On 3 May 2017 UK Prime Minister Theresa May made a verbal attack on unspecified critics associated with the work of the European Union. But is she blaming them for her own problems? Is attack seen as the best form of defence?
The UK governments of recent years – Conservative-Liberal Democratic, 2010-15, and Conservative, 2015 till now – have been characterised by massive cuts to social expenditure and the demonisation of certain minorities, especially benefits claimants, migrants and asylum seekers. There have been claims to be liberal but the practice shows features of authoritarianism. Theresa May was an illiberal Home Secretary (2010-15). She has advocated the repeal of the Human Rights Act and UK withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights.
Politicians as a bunch can display, and act upon, both liberal and authoritarian tendencies, at different times. These have been noted in Labour, Conservative and Coalition governments in recent years. Insofar as Mrs May keeps championing “strong and stable leadership” (in other words, her own leadership), she can be regarded as authoritarian. We should learn from history the dangers of “strong” leadership. There are enough tyrannical leaders around in the 21st century wider world – as there were in the 20th century.
Liberalism is messy – but it offers a better bet to voters than authoritarianism. Authoritarian leaders find it hard to change course and to learn from criticism; or they change their mind and alter course, opportunistically, and claim they were consistent all the time. (Remember George Orwell’s 1984.) Mrs May herself was supposedly in favour of a ‘EU Remain’ vote in the 2016 UK referendum. But now she is stridently hostile to the EU. Her position is weak – one against 27!
17th century England and Wales suffered authoritarian rule under Charles I, the Commonwealth (led by Oliver Cromwell) and Charles II – the details varied. The poet John Milton who supported the Commonwealth (not uncritically); and he suffered for this after the Restoration of Charles II. He went on to write his great verse epic, Paradise Lost.
Interpretations of PL are diverse; and there is controversy among scholars, not so much about the value, but about the arguments. Is it religious and theological? Yes. Is it allegorical? Maybe, to an extent. Does it directly reflect the breakdown of the command of the Commonwealth over ordinary people? Perhaps not. Is Milton’s God authoritarian? Milton does not think so – quite the opposite. Is Satan authoritarian? Yes he is, while pretending to be democratic.
One idea about PL is that Milton demonstrates in it a circular rather than a linear view of human history. Consistent with a linear view is the belief (or hope) that humans as a whole are engaged in progress.* Do not people of a liberal disposition embrace this idea? The circular model fits in with the idea of repeated falls and rises in history. Given Milton’s Christian beliefs, human history commenced with the Fall of the rebellious angels from heaven, followed by the Fall of Adam and Eve.
We should recall that Milton believed in mankind’s free will. So all citizens have to take some responsibility for the politics of their country.
So perhaps the UK is now in a period of decline and fall long and drawn out. Separation from the EU will probably hasten this.
*See: Weston, P (1987), John Milton: Paradise Lost, London: Penguin – pages 25-6.