8, 1935 under which the right propose candidates only district election commissions could led to boycott of elections of 1935 by parties. The diet became the ancestral lands of the sanatsionny Camp that only increased a gap between the country legal and the country real. The opposition showed the force during municipal elections of 1938, but even the prospect of inevitable war could not force the power to create the large coalition.

Thus, the Polish interwar regime represented authoritative, militaristic bureaucracy. At the same time all political forces - both the ruling clique, and "opposition" - was united by one: considerably chauvinistic aspiration to expansion of domination of Poland over neighbors and, certainly, notorious "restoration of borders of 1772". Neither the seymokratiya, nor the mode of sanitation could give to the country nor economic, nor the social benefits therefore the most effective

there was an old slogan: "From a mozh to a mozh". The foreign policy consisting in maneuvring between Germany and Russia (some of its pro-German and pro-Czech deviations sparked opposition criticism), was in the unique way to keep internally unity of the country and that only for the uncertain period. The countries of the periphery (and Poland here not an exception) appeared in a zone of interests of the countries of a kernel of a capitalist system, as defined their future.

Hungarian way to mobilization authoritarianism

Each country went the way to authoritarianism. The Hungarian kingdom which kept the old name to emphasize continuity with St Stephen's crown, the regent whose powers, including appointment and a response of the government, convocation and dissolution parliament, were almost equal to prerogatives of the monarch of a dynasty Gabsburgov operated. The right of vote was limited: the open voting existed only in rural districts and during the period from 1926 to 1938. The way of the organization of political space in the 1920th years reminded an era to the Trianonsky contract when the party in power was "continuation of administrative facilities whose function consisted in ensuring parliamentary majority" 12. However in Hungary the far-right grass-roots movement of Nazi sense, including "The crossed arrows" appeared before other peripheral countries. The domestic policy rotated around fight between the right conservatives and the right radicals which led to gradual concessions, but not to capitulation of the first. The officer corps mostly consisting of military of the German origin took a special position.

From November, 1919 to April, 1921 Miklos Horthy, the former aide-de-camp of the emperor Franz Joseph enjoying support of army laid the foundation of the new state. The requirement of Great powers of the representative form of government was defined by weakening of white terror and holding parliamentary elections. In March, 1920 the parliament proclaimed formation of the Hungarian kingdom and establishment of regency of Horthy. The regent, according to contemporaries, "was the embodiment of traditional conservatism which was contemptuously relating to plebeian rationalism; maintained aggressive nationalism and anti-Semitism on behalf of indistinct and counterrevolutionary & #34; ideologies of Segeda"" 13. This ideology was based on national,

traditional, Christian values and understanding of need of an order. Horthy assured legitimists that he uses the power only in the absence of the lawful monarch from a dynasty Gabsburgov. However his behavior concerning two attempts of the king Karl trying to return himself the Hungarian crown confirms that, holding the situation, he easily conceded to pressure hostile Gabsburgam of powers and Small Antanty14. Karl had to leave the country, and the dynasty was deposed. The government to a certain extent used the Trianonsky contract (on June 4, 1920) and revisionist theses, having turned them into an argument for restriction of democracy.

Position of the country isolated and decreased in sizes, undoubtedly, demanded internal consolidation and an external discharge. The count Istvan Betlen, the Transylvanian aristocrat and the moderate conservative who passed political school of Istvan Tisy, appointed the prime minister in April, 1921 dominated in political life of the country for the next decade. It leaned on the United party created from Christian National Party and Party melkikhselskikhkho-zyaev whose alleged opposition it thus neutralized. The compromise with social democrats allowed Betlen to reduce their influence in political life. Changes in the electoral law of the country what there was already a speech above about, and restoration of the Highest chamber strengthened the Hungarian version of authoritarianism impregnated with traditional paternalism of Tisy15. Thanks to skillful manipulations the government achieved a majority of votes on elections 1922, 1926 and 1931. The opposition presented by legitimists, social democrats and independent Party of small rural owners (Zoltan Tildi) and a far-right wing had no special impact on foreign and domestic policy.

Betlen was able to bridle revisionism outside the country and finished isolation, having entered Hungary into the League of Nations which granted the country a large loan. It allowed to hope for economic and social balance, but disastrous consequences of the large-scale crisis which reached the apogee in 1931 defined success of the so-called "right revolution" which replaced "a consolidation era". Betlen resigned, but remained some kind of "eminence grise" monitoring functioning of the system created by it. In 1932 the officer, the right radical Dyyule Gembesh got duties of the prime minister.

Gembesh considered himself "national socialist" and stood up for cooperation with the III Reich

and with Mussolini. He believed that the fascism will become medicine for all problems in domestic policy. Its good relations with Nazi and fascist institutes in Germany and Italy opened later the road for creation in the country of numerous, though small Hungarian Nazi parties. The chauvinist and the ardent anti-semite (the truth, it separated "good" Jews from "harmful") hating aristocrats, legitimists and socialists hostile to it, Gembesh to some extent was an opportunist that distinguished it from Nazi fanatics like Ferenc Salasha, the leader of "The crossed arrows". Having replaced the name of the party with Party of national unity and encouraging the right radicals, Gembesh, nevertheless, did not realize a true ratio of forces and a role of the Jewish financiers. Its turn to small rural owners, the conflict with Betlen and a victory on the most counterfeited elections in 1935 as a result of which fascists were included into parliament strengthened political polarization in the country. It was followed by the foreign unions and agreements with representatives of the currents oppositional in usual time. As Gembesh did not achieve the expected achievements in foreign policy and did not secure with Horthy's trust, his situation became unstable: perhaps he was going to enter fascist dictatorship, but sudden death in 1936 put an end him karyere16.

The following prime ministers moderately adhered to political views of Betlen, however relics of Germany which had the increasing impact on economic, political and ideological life of Hungary, than promoted its slipping to the right could not resist. After all, the dototalitarny type of authoritarianism evolved in Hungary in fascism which led Budapest to a war on side of Germany.

Authoritative past of the Baltic countries: incidents of Lithuania and Latvia

The territory of Lithuania included only ethnically Lithuanian lands in the interwar period, except for strongly germanized Klaipeda (Memel) - the only port of the republic which was sawn-off from the Reich under the Treaty of Versailles and is occupied in 1923. Moreover, Lithuania lost the historical capital, Vilnius. The question of Vilnius strongly influenced foreign and domestic policy of the country: it finally distanced Lithuania from Poland and promoted raising of nationalist sentiments. However such state of affairs had the strategic pluses - it accelerated consolidation process

nations: the absence of significant Polish minority was advantage from this point of view.

On February 16, 1918 the Lithuanian Council (later it is renamed into the State Council) declared independence of the republic. On April 4, 1919 it founded institute of presidency and the first President of Lithuania Antanas Smetona is elected. On June 10, 1920 the temporary constitution fixed the provision on election of the president as parliament/diet.

Six political parties participated in parliamentary elections in April, 1920. To right themselves was carried: Christian democrats and the Nationalist Party of national progress transformed by Antanas Smetona and Augustinas Voldemaras in 1924 to National Lithuanian council (LTS). Landowners (Ni-koloye Slezhyavichyus, Karl Grinyus) and the Union of peasants of Lithuania were in the center, and social democrats (Styaponas Kayris) and the small Communist Party in an underground, as well as in Poland, borrowed left flang17. Defeat of nationalists on elections and narrow majority of Christian democrats brought a victory at presidential elections to peasants parties. The government was headed by the landowner K. Grinyus, and the president's duties till June 7, 1926 were fulfilled by Alyaksandris Stulginskis. At the regular parliamentary elections in 1923 the position of Christian democrats significantly improved, but three years later they suffered crushing defeat. In 1926 the diet elected Gri-nyus's president, and Slezhyavichyus with the consent of social democrats received the prime minister's post. The hope to develop and strengthen democracy thawed because of rivalry of parties and the growing discontent in the country. Some historians consider that the example of the coup organized with Pilsudsky in Poland promoted a military putsch which right was organized in half a year after elections - in December, 1926 18 President and the government were deposed, and the "cleaned" diet elected Smetona the president; Voldemaras got a chair of the prime minister.

The periods of evolution of a political regime in Lithuania in many respects reminded the corresponding stages of the Polish history. Smetona rejecting Hitlerism was proclaimed by the supporters nationalists "the Supreme head of the nation". Under the constitution of 1928 he received big powers of authority, and the diet dismissed in 1927 did not gather seven next years. The Christian democrats who were to the ksmetena initially kindly favorable disposed then entered with it the conflict, because of disagreements between

the government and church which reached serious heat. Smetona's regime also should be carried to military and bureaucratic: "dictator" leaned on National Lithuanian council, the patriotic and economic organizations, on the Lithuanian free shooters (Zaulyus) of nationalist orientation. The anti-Polish moods played the mobilizing role whereas anti-Semitic accents were weak.

Fascist and dictatorial manners of Volde-maras, the bright, but quick-tempered and haughty person who leaned on the underground nationalist organization Iron Wolves (Zheleznis Vilkas) provoked a gap between the prime minister and the president. After a putsch failure in 1934 Voldemaras got to prison again. In the summer of 1935 the difficult economic situation caused country revolts which were suppressed by police. Then because of improvement of an environment the small concessions were succeeded by toughening of policy. The law on the press made silent oppositional magazines, and the Law on associations dipped activity of opposition parties. The law on elections of 1936 entered indirect vote into diet, and the constitution of 1938 strengthened the power prezidenta19 even more.

In 1938 — 1939 Lithuania was waited by two defeats. The Polish ultimatum forced Kaunas to establish the relations with Warsaw, and German - took away from the country Klaipeda. The tense situation ended with declaration of the March legislation which attempts to agree with opposition followed. After this the coalition government where Christian democrats and landowners entered was created.

The Lithuanian government did not follow the example of Slovakia and, contrary to pressure from Berlin, Defeat of Poland in September also encirclement of Lithuania by territories of the USSR in the east refused to participate in the German attack on Poland in 1939 and the South generated a new situation. On October 10 the Lithuanian and Soviet pact under which Lithuania received Vilnius and a part of the lands for a while acquired by it in 1920 the Pact was signed guaranteed to both countries mutual aid. That there was a first step to accession of Lithuania to the USSR. On July 21, 1940 the national Diet elected universal suffrage proclaimed creation of the Lithuanian Soviet republic and requested its acceptance in structure of the Soviet Union.

The independent state of Latvia was absolutely new state education. On November 18, 1918 Latvia for the first time proclaimed sovereignty, and Karlis Ulmanis (Country

party) became prime minister. The course of events in Latvia integrally fitted into a context of political development of Europe though this country - the last from the Baltic States - became on the way of authoritarianism. The constitution (Satversm) 1922, assigned the predominating part to parliament; political parties represented a range of the most various views: from conservatives, democrats to sotsialistov20. However for successful development of democracy in Latvia there were no objective prerequisites: more than 60% of the population were engaged in agriculture, there was not only no necessary level of industrialization and an urbanization, a political institutionalization, but also democratic traditions.

Parliamentary crisis ran high in Latvia only in 1934 when Ulmanis in the night of May 16 carried out a coup. At 23:00 ayzsargi21 and army parts occupied the central state institutions and with "surprising ease seized power... Democracy in Latvia was destroyed by the politician whose role in creation and formation of the state was crucial" 22.

Ulmanis set the mode which is quite often called "Latvia on May 15". Considering socio-political forces on which the mode relied, it can be characterized as national and conservative dictatorship. However, the analysis of the carried-out transformations allows to refer Ulmanis's regime to corporate type of authoritarianism. In the country the system of professional cameras was created. It was a peculiar attempt to organize and present residents of Latvia as producers and representatives of certain professions. Six cameras were created: Commerce and industry (1934), Agricultural and Comer of crafts (1935), Labour camera (1936), Comer of literature and arts and Comer of professions (1938). Supervision of them and coordination of their activity were carried out by the State economic Council and the State Council on culture. C1939 of both councils held joint meetings.

The system of cameras and the State Councils were the new government institutions resembling a certain parliament of professions superficially. However did not represent the interests of the majority and did not express its will. Cameras and both councils could not influence public policy since did not possess a legislative initiative significantly. Actually cameras turned into the advisory bodies controlled by the Cabinet which directly submitted to the relevant ministries: industry ministers appointed members to three years

cameras (90 — 120). Cameras were obliged to be down on to everything that becomes in the industry, to direct it, to represent the interests of the corresponding group of society and also to eliminate as far as possible the arising conflicts of interests. The role of cameras was small also because of authoritative style of the management. Solving in any question was opinion of its chairman: the decision was made only from its consent. Even the most important issues were not resolved by vote. Heads of cameras usually did not risk to state contradicting the official point of view mneniye23.

As well as in other countries of a peripheral zone of capitalism, the ARE established in Latvia was attempt of separation of "public policy" from "party policy" and formations of "above-party" presidential board that allowed to control completely economy, policy and culture. Much attention was paid also to ensuring national integration, consolidation of the state authority and the state executive power. There was it at the expense of legislature and also by the restrictions which were actually liquidating political pluralism. The mode was on May 15, perhaps, the only dictatorship in Europe which did not keep any representation of the people. The diet was dispersed, and its functions passed to the government. In many authoritative and even totalitarian states certain forms of parliamentarism were kept or, at least, those existed at least as the sign, in Latvia there was no it even.

Laid in "Latvia on May 15" political system the principle of leaderism was the cornerstone. Ul-manis called himself "the plenipotentiary of the power of the people and the state" or just the leader. He could lean on army, ayzsarg, the peasantry and that part of the Latvian intellectuals which were closely connected with the village. ARE also the officials occupied in public sector whose number in the 1930th years promptly increased were interested in existence and strengthening. For them dictatorship of Ulmani-sa was a source of personal wellbeing, they actively participated in realization of all forms of government by the state.

Any political institute existing in the country did not limit the individual power of Ulmanis. All major state decisions were made by the Cabinet appointed by it which received new "status": in his hands after dissolution of Diet all legislative and executive power concentrated. Announced

the martial (extraordinary) law provided to the government an opportunity to adopt amendments to Satversma. With "technical work" (preparation of government directives and laws) "the big office" was helped by a so-called "small office". And though the famous politicians enjoying confidence of influential public groups and representing them the interests were the first part of both offices, their opinion in decision-making meant not much.

The cabinet was actually institutional veil for the embodiment of will of the dictator. Ulmanis's monopoly for the power was not threatened also by the president of the country Albert Kviyesis who held this position up to spring of 1936. The institute of presidency in Latvia was not especially strong even in days of parliamentarism, it did not become stronger and in days of authoritarianism. As a result of a coup the president of the country did not get any new powers.

On February 27, 1936 at a secret cabinet meeting at which Ulmanis was not present the unanimous decision to entrust a premiere (before the reform promised during the revolution to Satversma) to take up a position of the President of the country and "to charge to the Minister of Justice to develop and submit to the Cabinet the relevant bill was made". Officially held a position of the President of the country of Ulmanis on April 11, having concentrated in the hands "such the power what at the certain person in the state usually does not happen" 24.

Concentration of the power in Ulmanis's hands proceeded also in the next years. The ideas of leaderism progressed: in the spring of 1940 it, being the President of the country and the prime minister, headed also the Ministry of Defence. Concentration in his hands of the absolute power actually put the leader over the law.

Ulmanis possessed a decisive word and in affairs of self-managements at appointment of the main officials. On

Charles Ethan
Other scientific works: