United in Division: PM Speech Seeks to Enflame Culture War
In his recent address on extremism, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak utilised well-worn rhetorical strategies to portray an escalating threat requiring decisive government action. However, while the speech pays lip service to national unity, its substantive implications are likely to exacerbate divisiveness and social tensions.
Sunak struck an authoritative tone, declaring, “I need to speak to you all” about a situation that “demands a response.” Framing the issue as one requiring his personal intervention, Sunak presented himself as a leader in control during a crisis. This commanding posture was reinforced through emphatic repetitions of “we must” and calls for collective action.
Simultaneously, Sunak painted an alarming picture of extremism running amok, engulfing the everyday lives of citizens. He highlighted visceral examples like attacks on MPs’ homes and Jewish children fearing displays of religious identity. Depicting extremism as “a poison” destroying hope and national confidence, Sunak situated extremist threats as not just isolated incidents but an encroaching ideology jeopardising the nation. This apocalyptic language presents urgent action against extremism as necessary to rescue democracy itself.
However, Sunak’s rhetoric obscures the reality that the state’s own divisive discourse and exclusionary policies have exacerbated the social divisions he condemns. For example, the speech offers a circumscribed vision of change only through a state-sanctioned “peaceful, democratic process.” This delegitimises more disruptive forms of protest protected under the right to assembly. Moreover, Sunak subtly reinforces assimilationist expectations, suggesting immigrants and minorities adopt “our” identity rather than retaining diversity.
This lays bare that the rhetoric of anti-extremism may actually serve to suppress challenges to status quo power structures. By positioning any dissent from majoritarian norms as “extremist,” the state grants itself broad licence to categorise more radical resistance as unacceptable and unpatriotic. This allows the state to shore up its threatened authority amidst growing critiques of inequality, cronyism, and oligarchy.
Far from being external and alien, the extremism Sunak warns of often arises from the state’s own failure to address the root injustices fueling social disaffection. But it is politically expedient to instead blame inherent defects in those unable to conform to “our” values. This diverts focus from remedying grievances and redistributing power.
Ultimately, Sunak’s speech seeks to place the state at the centre of determining legitimate participation while dismissing those who stray outside narrow parameters. This perpetuates the myth of extremism as an invasive force rather than a symptom of establishments excluding marginalised voices and upholding the status quo.
This approach follows a long-held Tory strategy of exploiting cultural divisions to shore up electoral support. By presenting right-wing nationalism as intrinsic to British identity, conservative leaders portray progressive movements as alien and subversive. This cements the reactionary base while also vying for centrist voters fearful of social change seen as threatening tradition or stability.
Sunak continues this gambit, but with an added dose of ambiguity, allowing multiple interpretations. His vision welcomes diversity so long as it assimilates into “our values,” while also subtly hinting that certain groups may be inherently less capable of embracing democracy. These diffuse insinuations, couched in calls for unity, seek to raise doubts without accountability.
In essence, Sunak’s speech ultimately serves to foment rather than combat extremism. While decrying efforts to “turn Briton against Briton,” the speech itself exacerbates the divide between reactionary and progressive visions of British society. It also further ingrains the message that marginalised voices must mute their dissent to be accepted into the body politic.
Rather than meaningfully addressing economic precarity and political alienation, Sunak opts for another round of the Tories’ favoured culture war. His speech may succeed in marshalling more voters to the Conservative banner through alarmism. But its logical end is not national harmony but an ever more insular and draconian politics of exclusion and conformity. Under the guise of anti-extremism, the seeds of division find fertile ground.
