Christian Democracy’s Double Inauthenticity – Folha de S. Paulo, August 13, 1972
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Christian Democracy is fundamentally a movement, a sect, and a philosophical-social current with a well-defined mentality, program, and techniques of action. In some countries, this sect’s structure has been refined to such an extent that it has evolved into a political party. In others, its structure is more basic, and therefore less substantial and less tangible. In these countries, the CD forms a network of people whose leaders know one another, support one another, and collaborate toward a common goal, without, however, assuming a defined organizational form.
In Brazil, the CD began as a powerful ideological current, evolved into a political party, and later returned to its previous state, but it never ceased to wield considerable influence.
Like communism, of which it is a younger sibling, CD is essentially a phenomenon of salons and sacristies throughout South America. It has not won over the petty bourgeoisie or the working class. The bulk of its recruits come from the upper bourgeoisie or snobbish circles of the middle bourgeoisie. The Christian Democratic bourgeoisie as a whole constitutes “Toaddom,” centrist in appearance but ardently leftist in reality. When you ask a toad for a clear and peremptory definition of his political or ideological position, he does not hide his leftism but seeks to soften its adverse effects by embellishing it with the Christian Democratic label.
In the sacristies, however, the Christian Democrat presents a somewhat different face. He is not to be confused with an incendiary priest, a subversive nun, or a lay agitator. But he also strives to appear “evolved.” He assumes the air of an up-to-date person with a cautious, conciliatory temperament. He tries to create the impression that he’s halfway between TFP and the left, and points out flaws in both. Whispering indignantly, he recommends that others show total intransigence toward the TFP. When it comes to the left, he speaks loudly, with an unctuous tone and condescending language, advocating understanding and tolerance.
Ultimately, claiming to be noncommunist (and sometimes even anticommunist), CD persecutes all opponents of communism and favors its friends.
For this reason, I have never recognized Christian Democracy as authentically “Christian.” It does not exist to defend Christian civilization but to advance the march to the left.
As a political party or philosophical-social sect, it serves as a “useful innocent” partner (somewhat innocent, depending on the case, but always very useful) to help expand communism, the scourge of today’s spiritual and temporal society.
* * *
While unworthy of being called Christian, is CD at least democratic? At first glance, one would say yes. Whenever, in any country, governments are seen fighting against communism, an opposition arises, spearheaded by Christian Democracy.
Since the repression of communism necessarily entails certain restrictions on freedom, and since, on the other hand, Christian Democrats proclaim themselves to be democrats par excellence, it is not surprising to see them committed to the defense of all democratic freedoms… including those indispensable for communists to achieve their goals undisturbed.
However, tired of repeatedly testing the inauthenticity of the Christian Democratic Party’s Christianity, I have been led to wonder to what extent its democratism is authentic. I reject everything in democracy that reflects the philosophical, religious, political, and social errors of the French Revolution. I explained this in my book, Revolution and Counterrevolution. However, since CD claims to be democratic, I am entitled to ask whether it really is.
More specifically, I ask: if a country’s Christian Democrats had no chance of winning an election with their program except through a dictatorship, would the CD support that dictatorship?
If it did not support it, the CD would be consistent with its democratic principles. If it did support it, it would be inconsistent, because imposing a program without listening to the electorate or even against its wishes is the opposite of democracy.
Peru’s CDP recently answered this question with unfiltered clarity.
As we know, Peru is under a military dictatorship that has primarily implemented the leftist reforms advocated by Christian Democracy, including radical land and business reforms.
However, in May of this year, the president of Peru’s Christian Democratic Party, in a speech broadcast on radio and TV, officially announced his party’s support for the regime, citing the fundamental affinity between Christian Democratic ideology and the thinking that underpins the government’s leftist reformism.
This fact, reported by Lima’s La Prensa on May 10, is telling. The CD is not against all dictatorships, but only those that oppose the march to the left. It invokes democratic principles only as a pretext to curb the actions of anti-leftist dictatorships. But it throws those principles aside and applauds them when it comes to leftist dictatorships.
In short, the label is entirely inauthentic: Christian inauthenticity and Democratic inauthenticity.
* * *
One can indeed argue, in favor of Christian Democracy, that the Peruvian CDP may be an exception to the rule. I understand that such an argument may impress those unfamiliar with the Christian Democratic phenomenon. But those who have analyzed it for many years know that nothing in the world is more homogeneous in its doctrines, tricks, and affectations than Christian Democracy. It is the same everywhere, as are communism and socialism.
* * *
Do you want proof of this? Show this article to any Christian Democrat you know. They will be indignant with me, not with the Peruvian Christian Democrats.
If any reader knows of any exceptions, please let me know. I would be very happy to hear about them.
