Friday, 31 May 2019

"Dancing on a Volcano"- Britain and the Weimar Republic

There is a historical parallel abroad in the land. It is not nice, it is not pretty. And it hopefully isn't true.

More and more, Britain in the late 2010s is looking like the Weimar Republic. This is the name historians have given to Germany for a decade and a half in the early 20th century. It began in 1918, as the Kaiser was toppled from power and a nascent democracy ended the 'war to end all wars.' It ended in 1933, as economic collapse and political chaos culminated in a takeover by the very epitome of historical evil.

With its narrative of political and economic turmoil, culminating in a serious crisis, the attractions for using Weimar as a parallel to Britain today are obvious. Firstly, there are the huge economic shocks that overwhelmed the political systems. In 2008, there was the Great Recession. Coming off of years of growth and easy money, the implosion of the world financial system was a huge shock. It was followed by the years of austerity, as conservative-minded governments and central bankers used the excuse of the ballooning deficits they'd created to deal with the problem to shrink the size of the state. In the Weimar Republic, the good years of the Golden 20s suddenly gave way to the Great Depression. The collapse of the US stock market had serious ramifications across the world, as US loans were recalled. Germany had been loaned $800 million by the USA to help it with reparations (more of which below), and now couldn't repay. Unemployment skyrocketed to 6 million. Thousands of German companies went under. The Weimar system was totally unable to cope with the catastrophe facing it, and so people turned to those who said they had the answer. Voting for the Nazis was, for many Germans, about choosing a better future, one with money in their pockets and hope for their lives. Sound familiar to 21st century Britons?

The Weimar Republic had been born in defeat. Within a year, the newly installed democratic politicians had agreed to the Armistice, ending the fighting on the Allies' terms, and signed the humiliation that was the Treaty of Versailles. The army was shrunk, land was taken, Germany took the blame for the entire war. Within four years of signing Versailles, the difficulty of paying the crippling reparations had caused a French invasion and hyperinflation.

'The November Criminals' was the insult hurled at those who had allowed Germany to sink into this abyss. The politicians had betrayed Germany, and the German people. They'd allowed the country to be dominated by foreign powers. What was needed was for the German people to re-assert their own national sovereignty. to send a message to the politicians who had got them into this mess, to take back control

I'm being facetious, but only just.

This message of betrayal, this toxic atmosphere led to political violence. There were four serious uprisings by the far-left and far-right. Politicians were assassinated. You might think this doesn't sound like Britain. Think of the heightened rhetoric, the bile and invective hurled at political opponents on both sides of every debate. Think of Jo Cox, gunned down by a far-right obsessive in her own constituency, who stunned the judge into silence when he gave his name in court as "death to traitors, freedom for Britain."

Those who spread this message of betrayal, today we could call them populists. For the first few years, the 'Weimar coalition' of centre-left and centre-right had governed. The SPD, the centre-left party that was cousin to the British Labour Party, was assured of the votes of the workers. The Centre party did exactly what it said on the tin. The conservative right was more complicated, but still present in the Weimar coalition.

Then the Great Depression came. The centre could not hold. Voters flocked left and right. On the left, they found the German Communist Party. Karl Marx had predicted that Germany had the ideal conditions for a communist revolution. In 1917, the world had seen the first successful communist revolution in Russia. Many felt, and feared, that Germany would be next. And on the right, they found the Nazi party. Before it became the definition of evil in the 20th century, the Nazi party was looked to as the hope of Germany. It promised that all of Germany's problems could be easily fixed, all it required was to smash the establishment, put Germany and the Germans first, and trust in them and them alone. Britain of 2019, take note. Nothing is easy. Especially complicated things. Those saying they are easy probably deserve a closer look.

But there are two major differences that separate the UK of 2019 from the Weimar Republic. The Great Depression had a far, far more severe impact on Germany than the Great Recession had on the UK. Yes, the austerity imposed to 'deal' with the deficit has been awful for millions. But the reason that the governments of 2008 decided to run up those deficits was precisely because they wanted to avoid the mass unemployment of the 1930s. The sheer number of people out of work caused the social welfare network to seize up under pressure; a collapse in the tax intake had rendered the system unworkable. Across the world, government policies made things worse, not better. And they got much worse much, much faster than they did in 2008. The depth and severity of the crisis that overwhelmed the Weimar Republic makes even the crash of 2008 look like peanuts.

The even bigger difference between contemporary Britain and the Weimar Republic is that of the democratic tradition. Imperial Germany had had elections, but they had been for a tiny proportion of the population, to a toothless Reichstag. In the UK, we've had 90 years of true universal suffrage, a century of near-universal suffrage, and pretty much two centuries of an expanding franchise. The fact that democracy was so new, so untested in Germany, meant that it would have been a hard road even if there had been no external shocks to the system. Many Germans, particularly on the conservative wing, in the armed forces and in business, saw democracy as an aberration. Nothing encapsulates this better than when Field Marshal Hindenburg was elected as President of the Weimar Republic in 1925; he only took office after he had consulted with the abdicated Kaiser, and had received his blessing. There was always a solid bloc of voters who opted for parties who outright opposed the new system. By the final free and fair election in the Weimar era, in late 1932, around 58% of the vote went to parties committed to ending the Republic. Weimar was memorably described as 'a democracy without democrats.'

When the Nazis assumed power in Weimar Germany, it was initially done quite legitimately. Hitler was invited into office by the President, and the Reichstag was dissolved so he could seek a new mandate from the people. By a piece of astonishing good fortune (for the Nazis anyway), a mentally ill communist burnt down the Reichstag, justifying emergency powers for the government. Soon after the partially-free elections, the Nazis rammed the Enabling Act through the Reichstag by various dubious means. These two measures were the basis for the twelve years of horror that followed. But many Germans were not sorry to see democracy go. It had brought them much trouble and chaos. Dictatorship was a return to what they knew.

The UK of 2019 is indeed severely divided, between political parties that seem unable to bridge their differences. And yes, democracy is having a crisis. But there are two centuries of democratic tradition behind it in the UK, and a century of true mass democracy, both for parliament, but also for local councils, regional and national assemblies, and yes, referendums. By itself, this will not be enough to save our democratic tradition. But it hopefully means it will not go down without a fight.

What happened in the Weimar Republic isn't inevitable. It doesn't have to happen here.

A protest against Brexit, 2019, and against the Treaty of Versailles, 1919

Stabbed in the back by the Weimar politicians and drinking the poison of Brexit betrayal

The passage of the Enabling Act by the Reichstag, March 1933, which ended the Weimar Republic and created a one-party dictatorship in its place

Saturday, 25 May 2019

Do all political lives end in failure?

And so, at long last, she is gone.

No one can be surprised at Theresa May's departure from Downing Street being announced yesterday. After months of presiding over a national disintegration, it was only a matter of time.

At least, this was the tone of much of the media coverage of her departure. Which got me wondering, as, if you think about it, it is only a matter of time before all Prime Ministers leave office. Even Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher, at the height of their power, flush from their landslide victories, were only temporary occupants of Number 10.

Much has also been made of how May is going at a time which is not of her choosing. Again, this left me thinking, doesn't that happen to all of them? In my lifetime, Margaret Thatcher was defenestrated, John Major was buried beneath a landslide, Tony Blair was hounded from office by his own party, Gordon Brown saved the world but not the election, and then David Cameron decided to save his party with the referendum. And we all know how that went.

This seems a pretty sorry record, even for those on that list deemed to be successful leaders. Enoch Powell once said that "All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs."

That definitely appears to be the case recently. But has it always been like that?

So, for all the Prime Ministers since the Second World War, here is when they left office, and why.

(You're welcome)

Theresa May- 2019, failing to deliver the results of the referendum.

David Cameron- 2016, losing the referendum.

Gordon Brown- 2010, election defeat (Well, he was unable to remain as Prime Minister in a hung parliament, but you know what I mean).

Tony Blair- 2007, conflict between Blairites and Brownites inside Labour pushed him out.

Major- 1997, landslide defeat of epic proportions.

Margaret Thatcher- 1990, whole multitude of reasons (poll tax, personality clashes, European integration, voter fatigue, party fatigue, the fact even some Tories thought she was absolutely insane).

James Callaghan- 1979, election defeat.

Harold Wilson- 1976, resigned.

Edward Heath- 1974, election defeat (Again, unable to remain Prime Minister in a hung parliament).

Harold Wilson- 1970, election defeat.

Alec Douglas-Home- 1964, election defeat

Harold Macmillan- 1963, illness (Although in reality Macmillan was looking for a way out after a very turbulent couple of years).

Anthony Eden- 1957, Suez Crisis, plus the fact his health collapsed due to the strains of running the disastrous government that he did.

Winston Churhill- 1955, suffered a stroke in office, and his health, plus advancing age, led him to go into serious decline.

Clement Attlee- 1951, election defeat (in a setup that could only happen in Britain, Attlee polled Labour's highest ever number of votes, more than Churchill, and still somehow ended up losing).

Winston Churchill- 1945, election defeat, despite leading the country to victory in the Second World War.

Amongst the people turfed out over election defeats, hung parliaments, illnesses, and party political intrigues, the end of one premiership stands out. In 1976, Harold Wilson resigned as Prime Minister because he could. 

Both at the time and since, speculation has been rife. Were secret documents stolen from Downing Street in the weeks before, causing Wilson to go? Was his adviser's brother involved in fraud? Was he having an affair with his adviser? Had some shadowy part of MI5, or the South African security service, got something against him? Was he a Soviet spy? Was he ill, either with the colon cancer that would claim his life in 1995, or could he detect the early stages of Alzheimers that blighted his famous memory?

Or was it simply that he had always intended to go on his own terms? By 1976, Wilson had served as Prime Minister for nearly 8 out of the last 12 years, and he was exhausted. Even before his shock defeat in 1970, he had been telling people he didn't intend to serve as Prime Minister longer than 8 years, before he'd hand over to someone else. With his second government facing horrendous difficulties, and Wilson having recently turned 60, maybe it seemed like the time to honour his word and move on. Whatever it was, Wilson stands alone in postwar politics in having left on his own terms.

Wilson in 1976, becoming the only British Prime Minister in postwar history to leave Downing Street on his own terms.

As we watch Theresa May prepare to end her disastrous premiership, it is worth reflecting that, for most Prime Ministers, the end is never how they imagine it. Every Prime Minister bar one has been forced out of office at a time not of their choosing, having failed to achieve the goals they wanted. The Tory MPs scrambling to replace May should probably take note.