This is the road to dictatorship in the United States

What has been happening in the U.S. for the past year is prompting plenty of reflection on regime change at a global level, especially after the kidnapping of dictator Nicolás Maduro, an unprecedented event, above all, because of the brazenness with which public international law has been violated. However, beyond the fact that this drift, which could escalate, is probably primarily justified by Trump’s desire to bury the Epstein case, a real shift in governance may be underway at a legal level. Understanding the modus operandi of this change might be useful.

I’m not going to compare Trump to Hitler because I think their personalities have little in common, with Trump perhaps being more similar to Peter Ustinov’s Nero. But it is worthwhile to look at the history of how the Nazis obtained absolute power in Germany. Hitler narrowly won the elections in November 1932, but immediately called for new elections in March 1933, which were already marred by all sorts of trickery, including attacks on and persecution of the opposition. Ultimately, after the illegal exclusion of the Communist Party from the ballot, the Nazi Party won an absolute majority, which allowed parliament to pass, in that same March, a “Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich,” better known as the Enabling Act. This law, consisting of only five articles, effectively committed political suicide by granting all legislative powers to Hitler’s government, even allowing it to overstep the bounds of the Constitution. The saddest part is that such a clearly unconstitutional law — it violated the separation of powers — required a two-thirds parliamentary majority, which the Nazis obtained by persuading some mostly centrist parties. Shortly afterward, by July of that same year, all parties except the National Socialist Party were banned. Free elections were never held again.

The meteoric nature of some political pronouncements at this time is strongly reminiscent of the past. Despite undeniably significant differences, Trump has stated that his power as commander-in-chief of the armed forces is limited only by his “own morality,” a clearly dictatorial declaration. However, the U.S. Congress still retains its power and Trump is deeply concerned about winning the midterm elections, in which the entire House and part of the Senate are up for renewal. This concern stems precisely from the fact that democracy still holds sway in the U.S., and consequently, he could lose the election.

However, what would happen if, like Hitler, he were to at least partially override citizens’ freedom to vote, thereby obtaining an irregular victory? In that case, he would obtain a parliament in his favor. Could such an irregularly elected parliament be validly constituted? Once constituted, could it pass an enabling act?

Interestingly, both questions have the same answer. Ultimately, it would be the judges who would have the final say in validating the elections, and certainly in determining whether such a law would be constitutional. If they were to overturn everything that happened as contrary to the separation of powers, democracy might have a chance to survive. Otherwise, as happened in Nazi Germany, the separation of powers would cease to exist, and the U.S. would fall to a dictator, all with the subservient collaboration of a judiciary that would also have definitively lost its independence.

Incidentally, it’s worth remembering that the justices nominated by the Republican Party hold a six-of-nine majority on the Supreme Court. Aside from that, it’s important to emphasize that if judges, in general, become involved in politics and collaborate with a dictator or anyone who aspires to be one, democracy will be extinguished.

In any case, it could also occur that a freely elected House of Representatives and Senate are as subservient to Trump as the Chinese Communist Party is to its leader. Whichever path is chosen, how do you fight a dictator? In the present day, it’s very complicated, especially because technology has made us transparent citizens and, therefore, very easily traceable by the authorities. This hasn’t bothered most people much until now, but in a dictatorship, it would practically prevent rebellion, perpetuating the dictatorship’s power and condemning the population to an endless hell. Being aware of this might, one day, finally lead to limitations on the functionalities of computer and telecommunications systems, especially those used explicitly or surreptitiously by the police, in strict respect for our privacy. Let’s hope so.

Of course, in that sinister context anything is possible, from civil war if the armed forces split into different factions, to a submissive acceptance by a pacifist people who — however many weapons they may have in their homes, especially handguns — beyond bravado are only used to protesting with banners and are unaware that, historically, the defense of freedom has been much more bloody than posting a few witty phrases on a social network.

Peaceful mechanisms for defending democracy exist, but they are limited and not so difficult to overcome if ordinary citizens and public officials with an authoritarian mindset collaborate with the aspiring dictator by colonizing parliament and the judiciary.

Preventing this is only possible with a massive dose of civic education about the importance of maintaining democratic institutions. Unfortunately, it seems that in recent decades, the structural corruption of too many political parties has persuaded people of something Hitler already stated in Mein Kampf: parliament is useless and it is better for a group of well-prepared individuals to hold absolute power.

That chilling and foolish notion can only be dispelled if people love freedom and understand why the separation of powers exists. Otherwise, we will revert to being subjects, not citizens.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition