Page - 341 - in Otto Bauer (1881–1938) - Thinker and Politician

the spectre of fascism 341 wehr in thenewcorporativestate–oncean indispensableaid in thestruggle for power; it nowstood in thewayof authoritarian rule. Following a govern- ment decision in 1935, theHeimwehrwas co-opted by the Fatherland Front and subjected to state control.On9October 1936, itwasdissolved.Once the Heimwehrhadbeenabolishedandthensdapdissolved(1935), theprocessof implementing theAustriandictatorshipwasaccomplished.98Aquestionthat BauerhimselfposedinhisanalysisofAustrofascismarises:didtheDollfussdic- tatorshiphaveatrulyfascistcharactercomparabletoHitler’sandMussolini’s? Thiswasdefinitelynot thecase, even if, asSteinerpointsout, answers to this tria’ to ‘Federal StateofAustria’. Theorganisedprofessional sectors of the authoritarian statereplacedthedemocraticrepublicanform.Theorganisationalprinciplewasthatthe organsofthestatewerenotappointed ‘frombelow’ ingeneralelections,but ‘fromabove’ by higher bodies. Unlike in parliamentary democracy, itwas not the legislative organs, but thehighest executivebodies that exerteddefinite influenceover theactionsof rep- resentative bodies in the federal states. The executive bodies were subordinate to the government led by the chancellor, and the constitution gave the chancellor the power todecideoverthepolitical line. With regard to state legislation, four advisory bodieswere created (the state coun- cil, state economycouncil, state council of culture, anddistrict council). Their purpose was to assess laws prepared through these organs andpass their assessment on to the government.Theassessmentwasnotbinding for thegovernment; it couldmake itsown decisions.Furthermore,theconstitutionenvisagedtheappointmentofaparliamentcon- sistingof 49membersof theadvisorybodies (in reality, however, this parliamentnever met).Parliamenthadtherighttovoteonlaws,yet thisrightwas limitedtoeitheraccept- ingorrejectingproposalssubmittedbythegovernmentinitsunadulteratedform. Thelegislativesectionsoftheindividual federalstates(thestateparliamentsorLand- tage) consistedof the elected representatives of cultural communities andprofessional sectors (however, no elections ever materialised). The federal state governments and mayorofViennawereappointedandrecalledbythefederalpresident,who, inturn,was tobeelectedbyanassemblyofallmayors.Thefederalpresidenthadtherighttoappoint andrecall thechancellor. Therealitywasthatnofederalpresidentelectionstookplaceduringtheentireperiod ofcorporativestatepowerfrom1934–8becausethepresident’stermofofficewasextended (hehadbeenelectedin1934).Thefederalpresidenthadnoauthorityoverthechancellor, whoexercisedhispowerinadictatorial fashion.CompareAdamovichandSpanner1957, pp.33–5.SeealsoZöllner1979,p.515. 98 Botzdistinguishesthreephasesofthisdictatorship:(1)thephaseofthelateparliamentary government (May 1932–March 1933); (2) the phase of authoritarian semi-dictatorship and increasing fascisisation (until January 1934); (3) thephaseof advanced semi-fascist authoritariandictatorship (untilOctober 1935ormid-1936);before (4) the finalphaseof partialdefascisisationandbureaucraticallyossifiedcorporatism.SeeBotz1984,pp.320–7.