Death Of An Empire, British-Style

Supposedly, according to Benjamin Franklin, death and taxes are the only certainties in life.  Here's one more you can add to that list:  empires crumble.  If you've read any history, or were taught it by anyone competent, you know that history is about the rise and fall of empires that seemingly had everything they needed to exist indefinitely.  That kind of security is an illusion, in part because successful empires, like successful people, become complacent.  Humans have a natural tendency, even need, to gravitate internally to a sense that their lives are relatively stable.  They view their successes as permanent monuments because they feel a need to be in control of their lives. 

And successful empires, composed of successful people, function much the same way.  Their leaders view their prosperity, their institutions and their cultures as things that will endure long after they are gone, because doing so relieves them of the need to do any further hard thinking about their futures.  They can enjoy the fruits of their labors, more often than not the fruits of others' labors, secure in the fantasy that things will never change.

Except that, of course, they do.  Humans change, from generation to generation, and from location to location.  Which raises the need for empires to adapt to the changes.  Some make a half-hearted effort to do so, while some pretend that they don't need to do so at all.  The former fall apart slowly, due to the half-hearted nature of their efforts.  The latter fall apart much more quickly, because they make no efforts at all.

I would argue, especially on the strength of recent events, that the British Empire is an example of the former.

In its imperial conduct, Great Britain's history is hardly a tale of unalloyed wisdom.  On the one hand, at its absolute peak in the previous century, its physical, political, economic and cultural reach literally circled the entire globe, an accomplishment never seen before or equalled since.  "The sun," it was said, "never sets on the Union Jack."  On the other hand, its treatment of its colonial subjects was often far less civilized than its self-image would otherwise suggest.  In at least some cases, that treatment led to serious reversals for the British, including the losses of colonial possessions covering all of North America and the entire Indian subcontinent.

Still, the British Empire, in one form or another, has lasted for literally centuries, and, in the process, done much to spread the enactment of democratic principles all over the world.  Even in the loss of nearly all of its colonies, it has managed to preserve aspects of its culture, as well as extensive economic relationships, with many of its former global subjects.  At the same time, it embarked on a new phase of its existence, as part of an economically integrated Europe.  All of this demonstrates an ability to adapt that does much to explain the Empire's longevity.

But that ability may be coming, alas, to an end.  And the root cause of that ending may be found in the inability of its two major political parties to adapt to a changing world.

On the one hand, the Conservative Party, like its Republican counterpart here in the U.S., is now dominated by the likes of Nigel Farage, a man who can't stand the idea of living or working next to people who don't "look or sound" like him.  As a consequence, he led the successful fight to extract Britain from the European Union, which was supposed to open up a whole new world of economic opportunity for the British, freed of the alleged tyranny of European rules and regulations--and especially freed of European travel rules that increased the number of immigrants to Britain.

Only now, the whole thing doesn't look like such a good idea.  Britain has effectively entered an economic world in which nothing is certain, in which it will have to fend for itself on trade issues in a world where nations now function on a much more independent basis where trade is concerned.  As a result, British citizens have resorted to stockpiling food and other basic necessities.  As for Farage, the man who started it all, there might be reason to think that, suddenly, when confronted with evidence that his great cause was not so great after all, he might even agree with that assessment of it.

On the other hand, you have the Labour Party, which ought to be in a position politically to exploit the failure of the Conservatives to leave Europe without consequences.  Ought to be, but isn't.  Labour, like its Democratic counterpart in the U.S., has a seemingly unlimited capacity for shooting itself in the foot .  And, when that tendency is combined with the institutional anti-Semitism of much of the British intellectual classes, you end up with a party identified with hatred, and not with progress.

Two great political parties.  Two great institutions of a historically great nation.  Both now dominated and stained by the consequences of their bigotry, including the loss of the ability to adapt to a world that is changing, and will continue to change, whether either party likes it or not.

Unless one or both of them learn to change themselves, and to adapt, the sun may yet set on the Union Jack for good.