[MacDK]

I am writing a paper for a seminar on the Interwar Period, and have chosen as my subject to discuss possible reasons for the lack of political extremism in The United Kingdom during the period.

When one looks at Europe as a whole, almost every single nation experiences authoritarian tendencies - obviously seen most extremely in Germany and Italy, but also in Spain and most of Eastern Europe. Only The United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries carry on as stable democracies - even France has it's troubles. Why is this?

The possible reasons I have come up with so far :

- The electoral system
First-past-the-post favours larger parties and makes it difficult (if at all possible) for smaller parties to get elected to parliament. Communist parties, or fascist parties, in Britain would have a difficult time getting elected, and getting a foot into parliament is an important part of growing influence.

- The political culture
The United Kingdom was one of the oldest democracies in the world - whereas Germany, Italy, Spain and the Eastern European countries where all new democracies and did not have the same traditions of giving up power after defeat in elections etc. Britain also had a tradition of respecting the individual (Habeas Corpus, Magna Carta etc.). Political assassinations and use of government violence against strikes etc. where uncommon in relation to other nations.

- Lack of revisionism
The United Kingdom had not lost any territory after World War One. There were also no British ethnic groups living outside the UK's borders who needed to be brought "Heim ins Reich". Almost all other European nations where not nationstates, but had considerable national minorities living outside their borders. Also, the population was very opposed to war after the losses in WW1.

- Economics
The various governments in the UK were fairly successful in bringing progress and social welfare to the country, and the country coped quite well with the crisis after 1929.

Am I missing anything else obvious? Does anything sound unreasonable?

Thanks very much for any comments :-)

[Noelnada]

I did a comparative study of Belgium and the Uk about unconventional political opposition to climate change public policies (or rather their lack of). In other word, about green extremists. My conclusions were than the political structure of opportunities in the UK was less extended than in Belgium, resulting in more contentious political actions. But also that a mix of political exclusion and inclusion contributed to the creation of more radical splinter cells of political activists.

But i suppose that what i said does not answer to you question

You could also talk about a possible british hegemonic period which was relying on a liberal democratic system, free-trade policies and so on and which continued to effect the country due to a path dependency or some effects.

[Potemkin]

You could also talk about a possible british hegemonic period which was relying on a liberal democratic system, free-trade policies and so on and which continued to effect the country due to a path dependency or some effects.

Exactly. The success of the laissez-faire economic policies during the 19th century (at least from the viewpoint of the ruling class) meant that the ideology of the ruling elite in Britain was liberalism. This meant that fascism and Communism were both perceived as unpalatable alternatives to the ruling elite, unlike the elites of continental Europe, which regarded authoritarian statist political solutions as acceptable.

[Smilin' Dave]

Sort of following on from Potemkin's post, the more liberal political structure in Britain also made it easier for the government to detect shifts in opinion and accomodate/compromise with them. Those compromises, for example the welfare state, would tend to take the wind out of the sails of any extremist movement.

[MacDK]

Exactly. The success of the laissez-faire economic policies during the 19th century (at least from the viewpoint of the ruling class) meant that the ideology of the ruling elite in Britain was liberalism. This meant that fascism and Communism were both perceived as unpalatable alternatives to the ruling elite, unlike the elites of continental Europe, which regarded authoritarian statist political solutions as acceptable.

Good point - I will try to incorporate it. This also explains why Labour did not follow a more leftwing route when they formed the government.

Sort of following on from Potemkin's post, the more liberal political structure in Britain also made it easier for the government to detect shifts in opinion and accomodate/compromise with them. Those compromises, for example the welfare state, would tend to take the wind out of the sails of any extremist movement.

True, but The Weimar Republic was also a welfare state in the same regard. So that is not a difference in it's own. But I still think you have a good point. The Scandinavian states also had success in keeping out extremism with, among others, this method.

[Smilin' Dave]

The Weimar republic didn't have as long a background of democracy and liberalism, and it's basic foundations (presidential rule) were not particularly democratic at all. For example the crack down on socialist parties created a different political culture, both for the left wing parties and for the other political groupings.

Thought: The English government started to learn compromise in situations where the leadership had little other choice (Magna Carta for example), but was able to translate, and build on, this experience later.

[Potemkin]

Thought: The English government started to learn compromise in situations where the leadership had little other choice (Magna Carta for example), but was able to translate, and build on, this experience later.

You're right to point out that these differences go back to the Middle Ages. From Henry II onwards, the English state was increasingly based on laws rather than arbitrary or absolutist power, in contrast with continental Europe. And we never experienced the absolute monarchies which most of Europe did in the 16th and 17th centuries - James I and Charles I made the attempt, but came unstuck. The long-term power and independence of Parliament is something which was alien to, say, Germany or Austro-Hungary.

[albionfagan]

Not really a major point, but do you think that parties of the Extemist variety were freer to espouse their ideas, thus removing their immediate subversive and martyr status?

Also the culture of deference is well entrenched within the British working class, it is still palpable today, albeit in a much distorted form.

[Varilion]

I think that is better to ask "Why did nazi-fascist take the power in Italy and Germany?", from the answer to this question i think that is more easy to answer the initial question (why not in britain).

Italy has always "lassaiz-faire" governments, from 1860 to 1922 (and never more after!), but in 1922 it was clear that liberals were not able to rule the country. Permanent strikes...commie violences, economic and social troubles...and so on... in Germany during 1933 the situation was similar. But britain didn't have this kind of problem..or not so serious.

BTW in Italy Mussolini was named prime minister by the King, the same king that in 1914 declared war to Austria aganis a vote of the parliament....so Italy was not so democratic also before, i don't think that something like that could be in Britain.

[Smilin' Dave]

@albionfagan

Not really a major point, but do you think that parties of the Extemist variety were freer to espouse their ideas, thus removing their immediate subversive and martyr status?

Not really. The Nazis and Italian fascists both had a degree of freedom and support at all times from the political structure, and I don't think their propaganda was every really blocked. At best the Nazis were banned from holding mass rallies for a while, but that was probably more concerned with public order. This allowed these extremist parties a platform, including in their respective parliaments, to espouse their views.

@Varilion

Italy has always "lassaiz-faire" governments, from 1860 to 1922 (and never more after!), but in 1922 it was clear that liberals were not able to rule the country. Permanent strikes...commie violences, economic and social troubles...and

I have to somewhat disagree. Fascist violence was disproportionate to Communist violence in Italy, and was effectively condoned by local authorities. It also continued for a longer period. It seems odd that the Fascists could be brought into power due to fear of blood in the streets... when they were responsible for much of the bloodshed.

The more serious problem in Italy was their political structure creating a polarised parliament, which made it hard for any party to get things done. No party could rule alone and all coalitions ended up being 'broad' in their ideological representation. This wasn’t a problem in Britain, because their democratic system functioned better.

in Germany during 1933 the situation was similar.

I think it is only similar in the sense that the perception of the Communist threat was disproportionate (thanks to events in the early 1920s) to what actually took place.

[JRS1]

I read a book by David Starkey, and ( from memory) he seems to think that most political and legal differences between UK and a lot of europe are down to not being a full part of the roman empire.