I've heard a lot of people say; "Thousands died so you could vote." While that may be so in countries that overthrew dictatorships or absolute monarchies, I'm struggling to see how and when that applied in the UK. It's a throw-away phrase I've used myself without having thought about it.
The increase in the franchise happened relatively peacefully in the British Isles. Yes, we had a civil war about whether the king or Parliament had the power, but the common man certainly didn't achieve a vote because of the civil war - it was the landed interests who filled Parliament.
Perhaps it's more accurate to say; "Thousands of people died so you could retain your vote," as had Hitler won WWII, it's doubtful in the extreme as to whether any political party, other than the Nazi Party, would have existed.
It's strange, and I know it's apocryphal, but empirical observation has demonstrated that I've rarely met an ex Army person who hasn't accidentally betrayed a secret penchant for a military dictatorship at some time. Others have said the same to me. When you think about it, most dictatorships originate from within the an army, and it's on record that even the British Army has problems with a small core of fascism in its ranks - the MoD has even issued guidance on spotting right wing extremism and Tommy Robinson does appear to have a worrying level of support among squaddies.
Are fascists drawn to the army, or does army life risk turning one into a fascist? Hard to say. Perhaps they see themselves as the last bastion against a corrupt, political elite. There again, are indeed called in if there's civil unrest on a large scale and the temptation to retain that power must be overwhelming in some countries with systemic problems.
The relationship between Army and government in the UK can and does become strained a times. The British Army convinced the British government in 2006 that it could fight two wars simultaneously, with the Helmand operation being to atone for the failure in Southern Iraq, but as things went from bad to worse, this led to accusations of lack of equipment from the Army so as to lay the blame for Helmand's failure on the government. Tension between government increased and led to General Dannat breaking convention and siding with the Conservative opposition. Public sympathy for the Army grew as a consequence and has remained high, despite the Army itself having been the culprit for advocating a war on two fronts.
Given there have been many left-wing military dictatorships (Cuba being just one example), it's perhaps not correct to call military dictatorships right wing, despite that wing being the one we normally associate with military coups. Both extremes of the political divide have a penchant for authoritarianism.
I can't say the desire is so strong in ex RAF or Navy people I've known, but certainly among ex squaddies - less so among the officer class. Perhaps it's because the Army is in closer contact with an enemy in combat situations and it's more face to face, rather than taking out a capital asset like another plane or a battleship.
Are fascists drawn to the army, or does army life risk turning one into a fascist? Hard to say. Perhaps they see themselves as the last bastion against a corrupt, political elite. There again, are indeed called in if there's civil unrest on a large scale and the temptation to retain that power must be overwhelming in some countries with systemic problems.
The relationship between Army and government in the UK can and does become strained a times. The British Army convinced the British government in 2006 that it could fight two wars simultaneously, with the Helmand operation being to atone for the failure in Southern Iraq, but as things went from bad to worse, this led to accusations of lack of equipment from the Army so as to lay the blame for Helmand's failure on the government. Tension between government increased and led to General Dannat breaking convention and siding with the Conservative opposition. Public sympathy for the Army grew as a consequence and has remained high, despite the Army itself having been the culprit for advocating a war on two fronts.
Given there have been many left-wing military dictatorships (Cuba being just one example), it's perhaps not correct to call military dictatorships right wing, despite that wing being the one we normally associate with military coups. Both extremes of the political divide have a penchant for authoritarianism.
I can't say the desire is so strong in ex RAF or Navy people I've known, but certainly among ex squaddies - less so among the officer class. Perhaps it's because the Army is in closer contact with an enemy in combat situations and it's more face to face, rather than taking out a capital asset like another plane or a battleship.
No comments:
Post a Comment