In the small hours of April 8, ex-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher drew her last breath. As an 87-year-old who had battled with ill health for some years, news of her last moments were cause for little surprise.
Yet, this unavoidable, natural event induced a flurry of polarized opinion that took Britain by storm, from mass mobilization upon its streets to continual tweets pinging through the cybersphere.
The death of another controversial politician has led many to ask once more: How should people talk about them once they are gone? With sympathy akin to any other deceased person or with the criticism they inspire by virtue of their chosen profession?
British radio stations presented flattering obituaries of the United Kingdom’s first woman prime minister. They highlighted the significant changes she made towards the country’s economy as she dismantled the power of its unions and introduced a neoliberalist philosophy to the small Atlantic island, promoting free markets, privatization and hyper-capitalism.
On the ground, a different Margaret Thatcher was memorialized. Choruses of “Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead” rang out throughout many of the poorer urban areas. Those who had felt the brunt of the conservative shift of the 1980s would not stand for the state-sanctioned canonization of a politician who was known to stifle the rights of the working man and steal his children’s milk.
In 2004 and closer to home, Ronald Reagan’s departure from the waking world inspired mass assemblies of respectful Americans from around the country. Former President George W. Bush declared June 11 a day of “national mourning” and, even throughout the civil spheres, criticisms of his tendentious policies were deafened by cheers of admiration.
Both these leaders introduced similar and similarly controversial policies in their respective time in office. Both were, indeed, intricately bound in what has become known as “the special relationship.”
Yet both received a different send off, as both nations’ public adopted disparate posthumous etiquettes. One to glorify. One to demonize.
Which is correct? My answer is neither. When a person enters the political sphere, they go above and beyond what is required from the average citizen. They are, therefore, rightly subject to more criticism and commendation because both are fundamental accompaniments to what it is to be a politician within a democratic society.
When the politician dies, the public may sing their praises or celebrate their absence all they like. However, surely, the politician does not die in the Ritz Hotel or at his or her home in Bel Air, but when he or she leaves office and position of power. After complete retirement (as afforded by both Thatcher and Reagan), the politician is just another average citizen and he or she cannot be considered anything more.
So, the choruses of “Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead” sung on the East London terraces are not only 20 years too late but also disrespectful and, of course, pointless.
The glorification of Reagan, too, was tardy—if deserved at all.
Save from war criminals, tyrants and demagogues, the politician is a needed position taken up by an ordinary citizen and once the process of democracy has dissolved them of their duty, they should be able to retreat back into the private sphere from which they came.
As the saying goes: Let sleeping dogs lie.
