Throughout the article, Luebbert has indicated the demarcation that existed in the adoption of the various political orders in the inter-world war Europe. The description of the various systems of the political orders, the author has failed to indicate the difference in term of their definition making it difficult for the reader to understand the practical differences between them. The author has failed to describe the factors that underlay the establishment of the various political orders in the different countries. For example, the author could have specified whether there were frameworks that prevented the leadership of specific nations in Europe to adopt certain political regimes. The personality of the leaders that reigned during the period could have been determined the success of establishment of the various forms of political regimes.
In order to show with clarity the domination of some political regimes in interwar Europe as not related to the leaders that were in control of their nations that time, Luebbert could have ventured into the explanation of impacts leadership change to any of them nations. This explanation could have shown whether the nations retained their political regime or not even after the change in the leaders or not. The explanation would rule out the possibility likelihood of having a political regime that was enhanced because of the personality of those who were in power. Luebbert could have shown the different characteristics of the different political regimes of the European nations during the period between the first and the Second World War rather than showing generally that fascism, traditional dictatorship or pluralist or social democracy dominated certain regions. The author should have shown how various European nations came to establish the leadership style that prevailed during the interwar period.
Gregory M. Luebbert, “Social Foundations of Political Order in Interwar Europe,” World Politics, Volume 39 Number 4, 1987. 449-78.