Are all historians fascists? 

One might be forgiven for thinking so. Consider the ‘great’ leaders of history. Who comes to mind? 

• Alexander of Macedon massacred military age men and sold women and children into slavery from Greece to India.
• Julius Caesar destroyed a republic in favour of a dictatorship.
• Napoleon used the legacy of the French revolution to establish himself as emperor, then crushed an emerging free press and re-established slavery in French colonies.

(At this point I feel I should apologise to historians for butchering good scholarship to make a rhetorical point, but please bear with me.)

On the basis of historical precedent it’s hard to argue that historians looking back on the early 21st century would pick anyone other than Putin as our greatest leader:

• He has taken on a failed communist experiment that imploded spectacularly in 1991, out of which he has forged an expanding empire that is dominating global politics. 
• He has gained territory in Ukraine, Chechnya, Moldova and others. 
• He has obliterated political opposition within Russia to the point where his approval is sky high.
• His proxies are increasingly influential in Africa, often displacing the influence of Europe and USA (see for example the newly formed Confederation of Sahel States).
• He has roped one of the most powerful states on Earth in China into a quasi-military alliance that allows him to punch above his weight.

I hope it doesn’t need to be said that I don’t actually believe Putin is a great leader. Putin’s greatness is measured on a scale that we no longer consider valid.* And rightly so.

We no longer consider it valid because we live in a historically very unusual era. One that believes that each individual human has rights. One that (sometimes begrudgingly) recognises the worth of those who look, sound, act or believe differently from us. One that claims to respect the sovereignty of nation states. One that doesn’t (often) celebrate killing people because of their skin colour, religion, ethnicity or sexuality. What is so surprising is that these views are prevalent amongst the most powerful global states; this has so rarely happened in the history of humanity.

Our current era is far, far from perfect. Nevertheless, as Conservatives mull over who to elect as Sunak’s replacement they would do well to remember how historically lucky we are to live in an era where others have fought for and won the rights above. Whatever your political persuasion we need to stand fast against Braverman’s homophobic and transphobic rants and her calls to leave the ECHR. For if we accept her narrative (and those of similar views such as Jenrick) we have no real basis for arguing against the ‘might is right’ view of politics that Putin so capably encapsulates. And we aren’t as good at it as he is.

In the face of a rapidly warming planet, the growing power of authoritarian states and an apparently imploding political system in USA we may well find it difficult to preserve our current way of life. But whatever the challenges, Braverman is not the answer (unless you’re a closet Putinist). I believe enough of the Tory party is historically literate enough to know this, which is why I am betting against both Braverman and Jenrick.

*To my mind, some of the most interesting history is that which contests the dominant understanding of greatness. One example: Cyrus is a useful counterpoint to Alexander. But even more so, how fascinating it would be to hear more historical accounts of those who didn’t conquer, didn’t subjugate, didn’t enslave. If anyone knows of some, I’d love to hear about them.

Max H