"BUT the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever."Edmund Burke wrote that some two hundred years ago, but it could well have been written of today, if by chivalry we accept the O.E.D. definition of ". . . system . . . with its religious, moral and social code and practices" and chivalrous as "gallant, courteous, magnanimous". Certainly there can be few who will dispute that today governments are composed of "sophisters, economists and calculators", but one hopes that Burke was over pessimistic when he forecast that the glory of Europe was extinguished forever.
What Burke clearly saw was that there needed to be more to life than mere material things and that man does not live by bread alone. Modern experience is demonstrating this yet again, especially in this age of the market economy. For example the standard of living in Britain today is considerably higher than it was in pre-war days, although with a sensible economic policy it could be higher still.
The Welfare State ensures that even the less fortunate do not know the depths of poverty or the widespread ill-health experienced by many in the 1920s and 1930s, although a government which was both caring and efficient would do much more. Yet all is not well. Principles of which we were once proud have been abandoned, standards have slipped, crime is rampant, all sense of unity forgotten.
Even the "Los Angeles Times" has noted that in Mrs. Thatcher's Britain public figures who valued fairness and honesty above all else have disappeared to be replaced by hard-nosed, self-made, aggressive types who operate in an uncharacteristically cut-throat atmosphere. Closer home that high priest of Toryism, Peregrine Worsthorne, concedes that Mrs. Thatcher is creating a land fit for yuppies and yobboes to live in. He contends that Mrs. Thatcher is spreading affluence (and if spreading affluence means creating 650 more millionaires since November 1980, she has succeeded!) but what, Worsthorne asks, if everything else declines - manners, morals, culture, religion, and respect for the law? Worsthorne is beginning to see what Burke saw all those years ago.
What has gone wrong and how can it be put right? These are questions which transcend in importance all others, and not only for Britain, if Europe's two thousand years of civilisation is to have a future worthy of its past, and if its glory is to be revived.
Clearly its peoples have to regain a pride in their past and a belief in their future that will give them a sense of purpose and a degree of unity. This must replace the present dominance of the negative, which is the hallmark of democracy and the parliamentary system as at present practised, aided and abetted by a media that profits from dissension, dispute and negative criticism, and which it does its best to encourage. The negative needs to be replaced by the positive. Instead of being against everything, we need to be for something: to have a belief and a purpose that is worth working for, even dying for.
Abolishing the cult of opposition, must not mean the silencing of constructive criticism. What it must mean is a willingness to work together in spite of differences of opinion. This should apply to government in all its forms, as it does in present practice to business and to many other walks of life. Although today even business seems to be plagued by board room disputes and cut-throat take-overs, so that managers, let alone the workforce, no longer know who are the owners of their business and seldom have any personal contact or relationship with the remote city slickers who have replaced the family firm.
Sir Oswald Mosley perceived in the 1930s what Burke felt long before him and Worsthorne is beginning to grasp, namely that good government entails more than providing an effective and efficient economic system coupled with a fair and just social policy - although what an advance that would be! The fact that he did so explains what to many of his serious critics remains a mystery. Even the sternest of them acknowledge that he was a man of outstanding ability and most believe that he could well have become leader of either of the pre-war parties had he chosen to remain within the party system. Few understand why he chose not to. It is widely assumed that it was a misjudgement on his part, due to his assumed hasty temper and arrogance. Those who were close to him know that the real reason was that he saw that Britain needed something more than the old political parties could offer even under his leadership. Even if he could have got his policies accepted by one or other of the parties and even if he could have found colleagues within those parties capable of implementing such policies, this still would have fallen short of what was required. A new spirit had to be created in the British people themselves; a spirit which would have lifted them from the mundane and the negative and given them a new vision and a renewed faith in themselves and their destiny. Neither the party system nor the party hacks could supply the required inspiration.
In the 1930s the spirit to be aroused in Britain was one of patriotism, based upon the inheritance of the greatest Empire that man had ever seen; and the sense of purpose on the need to care for and develop that inheritance. This was his call for sacrifice from those prepared to fight against the slothful ease and apathy that was allowing that great Empire to slip from our hands, and to resist the vested interests who were prepared to lose it in an alien quarrel. The emotion of patriotism, now frequently derided, was strong in those days and his appeal found strong response.
Whatever criticisms may be made of the various pre-war Fascist and National Socialist movements throughout the world and in spite of their sharply differing characters and policies - as would be expected from highly nationalistic organisations - there is one thing that they had in common: they inspired in their followers a dedication, a spirit, an enthusiasm which lifted them above mere material things. Although all had their source in dissatisfaction with the prevailing economic conditions, all were inspired by much more than mere economics.
But those days are past. Britain no longer has a great Empire, nor a "white man's burden" to carry. Her people can be proud of her distant past, if less so of recent years. But the need for a common aim and purpose is no less essential. If doubt exists as to the effect of such an aim and purpose, one has but to recall the war days. Whatever its folly, the war called out the best in people. In spite of hardships and dangers, there was a willingness to work together and to make light of problems and of tragedy. Although it may have been due to no more than the propaganda skill of the "sophisters", people felt that they had a cause greater than themselves. Even political opponents worked together for the duration. The great tragedy of these times is that such spirit and such unity can be evoked for the negative purpose of war, but not for positive purposes in peace. Clearly this needs to be reversed. But how can this be done, if indeed it can be done?
We have gone so far down the negative road that a reversal will not be easy, although an increasing number of people are becoming concerned as to where this road is leading us. To many the idea that government should be composed of the ablest people in the country, drawn from all walks of life, working together in the national interest makes a strong appeal. Likewise the idea of Europe working together as an integrated whole makes increasing sense, in spite of some of the absurdities that at present emanate from Brussels. That Europe with her history of civilisation and her culture has much to offer the world few doubt, and increasingly they come to see that Europe's potential is limited unless she is united. Few now pretend that Britain will have any significant future except as part of a united Europe.
But those who share this view do so because logic provides no alternative. Their minds have carried them forward, but often their hearts remain as yet unwarmed. It is said that logic causes us to say "Yes, that is right"; but only emotion causes us to get up out of our armchairs and do something about it! Mosley in advocating "Europe a Nation" called for an extension of patriotism, and he was right. The message that we of the pre-war generation have to pass on to those who succeed us and in whose hands the future lies is: a united Europe must be more than something which makes sense: it must arouse an emotion. We have to become proud of being Europeans; proud of our inheritance of two thousand years of civilisation; proud of the contribution that a united Europe can still make to the world and the welfare of mankind; passionately determined to restore and uphold its standards of "chivalry" and to ensure "the glory of Europe" in a way that transcends but is worthy of its past.
Robert Saunders
Lodestar No7 - Winter 1987/88
|
