Page - 55 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Volume 05/02

self by those most able to manage the crisis.19 As such, Nordenholt fulfils – in fiction at least – what Alastair Hamilton describes as the 1920s’ “craving for de- cisiveness” by overthrowing the parliamentary system in favour of what is pre- sented as necessary (for human survival) and advantageous authoritarian rule.20 In its distinction between governmental prevarication and individual action, the novel differentiates sharply between feigned and genuine authority. As Flint observes Nordenholt, he notes that “while the Premier counterfeited power in his appearance, this unknown [Nordenholt] embodied it”.21 His determination overwhelms the Prime Minister, who “had been brought face to face with re- ality; and it had broken him”.22 Accordingly, his dynamism and greater intellect mean that he has already secured a plan for how to deal with the crisis and he gains complete control of the country by leaving the politicians little choice but to conform to his plans. Flint remarks: I realised what he had done. By sheer force of personality and a clear mind, he had carried us along with him and secured our assent to a scheme which, wildcat though it might appear, seemed the only possible way out of the crisis. He had constituted himself a kind of dictator, though without any of the trappings of the office; and no one dared oppose him. The cold brutality with which he had treated the politicians was apparently justified; for I now saw whither their procrastination would have led us.23 Flint’s perspective, as he contrasts Nordenholt with the politicians, echoes the call for a “masculine renaissance” associated with “extremes of Englishness” ideas and connotes fascist ideas of authoritarian leadership. Nordenholt is de- picted as an unopposable and necessary force. He is a fictional antidote to the real British politicians who, as Thurlow notes, had failed “to create a society that had adequately compensated for the horror and trauma of the war [and who] produced a mood of frustrated anger which tainted the utopian cravings of many attracted to Fascism”.24 In positioning Nordenholt as a saviour-figure, the novel acknowledges an increasingly popular contemporary conviction that strong leadership was necessary if the nation was to survive its post-war crises. Once Nordenholt has established his survivors in the Clyde Valley, the novel’s rejection of democracy is explicit: he sends the politicians back to their constit- uencies to starve.25 19 Connington 1923, 52–65. 20 Hamilton 1971, 259. 21 Connington 1923, 50. 22 Connington 1923, 59. 23 Connington 1923, 65. 24 Thurlow 1987, 25. 25 Connington 1923, 72; 106–107. Totalitarian Opportunism | 55www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68