Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.
Essay:British democracy 1919 until 1939
The survival of the British Parliamentary Democracy
If you look at a map of Europe and what countries remained a democracy by 1940 a few answers to the question can be offered but without much conviction. The countries that had become dictatorships were more recent countries that were arguably less economically developed compared to the countries that had not. Also, the countries that remained democracies in 1940 were established and stable democracies and had either been on the winning side (or were neutrals) of the Great War. However this is not a very convincing argument for why Britain remained a democracy and we need to look into other factors in a lot more detail. Something that I believe is very important when looking at the strength of Britain’s democracy is that if fire doesn’t destroy it strengthens: just as a builder’s hands are often tough and leathery through the hard work they are involved in. Britain was already suffering before the depression, which fuelled a lot of extremist movements and events that occurred soon after the Great War, such as the General Strike, Red Clydeside and the Police Strike, strengthened the democracy and the current parliamentary state when they failed. There was also competition between a very strong, established political party and a more recent, yet still strong, party that meant democracy was being fought for by two experienced parties: the Conservatives and Labour. It is important to also explore the reasons not only why this strengthened Britain’s democracy but why it didn’t destroy it too. In addition to these factors that strengthened the democracy, the attack from extremists was relatively weak when compared to other countries’ extremist movements. The Communist Party of Great Britain and the British Union of Fascists were trying to fight a battle that they were very unlikely to win. And if this wasn’t enough to maintain Britain’s democracy, the British middle classes, political traditions and the general improvement of the quality of life for Britons ensured that British parliamentary democracy was able to resist the extremist movements and other challenges. It is said by some historians that Britain was not as badly hit by the effects of the depression as other countries but the figures that often imply this are the unemployment figures. These can be misleading, as so often statistics are, and the British economy was not necessarily better off than other countries. In 1921 Britain suffered a bust following a boom after the war and 2 million became unemployed. Therefore, perhaps the state of Britain meant that the effects of the depression were less noticed and the effects were not felt so severely.
Another very important event that strengthened the British parliamentary democracy in that many Britons found more confidence in the state was the General Strike of 1926. The government had taken measures very early on to ensure that if the triple alliance formed by the mining, railway and dockers’ unions successfully arranged a General Strike they would be prepared. This is also evidence of the watchful eye they kept over the country, protecting it and preparing for crisis or extremist attacks. The Trade Union Council on the other hand was not as well organised and this is key in their defeat. The use of propaganda by the government made good use of the threat of extremism by escalating the strike and portraying it not only as an industrial dispute but also as a revolutionary act. Once the General Strike had been won the working class would have more respect for British parliament and the middle classes would have been less fearful of Labour and the working classes.
Also mentioned in my introduction was the strength of the two main political parties, Labour and the Conservatives. In Britain it has always been a political tradition for it to be difficult to have a third main party if the first two are relatively strong and this was certainly the case in inter-war Britain. Labour was a relatively recent party and government contender, only becoming one of the two after the Liberal split following the war but was certainly not a force to be taken lightly. At the National Industrial Conference in April 1919 the Labour was said to be challenging the whole structure of capitalist industry and this was a view of senior trade union leaders, not merely a few small extremist organisations and even Lloyd George feared a revolution similar to the one Russia had just experienced. Britain’s current conditions as the most industrialised nation even best represented the conditions for revolution identified by Marx but this fear of the Labour Party being revolutionary was not a founded one. When Labour won its first general election it was of no concern whether or not Britain would remain a democracy. As highlighted by the General Strike of 1926, the triple alliance posed a real threat and Unions protecting workers’ rights became increasingly popular after the war, with membership rising from 35 million in 1919 to 126 million in 1926. Propaganda and the Labour Party’s refusal to be linked to the communist movement in Russia did mean, however, that the Party was not feared as an extremist movement before the General Strike and after Britain was even less fearful of the working force and revolutionary action. This is shown by the 1929 General Election when the Labour Party won and became the party in power.
Although very successful, compared to the Liberal Party and extremist movements such as the CPGB and BUF, Labour could not have been said to have been the dominating political party. The Conservatives were very strong indeed during inter-war Britain but also versatile. Their popularity after the war was partly due to them being identified with patriotism, strong defence and unfettered prosecution of the war and after their handling of the General Strike their organisation and ability to handle a crisis were other virtues they became identified with. The important point, however, is that they represented a democracy and it was unlikely, therefore, a democracy could ever be abandoned. Even on the occasions that Labour did win a general election (1923 and 1929) they did not win with a huge majority. The Conservatives were also able to gain support not only from the upper classes but also from the lower middle classes and working classes (potential Labour targets). The reasons for the Conservatives having so many working class votes could possibly be things such as regional traditions or larger things such as the broad appeal of the party to national unity; patriotism; pride in the British empire; independence; self reliance and that they did not want social upheaval at home for prosperity. The Conservatives appeal to all social classes was also improved with the use of leaflets, posters, publications, professional speakers and, by the end of the 1930s, a fleet of mobile cinema vans.
So if the parties defending Britain’s democracy had been strengthened by the General Strike and events leading up to it and were naturally very strong and attractive to British voters the opposing extremists would have to be very strong also. This was not the case. Out of all of the extremist movements in Britain at the time the main two were the BUF and CPGB. Oswald Mosley led the BUF and although he was a good public speaker and spent a long time formulating the BUF’s programme, he was not successful in converting Britain into a fascist country. The party itself could be viewed as dirt and bacteria trying to get into the wounds of Britain. They used the depression and ‘bust’ that Britain faced to argue that unemployment was at an intolerably high level; economic life had outgrown political institutions and the government was designed by and for the 19th century. However it seems that the Conservatives and Labour were strong enough to fight the infections and leave the blood of Britain a healthy democratic colour. So what made the fascist’s movement so weak? There are four main weaknesses of the BUF that can be identified. One is that they simply didn’t interpret the nature of the crisis correctly. There was such a high turnover of membership within the party and fluctuating fortunes in different areas that those attracted to the party must have been alienated, some idealists and a few with chips on their shoulders. Others were put off by Mosley’s draconian authoritarian approach and saw this as unnecessary and ugly, favouring the CPGB or NUWM more than the BUF. Mosley was also increasingly isolated and associated with many negative attributes such as anti-Semitism, political violence and unconditional support for dictators. Secondly, the whole idea of fascism was quite simply strange and alien to British political culture and it seemed unlikely that the crisis was so severe for them to go against the two main political parties. Thirdly, party organisation would have needed to have been as close to perfection as possible to stand a chance and this was very much not the case. Mosley was unable to accept criticism; delegated all responsibility for administration and organisation; made utopian assumptions and the party’s financial administration was awful compared to what it should have been (70% cut in expenses was forced in 1937). Finally, the media simply ignored the BUF and therefore their importance or significance was none to most of the public. The CPGB also never enjoyed much support. Even during the worst stage of the depression the unemployed were not attracted to the party. Perhaps one way they would have had more effect is if they had been successful in Lenin’s tactic to “support the Labour Party as a rope supports a hanged manâ€. Labour refused to have any links with extremist movements and therefore represented a democracy, going against extremist movements. The CPGB also suffered from poor leadership, as with the BUF, and was also seen as alien (a ‘soviet puppy’). To be as strong a challenge as they would have liked they would have had to be in the same ‘league’ as the Conservatives and Labour and, just like the BUF, this was not the case. Some middle class intellectuals did join the party due to their disapproval of capitalism, with some becoming spies, and the National Unemployed Workers Movement could have been successful and an important tool in converting many unemployed to communism but failed to do so. Therefore, the communists had little impact on the working class, who were claimed by some historians to be politically apathetic. The communists, however, did not do enough to excite the unemployed into any action. The Jarrow crusade, after all, was not a communist movement. Also, though, workers and all Britons had too much to lose from communism and Marxism. Most workers had become attached to Trade Unions, Co-operative society and savings banks and therefore were attached to British state and capitalism. Marxism also did not fit in with British social habits such as sport, hobbies, club and even religion. Britons were just more ethical than ideological. These were all reasons for why membership never got to a particularly high level. Even if it did, you could be sure that security services would be closely monitoring the CPGB. So the distinction between the two parties fighting for either a democracy or extremist movements is that the democratic parties were very strong and the others were not. But what about other factors? The middle classes of Britain have already been mentioned briefly but they could have played a more important role than first thought. Compared to other countries, for example, Britain’s middle class was large and their quality of life improved greatly in the 1930s. Therefore, a change in British parliament was not necessary at all to them. Other factors though are the state of Britain after the war compared to other countries. France, for example, suffered a lot of physical damage that affected her economy. Britain had not suffered so much due to her geographical position as an island more secure from invasion. Britain’s ‘self-esteem’ was also relatively high (she had been on the winning side of the war and done well in the peace treaties). The economy of Britain may also have played a part in making the British less likely to want a parliamentary change: inflation did not hit Britain as hard as Germany and others and the huge inflation of Germany certainly ensured that the people lost faith in the current regime.
In conclusion, it is clear that there were many factors that meant British parliamentary democracy was able to survive with the most important being that there was no movement successful enough to present a real challenge. The main non-extremist challenge that faced Britain, the General Strike, did not destroy the democracy as the government was so well prepared and thus strengthened the democratic state of Britain. Many other factors were also important in defending the democracy, however, such as the social classes, Britain’s economy and the improvement in the quality of life of most in the 1930s despite unemployment.
| This article contains content from Wikipedia. Current versions of the GNU FDL article British democracy 1919 until 1939 on WP may contain information useful to the improvement of this article | WP |
