The phenomena

4 ноября, 2008

Talgat Ismagambetov

Part 1
Succession institute in the East represents one of the instruments to decrease systematic risks. With different success level it was introduced in post Soviet countries (look Exclusive №6 and №7, 2008). In this article we present certain moment of party and country leaders nomination in extraordinary circumstances based on their biography, this is when ruling class does not have an opportunity or cannot take situation “under control”, preventing external and internal risks for political system. According to history in such circumstances there is a need for “outside” leader who does not come from ruling elite but from general society. One of the most striking example is coming of Charles de Gaulle on political arena in 1940.
However appearance of outstanding person on the Olympus without support of ruling class is quite rare and exclusive case of new leader nomination. Moreover in political practice of new leader nominations there are two major systems: guildian and entrepreneurial. First system is based on the nomenclature system of Soviet past including step by step carrier growth till highest positions in the party and country. According to entrepreneurial system rules political career is not closed for the popular people but not from political sphere. This way we can underline 40th US President and present California State governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Before their political career they have been very successful film actors. Their popularity was personal resources used in competition with other candidates for political positions.
Woodrow Wilson US President in 1913-1921 before coming into “big politics” was known by scientific researches in the sphere of political science and public management, that is why he was considered to be ready for practical politics. Before becoming master of White House he had “practical” experience as governor of New Jersey State.
Talent of forecasting and solving existing social problems is given only to rare individuals – crisis leader, or leader “fireman”. Greatest examples of such leaders are Franklin Delano Roosevelt in US at the times of “Great depression”, from European politics they were Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle in times of Second World War.

Leaders – “fireman” in newest history: Roosevelt and Churchill
World economical crisis in 1930s was serious challenge for existing political and economical systems. Crisis contributed to coming of national-socialistic party headed by Hitler in Germany as the ruling party. Soviet Union was conducting forcible collectivization in agriculture and rapid industrialization.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt won presidential election in 1932 was able to find an answer to system risks coming from political and economical roots; this was done with the help of “new course”. This allowed him to overcome crisis and save basis of political and economical system. Roosevelt came from ruling American class who recommended himself as energetic and talented deputy minister of military-navy fleet in the years of First World War. Later when he was 38 years old nominated himself as the candidate for US Vice-president from Democratic Party however in 1920 election republicans won the race. Further Roosevelt’s lifespan was not easy: disease forever fettered him to wheelchair. However he was able to go through all the challenges and did not leave politics. His election as New York State governor in 1928 and 1930 meant that he will be major democratic nominee for US President office.
On the other hand coming of Winston Churchill into power in the period of Second World War is part of his political biography which included both rise and fall in career from beginning of 1910s and 1920s including position of one of the leading member of ministers’ cabinet, and being only one of the regular members of English parliament in 1930s.
In spring 1940 prime-minister Neville Chamberlin lost his popularity due to his political collapse hoping to turn German forces to the East, towards USSR by “police of appeasement” for Hitler by allowing him to annex part of Czechoslovakia and Austria.    Great Britain public opinion was supporting military-navy minister W. Churchill. This is so because on ocean fields Britain was conducting real rather than “strange” war against Germany. However Chamberlin supporters dominated conservative party. Supporters of agreement with Hitler wanted to appoint Lord Halifax as new British prime minister, he was also known as “appeasement lord”. However this scenario could not be fulfilled because public opinion was for Churchill and a lot dependent from his position. When he was offered to join new ministers’ cabinet under control of Lord Halifax Churchill kept long expressive silence. Lord Halifax found diplomatic solution stating that member of chamber of Lords should not take position of head of the government in war times.
Winston Churchill even not being member of the government was known for ruling elite and political society in Great Britain. But in times of complicated challenges there are certain cases when nobody from ruling elite has characteristics of “fireman”, then comes turn of “people from outside”.

Charles de Gaulle: breakthrough to politics
Charles de Gaulle was not considered as influential political figure up until Second World War. His breakthrough as the national leader happened in tragic day for France when it lost to Hitler’s Germany. Moreover his rise as leader of antifascists movement named Resistance of French people happened without will of ruling class.
De Gaulle was 49 years old colonel when at times of military activities he was appointed as commander of tank division. Following military subordination in summer 1940 recently appointed deputy minister of defence brigade general de Gaulle was supposed to obey decision of French capitulation. His flee to London and call for continuing fight with occupants was considered as desertion and penal action of not obeying the orders. De Gaulle was sentenced to death penalty by martial court.
At that time political and military leaders of the country were not able to organize national defense. Many favored cooperation with established puppet pro-fascist regime. Rebellious general appealed to French national dignity calling fellow countrymen to Resistance. Only French Communist party (FCP) from all existing parties was willing and decisive to resist fascism. However ideological factor was against her and separated from socialists, supporter of National-republican movement, radical and other parties. Many anti fascist activists from different parties or without party membership were disconnected. De Gaulle had to organize Resistance from far British islands. By the way he was offering French commander in chief general Weigand to heat the resistance but he preferred to serve puppet regime.
Highest ruling elite of Third French republic capitulated before German forces. But patriotism as legacy of Great French revolution and following history was acceptable norm which determined behavior of many regular French citizens. Confused from sudden defeat and loss of trust previous politicians French from different social levels started to believe in themselves and recovery of the Republic.
Turning point did not occur on June 16, 1940 when de Gaulle flu to England but in November 1942. First call of de Gaulle for resistance from London by French was considered as support of war between Britain and Germany.
In summer 1940 French territory was divided into two parts, Northern occupied by Germany and unoccupied Southern. Military-navy fleet had to be liquidated, and maintenance of German military troops in French was responsibility of unoccupied government with the center in Vichy. Despite of this fact and national humiliation only three generals and one admiral joined de Gaulle and movement “Free France”, Contacts with underground FCP started in 1941 and were formed as continues cooperation in frame of Resistance forces next year in 1942.
December 24, 1941 by de Gaulle’s order admiral Muzelle attacked and acquired such islands as Sen-Pier and Miquelon located in entrance to St. Laurent gulf near Atlantic coast of Canada. Retake of even small islands by forces of “Free France” squadron from pro fascist Vichy regime has great moral and psychological importance. “Free France” stated that they are protector of national sovereignty over all French territory including overseas.
Attack of USSR by Germany in June 22, 1941 and invasion of Northern Africa by US and Great Britain troops in 1942 changed overall situation. Turning of public opinion towards de Gaulle underlined that forces of Resistance rather than Vichy government are real representatives of French nation interest. However these discussion and conclusions are “post factum”.
In order to complete the picture we must underline that US and Great Britain leaders did not think that considering their actions with “Free France” (since July 13, 1942 “Fighting France”) movement headed by de Gaulle was not necessary. US State department considered that freeing islands Sen-Pier and Miquelon by forces of de Gaulle supporters was illegal because American have not been informed about this military operation and it was not coordinated with them. For example Churchill did not recognize this movement and its executive body – French National Committee (FNC) even in 1942. It is known that he has been quite emotional on September 29, 1942 in conversation with de Gaulle. “You say you are the France! You are not the France! …France! Where is it? I of course accept that general de Gaulle and his followers represent large and respectable part of French nation. However I have not doubts that it would be possible to find valuable government even without them”. De Gaulle answered this by answering then why is he discussing with him France’s international interests? (to be continued).

In next issue of “Exclusive” magazine read: Through thorns to leadership: Charles de Gaulle, Winston Churchill and others; Russian and Soviet experience: unrealized opportunities of diffusive pressure.