UK STUDENT’S FILEBRITISH 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. Roast Aberdeen Angus Beef, Yorkshire Pudding and braised leeks.b. Fish and chips.

c. Chicken tikka masala.

d. 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 Cranmerwww.dailymail.co.ukFebruary, 2011In 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

3

five million immigrants and their descendants to comprise a tenth of the country’s 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,

4

Habeas Corpus, Bill of Rights, Act of Union – guard against state coercion. To 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 StayIt 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

5

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.

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.

6

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 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 ___ tradition4. to take ___ sides ___ a debate5. to prevent a dictator ___ dominating Great Britain6. to assimilate new theories ___ relative ease7. ___ the face ___ things8. to be ___ odds ___ sth/sb9. to make way ___ change10. to act ___ authority ___ the monarch11. to serve ___ distinction12. 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; fitting2. to raise or promote the development of 3. to take or assume power (property) by force or without right4. not hidden; open; apparent5. giving fair and equal treatment to all sides; impartial6. a person put in a position of leadership, but having no real power, authority

or responsibility.7. to bring up with care; stimulate; cherish8. the attitude adopted in dealing with a particular situation9. to keep in a fixed state or condition10. showing favour, approval or agreement11. very destructive or harmful; disastrous12. to throw away as useless or a burden; get rid of13. praiseworthy; commendable (esp. of behaviour, actions, etc.)14. causing sorrow, misery, pain or suffering15. having a short life span or existence16. a silly or ludicrous act; trick, etc.; prank17. to speak in support of; be in favour of18. to give up or forego (a right, claim, privilege, etc.)19. to end by breaking up; terminate20. the quality that makes one worthy of special recognition

7

3. Explain and expand on the following sentencesfrom the text.

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 derivativesof the following words.

to retain, to alter, to account; relevance, distinction

5. Explain the difference in meaning or usage of the followinggroups of words. Think of situations in which they would beappropriate.

1. notion - concept - idea - belief2. conventional - traditional - habitual

3. to foster - nourish - nurture - rear4. to devise - invent - contrive - plan

6. Support or challenge the following notions expressedby 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».

8

Елизавета II стала незыблемым символом британской нации: Ее боготворят роялисты и уважают настроенные на республиканский лад оппоненты. За все время пребывания на престоле она редко подвергалась персональной критике. Впрочем, стоит оговориться, что в Великобритании за политические и экономические просчеты принято винить премьер-министра 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

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 GoIt'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

ВРЕМЯ MN

9

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 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 Dianathe 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

10

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 successive Thatcher administrations made upon the social, economic and political Establishment of Britain have substantially changed public attitudes towards leadership. The British charac-teristic 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.

11

8. ...the monarchy went into a tailspin.9.The royal family was supposed to be a "mirror to our better selves."

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 reverencemeasurable relevant beliefappropriate dispensable significancedeferential dignified merit

4.Match the words in column A with their definitions under B.A

В1. to dump a. courteous regard or respect2. implacable b. a sharp swift response or retort3. sentiment с as can be supported by

argument4. giddy d. relentless, inexorable5. erstwhile e. not suitable, fitting or proper6. sordid f. to throw away (garbage, rubbish),

get rid of7. inappropriate g. frivolous; flighty; heedless8. a riposte h. undisturbed; tranquil; calm9. to stave off i. sunk or stuck in mud or soggy

ground10. arguably j. a feeling or attitude of deep

respect,love and awe11. placid k. to stretch beyond the limits12. a tailspin I. of an earlier time; former13. withering m. feeling, opinion, judgement or

attitude14. dysfunctional n. absolutely necessary or required;

essential15. alternately o. anything taken for granted16. mired (in) p. will; the act of using one's will17. indispensable q. a state of rapidly increasing

confusion18. assumption r. to ward off, hold off

(as by force, guile, etc.)19. reverence s. depressingly wretched; base;

ignoble; mean20. deference t. abnormal, impaired21. to strain u. intended to embarrass, make sb.

lose confidence22. volition v. intermittently; occurring one after

the other in a repeated pattern

12

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____linkan___prime minister ___cohesionto do___harm the____assumptionsthe___riposte the____truththe___foolishness ___proofsubject to___fire ___insignificance___vulgarity a___end

6. Fill in the missing prepositions or adverbswhere required.

1. to be better___2. to be acquired___merit3.a straightforward case___monarchy4. to stave___revolution5. to be subject___withering fire6.___all else...7. to go___a tailspin8.a mirror___our better selves9. to be mired___angst and vulgarity

10.__________to coexist_____a reverence the past11._________to stand attention12.___some odd reason

7. Consult the dictionary and learn the derivativesof the following words.

merit, heredity, reverence, sentiment, cohesion

8. Explain the difference in meaning or usage of the followinggroups of words. Think of situations where they would beappropriate.

1. jettison - dump - throw away - discard - dispense with2. implacable - inflexible - adamant - relentless3.placid - calm - tranquil - peaceful4.alternate - intermittent - recurrent - periodic5. reverence — awe — deference — regard6. heredity — legacy — heritage — inheritance

9. Sum up the arguments against the monarchy as presentedin the article.

10. Comment on the views expressed by Michael Elliott andHarold Brooks-Baker. Discuss the situation in Great Britaintoday.

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

13

баронессу Маргарет Тэтчер, воздавая ей по заслугам, которые нынешний лидер тори Уильям Хейг уложил в афористичный панегирик:

«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 RingenUniversity of OxfordFebruary 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 pre-NHS 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 good2. a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and

economic affairs3. to have a specified place within a grading system4. to implant (an idea or feeling) so that it becomes ingrained within a particular

context5. the action or manner of governing a state, organization, etc.6. minor and not important; not central7. to pronounce (something) clearly and distinctly; to express (an idea or feeling)

fluently and coherently8. clearly visible; attracting notice or attention9. firm determination to do something10. 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 resemblance13. a feeling of disappointment about someone or something you previously

respected or admired; disillusionment14. evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way; not

able to be refuted; not able to be resisted15. 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. marginal: differences, __________ ,__________ , ___________3. conspicuous: _________ , __________ , _________ , __________4. to mobilize, ________ , __________ , __________ , _________ one’s resolve5. affluent: society, __________ , __________ , __________ , __________6. 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 divideTelegraph.co.uk, 2007By 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

18

supporter. Even those who arrived without tickets, drank with abandon and were 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 working-class 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

19

people in Britain are still judged by their class.

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 HumphrysYougov.co.ukMay, 2011

What pose should Britain strike in the modern world? Should it be that of the self-confident, 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

20

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 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

21

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 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.

22

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.

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

23

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. 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