Fascism and Democracy: What Warning Signs Are There in France?

The debate over the fascist threat in France often falls into two traps: mechanically equating the present with the 1930s, or believing that fascism could return only in the exact form of the regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. Several researchers working on Nazism, the far right and authoritarian regimes advocate a different approach: examining the political, social and institutional mechanisms that can weaken a democracy.

This approach does not consist of predicting a preordained future. Rather, it calls for identifying concrete transformations: the growing weight of the far right in electoral debate, the concentration of executive power, the expansion of exceptional measures, pressure on checks and balances, or the normalization of rhetoric portraying certain populations as a threat.

Fascism Does Not Always Appear in Its Historical Form

In the interwar period, fascist movements notably relied on highly structured, hierarchical and often militarized parties organized around a leader. This configuration does not encompass every possible form of a contemporary neo-fascist movement.

The analyses referred to instead highlight a more diffuse set of forces: violent groups able to intimidate or attack, media outlets, electoral organizations, support within certain business circles and the circulation of shared ideological themes. The phenomenon would therefore not necessarily depend on a single mass party or an identifiable command centre.

This reading also stresses the persistence of historical elements such as racism, antisemitism, colonialism, imperialism and certain forms of economic domination. The military defeat of the Nazi regime in 1945 would not, on its own, have eliminated all the ideological and social forces that had enabled its emergence.

France’s Relationship with Fascism Is Not Limited to an External Past

Presenting fascism as a danger wholly foreign to France overlooks part of the country’s history. The Vichy regime collaborated with the Nazi occupier, including in the persecution and deportation of Jews. After the Second World War, far-right currents also resumed political activity, particularly in the context of the colonial wars in Indochina and Algeria.

From the 1980s onward, the Front National, now called the Rassemblement National, established a lasting far-right electoral presence. This rise fuels questions about the political and media normalization of currents that had previously been marginalized.

The issue goes beyond electoral results alone. The central question concerns the relationships between a political force, existing institutions, economic elites, the media and security policies. As the analysis of the mechanisms of coups d’état and institutional instability points out, democratic vulnerabilities can never be reduced to the direct seizure of power by a single actor.

A Fifth Republic Marked by Strong Executive Power

The concerns expressed also relate to the institutions of the Fifth Republic. The 1958 Constitution established a semi-presidential system in which the President of the Republic has significant powers. Its critics see, in certain circumstances, a highly presidentialized system that distances the executive from ordinary forms of parliamentary and civic challenge.

The dissolution of the National Assembly in June 2024 is cited as an illustration of presidential pre-eminence. Article 16 of the Constitution, which provides for exceptional powers in particular circumstances, is also seen as a major point of concern because of the concentration of power it permits.

These debates form part of a broader crisis of political representation and institutional functioning. The fragmentation of the Assembly, the difficulty of forming majorities and tensions surrounding government action already contribute to placing the Fifth Republic under strain.

The State of Emergency and the Incorporation of Exception into Ordinary Law

Another warning sign concerns the lasting use of exceptional measures. Following the 2015 attacks, France was under a state of emergency for two years, from 2015 to 2017. It notably permitted administrative searches, house arrests and bans on demonstrations.

At the end of that period, the law strengthening internal security and the fight against terrorism incorporated into ordinary law several measures associated with the state of emergency, including protection perimeters, certain administrative measures and powers of dissolution.

According to the analysis developed by specialists in authoritarian regimes, a state of emergency can produce two simultaneous effects: restricting certain civil liberties and strengthening the concentration of executive power. It is these two developments, when they become entrenched over time, that may fuel a process of autocratization.

The Construction of Internal Enemies

The designation of groups regarded as dangerous to the nation is another element found in far-right discourse. Non-European immigrants and Muslims are frequently portrayed not as individuals with diverse circumstances, but as a collective, identity-based or civilizational threat.

This rhetoric often combines two ideas: a nation allegedly in danger of disappearing and the existence of an organized strategy of infiltration into associations, sport, the media or the workplace. Researchers compare this type of conspiratorial narrative with older antisemitic methods based on accusations of concealment and conspiracy.

The key concern lies in the spread of these themes beyond the movements that explicitly claim them. When vocabulary or interpretive frameworks originating on the far right are adopted in broader political spaces, they can help make representations that were once marginal seem ordinary.

Checks and Balances: Journalists, Universities, Associations and the Justice System

Illiberal democracies generally seek to reduce the influence of actors capable of challenging power: journalists, academics, lawyers, human rights associations and civil society organizations. Verbal or political attacks on these institutions can therefore become an indicator of democratic decline.

Controversies targeting university research, the Ligue des droits de l’homme, or the place of the rule of law are part of this concern. They raise an essential question: are independent institutions viewed as safeguards of pluralism, or as obstacles to be removed?

The issue is all the more sensitive because security measures and political support for law enforcement can durably alter the balance between protecting public order and respecting fundamental freedoms.

Nothing Is Predetermined

The history of Nazism is neither a model to be replicated point by point nor a prophecy. Above all, it shows that authoritarian shifts result from decisions, alliances, concessions and conflicts. Hitler’s rise to power on January 30, 1933, was not inevitable: it depended on choices made by political and social leaders in a time of crisis.

This lesson also applies to the present. Concern about an authoritarian drift can be argued without falling into fatalism. Safeguarding civil liberties, pluralism, the independence of research, the role of the press and the rights of minorities is part of an ongoing democratic debate whose outcome is never predetermined.

FAQ

Is contemporary fascism identical to that of the 1930s?

No. The historical forms of the militarized party and the all-powerful leader are not the only possible configurations. Contemporary analyses examine the political, media, economic and activist networks that can contribute to an authoritarian dynamic.

Why is the state of emergency a democratic issue?

Because it can restrict freedoms and strengthen the executive. When exceptional measures are durably incorporated into ordinary law, the question of their oversight and proportionality becomes central.

Should an authoritarian drift be considered inevitable?

No. History shows that political developments result from choices and balances of power. Identifying risks is precisely intended to inform democratic debate and defend checks and balances.