Layout 8 - Winston Churchill

“Mass Effects” and the Great
Man Theory of History
Churchill Contemplates the Democratic Revolution (1931)
“I have been in full harmony all of my life with the tides that flow on both sides of the Atlantic
against privilege and monopoly, and I have steered confidently towards the Gettysburg ideal of
‘government of the people by the people for the people.’ I owe my advancement entirely to the
House of Commons, whose servant I am. In my country, as in yours, public men are proud to be
the servants of the State and would be ashamed to be its masters.” —WSC, 1941
D A V I D F R E E M A N
no hesitation in ranging
myself with those who view the
“Ihave
past history of the world mainly as
the tale of exceptional human beings,
whose thoughts, actions, qualities,
virtues, triumphs, weaknesses and
crimes have dominated the fortunes of
the race.” 1 Thus writes Churchill in the
opening paragraph of “Mass Effects in
Modern Life,” firmly identifying
himself with what has been known as
the “Great Man”—or perhaps now
“Great Person” —theory of history.
But Churchill then goes on to ask, “Are not our
affairs increasingly being settled by mass processes” 2 By
“mass processes” Churchill meant not only mass media
but the advent of universal adulthood suffrage. With all
adults in Britain having obtained the vote, Churchill
concludes that “the throne [of power] is occupied; but
by a throng.” 3 Whether or not this newly arrived-at situation
would prove to be for the greater good of the
British people is the question Churchill sets out to
explore in the remainder of his essay.
By the time Churchill came to write “Mass Effects”
he was—as it turned out—roughly half way through his
sixty-year Parliamentary career. During the first three
decades of his time in the political arena, the structure of
British government had altered dramatically. This more
than anything is the “mass effect” upon which Churchill
is reflecting. When he was first
elected to Parliament in 1900 it was
still the case that no women and not
even all men had the right to vote.
Members of Parliament who did not
hold a ministerial position did not
receive salaries. Some MPs, like
Churchill himself, were elected from
two-member constituencies. The
nation could go up to seven years
without a general election.
The House of Lords retained
tremendous power, and the Prime
Minister himself, Lord Salisbury, served from the upper
chamber. By the time this essay was published, all men
and women in Britain over the age of 21 could vote,
elections had to be held at least every five years, and all
MPs received salaries. The House of Lords had lost most
of its power and no prime minister was likely ever to
serve from that body again. The triumph of democratization
meant that national debate more than ever before
carried well outside of Westminster as all participating
members of the electorate considered through the media
the issues of the day.
Where, Churchill wondered, would this lead It is
simply not sufficient to conclude that he was at heart an
elitist, an aristocrat. To answer the question, it is necessary
to examine Churchill’s view of where Britain had
been, and how it had reached the point where it was >>
Professor Freeman received his Ph.D. in Modern British History from Texas A&M University and teaches History at the
University of California at Fullerton. A twenty-year member of TCC, he is a regular contributor to Finest Hour, notably
“Winston Churchill and the Making of Iraq” (FH 132: 26-33) and “Churchill and F.E. Smith” (FH 139: 29-35).
FINEST HOUR 148 / 55