Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are the defining characteristics of fascism according to political scientists?
Executive Summary
Political scientists and historians converge on a core set of traits that define fascism: authoritarian ultranationalism, rejection of liberal democracy, and mobilizing myths of national rebirth, combined with violence, militarism, and suppression of opposition. Debates persist about boundaries and emphasis—some scholars stress palingenetic (rebirth) nationalism as the defining ideological core, while others prioritize behavioral features like paramilitarism and one-party mobilization—but the scholarly consensus points to a multi-dimensional phenomenon recognizable across cases [1] [2] [3].
1. Why scholars say fascism is more than “just authoritarianism” — the ideological core that scholars point to
Leading analysts argue that fascism cannot be reduced to mere authoritarian rule; it is a revolutionary, palingenetic form of ultranationalism that seeks a national rebirth from perceived decadence or decline. Roger Griffin’s “palingenetic ultranationalism” frames fascism as a mythic program promising collective regeneration rather than a stable conservative order, placing emphasis on transformative goals and mass mobilization [2] [4]. This interpretive core distinguishes fascist movements from other right-wing or authoritarian currents because the ideology fuses myth, destiny, and a call to remold the nation—an element present in classical regimes like Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany, and highlighted in multiple contemporary summaries [3] [4].
2. The behavioral checklist: what fascism looks like in practice, according to empiricists
Scholars who focus on observable practices identify a consistent suite of behaviors: charismatic leadership, paramilitary violence, suppression of opposition, state-centralized authority, and propagandistic mass mobilization. Robert Paxton and others analyze fascism as a political behavior that emerges in crisis, using organized violence and emotion-driven appeals to dismantle pluralistic institutions and normalize exclusionary politics [1] [4]. Encyclopedic treatments emphasize militarism, contempt for electoral democracy, and policies subordinating individual rights to the national collective, underscoring that practical mechanisms—coercion, censorship, and institutional capture—are as central as ideology [3] [4].
3. Scholarly disagreements: definitions, scope and the danger of overuse
Debate endures over whether a single definition can encompass all historical and contemporary cases. Some scholars advocate for a tight, ideational definition centered on palingenesis and cultic renewal, while others prefer a broader, behavioral typology that catches fascist-like movements which lack explicit mystical rhetoric. Critics warn against inflationary uses of the label—applying “fascist” too loosely risks eroding analytic precision—yet Marxist and totalitarian-theory traditions stress the role of class alliances and capitalist interests in enabling fascist outcomes, offering a contrasting causal account that highlights economic and elite cooperation [4] [5] [6]. Both camps acknowledge variability across time and place but disagree on which features are indispensable.
4. The utility of checklists: Umberto Eco’s 14 features and their limits
Umberto Eco’s famous essay lists 14 indicators—such as cult of tradition, rejection of modernism, fear of difference, and appeal to a frustrated middle class—that serve as a diagnostic tool rather than a strict taxonomy. Eco’s checklist is useful for spotting authoritarian tendencies across contexts, but he warned it is not a definitive litmus test; fascism is a fuzzy set of overlapping dispositions rather than a binary category [7]. Empirical scholars adopt such heuristics cautiously: they treat Eco’s traits as warning signs that, combined with organizational and ideological cores identified by historians, can flag movements moving toward fascist-type politics [7] [1].
5. Big-picture consensus: what matters for identification and prevention
Across definitions and disputes, three elements consistently signal fascism: [8] an exclusionary, often racialized ultranationalism; [9] organizational reliance on violence and mobilized mass movements; and [10] the systematic dismantling of liberal democratic institutions in pursuit of a homogenized national community. This tripartite frame appears across encyclopedic summaries, major historiographies, and contemporary analyses and is used by scholars as the pragmatic basis for comparison and prevention strategies [3] [1] [4]. Recognizing both ideological motifs and behavioral mechanisms gives researchers and policymakers the means to distinguish between illiberal populism and the specific syndrome that scholars identify as fascism, while remaining mindful of disciplinary debates and the risk of politicized labeling [6] [4].