Although authoritarian populism existed before the 1980s, the concept was understood better during that time and was a label ascribed to the government of Thatcher. The concept was mostly linked to the power of politics and the way it affected the social and economic aspects of the United Kingdom (UK). Authoritarian populists held some skewed beliefs that included the notion that Britain played a strong role in the world, cynicism regarding the operations of the European Union (EU), opposition to advocacy for human rights, and negative opinions towards immigration. These autocratic aspects led to the enactment of Section 28 of the Local Government Act that prevented local authorities from allowing homosexuality, recognising ‘fake’ family relationships, and councils buying educational resources deemed to promote gay lifestyles (Erben, 1998). During this time, sexuality was highly politicised, and those in power used all means to ensure that the topic remained obscure on the public stage. From a positive perspective, limiting acts of homosexuality helped to instil a sense of morality among the citizens. Sadly, people wanted to express their views and opinions about issues touching their lives and detested the manner in which the Thatcher government dealt with human rights. This paper will critically assess the idea of ‘authoritarian populism’ in terms of clause 28. It will explore power and resistance in the 1980’s in regards to authoritarian populism in terms of clause 28.
The debate regarding Section 28 was a defining moment in the 1980s in politics because a considerable proportion of the people started to resist the state’s attempts to suppress human rights. Besides, authoritarian populism furthered repression and Section 28 galvanised protests organised by gay rights activists and other campaign groups (Erben 1998). Traditionally, where there is power, there is also equal resistance. The political power influence during the 1980s did not pass without opposition. Attempts to promote heterosexual relationships during the time were met with a lot of resistance. Meanwhile, it can be argued from a moral perspective that education on homosexuality seemed irrelevant for primary school children at the time and it demeaned the nuclear and extended family (Weeks, 1985). Thus, the practice contravened the moral implications associated with the education. Therefore, there is justification for resistance among individuals that the idea of homosexual education was irrelevant, especially from religious institutions and their representatives. Similarly, political leaders have portrayed their opposition to introduction of such teachings in school with the intention of endearing themselves to the religious voting blocs.
By analysing the circumstances that led to approval of Section 28, it is clear that some of the important aspects include the power of moral rights and the attitudes of gays and lesbians. According to Thatcher’s government, family values were overemphasised, and the sanctity of the institution of the family expressed (Durham, 1991). However, the family was under threat from homosexuals who were seen as capable of undermining the societal values. These fears made the state to be involved, and it used its power to regulate sexuality (Weeks, 1985). While homosexuality was being repressed, some local labour councils showed resistance to state government initiatives and went ahead to portray ‘positive images’ of homosexuality. In response, some state actors pointed out that a lot of money was being spent to promote homosexuality in schools, which could have otherwise been used in other activities (Weeks, 1985). It is such statements that influenced the supporters of Section 28 to mount their “… the campaign against homosexuals who were depicted as sick, sinful, predatory individuals who were a threat to children and the continuance of society” (Erben, 1998, p. 60). Undeniably, authoritarian populism was a strategy that helped to streamline government functions and instil a sense of a moral society. The only problem is that Section 28 was repressive and denied people their rights, which explains the resistance in the form of protests and campaigns.
The introduction of Clause 28, as Stuart hall suggests, was the most notable effort to prevent the spread of homosexuality in the country (Segal, 1997). Actually, the clause stated that local authorities should be forbidden from doing anything that promotes or encourages homosexuality within their jurisdictions. The Margaret Thatcher government, which was the force behind the bill, was openly advocating for controls in the sexual freedom and it aimed to achieve this by introducing sex education in schools, which in many instances put them into conflict with conservative parents who felt their children should not be exposed to such knowledge at their young age (Segal, 1997). Additionally, the government refused to condemn homosexuality openly, making many Christian players angry. Moreover, the government supported the idea of making contraceptives available to teenagers. Clause 28 sought to counter such openness in the sex and contraceptives in Britain. Stuart Hall uses the term ‘authoritarian populism’ to refer to this aspect of the government coming up with policies which seem popular, but which are authoritarian because they deny a section of the population the freedom to exercise their sexuality in the way they deem best (Segal, 1997). He says that Clause 28 was the most notorious form of the expression of authoritarian populism. Therefore, in his opinion, the clause was the highest expression of a regime that sought to limit the people’s freedoms.
The family, according to British life, was outstanding and it had to be protected by all means. Unfortunately, the ideas of authoritarian populism of the 1980s used the institution of the family to further populist agendas and limit the rights of the people. It was a form of hoodwinking the public so that lesbians and gay men could have limited or no rights at all. Apart from local authorities, teachers were also targeted because of their influence on homosexuality. As indicated by Erben (1998), Section 28 was a repressive legislation that was disapproved by lesbians and gays. Still, the law demonstrated that the Conservative New Right was powerful in dictating what was considered ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ in the British society. Although Section 28 was a symbol of power, it instilled fear among gay and lesbian teachers about their employment security if their sexuality was revealed. Thus, teachers would present themselves as heterosexuals even though this was not the case (Stacey 1991). The behaviour of these professionals is a clear indication of the way voices were silenced and authority to air views and opinions deprived. Therefore, the presence of homosexuals in the political and social landscape was erased.
There is also the penetrative role of the state into the aspect of sexuality among the people. Besides, it uses power to penalise, disorganise, or indicate what is considered ‘unacceptable.’ Such practices are sparked by networks of political struggles. It cannot be denied that the government would want to protect citizens against immoral practices. Social forces can take advantage of the state power to further positive agendas such as the scrutiny and regulation of sexual identities and practices in the midst of the AIDS pandemic. However, such interventions have been contradictory because Erben (1998) emphasises that AIDS has helped to legitimise and control gay sex and gay movements. The gay forces have found it hard to use state channels in civil society because of government policies and AIDS discourse that has become a complex struggle. As Erben (1998) argues, AIDS transformed into a sign of ‘no sex’ as the language that should be spoken is that of celibacy and monogamy.
Feminists also tried to use state channels for their discourse, but the penetrative power of the state led to the marginalisation of these groups. They were suppressed against carrying out campaigns to gain more state control. Feminists feared greater intrusion to the state because restrictive legislation could be passed to regulate pornography and prostitution (Thompson, 1998; Watney, 1997). The power of the existing principles for state involvement includes concerns of corruption, public harm, and undermining the institution of the family. Fundamentally, the use of power by the state to intervene indicates “… the importance of not separating the sexualised aspects of the state’s identity as penetrator and regulator of civil society from other organising principles” (Cooper, 1995). Nevertheless, sexuality is the mode of coercion used by the state to achieve its political agendas.
According to Cooper (1995), sexuality is the state’s form of deploying violence and demonstrating its power over the people. The government possesses hegemonic monopoly and is the custodian of the public authority. These scenarios were evident during the 1980s when the disciplinary power of the state was deployed to oppose ‘uncontrolled’ sexual desires in institutions such as schools, prisons, and the military (Moran, 2001). It is also contradictory to use sex as a coercive force because women who work as prostitutes are often arrested and locked behind bars. Worse still, they can be sexually harassed by the state forces mandated to regulate their activities and they cannot do anything against them (Watney, 1997).
The idea of authoritarian populism became common during the 1980s and was furthered by Margret Thatcher when she became the United Kingdom Prime Minister. The politics of power was the critical defining aspect for the average UK voter. The set of beliefs that were instilled transformed the UK electorate to authoritarian populists. Some of the ideas emphasised on the influential role played by Britain in the world, cynicism regarding EU operations, opposition to the rights of the people, and negative opinions about immigration. Based on this conservative ideology, power was at the centre of every social and cultural aspect. For instance, the enactment of Section 28 limited the rights of gays and lesbians to express their views and opinions. According to Section 28, local authorities were barred from ‘promoting’ homosexuality, fake family relationships, and limitation of councils against using public funds to educate children in schools about homosexuality and gay lifestyles. The initiative attracted widespread resistance and calls for the abolition of the clause because it was a violation of human rights. Besides, the constitution guarantees the privilege of self-autonomy in which case one can make important decisions about their life. Nonetheless, the new sexual ideology demeaned the nuclear and extended family, and the government thought it was better to protect the social union. In fact, the use of state power helped to instil morality among citizens. The problem lies in the fact that the state abused its power by repressing the citizens. Nevertheless, the period served as a defining moment in history as it helped to transform how sexuality is viewed in contemporary societies.
Authoritarian populism has been criticised for being a way in which government bends to and gives in to the whims of the majority without considering what is right. Actually, the very idea of populism stems from a vocabulary of a weak government unable to make right decisions and to give direction. Instead, it makes decisions to please the majority and in the process, disregards the correct thing. More so, in pursuing what is popular, the government has been accused of trampling on the rights of the minority, especially those who may hold contrary views such as homosexuals. In other words, it is a practice of a new form of dictatorship, and that explains why the term ‘authoritarianism’ is used to describe this type of government (Wolfreys, 2006). This, critics argue that a government should balance the view of everybody in the society and also protect the weak from domination by the majority, something authoritarian populism fails to do.
Stuart Hall argued that Thatcherism had the capacity to use these popular people’s ideas for the common good of the country instead of just popularizing religious and conservative ideas. Furthermore, he stated the idea of a united country was now possible if the government used authoritarian populism to bring the people together. Moreover, he saw Thatcherism as a way of responding to the long standing “organic crisis” of institutionalized methods of governance, state, and employer dominance over employee interests and the dictatorship of capitalism. His argument was that since most of the dominant businessmen and corporate executives subscribed to Christianity and its traditional behaviourism, the government should use this collective feeling to make lives better for those who fall under the direct control of its foot soldiers (Wolfreys, 2006). Specifically, he observed that the type of leadership and the control of the government at the time have enough public support. Thus, the state should use this support to its advantage by instituting reforms that benefit the majority. Besides, class differences should not exist in a society that prides itself of strict Christian foundations.
- Cooper, D. 1995. Power in struggle: Feminism, sexuality and the state. New York: NYU Press.
- Durham, M. 1991. Sex and politics: The family morality in the Thatcher years. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.
- Erben, M. 1998. Biography and education: A reader. New York: Psychology Press.
- Moran, J. 2001. Childhood sexuality and education: The case of section 28. Sexualities, 4(1), 73-89.
- Segal, L. 1997. New Sexual Agendas. New York: NYU Press.
- Stacey, J. 1991. Promoting normality: Section 28 and the regulation of sexuality. Edited by Sarah Franklin, Celia Lury, & Jackie Stacey. Off-Centre: Feminism and cultural studies, pp. 284-304.
- Thompson, K. 1998, Moral panics (Key ideas). London: Routledge.
- Watney, S. 1997. Policing desire: Pornography, AIDS, and the media (3rd ed.). London; Herndon, VA: Cassell.
- Weeks, J. 1985. Sexuality and its discontents: Meaning, myths & modern sexualities, London: Routledge.
- Wolfreys, J. 2006. Modern British and Irish Criticism and Theory: A Critical Guide: A
- Critical Guide. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.