It is often pointed out in the literature of democratisation and the breakdown of democracy that old democracies have been able to stand against the threat of totalitarian and extremist political doctrines better than young ones. This observation has usually been based on the existence of solid political institutions, certain class structures, and the legitimacy of a political system. The focus of this article is on the rhetorical role that the division between ‘old’ and ‘young’ or ‘new’ democracies played during the interwar crisis of democracy. By focusing on the cases of Finland and Sweden, which have been described as a young democracy and an old democracy respectively in the literature on democratisation, the study directs attention to the ways in which the age of democracy has been produced in order to defend democratic institutions against totalitarian doctrines and practices. The article thus contributes to the conceptual history of democracy and helps explaining why Finland managed to maintain its democratic political institutions as one of the few new independent states that were born during and just after the First World War.

中文翻译：

---

年轻和年长的民主：芬兰、瑞典和两次世界大战之间的民主危机

民主化和民主崩溃的文献中经常指出，旧的民主国家比年轻的民主国家更能抵御极权主义和极端主义政治学说的威胁。这种观察通常基于稳固的政治制度、某些阶级结构和政治制度的合法性的存在。本文的重点是在两次世界大战之间的民主危机期间，“旧”与“年轻”或“新”民主国家之间的分歧所扮演的修辞角色。通过关注在民主化文献中分别被描述为年轻民主和老民主的芬兰和瑞典的案例，该研究将注意力集中在民主时代的产生方式上，以保护民主机构免受极权主义学说和实践的影响。因此，这篇文章对民主的概念史做出了贡献，并有助于解释为什么芬兰作为第一次世界大战期间和刚刚结束的少数几个新独立国家之一，设法维持其民主政治制度。