Why A 'Ceremonial' Funeral For Margaret Thatcher Is A Dangerous Idea

by James Burkinshaw

Winston Churchill's funeral, 1965

The death of Margaret Thatcher has resulted in an impassioned and welcome debate about her legacy. Mr Doyle has made the case for Mrs Thatcher’s importance and Mr Lemieux has confirmed her uncommon charisma. However, there seems to be a move by some newspapers and politicians, in the wake of her death, to shut this debate down.

Central to this effort is the imposition of a state funeral upon a nation that is extremely divided about Mrs Thatcher’s legacy (it is being described as a “ceremonial” funeral ,but the trappings of full military honours, the attendance of the Queen herself at the ceremony, etc, make this a state funeral in all but name). However, Margaret Thatcher was never a head of state; the Queen is the head of state, a unifying figure who symbolises the whole nation, and whose death, therefore, will be marked by a state (i.e national) funeral.

The last thing that can be said about Mrs Thatcher is that she was a unifying figure. She was a proudly partisan and unabashedly divisive politician, whose first question about others was usually “Is he/she one of us?”. There is nothing wrong with this at all. On the contrary, politics is necessarily confrontational and competitive; indeed, if you are going to change things you will unavoidably face opposition and even create enemies in the process. However, a state funeral is the last thing appropriate for such a figure.

Like other former Prime Ministers, Margaret Thatcher deserves a memorial service, attended by her many supporters and admirers, in a prestigious location such as Westminster Abbey. The only Prime Minister to receive a state funeral last century was Winston Churchill. It was in recognition of his leadership during the Second World War, in which he had become the symbol of national unity in the face of the Nazi threat (more so, indeed, than the king, George VI). Although he was a Conservative, his government was not an exclusively Conservative government but one composed of all of the major parties, including Labour and Liberal ministers. It was his role as leader of this government of national unity, defending the entire country against an existential threat, that was being acknowledged, not Churchill’s often controversial political career before and after the war. 

 

Defenders of the idea of a state/ceremonial service for Margaret Thatcher are arguing that she is owed it for being such a significant political figure. However, there have been other significant Prime Ministers within the last century. Clement Attlee’s Labour government (1945-1951) was arguably even more radical and far-reaching than that of Margaret Thatcher, but he was not granted a state funeral. Nor was the radically effective Liberal Chancellor and Prime Minister, David Lloyd George. Nor should they have been.

Like Attlee and Lloyd George, Thatcher was the leader of a political party serving a particular ideology. Our democratic system allows all political parties to present their vision for the nation every few years so that the electorate may decide which vision to choose. Throughout the last century, power has shifted regularly and peaceably between Conservative, Labour and (more distantly) Liberal governments, reflecting constantly changing attitudes towards economic priorities, health care, education, defence, housing, the environment, religion, sexuality and countless other issues. To assign a state/ceremonial funeral to Mrs Thatcher is to assign her ideology (one opposed by at least half of the nation) a unique status and to enshrine it as “above and beyond politics . . . as an incontestable and uncontested part of our collective inheritance” as Jonathan Freedland argues. In a democracy, where every political idea should be constantly and publicly contested and defended, this is a dangerous precedent.  

Update: An opinion poll released on Thursday, 11th April shows that only 37.6% of the nation (just over one third) support a ceremonial/state funeral for Margaret Thatcher, reinforcing the sense that this is an event being imposed upon an unwilling nation rather than one reflecting the democratic wishes of the British people.

See also:
Conservative commentator Peter Oborne: This is a state funeral --- and that's a mistake
Liberal commentator Jonathan Freedland: a funeral designed to elevate Margaret Thatcher above politics