UK STUDENT’S FILE
BRITISH TRADITIONALISM
(5 weeks: September – October)
PLAN
I. Lead-in
 Mock UK Citizenship Test
 Reading 1: WHAT ARE BRITISH “CORE VALUES”?
II. Obligatory material
 Reading 2: WHY THE MONARCHY MUST STAY
 Reading 3: WHY THE MONARCHY MUST GO
 Reading 4: HOW GOOD A DEMOCRACY IS BRITAIN?
III. Additional texts
 Reading 5: EDUCATION IS THE ONLY WAY TO CLOSE
CLASS DIVIDE
 Reading 6: “HUMBLE” BRITAIN: SHOULD IT BE?
 Reading 7: RUSSIA: MONARCHIST NOSTALGIA
REMAINS POWERFUL
1
I.
Lead-in
 Mock UK Citizenship Test
1. Why doesn’t Britain have a written constitution and what
democratic country is it comparable to in having no single
document codifying the way its political institutions function
and setting out the basic rights and duties of its citizens?
2. How many monarchies are there in the world?
3. How many current queens regnant do you know?
4. How old is Queen Elizabeth II and how long has she been the
reigning Queen of the Commonwealth Realms?
5. What is the minimum age of a person who can stand for
public office?
6. Why was The Chicago River dyed green in 2005? Was it
somehow connected with British history?
7. Britain's national dish is:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Roast Aberdeen Angus Beef, Yorkshire Pudding and braised leeks.
Fish and chips.
Chicken tikka masala.
Inedible, whatever it is.
8. What do people throughout Britain commemorate with
bonfires and fireworks and by burning an effigy of Guy?
9. Name a British author whose books (the idea for which was
conceived whilst on a train trip from Manchester to London in
1990) have gained worldwide attention, won multiple awards,
sold more than 400 million copies. She once said: “I am not
trying to influence anyone into black magic. That is the very
last thing I'd want to do”.
2
 Reading 1:
What are British “Core Values”?
Archbishop Cranmer
www.dailymail.co.uk
February, 2011
In recent years, we observe that ‘Britishness’ for Margaret Thatcher was about
individual responsibility and industry – the Protestant work ethic; the place of the
United Kingdom in the world; the maintenance of democracy; the flourishing of liberty;
the importance of the family; respect for Parliament, Church and Monarchy; and a
patriotism which was not ashamed to fly the Union Flag. For John Major it was
concerned with warm beer and cricket on the village green; ‘back to basics’; traditional
values. For Tony Blair it was about social justice and rebranding for the postmodern
era: ‘Cool Britannia’; of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States in support
of an interventionist foreign policy to rid the world of evil dictators. For Gordon Brown
it was... well, he never quite got there, but he did talk an awful lot about tolerance and
fairness.
David Cameron has yet to synthesise his views, but in 2007 he observed: “It is
mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life,
not the other way around.” On social cohesion, he said that ‘integration is a two-way
street. If we want to remind ourselves of British values – hospitality, tolerance and
generosity to name just three – there are plenty of British Muslims ready to show us
what those things really mean’. He was, of course, on the campaign trail, but he could
scarcely have said anything more provocative to the indigenous peoples of these islands
than to laud Islam as the paragon of family and community values to which all
Christians must aspire. And yet he was right to observe that many British Asians do
value what it means to be British far more than many of those with a genetic heritage
going back millennia, and they have achieved an admirable level of integration within
just one generation.
The consensus of all the main political parties is that modern Britain has been enriched
by ethnic pluralism and enlightened by theological ecumenism* and European political
union. But these developments have caused something of an identity crisis in the nation,
spawning numerous books and articles which seek to define what is meant by
‘Britishness’.
First and foremost, Britishness is about tolerance: it is the attribute which has enabled
five million immigrants and their descendants to comprise a tenth of the country’s
3
population. This pluralism is a priceless ingredient of the nation’s culture, and it is
incumbent upon people of all creeds, philosophies, ethnicities and political ideologies to
tolerate those with whom they do not agree.
But British culture cannot be cohesive when there is diversity of language, laws,
traditions, customs and religion. As far as England is concerned, foreign encroachments
have been fiercely resisted since the Reformation, yet the accommodation of Roman
Catholics has developed of necessity to the extent that they agreed to abide by the laws
of the state. A logical corollary** of this is that Asian immigrants to the UK ought now
to adapt their cultural traditions and religious expression to accommodate ‘British
toleration’ or conform to those aspects of ‘Britishness’ which make society cohesive.
And so a Briton has the right to oppose or support British policy in Iraq and may
campaign to that effect, write, agitate and stand for election towards the chosen end.
But it is also elementary that he does not have the right to stone adulterers to death,
hang homosexuals or blow up the underground or an aircraft. Toleration of the
intolerant is distinctly un-British.
And so, secondly, we observe that the rule of law and equality under the law are core
British values. There is no doubt that some religious practices may coerce some. But
mindful of minority ethnic voting communities, politicians have trod carefully along the
via media between religious liberty and cultural prohibition.
Over recent centuries, it is Protestantism which has defined the character of Great
Britain: from the Armada, through the Act of Union in 1707 to the battle of Waterloo,
Britain was involved in successive wars against Roman Catholic nations. It was a
shared religious allegiance that permitted a sense of British national identity to emerge,
and which has served as a unifying narrative under the aegis of the Established Church
through which the common good has traditionally been defined. Of course, this history
is peppered with myth, sentiment and flights of fancy – notions that somehow God had
chosen England, and the nation is singularly blessed by virtue of the purity of
Protestantism over the discredited and sullied Catholicism of continental Europe. This
selective sense of religious history and an idealised perception of the moral purpose of
the United Kingdom in the world are part of our ‘Britishness’. We have a cohesive
religious base, which is intrinsic to the national psyche: essentially, whilst
acknowledging the liberties of atheists and rights of secular humanists, to be ‘religious’
is to be British.
And so, thirdly, to be British is to be free – to believe, to own, to contract and to
associate. The state only has authority to the extent granted by Parliament, which is
subject to the assent of the people. The foundations of those liberties – Magna Carta,
Habeas Corpus, Bill of Rights, Act of Union – guard against state coercion. To
4
abrogate*** them is to diminish our liberty and to deny our heritage. It is not British to
be subject to foreign parliaments or alien courts – temporal or spiritual – especially
where they seek to impose a doctrine or creed which is antithetical to that which we
have evolved over the centuries.
To be British is sometimes to tolerate conflicting philosophies, mutually-exclusive
theologies and illogical propositions. But not at any cost.
Notes:
* ecumenism – the principle or aim of uniting different branches of the Christian
Church
** corollary – an argument that is the natural or direct result of another one
*** to abrogate – to officially end a law, an agreement
II. Obligatory material
 Reading 2: учебник Е.М.Зелтынь, Г.П. Легкодух
Английский для будущих дипломатов. English for future
diplomats.-М,;МГИМО(У)МИД России,2005 – Unit 5.
UNIT 5
Why the Monarchy Must Stay
It keeps politicians from holding all the power
Harold Brooks-Baker
Winston Churchill often described parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy as
being imperfect - but the best that man had yet devised.
It is human nature to require a leader at the helm. In our century we have looked to our heads
of state for this role. Apart from carrying out ceremonial duties, a head of state should foster the
notion of political accountability, while remaining above politics. That, of course, can't be true in
places where the head of state is an ex-politician - or in America, where the head of state is the
political leader. The British system of constitutional monarchy, like the more than half-dozen
monarchies still in existence in Europe, aptly shows why a monarch is a more successful
figurehead than a president.
"In Great Britain things that are conventional become habitual, and things that are habitual
become constitutional," wrote American historian George Brinton Cooper 40 years ago. In
Britain the monarch remains very much at the heart of its Constitution. As constitutional
monarch, Queen Elizabeth II holds powers that may surprise many. She can choose a prime
minister, dissolve Parliament and declare war. In reality, she waives these powers and is bound
by tradition to accept the advice of Parliament. This system prevents politicians from too easily
usurping power and, it may be argued, has prevented a dictator from dominating Great Britain
since Oliver Cromwell's short rule in the 17th century.
5
It is one of the great strengths of monarchy that it has never taken sides in any political debate,
that it shows itself, as an institution, to be even-handed. This apolitical stance has made it possible
for the political culture of Great Britain to assimilate, with relative ease, theories that would appear
on the face of things to be radically at odds with a system of monarchical government - for
example, socialism. Monarchy in this century has worked with socialist governments as effectively
as with those whose politics one might choose to think were more sympathetic to the institution.
If one were to jettison the monarchy, government, Parliament, the nation and the
commonwealth would be turned upside down. Every nut and bolt of every one of Britain's major
institutions would have to be altered to make way for change. Bear in mind that every organ
from the post office to the armed services acts with authority from the monarch. The troops that
are sent to Bosnia and the letters that arrive in one's letter box are all effectively Her Majesty's.
This is a system that has shown itself to work - and it's generally agreed that if something works,
it should be retained. Any replacement would be ruinously costly, both in financial terms and
also in terms of the loss of a unifying national symbol and a vital historical link. Only a
monarchy can provide such continuity, remaining constant in a country's ever-changing national
vision.
British monarchy has served both the empire and the commonwealth with great distinction. It
is easy to forget in Great Britain that Queen Elizabeth is head of state not only of one small
island nation, but also of the 53 nations of the commonwealth, with a combined population of
1.5 billion. In short, she is head of state to more than one quarter of the earth's inhabitants. As
such, she flies the world nurturing a sense of unity between nations. From this follows trade, and
a vital economic boost to the nation's industry and commerce. At home, monarchy is at the
center of a multimillion-dollar tourist industry. (And Elizabeth II donates more than $90 million
a year to the treasury). Monarchy adds dignity and historical relevance to all state occasions, and
there can be no doubt that it is still more impressive to be met by a monarch than by a president.
And yet monarchy is threatened because the idea of republicanism seems more democratic and
less overtly hierarchical. After the "annus horribilis," "Camillagate," "Squidgygate" and other royal
antics, support for the monarchy in Great Britain dropped to 38 percent. Yet these poll results stem
largely from a confusion in the public mind between the words "monarchy" and "royal family".
In a monarchy there is only one person of importance: the reigning monarch. The public actions
and statements of other members of the royal family - however laudable or distressing they may
be - have no effect on the monarch's power or status. Nor should any individual's character or
conduct be confused with those of an institution of much longer standing. Monarchy's legitimacy
flows from its history and traditions and from the fact that it cannot be overwhelmed by any
shortlived cult of personality. It commands too much respect.
Despite recent bursts of anti-monarchical feeling, however, it is still hard to discover a strong
movement toward a republic in this country. There is still no focus for this opposition, nor has
any popular political party taken up the call for the monarch's removal. Even The Independent,
one of Britain's most respected broadsheet newspapers, in its call for a wider debate on this issue
still advocated the retention of Queen Elizabeth as head of state until her death. Taken together,
what does all this show? That people like things the way they are.
Harold Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's Peerage, is an American living in
London.
NEWSWEEK March 11, 1996
Reading notes
Cromwell, Oliver (1599-1658) - English general and politician. He was leader of the
Parliamentary army against King Charles I in the English Civil War (1642-51) and became Lord
Protector of England and the Commonwealth (1653-58) after the king's execution. The English
Civil War resulted from a power struggle between King Charles I and the English parliament led
by Oliver Cromwell, during which the King, Charles I, was defeated and executed.
Annus horribilis (Lat.) - a horrible year, a year of disasters. In a speech made in 1992, referring
to the recent scandals and misfortunes which had struck the Royal family, Queen Elizabeth II
6
used this phrase to sum up the previous twelve months, quoting from a letter sent to her by a
sympathetic correspondent. The expression is based on the much older annus mirabilis,
describing 1666, a year of marvels, or calamities such as the great fire of London.
The scandals and misfortunes of 1992: in January Chuck and Di meet with the Queen. The
possibility of divorce is rejected. In June "Diana: Her True Story" by Andrew Morton reports
suicide attempts and bulimia. In July the couple discuss separation, involve lawyers. In August
tapes surface of a mushy 1989 phone chat between Di and James Gilbey. In December
separation is announced. Charles hires a new nanny, "Tiggy", to help look after the children. Di
is enraged.
Camillagate - reference to Camilla Parker Bowles, an old-time friend of Prince Charles.
Squidgy - nickname of James Hewitt, a close friend of Princess Diana's.
broadsheet newspapers - quality newspapers like The Times, The Guardian, The Daily
Telegraph.
Exercises
1. Fill in the missing prepositions or adverbs where required.
1. to look ___ somebody ___ support (advice, leadership)
2. to waive ___ powers (formalities)
3. to be bound ___ tradition
4. to take ___ sides ___ a debate
5. to prevent a dictator ___ dominating Great Britain
6. to assimilate new theories ___ relative ease
7. ___ the face ___ things
8. to be ___ odds ___ sth/sb
9. to make way ___ change
10. to act ___ authority ___ the monarch
11. to serve ___ distinction
12. the results stem ___ a confusion ___ the public mind
2. Look for words and expressions in the text to match
the following definitions.
1. suited to its purpose; appropriate; fitting
2. to raise or promote the development of
3. to take or assume power (property) by force or without right
4. not hidden; open; apparent
5. giving fair and equal treatment to all sides; impartial
6. a person put in a position of leadership, but having no real power, authority
or responsibility.
7. to bring up with care; stimulate; cherish
8. the attitude adopted in dealing with a particular situation
9. to keep in a fixed state or condition
10. showing favour, approval or agreement
11. very destructive or harmful; disastrous
12. to throw away as useless or a burden; get rid of
13. praiseworthy; commendable (esp. of behaviour, actions, etc.)
14. causing sorrow, misery, pain or suffering
15. having a short life span or existence
16. a silly or ludicrous act; trick, etc.; prank
17. to speak in support of; be in favour of
18. to give up or forego (a right, claim, privilege, etc.)
19. to end by breaking up; terminate
20. the quality that makes one worthy of special recognition
3. Explain and expand on the following sentences
from the text.
7
1. Apart from carrying out ceremonial duties, a head of state should foster the notion of political
accountability, while remaining above politics.
2. In Great Britain things that are conventional become habitual, and things that are habitual
become constitutional.
3. Queen Elizabeth II waives these powers and is bound by tradition to accept the advice of
Parliament.
4. If one were to jettison the monarchy, ...every nut and bolt of every one of Britain's major
institutions would have to be altered to make way for change.
5. Any replacement would be ruinously costly, both in financial terms and also in terms of the
loss of a unifying national symbol and a vital historical link.
6. The poll results stem largely from a confusion in the public mind between the words
"monarchy" and "royal family".
7. Monarchy's legitimacy flows from its history and traditions and from the fact that it cannot be
overwhelmed by any short-lived cult of personality. It commands too much respect.
4. Consult the dictionary and learn the derivatives
of the following words.
to retain, to alter, to account; relevance, distinction
5. Explain the difference in meaning or usage of the following
groups of words. Think of situations in which they would be
appropriate.
1. notion - concept - idea - belief
2. conventional - traditional - habitual
3. to foster - nourish - nurture - rear
4. to devise - invent - contrive - plan
6. Support or challenge the following notions expressed
by the author.
1. Winston Churchill described parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy as being
imperfect - but the best that man had yet devised.
2. It is human nature to require a leader at the helm.
3. It is generally agreed that if something works, it should be retained.
4. Only a monarchy can provide continuity, remaining constant in a country's ever-changing
national vision.
5. Monarchy adds dignity and historical relevance to all state occasions.
6. People like things the way they are.
7. Give a summary of the arguments in support of retaining the British Monarchy.
8. Render the following into English.
Символом нации быть нелегко
Вопреки установившейся традиции королева Великобритании Елизавета II появилась
вчера на публике и посетила новый онкологический центр в Норфолке. Обычно она
проводит 6 февраля в замке Сандрингем. Там ровно 50 лет назад, в 1952 г., умер ее отец
король Георг VI - заядлый курильщик, страдавший раком легких.
Трагическая весть о смерти отца застала 25-летнюю принцессу в Кении. Она была
вынуждена срочно вернуться в Лондон, где и началась ее «королевская карьера».
Елизавета II стала незыблемым символом британской нации: Ее боготворят роялисты и
уважают настроенные на республиканский лад оппоненты. За все время пребывания на
8
престоле она редко подвергалась персональной критике. Впрочем, стоит оговориться, что
в Великобритании за политические и экономические просчеты принято винить премьерминистра и его кабинет, а не венценосную особу.
Cогласно последним опросам общественного мнения, 65% британцев полагают, что
Елизавета II прекрасно справляется со своими обязанностями. В целом больше половины
подданных хотели бы сохранить институт конституционной монархии, правда, несколько
модернизировав его на голландский лад.
Королева стремится идти в ногу со временем. Недавно она даже позволила проводить
ежегодный публичный аудит расходов двора. Но, к сожалению, в последнее время главу
государства часто расстраивают близкие. Тяжело представлять свою семью как модель и
символ нации после ряда нашумевших скандалов - от неудачного брака сына, принца
Чарльза, до некрасивой истории с внуком, принцем Гарри, употреблявшим марихуану.
7 февраля 2002 года ВРЕМЯ MN
 Reading 3: учебник Е.М.Зелтынь, Г.П. Легкодух
Английский для будущих дипломатов. English for future
diplomats.-М,;МГИМО(У)МИД России,2005 – Unit 6.
UNIT 6
Why the Monarchy Must Go
It's anti-democratic - and holds Britain back
Michael Elliott
I was a teenager in suburban Liverpool when I decided I was a republican. It seemed to be a
pretty easy act of rebellion - a bit like wearing flared hipsters on Sunday. Yet it's a funny thing:
like anyone halfway sensible, I've managed to jettison almost everything that I held dear 30
years ago. Not republicanism. The older I get, the more implacably I become convinced that
Britain won't get some big questions right unless it dumps the monarchy. Plainly, republican
sentiment has risen in Britain during the monarchy's awful 1990s, but it's still a minority taste,
and it will take more than a few giddy antics from Chuck, Di and the gang to convince most
Britons that they are better off without the whole lot. Malcolm Fraser, an erstwhile conservative
prime minister of Australia, has said that "the harsh reality is that the young royals have done the
monarchy immeasurable harm." They certainly have, but the case for republicanism has to be
made on principle, not on the sordid foolishness of the moment.
The simple, straightforward case against monarchy is that in a democracy it is inappropriate
for the head of state to be determined by heredity. Positions of public authority should, wherever
possible, be acquired on merit and confirmed by a democratic mandate. The obvious riposte is to
note - as British monarchists have for a century - that the queen "reigns but does not rule", and to
point to societies like the Netherlands and Denmark where democracy coexists with monarchy.
Why not Britain?
Because Britain is different. In the 19th century, the British elite staved off revolution by
giving a little bit of ground every few years to the forces of democracy. That was no doubt wise:
but it has left modern Britain with a system of government that is in many ways premodern, and
in which heredity still looms large. Arguably, that mattered little until the 1980s. But it matters a
lot now. For in the last 15 years, British society has been stood on its head. From a closed,
inward-looking, placidly shabby sort of place, it has become an energetic, entrepreneurial
9
society with a diaspora spread across the globe. From a place in which everyone knew his place,
it has become one of the most delightfully undeferential places on earth. Its institutions, from the
BBC to labor unions, have been subject to withering fire. This, above all else, is the legacy of
Margaret Thatcher, who, when the history books are written, will be identified as the person who
thrust a dagger into the heart of monarchy. For at just the time when the British decided that
authority had to be not inherited but earned, the monarchy went into a tailspin.
The royal family, in one of the little phrases that we learned at school, was supposed to be a
"mirror to our better selves." In the 1980s and 1990s, it became precisely the opposite - a
dysfunctional family, alternately mired in Teutonic angst and screeching vulgarity, bouncing
from nightclubs to grouse moors, with experience of nothing (or at least, nothing of relevance to
most modern Britons), but an opinion on everything. To ask Britain to grant such a family
authority and deference is to ask it to perform a feat of gymnastics which will, in the end, delay
the necessary reform and modernization of its institutions.
Isn't there anything good that can be said for monarchy? A common argument is that it
provides an indispensable link with a nation's past, providing a symbol of national cohesion. Bunk.
Leave aside the miserable truth that at the moment the monarchy is not uniting Britain but
dividing it. Remember, rather, that ending the monarchy does not mean abolishing history, or the
shared assumptions that make up a society. I've just spent a few days in Paris, and though I'm guilty of
the common British assumption that they order these matters better in France, in this case, they really
do. French society is living proof that democracy and republicanism can coexist with a reverence
both for the past, for national cohesion, and with every society's need for some symbols of authority.
You can still stand to attention for "God Save the Queen" but wish it had different words; at least, I
can.
Still, can't the genie be put back in the bottle? I doubt it. Even if for some odd reason one thought
that the Britain of the future would be a more successful society if it could rediscover deference, it
strains belief to think that the monarchy can earn it. Tabloid culture isn't going to go away; on the
contrary, it is (like TV in the United States) one of the things that make Britain what it is. Now
that the royals have willingly stepped down from their pedestal, the British media are not of their
own volition going to stick them back up there.
Finally, can't the monarchy somehow become more (dread word) relevant to modern Britain?
No, it can't. In a democracy, the only thing worse than a foolish monarch is an intelligent one.
(Prince Charles's unique contribution to modern studies of royalty is to keep observers guessing
which he is). For an intelligent monarch will have influence, and an influential monarch is
precisely what cannot coexist with a modern democracy. Compelled by pop culture to live in the
glare of the flashbulb but forced by democratic principle to a public role of trifling
insignificance, the monarchy is doomed to limp on, its very existence a source of unhappiness
and embarrassment. Better, surely, to prepare now for its dignified end.
Michael Elliott, Editor of Newsweek International, is a Briton living in
Washington, D.C.
NEWSWEEK
March 11, 1996
Reading notes
hipsters - (Br.E.) trousers that fit tightly over your hips and do not cover your waist.
flared hipsters {also flares) - trousers that become wider below the knee, fashionable in the
1960s and 1970s. Chuck - (here) Prince Charles Di - Princess Diana
the legacy of Margaret Thatcher - Thatcher, Margaret (Hilda) (1925-) English politician.
Elected to Parliament in 1959, after holding junior office she became minister of education
(1970-1974). In 1975 she replaced Edward Heath as leader of the Conservative Party to become
the first woman party leader in British politics. Under her leadership, the Conservative Party
moved towards a more "right-wing" position, and British politics and society became more
polarized than at any other time since World War II. She became the longest serving Prime
Minister in the 20th century (1979-1990) but her popularity waned and her anti-European
statements caused damaging division within the Conservative Party. The attacks which
10
successive Thatcher administrations made upon the social, economic and political Establishment
of Britain have substantially changed public attitudes towards leadership. The British characteristic of deference - a respect for those enjoying positions of authority, whether traditional or
elected - has been significantly reduced. Margaret Thatcher had little respect for the established
leaders of the judiciary, civil service, Church of England, financial institutions, aristocracy and
the professions. The e//fes, as political scientists term them, were seen as obstacles to her
reforming zeal.
Teutonic - connected with the ancient German peoples of northwestern Europe including the
German, Scandinavian, Dutch and English.
angst (G.) - a gloomy, often neurotic feeling of anxiety and depression caused esp. by
considering the sad state of the world and/or the human condition.
bunk (Sl.) - nonesense
"God Save the Queen" - the name of the British national anthem. "Queen" changes to "King"
when a king rules. The American national anthem is "The Star-Spangled Banner."
tabloid (Br.E.) - a newspaper that does not carry much serious news but contains a lot of gossip,
scandal and sensational stories (compare: broadsheet or quality papers).
Exercises
1. Explain and expand on the following sentences from the text.
1. It seemed to be a pretty easy act of rebellion - a bit like wearing flared hipsters on Sunday.
2. Plainly, the republican sentiment has risen in Britain during the monarchy's awful 1990s, but
it's still a minority taste, and it will take more than a few giddy antics from the young royals
to convince most Britons that they are better off without the whole lot.
3. In the 19th century, the British elite staved off revolution by giving a little bit of ground
every few years to the forces of democracy.
4. From a place in which everyone knew his place, British society has become one of the most
delightfully undeferential places on earth.
5. This, above all else, is the legacy of Margaret Thatcher, who, when the history books are
written, will be identified as the person who thrust a dagger into the heart of monarchy.
6. In the 1980s and 1990s the royal family became a dysfunctional family, alternately mired in
Teutonic angst and screeching vulgarity, bouncing from nightclubs to grouse moors, with
experience of bouncing from nightclubs to grouse moors, with experience of nothing of
relevance to most modern Britons, but an opinion on everything.
7. Even if for some odd reason one thought that the Britain of the future would be a more
successful society if it could rediscover deference, it strains belief to think that the
monarchy can earn it.
8. Now that the royals have willingly stepped down from their pedestal, the British media are
not of their own volition going to stick them back up there.
9. Compelled by pop culture to live in the glare of the flashbulb but forced by democratic
principle to a public role of trifling insignificance the monarchy is doomed to limp on.
2. Paraphrase the following sentences from the text.
1. Like anyone halfway sensible, I've managed to jettison almost everything that I held dear 30
years ago.
2. an erstwhile conservative prime minister.
3. a straightforward case against the monarchy.
4. Positions of public authority should be acquired on merit and confirmed by a democratic
mandate.
5. heredity still looms large.
6. British society has been stood on its head.
7. Britain's institutions have been subject to withering fire.
8. ...the monarchy went into a tailspin.
9. The royal family was supposed to be a "mirror to our better selves."
11
10.To ask Britain to grant such a family authority and deference is to ask it to perform a feat of
gymnastics.
11.Can't the genie be put back in the bottle?
12.Tabloid culture isn't going to go away.
3. Form antonyms by using negative prefixes.
Think of synonymous expressions for the antonyms.
placable
functional
reverence
measurable
relevant
belief
appropriate
dispensable
significance
deferential
dignified
merit
4.Match the words in column A with their definitions under B.
A
В
1. to dump
2. implacable
3. sentiment
4. giddy
5. erstwhile
6. sordid
7. inappropriate
8. a riposte
9. to stave off
10. arguably
11. placid
12. a tailspin
13. withering
14. dysfunctional
15. alternately
16. mired (in)
17. indispensable
18. assumption
19. reverence
20. deference
21. to strain
22. volition
a. courteous regard or respect
b. a sharp swift response or retort
с as can be supported by
argument
d. relentless, inexorable
e. not suitable, fitting or proper
f. to throw away (garbage, rubbish),
get rid of
g. frivolous; flighty; heedless
h. undisturbed; tranquil; calm
i. sunk or stuck in mud or soggy
ground
j. a feeling or attitude of deep
respect,
love and awe
k. to stretch beyond the limits
I. of an earlier time; former
m. feeling, opinion, judgement or
attitude
n. absolutely necessary or required;
essential
o. anything taken for granted
p. will; the act of using one's will
q. a state of rapidly increasing
confusion
r. to ward off, hold off
(as by force, guile, etc.)
s. depressingly wretched; base;
ignoble; mean
t. abnormal, impaired
u. intended to embarrass, make sb.
lose confidence
v. intermittently; occurring one after
the other in a repeated pattern
5. Try to recall the attributes used with the following nouns.
Think of other adjectives that could go with these nouns.
a few _ antics
an __ link
12
an __ prime minister
to do __ harm
the __ riposte
the __ foolishness
subject to __ fire
__ vulgarity
__ cohesion
the __ assumptions
the __ truth
__ proof
__ insignificance
a __end
6. Fill in the missing prepositions or adverbs
where required.
1. to be better __
2. to be acquired _ merit
3. a straightforward case _ monarchy
4. to stave _ revolution
5. to be subject__ withering fire
6. __ all else...
7. to go__ a tailspin
8. a mirror _ our better selves
9. to be mired _ angst and vulgarity
10.to coexist __ a reverence __ the past
11.to stand __ attention
12. __ some odd reason
7. Consult the dictionary and learn the derivatives
of the following words.
merit, heredity, reverence, sentiment, cohesion
8. Explain the difference in meaning or usage of the following
groups of words. Think of situations where they would be
appropriate.
1. jettison - dump - throw away - discard - dispense with
2. implacable - inflexible - adamant - relentless
3. placid - calm - tranquil - peaceful
4. alternate - intermittent - recurrent - periodic
5. reverence — awe — deference — regard
6. heredity — legacy — heritage — inheritance
9. Sum up the arguments against the monarchy as presented
in the article.
10. Comment on the views expressed by Michael Elliott and
Harold Brooks-Baker. Discuss the situation in Great Britain
today.
11 .Render the following into English.
Двадцать лет спустя тори чествуют железную миледи
В лондонском отеле «Хилтон» бойцы-ветераны консервативной партии чинно и ностальгически
вспоминали минувшие дни, вернее, один день - 3 мая 1979 года, когда дочь провинциального
бакалейщика, химик по образованию, отдавшая предпочтение большой политике, стала первой в
истории Великобритании женщиной, занявшей пост первого министра. Собравшиеся чествовали
баронессу Маргарет Тэтчер, воздавая ей по заслугам, которые нынешний лидер тори Уильям Хейг
уложил в афористичный панегирик:
13
«Вы раскрепостили британский народ, вы дали проявиться истинному характеру нашей страны,
который слишком долго подавлялся, и вы снова сделали Британию великой».
Лозунгом дня на долгие одиннадцать лет правления Тэтчер стала фраза: «Бесплатных обедов не бывает»,
которую охотно повторяла госпожа премьер, быстро снискавшая у местных журналистов прозвище
«железная леди». Она нимало не смущалась, когда бросала на пикеты бастующих шахтеров Уэльса конную
полицию, чтобы лишить прежней силы голос тред-юнионов. Она не гнала прочь сомнения - их просто не
было, когда посылала в Южную Атлантику военно-морскую армаду, чтобы выбить аргентинский десант с
Фолклендских островов.
Первую пятилетку своего правления Маргарет Тэтчер посвятила разрушению роли государства как няньки на
службе иждивенцев и лодырей. Нации пришлось подвергнуть себя испытанию на прочность: производственный
сектор потерял десятую часть своей мощи, безработица подскочила до трех миллионов, ряды оппонентов
умножились.
Во вторую пятилетку плоды тэтчеровской встряски ощутили все: национальный долг был резко
сокращен, реприватизированные компании заработали с удвоенной энергией, стали открываться
вакансии и появляться новые рабочие места, начался бум передовых технологий, на Британские острова
заторопились иностранные инвесторы.
Владимир Михеев ИЗВЕСТИЯ 22 апреля 1999 года
 Reading 4:
HOW GOOD A DEMOCRACY IS BRITAIN?
Professor Stein Ringen
University of Oxford
February 2007
The answer to this question is: not very good! Of course Britain is a democracy and a solid one,
but there are many solid democracies and in this family British democracy is of only mediocre
quality.
In my book What Democracy Is For I rank twenty-five of the most respected democracies in
the world according to their quality on a scale from 8 (high quality) to 0 (low quality). In that
ranking, Britain is on level 3. The best quality of democracy is found in some of the smaller
countries with political cultures of egalitarianism, such as in Scandinavia (Norway and Sweden
are on level 8 and Iceland on level 7). In Europe, Italy ranks the lowest, on level 0, and France
and Germany are on level 3 and 4 respectively. The two great model democracies, those of the
British Westminster model and of the United States with its pioneering democratic constitution
are both in the bottom range of the ranking.
This is not where British democracy should stand or be expected to stand. The Westminster
Model has very much going for it. It is embedded in an ancient and firm culture of liberty. It has
evolved organically out of British history and experience and was never invented or imposed.
Parliament is a model of careful and pragmatic deliberation. The press is robustly free and radio
and television of the best anywhere, including in political scrutiny. Governance is stable,
effective and by and large honest.
We should therefore expect British democracy to compare favourably with democracy
anywhere else. In fact, however, it does not. Among the world’s solid democracies, Britain
compares unfavourably. In spite of all it has going for it, it turns out to compare badly in
democratic quality.
Democratic deficit in Britain
14
My concern here is neither with non-democracy nor with weak and second-rate democracies. I
am interested in the solidly established democracies and with differences in quality within this
exclusive family. I can therefore take some things for granted that I do not have to bring into my
comparisons, principally that civil and political rights are established. Even in this the solid
democracies are not fully equal but the differences are marginal. In Britain these rights are
certainly enshrined in the political and social order and there is no need to question the system
on this account. That is very much part of what British democracy has going for it.
However, freedom depends on more than civil and politic rights. It is now widely recognised
in political philosophy that values such as freedom and justice rest not exclusively on rights but
also on the means to make effective use of rights. For freedom, rights are basic but in addition
the individual needs to be in command of a modicum of physical and human capital to be able
to live as the master of his or her life. The protection of freedom, then, is a complicated matter
of good government. Citizens depend on governance for the effective protection of liberty and
rights, for the regulation of economic and social life for equality of opportunity, and for
protection against at least extreme deprivations in the resources of freedom. While in all solid
democracies citizens enjoy basic civil and political rights, there is a great deal of difference
between them in the effectiveness of governance measured against the modern understanding of
freedom.
Now back to Britain and the experience of the Britons in the delivery of security of
resources. British democracy displayed a burst of energy in the aftermath of the Second World
War. The British people had fought through the war together. An idea of social justice had
emerged which came to be seen, at least in part, to be what the war was fought for. This idea
was articulated in particular in the Beveridge Report on social security. It was an idea of
universal social protection, and idea about extending to everyone the protection it is the purpose
of democracy to deliver.
This idea was put into effect in the great reforms of the late 1940s: family allowance, social
security, income support and above all the National Health Service. Here was a democracy
performing at its best. In the NHS, that was displayed magnificently. Health care in Britain preNHS was a shambles. There were areas where it was excellent: good, free and universally
available. But about half of the population did not have access to a family doctor and the poor
mostly had to pay for health care.
With the NHS the government cut through the rot, nationalised the whole system of
hospitals, brought all General Practitioners into the national service, and abolished inequality by
giving everyone the access the privileged had had previously. In hindsight, this was an
astonishing achievement, and an astonishingly democratic one.
However, if we look more carefully at those reforms and how they evolved, we find that
British democracy was not able to sustain that once-in-a-lifetime democratic burst.
First, the NHS was never able to deliver what was promised. It immediately ran into deep
financial problems and has ever since been cash strapped. By the end of the century, the effects
of accumulated underinvestments were visible in poor standards, inefficiency, low morale within
the service and low confidence in the population. British democracy proved unable to maintain
its own creation. It is possible that the NHS is presently being revitalised with new investments,
but the jury is still out on this and I for one remain sceptical.
Second, no similar effort materialised in that other great area of British inequality: education.
The situation here was the same as in health care, or worse. A minority of children, here a small
minority, the children of the rich, had access to excellent schooling in private schools behind a
wall of high fees, while the majority of children languished in second-rate, underfunded and
underperforming public schools. It is conspicuous that British democracy, at the time when the
need to follow through from rights to resources was so well understood in health care, was
unable to mobilise the same understanding and resolve in education. As a result, the British
school system remains to this day deeply undemocratic and school policy limited to perpetual
15
tinkering with the public sector with no inclination or ability to break down the inequality of the
private-public division.
Third, in spite of impressive welfare state reforms the system that emerged proved incapable
of affording the population that most basic of democratic protections: protection against poverty.
Poverty rates in Britain, both among the elderly and among children, have remained high. It was
thought that the post-1945 welfare reforms would finally overcome poverty. When that
anticipation failed, British democracy, in stead of reforming again, settled down to an
embarrassing acceptance of persistent poverty among affluence. It is a matter of record that
poverty rates in Britain were exceptionally high by European comparison all through the second
half of the twentieth century. It is the proud boast of the present government that it is on the path
to abolishing poverty, at least among children, but that boast is premature. It is trying to do so
with the help of carefully engineered means-tested benefits. We have enough knowledge from
social policy theory to say that this strategy can reduce poverty, which it is indeed doing, but that
it cannot eradicate it, that it is arbitrary in its effects because it is never target efficient – as was
put dramatically on display by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in the scandal of out-of-control
overpayments and underpayments of tax credits in Britain in 2004-5 – and that it comes at the
price of indignities and harassments reminiscent of the old poor-law regime. In the best
European welfare states poverty has been eradicated – so we know it can be done. But British
democracy remains on the defensive in poor relief because it has been unable to mobilise the
resolve and resources to put itself on the offensive.
These are examples of the democratic deficit in British governance: its potential is not
realised in delivery. British democracy should do better but there is not enough force in the
system to carry through to the difficult matter of delivering protections in all relevant forms to all
citizens.
The democratic deficit is understood and recognised in the population. Voting participation is
low and falling, in particular in local elections. Membership in political parties is in free fall.
Confidence in the democratic institutions is low and falling, as is documented in repeated British
and comparative value surveys. So low is now confidence in democracy that in spite of local
democracy having been all but killed off – and in spite of citizens being far more interested in
local than in national issues – there appears to be little or no demand or appetite in the population
for this crucial building block in the democratic architecture to be restored.
Political commentators sometimes suggest that trends towards disenchantment with politics
are evidence of “new values”, such as individualism or post-materialism. But there is little
evidence in favour of that interpretation. Democratic values are adhered to as strongly as ever.
Where the matter has been examined, from Costa Rica to Norway, citizens are better informed
about political and social issues and as interested as ever. They are not turning “apolitical” but
they are becoming more critical. If interested and informed citizens are more critical it is not
because they are ignorant or indifferent, it is because they are making judgements. Their critical
judgements come from their experience of shortcomings in the democracies they value. It is no
good blaming citizens; they are good enough. There is a crisis of trust across the democratic
world, but not because citizens are abandoning established values or in other ways failing.
Citizens do trust less, but not because they are becoming less trusting. They trust less because
their democracies are less worthy of trust.
Where to reform
In the British case two reforms present themselves as particularly urgent, both now under
debate high up on the political agenda.
First, there is a need to re-invent local democracy. Devolution is well and good but does not
reach local democracy and could contribute to further weakening it. What is needed is what a
Smith Institute study calls double devolution, not only to regions but also to proper local units.
Britain needs more and smaller local political entities – municipalities – with more decentralised
16
responsibility and authority. British democracy needs many more elected politicians to represent
citizens’ interests. There are possibly too many members of Parliament but certainly too few
elected politicians locally. This is a big order, a matter of reinvention. As it is now, Britain does
not have proper local units to devolve democracy to.
Second, political parties should be freed from dependency on big money and made
answerable to members. It is time to put a full stop to all private donations to political parties and
campaigns – from individuals, from businesses, from unions, even from candidates’ own pockets
– and make political parties economically dependent on members. It is not enough to make
political donations “transparent”; it’s too late. Nor is it enough to limit the size of donations, for
example to £50 000 as has been suggested. The narcotic of free money has numbed political
sensitivities. Here, now, today – in fact and not only possibly in the future – the political use of
money is destroying the people’s democracy, in Britain near as much as in the United States.
Democracy does not need mega-expensive politics. The money that circulates ends up in the
pockets of advertisers, consultants, pollsters and advisors represents a gigantic subsidy to a class
of political hangers-on. Professional politics is top-down politics and contributes to increasing
the distance between citizens and their representatives. It would improve democracy if political
budgets were cut and members given power in parties. There are no compelling reasons why rich
individuals, businesses and organisations should be allowed to use their wealth to undermine the
protection ordinary people should have from democratic governments.
These reforms are practical and doable. They are issues under consideration and firmly
established on the political agenda. British democracy has much going for it and should do
better. These two reforms would revitalise British democracy, infuse it with citizenship pressure
for performance and lift it from mediocre to high quality.
Ex.1 Look for words and expressions in the text to match the following definitions, give their
derivatives, translate them, reproduce the context in which they are used in the text.
1. of only average quality; not very good
2. a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic
affairs
3. to have a specified place within a grading system
4. to implant (an idea or feeling) so that it becomes ingrained within a particular
context
5. the action or manner of governing a state, organization, etc.
6. minor and not important; not central
7. to pronounce (something) clearly and distinctly; to express (an idea or feeling)
fluently and coherently
8. clearly visible; attracting notice or attention
9. firm determination to do something
10. an emotion involving pleasure, excitement and sometimes anxiety in considering
some expected or longed-for good event
11. the state of having a great deal of money; wealth
12. tending to remind one of something; suggesting something by resemblance
13. a feeling of disappointment about someone or something you previously respected
or admired; disillusionment
14. evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way; not able
to be refuted; not able to be resisted
15. fill; pervade; instil (a quality) in someone or something
Ex.2 Continue the following strings of collocations with the words in bold, translate them. Use
some of the word combinations in sentences of your own.
1. solid, __________ , __________ , ___________ democracy
17
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
marginal: differences, __________ ,__________ , ___________
conspicuous: _________ , __________ , _________ , __________
to mobilize, ________ , __________ , __________ , _________ one’s resolve
affluent: society, __________ , __________ , __________ , __________
compelling: reasons, __________ , __________ , __________ , __________
Ex.3 Fill in the gaps using the words and expressions from Ex.2 and Ex.3.
1.
In “Beyond Good and Evil”, Nietzsche __________ his disdain for
conventional morality where he described Christian standards as a
“slave morality”.
2.
__________ is the position that equality is central to justice. It is a
prominent trend in social and political philosophy.
3.
To make a _________ argument requires tact, knowledge and the ability
to see both sides of the debate.
4.
We have a duty to ________ voters with confidence that their votes will
be counted, that their voices will be heard.
5.
He increased their courage and strength in every hardship, lightened
their burdens and strengthened their _________.
6.
For inward investment flows, Britain ________ third behind the US and
Germany.
7.
Many anthropologists agree that fundamentally the economy is
_________ in culture and does not exist as an independent sphere of
activity.
8.
Bad __________ is being increasingly regarded as one of the root causes
of all evil within our societies.
9.
Unlike the Battle of Midway, which historians regard as a pivotal
moment in World War II, historians regard the Battle of Debrecen as of
_________ importance.
10.
A __________ politician is economical with the truth, a great politician
is praised for telling the truth.
11.
Company executives achieved __________ success at high-speed team
building events.
12.
Cultures can achieve __________ either by wanting little and producing
little or wanting much and producing much.
13.
At least compared to Western Europe, Minsk was still __________ of
Old Russia.
14.
Failure to ratify the Treaty signalled the European electorate's
__________ with the EU and the process of enlargement.
III. Additional texts
 Reading 5:
Education is the only way to close class divide
Telegraph.co.uk, 2007
By Janet Daley
So the England rugby fans apparently managed to find their way out of Paris without
wrecking a single bar, overturning a single car or bottling a single South African
supporter. Even those who arrived without tickets, drank with abandon and were
18
reduced to sleeping rough in the streets made no trouble for the authorities.
There are a few commentators who staunchly insist that this is not about class: that the
difference between what Dave Tattoo and his mates would have done to Paris after
losing a football World Cup final, and what the sad but non-violent rugby fans did, is
nothing to do with the ugly social divide that still pervades Britain.
Well, delude yourself if you like – but this is about class. What confuses the issue now is
that class is not all about money. Many thugs who travel abroad in fervent pursuit of the
ultimate football fan's trophy are high earners, at least by the standards of their parents'
generation. (After all, how else could they afford the trip?)
But what is so devastatingly depressing is that the class barrier in Britain is so
immutable that even relative affluence cannot touch what lies at the heart of it. Since I
arrived in this country, there has been a succession of optimistic prophesies about the
end of the class system. When I got here in the 1960s you were in the midst of one: a
great wave of creativity had arisen from the proletarian provinces – John Lennon and
David Hockney, John Osborne and Kingsley Amis. Surely this was the dawn of a new
age of egalitarian meritocracy in which it was positively fashionable to have workingclass roots.
What happened to the decency and civility? What happened to the desire of young
working-class men to rise above the violence and borderline criminality that lay in wait
for people of their backgrounds whose self-discipline was allowed to slip?
It disappeared under a new wave of garbage culture and conspiracy to maintain the
separateness of working-class life, engineered jointly by sentimental media hokum and
patronising middle-class guilt. Whole genres of television programmes, whole tranches
of truly appalling down-market magazines appeared on the scene, all apparently
designed to celebrate the most degrading forms of working-class life. And as cynical
and manipulative as these cold-blooded marketing exercises were, to criticise them was
to invite charges of snobbery: as if no form of "entertainment", however debased, should
be regarded as too low to be an insult to this audience.
Schooling, which should have been the real answer to it all, was dominated by an
educational establishment steeped in bourgeois guilt. I can remember having heated
arguments with teachers and education officials who were adamant that children's
ungrammatical regional dialects should not be corrected. "Correct" English, they
insisted, was just a middle-class fetish which should not be imposed on children from
"other" backgrounds. So generations of working-class children had their feet set in
social and cultural concrete by schools that refused to teach them how to speak and write
their own language properly.
It happened again and again: in the 1980s there was another burst of meritocratic
aspiration which saw a further wave of people break free from the limitations of their
backgrounds – only to be ridiculed as "Essex men" whose vulgar tastes and flashy wives
still put them beyond the pale no matter how much they earned.
Now we have a new incarnation of the old division with "chavs" and reborn Sloane
Rangers. And a poll at the weekend states that 89 per cent of respondents believe that
people in Britain are still judged by their class.
19
The Labour Government, convinced (rightly) that education is the answer to this, is
trying to force universities to accept students whose schooling has been so inadequate
that they cannot even achieve the low level of qualification needed to be admitted
legitimately.
Social engineering is too subtle a term for this distortion of university entrance criteria:
it is not so much a bending of the system as a bludgeoning that threatens to devalue what
makes higher education so worthwhile. If education is the answer, then it must be
allowed to do what only education can do: provide the rite of passage to an examined
life.
That life requires an attitude which takes self-respect and the value of personal
achievement for granted. Implant and nurture those things and the rest – aspiration,
motivation and social mobility – will follow.
Forgive the homily, but it seems to be necessary to say this: self-respect comes to people
from the expectations of others. If you, as a society, do not expect correct speech, decent
behaviour and a sense of responsibility from some of your fellow citizens – do not, in
other words, demand from them what civilised life requires – then you deny them the
chance to enter that life more effectively than if you had barred the gates to every centre
of learning in the land.
 Reading 6:
‘Humble’ Britain: Should It Be?
John Humphrys
Yougov.co.uk
May, 2011
What pose should Britain strike in the modern world? Should it be that of the selfconfident, powerful, ancient nation that once ruled the world and still expects everyone
else to sit up and take notice of it? Or should it be more humble, adopting the attitude of
a country at last reconciled to the loss of its empire and acknowledging that it is now just
a small-to-medium-sized European nation in a world about to be dominated by Asian
giants?
These questions have arisen with David Cameron’s first major foray into foreign affairs
since becoming prime minister nearly three months ago. This week he has been in
Turkey and India; last week he was in the United States. On the face of it, he appears to
have given a clear answer to them.
Writing in an Indian paper before flying off east, the Prime Minister said he was coming
to their country “in a spirit of humility”. And in Washington he said that, at least since
the 1940s, Britain’s ‘special relationship’ with the United States had been very much
that of the ‘junior partner’. These remarks have been interpreted as implying that Mr
Cameron believes not only that Britain should take a more modest view of its status and
role in the world but also that its new leader needs publicly to declare as much.
This has not gone down well, especially among the right wing of his party. In their view
20
it is the role of a prime minister to talk his country up not down. Talk of humility is far
too close to woolly, liberal, leftish notions of needing to apologise for the British
empire. There’s nothing to apologise for: the empire was good for the world and India
was not the least of its beneficiaries. Furthermore, it’s absurd for Britain to be humble
since it still has very considerable assets. It remains one of the biggest economies; it has
a permanent seat on the UN security council; and it is still a major military power.
Britain should be self-confident and proud and a British Prime Minister should be
unashamed to say so. Objection to Mr Cameron’s stance goes beyond this interpretation
of his words. His actions are regarded as equally bad. In response to Indian objections to
the government’s proposed cap on immigrants, the Prime Minister has said he is happy
to consult the Indian government before taking a final decision. But, say his critics, it is
for Britain and Britain alone to decide such issues.
Defenders of the Prime Minister say these attacks are based on a simple misreading of
his remarks. He is not remotely trying to downplay, let alone apologise for Britain’s past
role in world history, of which he is as proud as anyone. Nor is he saying that Britain
should not fully exploit, in its own interests, the considerable strengths it still has. As for
a cap on immigration, that will still be imposed but what can be wrong in discussing the
details of it with the Indian government first? The correct interpretation of Mr
Cameron’s remarks, they argue, is that Britain needs to take a realistic view of its power
and its role in the world and then behave self-confidently in accordance with it. The
humility is in relation to reality. That means being relaxed about the self-evident fact
that the United States is the greater power and that our relations with India have
undergone a major change. As he put it in his article: “I know that Britain cannot rely on
sentiment and shared history for a place in India’s future. Your country has the whole
world beating a path to its door.” That’s not grovelling, it’s realism.
This spat may or may not derive from a simple misunderstanding of the Prime
Minister’s remarks. But some commentators say there is a much more obvious point to
make about them. In their eyes there is a glaring contradiction between Mr Cameron’s
talk of ‘humility’ and his own behaviour in the international arena. Far from being
humble, he has been forthright, outspoken, even offensive in some of the things he has
had to say on Britain’s behalf regarding highly sensitive issues.
In Turkey he may have delighted his hosts by expressing ‘anger’ at the endless blocking
of Turkey’s attempts to join the European Union, but such a remark, with the clear
implication that it has been indefensible for France and Germany to do the blocking, will
not have seemed especially humble in Paris and Berlin. Similarly, although the Turkish
government applauded the Prime Minister for appearing to vindicate its approach to the
Palestinian issue by describing Gaza as a ‘prison camp’, the phrase caused huge offence
to the Israelis. And in India, Mr Cameron’s comment that it is unacceptable for Pakistan
to ‘look both ways’ on terrorism – to be both the ally of the west against terrorism while
also seeming to give backing to the Taliban in Afghanistan and to anti-Indian insurgents
in Kashmir, as India has long alleged – went down very well in Delhi but outraged
Islamabad. Far from taking a humble approach, Mr Cameron’s venture into diplomacy
was described by one commentator as being that of someone “with both boots flying”.
This apparent contradiction leaves open the question of what the Prime Minister’s
foreign policy will really turn out to be like. Will it indeed be conducted in a ‘spirit of
humility’ or will there be a swagger, a readiness to put the boots back on and tread
roughshod over diplomatic sensibilities? Some cynics will remember that before he was
elected, George W. Bush promised a ‘humble’ foreign policy; few would use the term to
21
describe the policy he actually carried out.
But what should characterise British foreign policy? Those who like the sound of
‘humble Britain’ say the idea comes not a moment too soon. For too long Britain has
tried, in Douglas Hurd’s phrase, to 'punch above our weight'. The result has been what
they regard as the fiascos of Iraq and Afghanistan, adventures which we could not afford
and in which we have been militarily humbled. Britain should just get used to the fact
that we are not the power we were and can never be so again. A country with an ageing
population of around sixty million cannot be anything other than at least modest, if not
actually humble, in a world racing towards a population of nine billion and with an
average age in the twenties and falling.
On the other hand, those alarmed by talk of British humility argue that we are still one
of the six biggest economies; we still have world assets to defend; we are still a force for
good in a difficult world; and punching above our weight is in everyone’s interests. It’s
one thing, they argue, to advocate that India should have a permanent seat on the
security council but quite another for Britain, in a fit of humility about its relative
reduced power, to surrender its own seat, perhaps exchanging it, say, for part-share in an
EU seat. But doesn’t talk of ‘humility’ lead inexorably in that direction?
1. What’s your view? Do you think David Cameron was right to talk of having
a “spirit of humility” in his approach?
2. Do you think his describing Britain as the “junior partner” of the United
States implies a shift to a more humble approach to foreign policy or not?
3. Is he right or not to discuss his plans for a cap on immigration with the
Indian government?
4. How do you interpret his remarks about Turkey’s attempts to join the EU,
Gaza as a “prison camp” and Pakistan “looking both ways” on terrorism? Do
you think they contradict or not a ‘humble’ approach to foreign policy?
5. How do you think Britain should play its role in the world?
 Reading 7:
Russia: Monarchist Nostalgia Remains Powerful
Victor Yasmann, 2006
The idea of restoring the monarchy in Russia gained currency under President
Boris Yeltsin in 1997, when his close circle, alarmed by the Russian president’s
ailing health, started to think about a possible successor. Some of them turned
their attention to the living descendents of the Romanov dynasty. That same
year, renovation work began at the Kremlin to restore the coronation hall and
the tsar’s throne. In 1998, Yeltsin attended a state ceremony to bury the remains
of the last Russian emperor, Nicolas II, and his family, who were killed by the
Bolsheviks in 1918.
Interest, however, in the monarchy idea waned as Yeltsin’s circle realized that
no living Romanov, for various reasons, had a legitimate claim to the Russian
throne and the project was abandoned.
22
Putin-Era Monarchism
But under Russian President Vladimir Putin interest in Russia’s imperial and
monarchical past grew legs once again. In 2000, the Russian Orthodox Church
canonized Nicolas II and his family. Since that time, Russia has seen a boom in
the number of monarchist organizations. Recent years have seen the release of
hundreds of books and films about the monarchy.
At various times, politicians from across the political spectrum have endorsed
constitutional monarchy for Russia, including the former Union of Rightist Forces
co-Chairman Boris Nemtsov, Liberal Democratic Party of Russia head Vladimir
Zhirinovsky, and St. Petersburg Governor Valentina Matvienko.
Many intellectuals and cultural icons have also jumped on the monarchy
bandwagon. Two of Russia’s most popular filmmakers, Nikita Mikhalkov and
Stanislav Govorukhin, have paraded their monarchist colors. Stanislav
Belkovsky, the founder of the National Strategy Institute, said in February 2005:
“I believe that the restoration of the monarchy, either formally or informally, is
the only choice for Russia, since it is the only way to restore the sanctity of the
supreme power.”
A Coordinated Campaign?
The amount of television coverage certainly suggests the Kremlin’s involvement
in — or, at the least, tacit approval — of monarchist revivalism. And the state’s
hand has been revealed in other places. In 2005, a book called “Project Russia,”
by unnamed authors, appeared on the website of a state security veterans
organization in St. Petersburg. The book argues that Russia was a monarchy for
1,000 years and, even after 1917, it became a republic only nominally.
The book harshly criticizes Western-style electoral systems and advocates the
gradual revival of Russia’s monarchy between 2008 and 2016. It suggests a
new monarch could be chosen from among the country’s prominent citizens.
The author saw Putin’s 2004 abolition of gubernatorial elections as a first step in
this direction. The book suggests using the media — movies, documentaries,
talk shows, lectures, and newspapers — to sell the monarchy to the Russian
people.
According to Russian media reports, “Project Russia” originated as a seriesof
lectures delivered to the cadets at the Federal Security Service (FSB) and
military intelligence (GRU) academies. It was later published in a special edition
for members of the presidential administration, the government, the army’s
General Staff, the Duma, top clerics of the Russian Orthodox Church, and
Russian business leaders.
Growing Popular Support
Over the last 10 years, the number of Russians supporting monarchist ideas has
risen threefold. A September poll by the All-Russia Center for the Study of
Public Opinion (VTsIOM) indicated that 19 percent of Russians agreed with
restoring the monarchy, but only if an acceptable candidate can be found.
23
Support is higher in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
But only 6 percent of those who favor the monarchy wanted the future guardian
of the realm to be a Romanov. The majority thought a monarch should be a
prominent public figure chosen in a referendum. In this way, the poll reveals less
the prevalence of monarchist ideas than a traditional Russian desire for strong
leadership.
Advantages Of Restoration
The idea of monarchy is intrinsically tied up with the notion of succession, which
makes it of special interest to Russia’s current political elite, for whom that issue
is a perpetual problem. Many Putin supporters would relish the idea of an
anointed successor rather than have to bother with a presidential election.
There is also an international dimension. Many monarchists believe that reviving
the monarchy would bolster Russia’s historical ties with Europe. And reviving
the monarchy goes hand in hand with the rejection of the 1917 February and
October revolutions in Russia. Because those revolutions paved the way for the
independence of the Baltic states, Georgia, and Ukraine, among others,
revanchists could use the opportunity to revive territorial claims on parts of the
former Russian Empire.
But others worry that the monarchist fervor might not stop at mere territorial
issues. One Russian humorist quipped recently that the “new Russians,” surely
the aristocrats of their age, “want to restore the monarchy only in order to
restore serfdom.”
24