Caio Prado Junior, one of Brazil’s greatest thinkers, historians and geographers, reflected on democracy while watching European countries succumb to World War II.
“What fundamentally distinguishes democracy from fascism, and the majority of the fighting British, American and Russian people are fully aware of this, is that in a democracy the rights of individuals are not only guaranteed by the state, but that their defense and custody are left in the hands of the interested parties themselves, that is, the people,” he wrote in a 1943 article published in the magazine Folha da Magnhão.
In the early 1960s, the newspaper merged with Folha da Mañã and Folha da Tarde, creating Folha de São Paulo.
Read the full story below. It is part of Section 105’s “Pillars of Great Reaction.” In this section, we recall the chronicles that made history. sheet. This initiative is part of the newspaper’s 105th anniversary celebrations scheduled for February 2026.
Democracy and Fascism (1943/5/13)
When large parts of the world are currently involved in historically unprecedented conflicts, and democracy is the issue being discussed everywhere, it seems to me that nothing is more important than trying to define this “democracy” in which the blood and tears of almost the entire human race have been shed in that holocaust.
The serious thing about this issue is that there is not always consensus on this issue. However, this is mainly on the part of those who seek to discuss the “concept” of democracy, its theoretical essence. At a time when millions of lives are being put on the line every moment in defense of ideals, it seems fairer to set aside these abstract arguments and try to find out what they actually represent for those fighting for them. In other words, what is the common thread that currently unites the British, Americans, and Russians who are most committed to this campaign?
It can only be some form of political life that they are accustomed to and do not want to give up, opposed to the political life represented by fascist weapons. What does such a life consist of? It is not difficult to make judgments on this issue through the countless demonstrations that reach us from countries in conflict, in newspapers, on the radio, and many others.
First, they defend respect for human personhood against concepts that prioritize race, strength, and other considerations. Specifically, this means respect for certain rights that all people consider fundamental to their existence and well-being. But this does not end the subject, since German, Italian or Japanese fascism also recognize, maintain and guarantee some of these rights.
What fundamentally distinguishes democracy from fascism, and what the majority of the fighting British, Americans and Russians are fully aware of, is that in a democracy not only the rights of the individual are guaranteed by the state, but their defense and custody are in the hands of the interested parties themselves, the people.
Through systems of political organization that differ from democracy to nation, such defense and security are exercised through the intervention of the people in the formation and functioning of the state, which is led and permanently supervised by the people.
Although the interests and rights of the people have been handed over to the state, they remain de facto under the protection of the people through the direct and continuing control exercised over the state, not only through the election of members to serve as representatives in parliaments and other assemblies, but also through various avenues of free expression, such as the press, parliaments and mass organizations, and assemblies.
This is not a theory. This is what is actually practiced in all the great democracies that are fighting fascism today. Because this is precisely the denial of the people’s right to control and supervise the institutions and actions of the state.
A distinctive feature of German, Italian, or Japanese regimes is that they distinguish between two distinct entities: the government and the people. Divide the people into two categories. One is the one who commands, the one who commands. Another one of those who simply follow. Fascists base this distinction on the argument that public problems are too complex for the people to solve. that he is “incompetent” to look out for his own interests and even to defend his own rights, and therefore must leave them entirely in the most capable hands of the ruler.
Under this pretext, true representative institutions and free expression of thought are suppressed. Everything is under the strict control of the government, and the people must bow their heads submissively and wait for some concession or consideration of their interests to come from above.
Fascist arguments about popular incompetence contain sophistry. Generally speaking, we confuse two different things: politics and administration. In other words, the general directives of public affairs and their supervision regarding the effective implementation of government services. In the latter case, clearly the people who were taken en masse were incompetent. All citizens do not and cannot understand law, justice, finance, public and economic education, etc. at the same time.
But they can not only monitor the execution of these various services, but also control them very well based on the results, and above all they can set general policy guidelines. Let’s consider a particular case. For example, if it is a question of protecting a country’s industry from foreign competition in the domestic market, only an expert can properly organize tariffs for that purpose. But simply as an expert on the issue, he would not be able to say whether the industry should be protected or not.
It is a measure that benefits some and harms others. This ensures that businessmen can sell their products and allows workers to find more jobs. But consumers who pay higher prices lose out. Producers of export goods lose money. Who should we help? There are no technical and economic standards to fundamentally solve this problem. This is a political question and depends on each side’s assessment of the interests at stake, to a greater or lesser extent. And such an assessment is not a problem that can be solved by precise, technical, scientific data.
It is up to the stakeholders themselves, in this case the people, the people as a whole, to discuss this issue and reach an agreement that reconciles differences. He will do so through the various means available in a democracy: his direct parliament, the press, mass organizations, etc. One method is the free expression of his thoughts. In this way, it will be possible to resolve the issue with minimal fraud or mistakes. And this is how this problem is effectively solved in a democracy. No matter how competent or honest you are, when handed over to a group of individuals closed off to four walls and given discretionary power, it is very likely, if not certain, that the solution will favor some at the expense of others.
And who can always guarantee their competence and integrity? This is why, in truly peacefully developing countries, a superficial or malicious observer sees an unrest that is virtually devoid of anything but fruitful, if heated, and life-giving discussions. Under the surface of seemingly stagnant peace, fascist countries give way to complaints, murmurs, bad feelings, conversations and rumors, but they do not achieve the same results. Because they are sterile, honest and frank manifestations of free thought.
Today, democratic peoples around the world are fighting for this freedom to speak out against the harsh guidance of authoritarian governments and to defend their rights and interests. The British, Americans, Russians and their allies are all fully aware of this.
About The Author
