- Grant]

) ECENTLY certain or-

gans of the _ press

n the Allied and neu-
‘ral countries have com-
i enced very. energetic re-

‘t-earches into the question of
‘yhat democracy is. ‘These re-
-earches by no means bear a
surely abstract character. On
the contrary, they have been
‘sreompted by an obvious dis-
Watisfaction with the very con-
rete forms in which the will of
he peoples has been finding
‘xpression in a number of lib-
“rated European countries and
Pi the. terminological researches

td of the dissatisfied authors usu-~

Aially result in one and only one
“ discovery, that there is a fun-

’damental difference between
the two “conceptions” of de-
“Imocracy, namely, the Soviet

@and the Anglo-Saxon.
Thus the English liberal Man-
G:hester Guardian says: “It
would seem to be necessary to
iave some international agree-
nent on the meaning of cer-
tain fashionable ‘expressions.’
7 And it goes. on to explain which
fashionable expressions are
oerplexing. It would like to
j now: “What is a democrat, a
| ditlerite and a fascist? And
oe less important, what is an

j anti-fascist ??’

=
=
=

@
\NOTHER English newspaper,
the conservative Observer—
nm an article by its reviewer who

ng nom de plume “Student of
Surope”’—expresses itself even
nore definitely. It. asserts that
‘n the Soviet Union “democracy
appears to mean something
| afferent from, and: in some re-
j-mects even the opposite to,
\rhat the English - speaking
-yorld understands by the
‘erm.” To these “differences
in definition” the newspaper
attaches “very great political
# mportance.’

It cannot be denied that
there is. an extremely im-
portant difference between
the democracy that prevails
in the Soviet Union and that
which exists in a number of
other countries. That there
is a difference: between the
(| social systems and ideologies
i of the USSR and the Anglo-
4 Saxon countries is beyond dis-
pute. It is equally beyond

Pipl

%; Should not serve as an ob-
|. Stacle to firm and durable co-
operation among the Allies.

Of course, a country which
jknews no exploitation of man
# by man, a country in which not
| only~political but also economic
jequality prevails, a country in
j which democratic liberties are
: not only proclaimed de jure but
pare fully guaranteed de facto
qby the material conditions of
‘social life, a country in which
Senuine freedom of nations ex-
oe and indestructible friend-
ato between these nations has

, been created—such a country

has-~ undoubtedly made more
progress alotig the road to de-
mocracy. It is also true that
Soviet democracy cannot be re-
garded as identical with Eng-
, lish democracy. That the eco

i dispute that this difference |

AO Ty

nomic basis of society in the
Soviet Union is different from
that in England is commonly
known. This directly affects
the question of democracy, in
that it is precisely the economic
system of -the Soviet Union
that guarantees the people the

‘ opportunity. of exercising their

writes under the very promis- ~

- ture of fascism,

democratic rights, including
such fundamental. and vital
rights as the right to work, the
right to education, freedom from
exploitation and from national
and racial discrimination.

Under. these circumstances,
the difference between Soviet
democracy and, for example,
English democracy, is of course
not only a “difference of def-
inition.” Nevertheless this
does not mean that the Soviet
people and the democrats in
other countries cannot find
common ground and a common
criterion of what should be re-
garded as democratic. ...

It is particularly: easy to dis-
pel doubts on this score atthe
present time, when the war
against the brown plague of
Hitlerism: is still in progress
and when the cornerstone of
the future world order which
will make the recurrence of fas-
cist aggression impossible, has
to be laid; for in our days de-
mocracy is revealed in the
struggle against fascism. In

in the population and pledged
to the earliest possible estab-
lishment through free elections
of governments’ responsive to
the will of the. people.”

MUS the Crimea agreements

recognize the need for the
democratic solution of all un-
gent and important problems
that arise as a result of the
liberation of Europe from de-
structive fascist tyranny. One
would think that the clarity of
these decisions, permeated as
they are with a spirit of respect
for the democratic rights of
European nations, would pre-

“clude the possibility of all mis-

interpretation. But as the say-
ing goes, even multiplication
tables could be interpreted in
different ways if it suited any-
body’s purpese to do so.

Many newly-hatched cham-
pions of democracy appear to
argue that to achieve the com-
plete triumph of democracy it
is simply necessary to restore
ail the. forms of politeal life
that existed in European coun-
tries before the present war. It
is sufficient to glance back at
the past to convince oneself of
the unsoundness of such an ar-
gument. Jt is no secret that
in a number of European coun-
tries, not to speak of fascist
Germany and Italy of course,

A How Do We Define

em rol racy? By A. Sokolov

It is conimon knowledge that
democracy in countries like
Hungary, Romania and Bul-
garia fared no better. During
the two Gecades between the
First and Second World Wars,
the reaction which reigned in
those countries strangled the
virile popular forces. Not only
was the Communist Party driv-
en underground, but every ex-
pression of progressive politi-
eal thought was severely pun-
ished. Race hatred and brutal
chauvinism were systematically
cultivated; imperialist tenden-
cies and great power plans of
aggression were encouraged.

Under -these conditions, the
carpetbaggers of Hitler im-
perialism at the proper, moment
quickly found common ground
with the reactionary ruling
cliques of these small coun-
tries, who unhesitatingly flung
their peoples into the bloody
vortex of the war of aggres-
sion unleashed by the Germans.

Nor can the regimes in pre-
war Yugoslavia and Greece be
described as democratic from
any point of view. In Yugo-
slavia, for example, during the
election to the skupschina which
were carried through by the
Stojadinovie government in De-
cember, 1938, a number of can-
didates on the official ticket
were declared elected although

A Soviet Writer Views Democracy In Pre-War
And Post-War Europe.

our days a democrat is one who
resolutely and relentlessly
fights fascism.
A democrat is one who not
only in words but also in
deeds is prepared to wage a
struggle until all fascist ele-
ments and all fascist influ-
ences are completely ‘extir-
pated; for the penicious na-
the  mon-
strous danger it represents
to the freedom and very lives
of the peoples, is clear to
every right-thinking man.
Freedom for the people means
death to fascism.

It is on the recognition of
this general principle, on which
the Soviet people and the sin-
cere supponters of democracy in
other countries can find com-
mon ground, that the decisions
of the Grimea Conference rest.
The three great Allied powers
pledged themselves to help the
people. of liberated Europe “to
solve by democratic means their
pressing political and economic
problems.”

They also made provision for
a policy which will ‘enable the
liberated peoples to destroy the
last vestiges of Nazism and
fascism’ and to create demo-
cratic institutions of their own
choice.” The three great Allies
agreed to help the. peoples,
where conditions require it, to
‘form - interim governmental
authorities broadly representa-

-ttive of all democratic elements

f°-AGE 9 — P.A- MAGAZINE SECTION

the political system that -pre-
vailed before the war had very
tittle in: common with democ-
racy.

It is sufficient to recall, for
example, the regime that exist-
ed in prewar Poland. This re-
gime arose as a result of a vio-
lent coup de’etat against the
people brought about by Pilsud-
ski and his cliqué in 1926. The
fascist constitution of 1935; the
inhuman national oppression of
11,000,000 Ukrainians, Byelo-
russians and Lithuanians; the
disfranchisement of workers,
peasants and progressive intel-
ligentsia; the feudal latifundia,
nearly as large as whole coun-
tries owned by the Radziwills
and the Sapiehas; the notorious
concentration camp in Bereza-
Kartushka and the Brest cen-
tral prison in which were incar-
cerated all those who dared to
raise their voices against the
rule of the corrupt clique of re-
actionary politicians; the venal-
ity and  obscurantism in all
spheres. of domestic politics; the

reckless flirting with Hitler
Germany, and the _ constant
anti-Soviet intrigues in the

sphere of foreign policy—such
are the most memorable fea-
tures of that regime, of the
restoration of which the bank-
rupt Raczkiewicz - Arciszewski
clique, their abettors and pat-
rons in reactionary circles in
‘Allied countries, are still
dreaming.

- candidates,

they had polled only 10 to 20
votes; whereas the opposition
who had _ polled
votes running into tens of
thousands, were declared not
elected.

In Greece the fascist dicta-
torship of Metaxas was Tam-
pant for a number of years be-
‘fore the present war. The Aus-
tralian author Aldridge, who
was in Crete with an Allied Ex-
peditionary Force in the spring
of 1941, shows fairly clearly in
his novel The Sea Eagle that
the struggle waged by the
Greek partisans against the
“jronheads,” as they called the
German invaders, was a direct
continuation of the sel?-sacri-
ficing struggle they had for-
merly waged against Greek fas-
cism, against the brutal Met-
axas regime.

UR picture would be incom-

plete if we did not mention
also the notorious regime of
prewar Finland. Was it de-
mocracy which gave the Fin
nish warmongers every oppor-
tunity to plunge the country
into two disastrous wars
against the Soviet Union? No
sane person car deny-that this
is an extremely important cri-
terion of the regime. that pre-
vailed in Finland.

To characerize this regime
it is sufficient to recall the
fact that it had outlawed the

party which new, at the very

first elections held under
something like free condi-
tions, polled one-fourth of

the total vote in spite of the
fact that it had neither the
time nor the opportunity to
make preparations for the
election campaign.

Such was the situation in a
number cof East European coun-
tries. But even in the West
Huropean countries, which have

old) democratic traditions, the ”

political structure in the prewar
years was so honeycombed with
reaction that fascist agents
were able unhindered to ‘in-
trigue against the people and to
weave their net of treachery
and national betrayal. This was
the situation not only in France
but also in Denmark, Norway,
Belgium and Holland. As for
the countries of the Iberian
Peninsula, the anti-popular Te-
gimes established there were as
like the fascism of Hitler and
Mussolini as peas in a pod.

This obviously unsatisfactory
state of affairs as regards de-
mocracy in many countries on
the European Continent pri-
marily explains Hitler’s easy
victories in the first stage of
the war, before he attacked the
Soviet Union.. Had democracy
not been.so enfeebled, had it
really reigned in prewar Eu-
rope, the world would have
been saved from the tragedy of
Dunkirk, and from the humili-
ating farce in the Compiegne
woods, from the long years of
domination of the Hitler invad-
ers in a number of West Euro-
pean countries, and from a
large share of the extremely
heavy sacrifices the freedom-
loving peoples were obliged to
make on the altar of the strug-
gle against. the German. fascist
aggressors.

HARDLY anybody would. dare

deny today that Germany’s
initial victories were not due
to the “invincibility” of the
German fascist army or to the
“brilliant intuition’? of the cor-
poral-strategist Hitler. But
these victories were not acci-
dental. Such accidents do not

_ happen.

Fundamentally, as all
thoughtful- and. unbiased ob-
servers helonging to the most
diverse political camps admit,
they were due to the fact that
democracy was on the decline
in the countries which became
Hitler’s victims and strangled
in those which became his al-
lies. On the other hand, as
a result of the notorious Mu-
nich policy of abetting the
aggressor, the great demo-
eratic powers of Western
Europe—Great Britain and
France—were not prepared
to offer resistance to the
German-fascist hordes.

Is it surprising then that the
peoples of the liberated coun-
tries of Europe want to have

‘a democracy free from the

fatal defects it suffered from
in the pre-war years, a de-
mocracy renovated and pulsat-
ing with youthful vitality? A
democrat is one who bravely
looks ahead and not one who
furtively looks back. Such in-
deed were the great democrats
and popular leaders of whom ci-
vilized nations are proud. The
peoples who have ‘passed
through the ordeal of the most
arduous of wars want their
will, their desire for a progres-

sive policy which will insure e

a durable peace and internation-

al security, to be really respect-
ed.

SATURDAY, JUNE 2, 1945.