We will look back on this time as a golden era of political engagement
Heated disagreement over Brexit is infinitely better than the tyranny of enforced consensus
We are presently enduring the last 20 seconds of what has been one of the most dismal, depressing chapters in modern British political history. It is ending in the spirit in which it proceeded, with an obtuse, self-regarding statement from the outgoing prime minister and a descent into technical insanity on the part of the losing side in the national argument. And yet – there is another story to be told about this past three years.
Theresa May’s last testament was a predictably wrong-headed take on the conflagration that has consumed our public discourse during this era, in which she smugly condemned the crassness and extremism of the debate. In fact, the vituperation and passion which has dominated social intercourse, and even domestic life, in the country has been its great redeeming feature – the one candle in the darkness of this ghastly chapter.
I will repeat here what I said months ago on this page – and which readers may believe that I had come to regret: some time in the not very distant future, we will look back on this
period as a golden age of popular political engagement.
It was a moment, we will tell our younger friends, when people truly cared about the country’s future, when they believed so wholeheartedly and with such desperate urgency in their principled convictions that they were prepared to argue loudly into the night, and even to contemplate personal sacrifice in the name of their ultimate objective. I cannot recall a time when so many ordinary people bothered to apprise themselves of the technical detail of government policy. Brexit was discussed exhaustively – sometimes bitterly, but mostly not – in the streets and in the shops and in the privacy of countless homes. This has, in other words, been a moment when the true nature of democratic politics came alight.
It is impossible to say this too emphatically, especially when there is a prime minister in office who seems not to understand it: democracy is all about argument. Enforced consensus – as it evolved in post-war Germany and is now propagated by the European Union – is, as Leave voters rightly noted, anti-democratic and easily corruptible. The right to disagree with one’s fellow citizens – sincerely, heatedly, angrily – has to be the most fundamental guarantee of a free country. The right to criticise one’s own government or the attitudes of one’s people – vehemently, aggressively, possibly unfairly – is what distinguishes an open society from a totalitarian one.
Polarisation may sound like a dangerous thing, as indeed it can be. But generally the danger comes when popular anger is ignored or derided. Politicians too must disagree with one another, sometimes heatedly, if the voters are to have any genuine electoral choice. Of course, they must be constrained in their disputatious tactics by legal and constitutional measures (the most recent Westminster exploits have sailed pretty close to the wind here), but Mrs May’s tendency to regard criticism as a form of impertinence is a profound and potentially sinister misunderstanding.
As it happens, her perverse confusion is nothing like as serious as that of Donald Trump, who appears to believe that those who dislike or disparage their own country should be told to go somewhere else. After his first infamous proposal that four ethnic minority congresswomen who had made disobliging remarks about America (and him) should “go back where they came from” – even when they had been born in the US – he then suggested that “if they don’t like the country, they can leave”. No, Mr Trump, if they don’t like the country, they can stay. So long as they obey the law and confine their attacks on America to verbal diatribe (however contentious or even unfounded), they are perfectly entitled to remain and participate in the life of the nation. Just as their adversaries are at liberty to retaliate in kind – to argue, berate or insult them at will. That’s the whole point.
If you don’t like what people say, you argue with them. You expose their opinions to scrutiny and analysis. You do your best to prove them wrong. You do not exile (or execute) them. Criticising your country, or your fellow citizens, or your government, is not a crime. Not yet anyway. This is shaping up to be one of America’s most bitter and damaging historical misadventures.
What about us? Has there been
at telegraph.co.uk/ opinion lasting damage to national unity here at home? I don’t think so. The British are a mature, forgiving and humorous people. Unlike the bitterness that remained embedded in the American populace after the Vietnam War, or the terrible hatreds that divided so many European countries in the 20th century, this has been a quite remarkably reasonable business. Some noisy dinner parties and quite a few family quarrels but not many dead. Which is a sign of the healthy regard in which the British hold robust argument and the freedom to engage in it.
So what of the immediate future? The Remainer suicide pact looks increasingly desperate – but the desperation is a sure sign of its futility. The game is just about up. All that is left are absurdities. (Summoning the Queen’s intervention? Seriously?)
In a few days time we will have a new prime minister who certainly does understand the value of argument and will engage in it without reserve. If he surrounds himself with a team of similarly undaunted confederates, who can speak with one voice, they may be able to capture precisely the mood of the country – which has kept its nerve throughout in the face of bloodcurdling threats, shameless bullying and apocalyptic predictions.
A dispiriting leaderless time in which the governing class has all but broken down and the population often seemed like the only repository of principle and good sense, is just about to finish. What the people want most now is a leader with as much courage – and humour – as they have. Next week is a chance for a new beginning. See you on the other side.
A dispiriting leaderless time in which the governing class has all but broken down is just about to finish