Can Oliver Cromwell help?

What If Oliver Cromwell Became the Chief Climate Change Activist? In a world where climate action often relies on consensus-building and polite discourse, one might ask, “Are we too polite?” when compared to historical figures like Oliver Cromwell, whose leadership was marked by uncompromising actions and radical reforms. Cromwell, known for reshaping the political landscape of 17th-century England, often took bold steps to address what he saw as corruption and inefficiency in governance. If Cromwell were to lead the climate change movement today, how would his forceful approach impact environmental policy, and what lessons could modern activists draw from his leadership?

A Short Biography

Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658) was a prominent English military and political leader who played a crucial role in the English Civil War and the eventual establishment of the Commonwealth of England. Born into a minor gentry family in Huntingdon, Cromwell initially led an unremarkable life as a farmer and local parliamentarian. However, during the 1640s, as tensions between King Charles I and Parliament escalated into civil war, Cromwell emerged as a capable military commander. He led the New Model Army to several victories, helping to overthrow the monarchy.

In 1649, after the sad execution of Charles I, Cromwell became one of the central figures in the Commonwealth and later, in 1653, he took the title of Lord Protector, effectively becoming the head of state in what was essentially a military dictatorship. His rule was marked by strict Puritan values, military campaigns in Ireland and Scotland, and efforts to reform government. Although he dissolved Parliament multiple times and ruled with authoritarian tendencies, Cromwell sought to promote republicanism and religious tolerance for certain Protestant sects. He died in 1658, and although the monarchy was restored shortly after his death, Cromwell remains a contentious figure, both admired for his leadership and criticized for his authoritarian rule.

Cromwell’s Leadership: Radical and Uncompromising

Cromwell’s political career is full of examples where he took decisive action. His abolition of the monarchy following the English Civil War, and the execution of King Charles I, marked a significant departure from the norms of governance in England. Cromwell did not hesitate to overhaul entire systems of power when he believed they no longer served the public good. Similarly, his Dissolution of the Rump Parliament in 1653, when he famously declared, “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing… In the name of God, go!” demonstrates his willingness to bypass prolonged debate in favor of swift and bold action.

If Cromwell were to address the climate crisis, it’s likely he would adopt a similarly uncompromising stance. In place of gradual policy adjustments, we might see him implement immediate and far-reaching regulations to phase out fossil fuels, impose heavy carbon taxes, and restructure industries that contribute to environmental degradation. There would be little room for negotiation or incrementalism—Cromwell would view climate inaction as a moral failure, requiring urgent rectification.

Cromwell’s Puritan Roots: Ethical Living and Sustainability

Cromwell’s puritanical beliefs could also influence his approach to climate change. His focus on discipline and moral reform could easily extend to issues of environmental ethics and sustainable living. Just as he sought to reform societal behavior in his time, Cromwell might push for a dramatic shift in modern consumer habits. He would likely view excessive consumerism, waste, and environmental degradation as immoral, calling for a return to simpler, more sustainable lifestyles.

This moral approach could result in widespread campaigns urging citizens to reduce waste, conserve resources, and live minimally—not just as practical steps, but as ethical imperatives. Cromwell’s Puritan sense of duty might frame climate activism as a question of moral righteousness, where failure to act is not only irresponsible but sinful.

More Puritanism Links

While Puritanism of the 17th century and modern environmentalism are separated by centuries and differ significantly in their context and objectives, there are philosophical connections between the two. The Puritans, a Protestant group known for their strict religious beliefs and practices, saw the Earth as God’s creation and believed they had a duty to responsibly manage the land and its resources. They viewed humans as stewards of nature, tasked with caring for and preserving it as part of their religious duty. This concept of stewardship echoes through modern environmentalism, which emphasizes the responsible management of natural resources to protect ecosystems and ensure the planet’s health for future generations. Although the Puritans viewed nature as something provided by God for human use, their sense of duty to protect it resonates with contemporary ideas about sustainability and conservation, where humanity must manage its consumption of natural resources carefully.

Furthermore, the Puritans’ commitment to simplicity and their rejection of excess align with the values of modern environmentalists, who often advocate for reducing consumption and living sustainably. Puritans believed that materialism and indulgence were sinful, promoting a way of life that was frugal, humble, and focused on community. Today’s environmental movement, while not driven by religious motivations, similarly promotes minimalism and anti-excess, arguing that overconsumption contributes to environmental degradation and climate change. Both the Puritans and environmentalists see their actions as not just practical but morally necessary. While the Puritans did not engage with ideas like climate change, their focus on simplicity, ethical living, and stewardship offers a historical precedent for the ethical and moral dimensions of modern environmentalism. However, unlike the Puritans’ anthropocentric view, which saw nature as existing for human use, contemporary environmentalism often places intrinsic value on nature itself, advocating for the protection of ecosystems for their own sake.

A Philosopher’s View: Hobbes and Milton on Cromwell’s Leadership

To better understand how Cromwell’s leadership might translate into climate activism, we can look to two influential philosophers of his time: Thomas Hobbes and John Milton, who had contrasting views on Cromwell’s rule.

Thomas Hobbes, author of Leviathan (1651), argued that without a strong central authority, society would descend into chaos. For Hobbes, a powerful ruler like Cromwell was necessary to maintain order, even at the expense of personal freedoms. Hobbes might support Cromwell’s radical climate policies, seeing them as essential to prevent the collapse of society in the face of environmental catastrophe.

On the other hand, John Milton, a poet and intellectual, initially supported Cromwell but became critical of his authoritarian tendencies. In works like The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates (1649), Milton argued for the accountability of rulers and warned against the concentration of power. Milton’s critique of Cromwell’s governance raises a relevant question for climate activists: should we, like Cromwell, centralize authority and push for sweeping reforms, or should we guard against the dangers of authoritarianism and ensure that climate action respects democratic processes?

A Global Campaign: Cromwell’s Approach to International Cooperation

Cromwell’s leadership was not limited to domestic issues. His foreign policy, particularly his involvement in establishing the English Commonwealth, demonstrated his vision for England’s role on the global stage. Were he a climate activist, Cromwell would likely push for the creation of a global coalition akin to his Protectorate, where nations are held accountable for their environmental policies and emissions. Under his leadership, international treaties would be binding and enforceable, with severe consequences for those who fail to meet their climate obligations.

Just as Cromwell sought to impose order across England and its territories, he might advocate for an international climate authority with the power to impose sanctions or penalties on nations and corporations that do not comply with environmental regulations. His vision for global governance would likely be one of strict oversight, driven by a sense of moral duty to protect the planet.

Looking for New Leadership

If bold actions by climate activists continue to fail in pressuring governments to take decisive, transformative measures on climate change, the rise of more extreme forms of environmental activism becomes increasingly likely. The frustration of incremental progress and inadequate government responses could pave the way for radical movements. Activists like those from Just Stop Oil and other groups that have conducted high-profile disruptions, including gluing themselves to roads and attacking famous artworks in museums, illustrate the growing trend toward more disruptive, even extreme forms of activism. These groups aim to provoke public and governmental attention by targeting symbols of culture and complacency, hoping to emphasize the urgency of climate action in ways that peaceful protests or conventional advocacy have failed to achieve.

The increasing frequency of these radical actions underscores the fear among many activists that time is running out to avert catastrophic climate change. The destruction or defacement of valuable works of art has gained significant media attention, sparking debates over the legitimacy of such tactics. Some view these methods as necessary shock tactics to break through the apathy or inertia of governments and the public, while others argue they may alienate potential supporters and further polarize the climate conversation. The popular appeal of these methods, however, suggests that a portion of the public—particularly younger generations—are sympathetic to the urgency behind such extreme actions. The trend toward radicalization in environmental movements reflects a growing impatience with traditional, slow-moving governmental policies that seem inadequate in the face of the accelerating climate crisis.

As the climate crisis deepens and incremental activism seems insufficient, the environmental movement urgently requires game-changing leadership that can channel public frustration into effective, large-scale action. This leadership must not only inspire but also unify the various strands of climate activism—from peaceful protestors to more radical factions—into a coherent and strategic force capable of driving policy change. A transformative leader, akin to figures like Martin Luther King Jr. in the civil rights movement, is needed to galvanize public opinion and leverage political pressure in ways that force governments to prioritize climate action. Such leadership would need to bridge the gap between the increasingly radical tactics and the mainstream environmental movement, ensuring that the urgency of the cause is communicated without alienating potential allies. By providing clear direction, innovative strategies, and a cohesive vision, this leadership could harness the growing climate anxiety among the public and turn it into a powerful demand for systemic change, preventing the slide into destructive or counterproductive extremism. Without such leadership, the climate movement risks further fragmentation, and the window for meaningful action continues to shrink.

Conclusion: The Cromwellian Question—Is Bold Action the Only Solution?

Oliver Cromwell’s leadership, characterized by swift, radical reform and a focus on moral governance, might be presenting a provocative model for climate activism. His legacy as a leader who transformed England, though divisive, offers valuable lessons for the climate movement. In times of crisis, Cromwell’s approach suggests that decisive, bold action may be necessary—even if it challenges the status quo or risks unpopularity.

Today’s climate activists must ask themselves: are we being too polite, too patient, and too willing to compromise in the face of an escalating climate crisis? As Cromwell’s example shows, sometimes moral duty requires forceful, uncompromising leadership. While his methods might seem authoritarian by modern standards, they reflect an urgency that mirrors the seriousness of the climate challenge. The question remains—can we afford to wait, or is it time to embrace a more radical, Cromwellian approach to securing a sustainable future?

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for decisive leadership during true crises, bringing to mind Oliver Cromwell’s authoritarian approach in the 17th century. In a strikingly similar move, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson banned Christmas gatherings in 2020 to control the spread of COVID-19, reminiscent of Cromwell’s infamous ban on Christmas celebrations for religious reasons. While Cromwell’s motivations were rooted in different reasons, Johnson’s actions were driven by the urgency to protect public health and prevent the overloading of healthcare systems. Although this decision sparked controversy and backlash, it demonstrated a Cromwellian style of governance: one that prioritizes the greater good over popular sentiment or traditional customs. In moments of crisis, whether in the 1600s or the modern era, sometimes bold and unpopular decisions are necessary to safeguard the population. I personally see no problems with Johnson’s decision, as it was clear that temporary sacrifices were vital for saving lives and mitigating a larger catastrophe. The pandemic proved that in times of existential threat, strong leadership—capable of making tough, sometimes unpopular choices—is essential. Just as Cromwell once acted decisively for what he saw as the moral and national order, so too did Johnson act with the conviction that preserving public health was paramount, regardless of the cost to tradition.However, I have no hope that such bold leadership for climate change will emerge soon in mainstream politics, which makes me believe that this kind of leadership might have to come from within activism itself. No more bare fists for climate action; we need gauntlets for climate action leaders—bold, resilient figures rising from the grassroots who are prepared to wield the urgency and strength required to push for the uncompromising climate action the world so desperately needs. Maybe it is only through such leadership that we can hope to break through the inertia and bring about the transformative change necessary to confront the climate crisis head-on.