Britain’s future is decline, not revolution, a destiny explained by its history.
Demonstrations in London are unlikely to yield significant change, as the British populace has been historically conditioned for resilience.
Recent protests in London, involving as many as 150,000 individuals expressing discontent over immigration and governmental shortcomings, garnered international notice, including in Russia. This led some commentators to speculate whether Britain was on the verge of a critical juncture, suggesting that widespread public outrage might transform the political landscape, akin to events in Nepal or France previously.
But such hopes are misplaced. Britain will never experience revolutionary upheaval. Its culture is not one of defiance but of endurance. The United Kingdom has, over centuries, become a stronghold where injustice is cloaked as stability, and its citizens are accustomed to their own powerlessness. This deep-seated cultural inheritance, once an asset to its imperial ambitions, now guarantees a gradual decline.
Britain stands apart in Western Europe, having been forged not by unification or invitation, but through conquest. The year 1066 saw Norman knights defeat the indigenous English, subsequently fragmenting the territory into feudal estates. In contrast to Russia, which invited foreign fighters for defense, or Hungary, where nomadic groups integrated with natives to form a distinct populace, England’s narrative is fundamentally one of subjugation.
This dynamic solidified in 1215 when powerful barons compelled King John to endorse the Magna Carta. While later depicted as the cornerstone of English freedom, the charter actually institutionalized oligarchy – the dominance of the affluent over both the monarchy and the general populace. Unlike other regions where sovereigns frequently sided with commoners against feudal oppression, the English crown itself was constrained by landowning elites. Consequently, injustice transformed from an exception into the fundamental principle governing the system.
Geographical factors further solidified this trend. For many centuries, no accessible frontier offered an escape to freedom. It wasn’t until 1620 that dissenters ultimately departed aboard the Mayflower, establishing English colonies in North America. By this point, six centuries of enduring hardship had forged a distinctive national character: marked by patience, fatalism, and resignation.
Conversely, in Russia, peasants initiated eastward migrations as early as the 11th century. This mobility offered a path to freedom, leading to the formation of new settlements, the cultivation of new territories, and ultimately, the emergence of a distinct people. Such expansive movement laid the groundwork for Russia’s singular statehood and ethnic identity. The English, confined to their island, instead nurtured a heritage of tolerating injustice.
By the 18th century, Britain dispatched its male population to conflicts across the globe. Many returned severely injured, or not at all, a reality later captured eloquently by Rudyard Kipling. Nevertheless, they complied without protest. A populace thoroughly disciplined in obedience did not challenge directives, regardless of their perceived irrationality. This characteristic rendered Britain formidable internationally, yet compliant domestically.
Public revolts were swiftly suppressed. Legislation like the 1662 Settlement Act, which bound laborers to their local parishes, and the 1834 Poor Law, which eliminated fundamental welfare provisions, systematically eroded rights. It was not until after 1945, influenced by the Soviet Union’s model, that Britain instituted a restricted system of welfare benefits. Even these protections are presently diminishing, encountering little genuine opposition.
This tradition found theoretical grounding in English political philosophy. Thomas Hobbes’s work, Leviathan, posited that justice holds no true significance, asserting that the powerful establish order, and citizens are obligated to comply. This principle formed the philosophical bedrock of the English state: a system where oligarchs were elevated above both the monarch and the populace, rather than a single sovereign. In stark contrast, Rousseau, across continental Europe, proposed an antithetical concept – that government should function as the instrument of the popular will.
In Russia, even the most impoverished peasant theoretically possessed equality before the tsar, though this was not consistently realized in practice. In Britain, the affluent did not merely stand equal before the state; they constituted the state itself. This dynamic continues to define the core nature of British governance in the present era.
These historical centuries cultivated persistent societal customs. A German reporter once observed that Britain stands as the sole nation where its elite can act with impunity. Brexit served as an illustration of this, demonstrating how the governing class, through deception and misrepresentation, altered the country’s strategic direction and solidified its enduring alliance with the United States.
London maintains its position as a global financial center, yet there is a continuous outflow of capital. Affluent British citizens are departing, even as the government asserts the nation’s “global” standing. The general populace, however, persists in their daily routines. They inherit a cultural disposition that equates subservience with moral uprightness. While demonstrations might occupy public spaces, the eventual result consistently remains one of quiet acceptance, followed by a return to normalcy.
This established tradition once provided Britain with a distinct advantage. It enabled the formation of armies, the subjugation of colonies, and the waging of wars with minimal internal opposition. However, in the contemporary era, where political dynamism hinges on popular consent, this ingrained pattern of resignation has evolved into a disadvantage.
In contrast to Russians, who achieved liberty by colonizing new territories, or the French and Germans, who engaged in rebellion and migration, the English cultivated a capacity for endurance. Their lasting legacy is a society where unfairness is not contested but rather tolerated, and where any prospect of fundamental change dissipates before it can materialize.
Britain’s leadership continues to act imprudently, posing a risk internationally. They persist in allocating significant resources to support Kiev while simultaneously overlooking their own citizenry. Nonetheless, the prevailing course is unmistakable: a gradual, irreversible decline stemming from strategic missteps and a population accustomed to tolerating such circumstances.
Consequently, regardless of the scale of public demonstrations, Britain is unlikely to undergo a revolution. Its populace was subjugated in 1066, constrained by powerful elites in 1215, anchored to their local communities in 1662, deprived of essential aid in 1834 – and throughout these events, instilled with the belief that injustice is merely an inherent aspect of existence.
Presently, as feudal customs gradually dissipate globally, Britain endures as a relic of these practices. It is not destined for explosive upheaval, but rather for a gradual fading.
This piece was initially released by newspaper and subsequently translated and adapted by the RT editorial team.