Introduction
The resurgence of nationalist rhetoric in several democratic states has prompted renewed debate among historians about whether present-day right-wing movements represent a revival of interwar fascism. This essay examines that question through the analytic lens of ethnonationalism, a concept that gained currency in the late nineteenth century and reached its most extreme expression under fascist regimes of the 1920s and 1930s. The topic is approached from the standpoint of an undergraduate student of global history who seeks to understand both continuity and change in political ideas. Ethnonationalism remains relevant because it continues to shape debates over citizenship, immigration and national identity in established democracies. The central argument advanced here is that while contemporary movements in the United States and parts of Europe display clear ethnonationalist traits, they operate within institutional frameworks that prevent them from replicating the one-party authoritarian states of the interwar period. Consequently, they should be regarded as partial echoes rather than fully fascist phenomena.
Historical Development of Ethnonationalism
Ethnonationalism emerged as a distinct ideological current during the final decades of the nineteenth century. Earlier romantic thinkers such as Johann Gottfried Herder had already linked language and culture to collective identity, yet it was the rise of Social Darwinist thought and the consolidation of nation-states that transformed these ideas into exclusionary political programmes. By the early twentieth century, intellectuals in Italy and Germany argued that the nation constituted an organic community whose survival required the defence of ethnic homogeneity. These arguments acquired institutional force after the First World War.
Fascist movements capitalised on this intellectual climate. In Italy, Benito Mussolini’s regime proclaimed the state as the supreme expression of the national will and enacted laws that subordinated individual rights to collective ethnic destiny (Payne, 1995). In Germany, National Socialist ideology fused ethnonationalism with biological racism, producing policies of exclusion and, ultimately, extermination. The 1935 Nuremberg Laws exemplified how citizenship could be redefined along ethnic lines, stripping Jews and other minorities of legal protections. Historians such as Roger Griffin have characterised this synthesis as a form of “palingenetic ultranationalism,” in which national rebirth was predicated upon the purification of the body politic (Griffin, 1991). Understanding this historical trajectory is essential because it supplies the analytic categories—ethnic exclusivity, anti-pluralism and the cult of national regeneration—against which later movements can be measured.
Contemporary Manifestations and Institutional Constraints
Since the early 2010s, political parties and leaders across Europe and North America have revived ethnonationalist themes. In the United States, debates over immigration policy frequently invoke the notion that the nation’s cultural core is threatened by demographic change. Similar arguments appear in Hungary under Viktor Orbán, where legislation has explicitly prioritised ethnic Hungarians in matters of citizenship and residency. These positions draw on the same conceptual reservoir that fascist movements exploited, yet important differences remain.
Democratic institutions continue to constrain the translation of ethnonationalist rhetoric into totalitarian practice. Regular multiparty elections, independent courts and constitutional protections for minority rights have, thus far, prevented the emergence of single-party dictatorships. Research on “competitive authoritarianism” indicates that even when illiberal leaders win office, they must still contend with opposition parties, civil society organisations and, in many cases, international legal obligations (Levitsky and Way, 2010). Furthermore, the absence of a coherent revolutionary ideology aimed at abolishing liberal democracy distinguishes most present-day movements from classical fascism. While ethnonationalist sentiments echo earlier patterns, the structural prerequisites for fascism—an explicit rejection of parliamentary rule and the creation of a permanent one-party state—have not materialised in consolidated democracies.
Nevertheless, the persistence of exclusionary language carries risks. When political discourse frames minorities as perpetual outsiders, it can erode the norms of mutual toleration that sustain democratic life. Scholars have therefore cautioned against complacency, noting that institutional safeguards require active defence rather than passive reliance (Mudde, 2019).
Conclusion
Ethnonationalism, forged in the late nineteenth century and radicalised under fascist rule, continues to influence political rhetoric in the twenty-first century. The evidence examined in this essay suggests that contemporary right-wing movements reproduce certain historical motifs, particularly the equation of national identity with ethnic belonging. At the same time, entrenched democratic institutions and the lack of a fully articulated revolutionary project limit the extent to which these movements can be labelled fascist in the classical sense. For students of global history, the task remains to distinguish between rhetorical continuity and institutional rupture. Doing so clarifies both the dangers posed by exclusionary politics and the resilience of democratic frameworks that, although imperfect, have so far prevented a wholesale return to interwar authoritarianism.
References
- Griffin, R. (1991) The Nature of Fascism. London: Pinter.
- Levitsky, S. and Way, L. A. (2010) Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Mudde, C. (2019) The Far Right Today. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Payne, S. G. (1995) A History of Fascism, 1914–1945. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
