Britons Revisit Immigrants' Debate

Streets in London since summer saw regular protest rallies that wanted a severe check on immigration. British police have had a hard time in taking things under control. Such demonstrations against immigrants by “patriots” would have been dismissed as highly improbable, if not impossible at the start of the year. Latest surveys show that half of Britons continue to consider their nation’s imperial rule as a matter of pride. They are nostalgic about centuries the British rule covered a quarter of the world until the end of World War II. At a time of increasing economic hardships, they fear that the future holds them dim prospects that might swamp their identity by foreign culture, unfamiliar languages and practices they earlier never heard of. 

What rankles the “patriots” is that the immigrants wield influence without deference to “British” ethos.  Little surprise that the late Enoch Powell, reviled by millions of his peer for many decades for a speech against the country’s policy on immigrants, is now making a comeback.  Member of parliament for 37 years—24 of them as a Conservative Party member and the remaining 13 years representing the Ulster Unionist Party—Powell called it “madness” to allow an annual influx of 50,000 foreign families in Britain. In 1968, he warned of “rivers of blood” if the existing policy were not set right before things went out of hand.

Vehement opposition

He provoked huge hue and cry, condemned as he was within and outside the Tory lobby. More than the content itself, the Conservative power-brokers were guided by the fallout the speech might create against their electoral base. Under the circumstance, he decided to part company with the Conservatives and join the Ulster Unionist Party, and with it gave up high chances of leading the party and entering London’s No. 10 Downing Street. 

Conservative MPs, who disagreed with Powell, condemned him as a racist making dangerous moves, threatening to divide Britons and destroy social harmony. But Powell stood his ground, never ever regretting what he stood for. He served as an MP for the Conservatives from 1950 to 1974 before crossing over to the Ulster Unity Party, which he represented in parliament from 1974 until 1987.

Until he died in 1998, Powell sounded more convinced than ever that his views were proving right. His political prediction is now being revisited, with new supporters. It would not be a big surprise if most Britons went on to acknowledge that he was right for what he believed in. Today, he is commended for clarity of thought and confidence a firm public stance. The press then lampooned him in cartoons and standups. Him, though it is yet to admit that Powell was misunderstood and misjudged for something millions of Britons today seem receptive. 

Powell was a leader of foresight, who believed in himself and for the good of Britain, even if it was a waning power in the 1960 having lost almost all its colonies and with it the vast local resources. The recent rallies against foreign arrivals did not hesitate to single out Muslims for the difficulties the “patriots” faced past some years. This, too, does not bear any big surprise, given how the rest of Europe has gradually tilted towards the right—something that was perceived as awfully wrong by the continent’s majority when previously commenting on similar events in other countries. 

A whiff of change in the rightist mood seems to be gathering gains in the United States, Canada and Australia, too. The mainstream media are reticent to acknowledge the shifting grounds, as they become reluctant to pursue the background and on-going events in their known style. It is not for nothing that the mainstream media in much of the “advanced” West are trusted by barely 45 per cent of their audiences since several years ago. The slide in media trust risks being accelerated in the days ahead.

Until the very end, Powell maintained that his personal political setback was worthwhile the stand on the influx of foreign nationals. He took satisfaction over the fact that, in the first two days after the 1968 storm-creating speech, he received 35,000 letters. And 98 per cent of them supported him. The Conservative Party was carried away by criers who decried his warnings, which now are taken as quite accurate. The naysayers have little or nothing much to say on the development for fear of the wrath they might incur in the present mood and minds of the people.

‘Nation first’

Slowly rehabilitated in the political landscape for what he said more than 55 years ago, yesterday’s Powell the “racist” is appreciated today as a leader with foresight and courage. Margaret Thatcher, who steered the Conservative Party to three consecutive victories in general elections from 1979, later admitted that her party acted in haste without making due evaluation of the content’s sense and analysis. She admired Powell’s economic views that had influenced her policy.

When asked about his loyalty to the Conservative Party, the classical scholar answered: “My first loyalty is to the people of this country.” On political principles, he asserted: “I don’t need lessons in consistency.” Shortly before he died at age 86 in 1998, he sounded satisfied when he said: “I see my voice coming true.” These days, protesters in Britain are termed “patriots” but not extremists, fanatics, rightists or such other epithets thrust upon movements that do not tally with what the West stands for. Call that expediency or hypocrisy, but it has contributed to a fast erosion in media credibility.

Until the start of the new millennium, the Western media wielded considerable sway with the international audience in contrast to the existing image that a majority of their own core audiences at home is unhappy with. Most politicians disagree with Powell’s comment that “All political careers end in failure.” They prefer to dance and fly to the lure of power and “serve people” like moths attracted to a lamp’s flame. As for Powell’s portrait, it can be described as “A villain yesterday, but a hero today, even if 25 years past his death.”

(Professor Kharel specialises in political communication.)