Page - 82 - in Austrian Law Journal, Volume 1/2015

ALJ 1/2015 Alexander Somek 82 Since authoritarianism is basically about obedience it is consistently applied only if the exercise of authority is itself presented as obedience to something greater. Moreover, given that obedience is owed, in its authoritarian form, precisely because one does not understand the reason for obe- dience, truly authoritarian rule is based upon blind faith or unconditional devotion to a cause. - With that in mind we can return to Heller’s little piece and tease out two complementary understandings of authoritarian liberalism. XI. The ambivalence of authoritarian liberalism In retrospect, Heller’s tentative exploration of “authoritarian liberalism” must appear to be so plausible that it almost looks trivial. Drastic historic examples such as Chile may come to mind. At a theoretical level, the writings by Friedrich August von Hayek have made it quite plain that eco- nomic liberalism is not too easily reconciled with democratic majorities. Hayek believed that the ideal legislature would not be numerous and composed of persons of mature age, elected for a long period, such as fifteen years. Also, he wanted the election of representatives to be reduced to a once in a lifetime opportunity for citizens who belong to a certain age group. This would increase the incentive for choosing wisely.91 The concept, however, loses its trivial ring if one moves beyond Heller and explores its deep am- bivalence. “Authoritarian liberalism” can signify, first, a preservation strategy of economic liberalism to which the bourgeoisie shifts in times of crisis. This would be fully consistent with the prevalence of capitalism over democracy with which this article began. Economic liberalism would come first, authoritarianism second and play only an ancillary role. Owing to the prevalence of liberalism the authoritarianism would be rather mild and merely manifest, for example, in the indignation with which parliamentary opposition to austerity measures is met: they “do not get it,” they “act irre- sponsibly,” they “have no idea what is at stake.” Yet, particularly in the context of the European Union we have to reckon with a second version of authoritarian liberalism. It would actually put authoritarianism at the centre and view liberalism as a means to pursue it. Again, liberalism would definitely exercise a tempering influence. In order to gain a better perspective on this second version, we again need to return to the 1930s, in this case, to a first major work by the political scientist Eric(h) Voegelin. In his 1936 book The Authoritarian State,92 which appears to offer an apology of the Austrian Ständestaat,93 he re- constructed the foundations of authoritarian governments under conditions where these con- ceive of themselves as charged with a founding mission. 91 See FRIEDRICH AUGUST VON HAYEK, LAW, LEGISLATION AND LIBERTY, VOL. 3, 113 (Chicago University Press, 1979). See the highly instructive analysis by William E. Scheuerman, The Unholy Alliance of Carl Schmitt and Friedrich A. Hayek, 4 CONSTELLATIONS, 1997, at 172. 92 See ERICH VOEGELIN, DER AUTORITÄRE STAAT: EIN VERSUCH ÜBER DAS ÖSTERREICHISCHE STAATSPROBLEM (G. Winkler ed., Springer, 1997). The English translation is: THE AUTHORITARIAN STATE: AN ESSAY ON THE PROBLEM OF THE AUSTRIAN STATE (R. Hein trans., University of Missouri Press, 1989). 93 See ERIKA WEINZIERL, Historical Commentary on the Period (F. Lawrence trans.) in THE AUTHORITARIAN STATE 10, 27 (note 92).