undefined | Better HN

0 points3170703d ago0 comments

Not sure if it matters, but that is at least not true for nazi-style fascism. In there, they had a very strong rule of law for most people. But, there was a dual, a parallel system where there was no law at all, it operated outside of the legal system. You could win a trial and be exhonorated, only to be taken away by the gestapo at the door of the courtroom.

It was important for the nazis to keep businesses running, and have most people continue their lives without noticing major changes. Most people would not come into contact with the second system, and barely knew it existed. But if you entered the second system, you often would not come out alive.

This way, they could transit into an authoritarian system without hurting the economy. They knew this and planned it, and it turned out to be correct.

0 comments

applfanboysbgon3d ago

If you can be whisked off to a separate system where you don't have legal rights, you by definition don't have rule of law. Literally the singular, most core principle of the concept is that all persons are equal under the law, whether they are royalty or Jewish. "Strong rule of law for most people" is an inherently contradictory phrase.

317070OP3d ago

If you want to read more: the concept is called "the dual state" [1] after the eponymous book [0]

I agree that the phrase is somewhat contradictory, but it is the best way to describe what was going on. As long as you were within the confines of the normative state, you experienced a rule of law. But as soon as you stepped into the prerogative state, anything could happen. So a "rule of law", except that it didn't apply to everybody, but only to most people. And importantly, the existence of the prerogative state is mostly hidden when you're in the normative state (so unlike a king, which everybody knew was outside of the law)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dual_State

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_state_(model)

Epa0953d ago

And of anyone is interested, but don't want to read a whole book, I found this article to be a good explanation https://archive.ph/ah2L0

grey-area3d ago

This is not true. The judiciary was undermined then wholesale replaced and courtroom trials were a sham under the nazis.

There was no rule of law, just arbitrary decisions handed down by nazi party judges.

watwut2d ago

It was not strong rule of law at all. Germany was chaotic messy place back then. And in addition, courts were right wing biased long before nazi.

Also, the existence of parallel non judicial system makes it literal opposite of strong rule of law. It is not a rule of law when a SA thug can beat and imprison you for winning over him in cards - which was the literal situation in Third Reich.

> Most people would not come into contact with the second system, and barely knew it existed.

Everyone knew about the parallel system. The fear and terror were base of power. There were no attempts to hide it and many attempts to publicize it by nazi.

Moreover, the whole thing started by repression and arrests of high profile political opposition. People do notice that famous writers are in hiding, that the leaders of the strongest party run away, are in prison and then dead. It was impossible to not know about the parallel system or widely publicized repressions. But, a German in question might have been someone who agree with those or benefits from those.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse