Left and Right in Global Politics

One way to integrate the fact that both sides of the political spec-
trum may harbor authoritarian elements is to treat the authority–
liberty opposition as a secondary axis of differentiation, cutting
vertically across the left–right horizontal axis. Such a representation,
which creates four possible positions, was proposed by psychologist
Hans Eysenck in the early 1950s. In this perspective, presented in
Figure1.1, the left can be authoritarian or liberal (going from com-
munists to social-democrats), and so can the right (with fascists at one
end, and conservatives, liberals, and Christian-democrats at the
other).^64 Eysenck’s distinction is useful in underlining the fact that no
side has the monopoly of authoritarian tendencies. His spatial model
also allows one to see that a variety of positions are possible, from
moderate centrist stances, to more extreme ones.
Interestingly, in European history, both communist and fascist
extremists entered the political arena by claiming that they were
neither from the left nor from the right. They constituted radical
alternatives, in rupture with the established debates about the mean-
ing and promises of liberalism.^65 The choice between the parliamen-
tary right and the parliamentary left, said French communist leader
Maurice Thorez in 1934, was merely a choice between “cholera and

Communism

Authority

Liberty

Left Right

Fascism

Social-democracy

Conservatism

Christian-democracy

Liberalism

Figure 1.1The left, the right, authority, and liberty
Source: adapted from Hans Eysenck.^63

(^63) Hans Eysenck,The Psychology of Politics, London, Routledge, 1954, p. 110.
(^64) Eatwell, “The Rise of ‘Left–right’ Terminology,” pp. 42–3.
(^65) Gauchet, “La droite et la gauche,” pp. 427–28 and 431.
A clash over equality 25