Challenge: A Very British Dictatorship

Ignoring the problems of getting such a government elected, how might an elected government go about turning the mother of all Parliamentary democracies into a dictatorship?

What might a dictatorial government do once it had achieved dictatorial power? Would a left or right leaning dictatorship be more likely? When faced with a dictator, would the Armed Forces ever consider taking action against the government to defend the people from tyranny?

Anywhere after 1900 is okay, but the more recent the better.
 
Probably try to maintain a consistent atmosphere of fear and hatred against all of the many enemies that beset the British Empire. I would say that a lot of that depends to whatever is happening the rest of the world, a British dictatorship would likely be a reaction to some threat in the rest of the world. Assuming a timeline that roughly follows otl I would say that the later in the 20th century that the dictatorship develops the more likely that it would be right wing government. As for the army, it is possible but assuming that the dictator is reasonably intelligent he would probably try to encourage loyalty through favors and would ideally discredit potentially rebellious officers, make them have some kind of "accident", or send them off to some place that is far away and very deadly.
 
I would think a prolonged IRA terror campaign on the mainland might be the only plausible way to create the mass panic neccessary to bring about a British dictatorship. And I don't just mean a pub bombing every few months, I mean a few dozen or so dead per week, for a period of months or years.

Then again, I don't think Belfast at the height of the Troubles qualified as a dictatorship, or even military rule, so you might need to add the threat of major foreign intervention. Fancifully, maybe the USA lives up to Enoch Powell's most paranoid fantasies, openly announces itself for the IRA, and starts smuggling state-of-the-art weaponry into Ulster(okay, goodbye NATO).

More plausibly, the Soviets suddenly take more than a rhetorical interest in the plight of the Irish, possibly in conjunction with Soviet-UK military clashes elsewhere in the world, and start supplying the IRA's activities, including the mainland terror.
 
Defence of the Realm Act

The Defence of the Realm Act during WW1 (and its equivalent in WW2 for that matter) gave the government of the day pretty sweeping powers. So, in either case some sort of event that provides a plausible reason to keep those powers in place might start the ball rolling.

After WW1 that might be a resurgence of the Irish problem at a much higher level than OTL, or perhaps the Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War turns nasty in some way. A different outcome to WW1 that left us on a permanent war footing might also be enough.

In WW2, Churchill was almost a de facto dictator, but of course he accepted the return of normal elections afterwards. So perhaps an earlier death for him plus some external event like for example the Berlin blockade turning into a hot war might provide a reason for keeping war time controls in place. Or perhaps instead of hanging back to let the Soviet army take over eastern Europe, the Western Allies push on a fast as they can, triggering a response from the USSR?
 
It would have to be a very tense, frightening, extreme political situation. I guess we have Oliver Cromwell as the closest thing to a modern British dictator? Though I'm not too sure about that.

Alright, so as this is a challenge I'd better lay out some specific ideas.

Firstly, the Royal Family have got to go. No no, I don't mean die. Just become deposed from their ceremonial roles. Why? They are, above all, a symbol of constitutional government and they still have - theoretically - some powers to use in emergencies. A dictatorship isn't going anywhere without monarchical support unless they are sidelined like in Japan, or perhaps a Mussolini-Victor Emmanuel type situation. I can imagine something of that sort.

Let's say the Royal Family are, in a revenge for the death of Hitler's close friend or something, viciously bombed and Buckingham Palace is brought to ruination. Nobody is willing to take the throne after the death of the King, and after an extended crisis Churchill takes a title (not sure what) and basically assumes monarchical roles - or at least that of head of state.

The war continues as normal, but as absolute power corrupts absolutely Churchill decides elections in '45 are going to lead to the decline of the British Empire - his most favorite thing of all - and suspends elections. There are large Labour protests immediately, but a swift crackdown and a message from Churchill promising democracy once the war is over eventually quells resistance. Churchill, more paranoid about losing control (and thus, in his mind, India and the Empire) beefs up security forces loyal to him, and decides not to "assist" in the choosing of a new monarch. (Yes, I know about the line of succession.. but let's say they've all had enough and just want to grieve, or are silenced by the government).

Outrage by Roosevelt is met by a retaliatory pact between Churchill, De Gaulle and Stalin - all leaders, at this stage, one degree or another not totally averse to somewhat undemocratic means. Hardship brought on by a lack of US aid due to consistent British imperialism leads to tough economic times but a powerful propaganda regime and constant defiance and speeches from the PM (and protector of the empire?) Churchill settle most hearts and minds.

The dictatorship is rather non-extreme by dictatorial standards. There is the occasional illegal execution of this or that communist spy - Stalin being willing to overlook this for his alliance of convenience, or rather more a "support group" in using UK and France against the US as a buffer as Stalin was wont to use nations as. Churchill hates communism but is willing to tolerate Stalin, as uneasy as he feels due to the fear of losing the Empire. The prisons fill up a bit, but on the whole the dictatorship can best be compared to that of the Argentinian Junta of the 1970's and 1980's, save the military government aspect. Freedom of speech is quite curtailed. A mouthing off of the DoE can lead to a visit from the police, and political activity not in support of whatever the Tory party now looks like is met with jail or at the least fines. As for the military, Churchill's patriotism and large budget blessings combined with skilled appointments by his cabinet ministers results in a mostly loyal and sympathetic armed forces, especially so given their new role in the governance of the country.

India is a lost cause to any sensible Briton - in the words of Gandhi (taken into hiding by Indian civilians, to the personal outrage of the DoE) how can 100,000 rule over 300,000,000? However Churchill is not really a practical thinker, and decides to increase the number of colonists in India by a million over five years from all around the Anglo parts of the Empire, prompting outrage inside of India. Guerilla activity and political movements are both harshly suppressed, much more harshly than in the home isles and extrajudicial killings are frequent against "troublemakers" and a few of the innocent who are caught up.

When the Indian War of Independence breaks out in 1947, Churchill relies on "divide and conquer" to win, warning Sikh and Muslim populations of the impending massacres they face in order to win support. Of course, despite attempting to disarm them the Indian Army is utterly overpowering and quickly seizes control of the major cities. A large British army arriving in Bombay a month later, backed by heavy bombers from Pakistan, begins a campaign to regain control, but progress is slow and eventually Churchill is kicked out by his own cabinet - men who tolerated him until now, just as the US decides to apply heavy sanctions to the new UK government - and whom Churchill hand picked for their loyalty. A quick peace and a recognition of independence to India is signed by the new cabinet as they begin to undo political restrictions - albeit slowly. About 45,000 Britons are killed and around 400,000 Hindu Indians and 350,000 Muslims (most from Hindu-Muslim violence) during the civil war. Of those numbers, the amount of combat troops killed is: United Kingdom, 25,000. Indian army, 80,000. Muslim militias, 70,000. Hindu militias, 40,000. Dismayed, depressed and rejected by the country he loves, Churchill is not tried by the still somewhat sympathetic cabinet as they try to decide whether a new monarch or a presidential republic is best for the future but rather left to his own devices. Depression overtakes him as he feels the scorn and anger of the public and sees the Empire he loved fall to pieces before his eyes, and upon hearing of the Sudan, that country which he had fought and seen men die in so long ago, becoming independent on 15 March 1950 (the Empire being far too economically weak to cobble itself together in any real way at this stage) he falls into an irrevocable pit of despair. Two days later he hangs himself with his leather belt.


The end.
 
Last edited:

King Thomas

Banned
Have ISIS pull off a big enough terrorist attack here, and the present government takes advantage to get something like an Enabling Act passed and abolishes people's human rights.
 
Have ISIS pull off a big enough terrorist attack here, and the present government takes advantage to get something like an Enabling Act passed and abolishes people's human rights.

An Enabling Act was a policy proposal put forward by Labour's Stafford Cripps before the 1935 general election.
 
The problem with Britain being a dictatorship is the ripple effects it would have outside the UK. Take Canada, for example - as much of the Constitution revolves quite heavily around the monarchy not only as a pillar of government but as a vector of stability in the Canadian system of federalism, not to mention the various treaties with Aboriginal people throughout its existence dating back to the Great Peace of Montreal in 1701 (and earlier), a dictatorship which either has a vacant monarchy and/or a repetition of Cromwell's régime are going to create a major Constitutional crisis in Canada. Even in Québec, the most anti-British of all the provinces due to a very long memory within the French-Canadian majority of the Conquest and the aftermath, you're going to have people who go crazy on this since it's a repetition of the revulsion surrounding the French Revolution where the king got beheaded. Even if maintained as a legal fiction, you need the monarchy in order to make Canada work (one cannot get a clean break through like with Ireland and India). Fortunately, due to the unique nature of the monarchy, even if the monarchy is retained in a dictatorship the nature of the Crown means that Canada would still remain a democracy - as such, the only way Canada becomes a dictatorship is if the US becomes a dictatorship and invades Canada in some fit of territorial revanchism (loons like Adrien Arcand nonwithstanding, who was fortunately not in a position to do anything).
 
Top