Greece

In Chapter 16 of Postwar, Judt presents the transition of post-WWII Greece to first authoritarianism and then to democracy. In this can be seen certain aspects of the debate over theories of transition from authoritarianism to democracy and vice-versa.

Structural theories suggest that among the factors necessary to produce a democracy are political history, institutional legacies, and sociocultural traditions. In the case of Greece, Judt notes that "Greek nationalism was peculiarly insecure, even by regional standards" (505). A tulmultuous political past made the prospect of the future dim, and there was little trust put in the constitution as a source of authority. Both politicians and the increasingly powerful anti-communist military saw the security and stability of the state taking precedence over establishing effective democratic institutions. This failure eventually led to the dissolution of the parliament, which in turn led to a military coup that established an authoritarian government.

While the policies of this authoritarian government were reaching towards the absurd (for example, modern music, mini-skirts and long hair were banned), Judt suggests that eventual transition back to a relatively democratic form of government was brought about by primarily economic factors. Alongside an increasingly discontent middle class, Greece was shunned by the European Economic Community. This caused the regime to feel it necessary to legitimize their authority on the basis of force alone, which led to a military blunder that finally brought about the fall of the authoritarian government.

Surprisingly, democratic reform came about with relative ease, as a parliamentary republic was established. Judt attributes much of this to the ability of the new government to break with dark periods in its political past. This included forming new political parties, creating new institutions and declaring others (like the monarchy) a relic of the past. Greece was soon once again accepted into the European once more, a move that Judt later suggests was made easier by its foreign policy being compatible to western thought.

The transition of Greece from authoritarian to democratic rule seemed to, for the most part, follow the stages of the transition paradigm. There were a few "cracks in the ceiling," like students publicly opposing military rule, but there is little mention of any other reason for the authoritarian government's collapse other than its own foolish mistakes. However, the "breakthrough" was indeed rapid, and Greek has long since made it through the "consolidation" stage. Still, the period of political history that Judt presents in this chapter suggests that the transitions of government cannot be explained in such general terms. One of the catalysts for the shift to authoritarian rule via a failed democratic system was the freak event of an assassination. Also, although the overall result was a democratic system, Judt points out that the agent of that change, Constantine Karamanlis, was anything but a radical reformer. Instead, he was "as irreproachably nationalist and narrow-minded as anyone" (525). He had also been previously suspected of rigging elections. This suggests that the path to democracy does not ever conform to any one theory, and that it can be near to impossible to predict what path will lead to it. Perhaps factors outside the state--the pressure to democratize seen as a means of looking legitimate to the rest of the world--have some effect, and perhaps it is not high-minded ideology (freedom, liberty, etc.) but the need to adapt the form of government to a changing political environment.