QUEENSLANDERS, we have the seeds of rebellion. History has some pertinent lessons for those
casting themselves out of the ship, and for those of us watching the whole thing
from onshore.
If my fellow Queenslanders are curious about what the recent
defections from the ruling Liberal National Party may mean, here are three
lessons of rebellion we can take from the American War of Independence in the
1770’s.
One lesson is that in the first stage of rebellion, those
who have been moved “outside the pale” do not blame their leaders for their
disaffection, but the leader’s deputies.
Here in Queensland, Clive Palmer firstly censured Seeney and
Nicholls for causing dissent within the LNP.
Initially he appealed to Campbell Newman to control his deputies.
 |
| King George III, a not-so-benevolent monarch |
The First Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1774 hoped
that “royal indignation” would “fall upon those designing and dangerous men,
who daringly interpose themselves” between the King and his subjects, driving
them towards rebellion (p.198, “The Long Fuse”, Don Cook).
After the Boston Tea Party, Benjamin Franklin in January
1774 presented a petition from the Massachusetts Assembly to the British Privy
Council.
The petition appealed to the King’s “wisdom and goodness”, urging him to remove the Massachusetts governors, who were blamed by the colonists for initiating the current strife (p.183, Cook).
The petition appealed to the King’s “wisdom and goodness”, urging him to remove the Massachusetts governors, who were blamed by the colonists for initiating the current strife (p.183, Cook).
After the first battles of the war at Lexington and Concord,
the Continental Congress presented the “Olive Branch Petition” to the King
George III, calling upon his kingly qualities to prevent further hostilities.
And what was the reaction of the British government and King
George III to these appeals?
In response to the Massachusetts petition, members of the Privy
Council abused Benjamin Franklin in terms that shocked some British parliamentarians.
In response to the Olive Branch Petition, the King and the
British government purposely ignored the appeal and declared Massachusetts to
be in a state of rebellion – they virtually labelled them all outlaws.
 |
| "The Long Fuse" by Don Cook |
The vitriolic reaction to the “rebels” actually increases the chances of success of their rebellion. A better tactic would be accommodation of the rebels.
The British escalated the rejection of the pleas of the
American colonists into punishment and retribution. That in turn led to resilience and resistance.
If the British and their King had responded with accommodation,
they would have very likely retained the American colonies, for right until the
end the Americans professed their loyalty to the King.
But the vindictive British reaction only pushed the rebels
into stiffer and more determined resistance.
Once cast out of “the family”, there is no need for rebels to temper
their dissidence. They’re never going
back, so they don’t need to hold back.
We can see in the 21st century that accommodation
should have been reached by the King, but that lesson has been overlooked since
the second half of the 20th century.
Instead of remembering the lessons of the American War of
Independence in 1774, we almost always recall the lesson of Munich in
1938. And that lesson is that accommodation
must be called appeasement.
After Joseph Chamberlain foolishly decreed that his deal
with Hitler over Czechoslovakia meant “peace in our time”, reaching "arrangements" has been seen as dangerous and foolhardy.
In explaining why he persisted in Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson constantly
referred to the “dangers of appeasement”, believing that allowing the Viet Cong
to get their way would lead to, well, the collapse of democratic freedom.
Ironically, he should have heeded instead the lesson laid
out by his rebellious forefathers.
So as we see a steady trickle of Queensland LNP members
walking themselves off the plank, we should not forget that the earliest rebels blame the deputies, not the leaders.
And secondly, vindictive retribution by the leader and
government actually increases the chances of success of the rebellion.
And what of the all-important third and final lesson from
the American War of Independence? That will
have to wait for next week’s article …
No comments:
Post a Comment