Nation-Building and Contested Identities - MEK

MIHÁLY SZILÁGYI-GÁLperiod. In this respect, the concept of the “people” refers to a communityof individuals who have a sense of togetherness. The first part refers to thegeneral European context, while the second addresses the specificity ofthe Romanian case.According to Martin Blinkhorn, it is difficult to offer a clear distinctionbetween fascism and conservatism within the broader right/radical-right axisfor the interwar period, since there were various blends of these orientationsthat revealed the problematic ideological standing of fascism. 1 In a similarvein, Seymour Martin Lipset describes fascism as “extremism of the center,”because, he argues, it lacks any distinct ideological foundation and could beideologically defined as a synthesis of attitudes from both extremes of theleft-right axis. 2 Given its overall authoritarianism, extremism and the adoptionof different characteristics from both the left and the right – such as theplebeian style on the one hand, and the elitist tendencies, on the other – fascism,similar to communism, stood outside of the left-right axis.Blinkhorn also observes that, after 1919, every European conservativeformation reached a compromise with the fascists. This wasmainly due to their attempt to preserve their own economic, militaryand, in the case of Germany, administrative positions. Moreover,Blinkhorn considers that the strong organizational power of fascism, aswell as the misunderstanding of their goals, also facilitated a fascistconservativecooperation. As Blinkhorn notes, Italian nationalism andconservative Catholicism, the Spanish monarcho-fascism during theSecond Republic, as well as the Austrian Heimwehr from 1930 onwardswere able to coexist with fascist formations. At the same time, themarkedly divergent attitudes towards parliamentarism and constitutionalismremained a major ideological difference between fascism andconservatism.However, as Jeremy Noakes points out, beyond the actual deceptionof the conservatives in the political dimension, there were other conceptualdifferences, as well. 3 In the case of Germany, the conservatives held anetatist position, whereas the fascists adopted a “völkisch” understanding ofthe socio-cultural unity. An important aspect that seemed to be acceptablefor the conservatives was the apparent willingness of the fascists to establishan organic unity of the German people. However, the anti-traditionalism ofthe fascists and their obvious leaning towards certain elements of socialismwas unacceptable for the conservatives. Noakes argues that, at some point,the conservatives saw in the urbanized, alienated, atomized, materialist, andsecular society something that was just the opposite of their own world-view.Starting with a strategic compromise to strengthen their positions andincrease their popular support, and also following an apparently sharedvision of the Gemeinschaft, the conservatives became disillusioned with the82