The Semantics of “Democracy” in Social-Democratic parties. Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, 1917-1939

My article offers a transnational analysis of the social-democratic struggle with the concept of ‘democracy’ in interwar Europe. I will compare the redefinition of this concept in Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands. My article also shows that the Swedish, German and Dutch social-democratic parties were inspired by each other and borrowed aspects of alternative democratic systems from each other. I will argue that they used at least four contesting definitions. ‘Social democracy’ was the traditional name for the first stage of the Marxist utopia, based on social equality. ‘Political democracy’ designated the parliamentary system, based on universal suffrage. ‘Disciplined democracy’ focused more on the responsibility of voters and politicians alike to establish a powerful government. ‘Essential democracy’ was a moral principle and a way of life, based on liberty and equality. The last two forms of democracy have been ignored by scholars, although they played an important role in the debate among social-democrats in interwar Europe.
My article will show that the choice between these four definitions of ‘democracy’ depended on the position of the social-democratic party in the national political landscape. The Swedish case, where the Folkhemmet consolidated its position in the 1920s and 1930s, offers a good example of the expansion of the concept of ‘democracy’. After the ‘political democracy’ was completed the Swedish social-democrats tried to use their influential position in government to introduce ‘social democracy’. Their counterparts in the Weimar Republic, by contrast, were not able to democratize non-political areas of society. They struggled to defend the new system of ‘political democracy’ against its many enemies. In the traditional historiography, the Weimar Republic has become a symbol of a democracy which could not defend itself against anti-democrats. However, in the 1920s the anti-extremist measures taken by SPD politicians were seen as an example of a ‘disciplined democracy’ which took an offensive stance against its adversaries. Lastly, the Dutch social-democrats adopted both ‘political democracy’ and ‘essential democracy’. In order to escape their isolated position in politics and society they rejected ‘social democracy’ early on. Their embrace of ‘political democracy’ should also be seen in the light of the SDAP’s efforts to present itself as trustworthy allies of the bourgeois parties. Since the social-Dutch democrats were not fully accepted, they feared that ‘disciplined democracy’ could hurt their own position. At the same time, they stressed the importance of the protection of the democratic principles against communists and fascists. These extremist threats fanned the social-democratic emphasis on ‘essential democracy’ in the 1930s.
By analyzing the social-democratic use of the concept of ‘democracy’, I will both follow and augment a recent historiographical trend. Recently, historians have rightly drawn attention to the debates in the 1920s and 1930s about the true meaning of ‘democracy’. As a result, the historiographical focus is slowly shifting away from the struggle between democrats and anti-democrats. Instead, historians examine the different definitions of ‘democracy’ that were current during the interwar period. I will corroborate that the Swedish, German and Dutch social-democrats did not have a single, clear-cut definition of ‘democracy’. They already adopted the term since the 19th century, but the economic, social and political developments of the interwar years forced them to redefine ‘democracy’ in various ways. Especially my analysis of the social-democratic ideas on ‘disciplined democracy’ and ‘essential democracy’ sheds new light on the political culture of the interwar period.