Postwar Transitions

Judt’s approach to explaining post-war Europe succeeds in disproving the generally accepted model of the democratic transition theory. Contrary to straightforward forms of regime change studied so far in class, Judt provides an alternative perspective on the changes occurring in post-war Europe. He essentially portrays the Social-Democratic movement that occurred in post-war Europe as a prolonged period of transition in which the end goal was not necessarily destined to be a democratic change.

It is interesting how Judt provides context for his arguments from a historian’s point of view. He takes care to show transition over time in order to draw attention to the unique nature of Europe’s period of transition. Judt argues in chapter VIII, The Politics of Stability, that European states were in a unique position immediately following the end of the war. Their primary concern was to forget and absolve themselves of any connection to the war and its causes. Judt argues that this meant that Europe was neither predisposed to adopt democratic nor communist regime types, but rather was willing to accept whatever would provide immediate stability in the post-war system.

The significance that Judt draws out of this later in his book is that Europe was able to function in this manner. That is to say, democracy was not required for European states to exist in the post-war system. Even in the absence of democracy in practice, there was a political compatibility with the West in Europe. This political compatibility, Judt argues is what made, for example, “the democratic transition of Mediterranean Europe…quite the most remarkable and unexpected development of the age.” (523) Unexpected and remarkable in that states such as Franco’s Spain had functioned while isolating themselves politically for so long, only to emerge a democracy in the end. Judt says this is largely due to the fact that economically and socially Spain had evolved beyond its current political capacity.

All in all, I find Judt to be drawing attention to the validity of democratic transition theory but at the same time questioning its acceptance as a straightforward, and unchanging model. He proves, by providing context in the history of post-war Europe, that nations do not necessarily always immediately adopt democratic regimes in periods of transition but rather, the underlying the social framework first needs to be in accordance with the imposition of democracy. In other words, states only transition toward democracy if they need to. In post-war Europe there was no direct need.