The fall of Boris Johnson: any democracy should look to his case and ask if it is enabling Machiavellian leaders
Johnson is not the first world leader to prioritise his own ambitions over meaningful governance.
The Conversation
July 8, 2022
Boris Johnson’s resignation as prime minister is not just a portentous political event. His time in office – and the nature of his departure – throw up vital questions about democratic values and institutions.
Blaming the failings of an entire political culture on the moral deficiencies of one leader might make us feel righteous, but most of us know that the rot goes rather deeper than one flamboyant character. The fall of Johnson could be taken as a historical juncture to be built upon – and not just in the UK.
Some have argued that the political debate preceding the Brexit referendum was a nadir; that public hopes and fears were cynically exploited by politicians who did not even believe the substance of their own messages. Johnson’s premiership fell because it seemed to recognise no distinction between what is true and what is politically expedient. Once that distinction ceases to matter, democratic discourse becomes unsustainable and political communication becomes a matter of permanent decoding.
Integrity depends upon binding structures, such as codes of conduct and ethics committees. It also relies on a cultural commitment by politicians and citizens to call out intentional deceit, corrupt practices and hateful speech. The fall of Johnson is a good moment for explicit reflection on how far any democracy is prepared to tolerate, and even reward, Machiavellian tendencies.
Red-meat politics
The Johnson years highlight the important difference between a popular government and a government making meaningful difference to its people. Too often, attention grabbing “red-meat” solutions have been proffered in response to intractable challenges. Flying refugees to Rwanda or declaring Brexit “done” may have made for ephemerally forceful headlines and opinion poll effects, but they are typically merely symbolic and often dangerously counter-productive.
Governing takes time and thought. And it calls for honest appraisal, followed by serious efforts to fix what does not work well. This is quite different from government by propaganda whereby every manifest failure is described as a success and critics are sidelined or mocked.
Parliaments, which are supposed to hold governments to account on behalf of the public, need to assert their power. The British parliament may have acted to remove a prime minister who looked like an electoral liability but a more important role for parliament to play is to challenge policy proposals that are clearly not thought through or are offered as mere crowd-appeasing gestures.
The Johnson government was far from unique in having promoted a number of simplistic policies. It was, however, perhaps unprecedented in its willingness to flirt with the policy rhetoric of populism.
Better discourse surely involves paying attention to the ways in which our current media ecology too often rewards the loudest, most contentious demagogues and enables politicians who know how to capitalise on the worst practices of the journalistic trade.
Oxbridge politics in a changing world
A final, important matter, is how to bring a much wider range of voices and experiences into democratic politics. Recent events in the UK have included a damaging lobbying affair and multiple revelations of political figures breaking their own lockdown laws during the pandemic. Further, Johnson’s end came in the immediate wake of accusations of serious sexual misconduct against a senior figure in his government.
These might all have attracted a degree of weary popular interest in the Westminster soap opera. But the overall effect has surely been further erosion of the electorate’s already low trust in politics, fuelling renewed motives for disengagement.
The end of any leader’s career is an opportunity to reflect on what expectations we have of our democratic representatives. During Johnson’s tenure, too much time has been spent discussing what the British public is willing to put up with. Johnson will soon be gone from Downing Street. The question instead should be what do the people want next – and how can they make it happen?
Stephen Coleman, Professor of Political Communication, University of Leeds
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
July 8, 2022
Boris Johnson’s resignation as prime minister is not just a portentous political event. His time in office – and the nature of his departure – throw up vital questions about democratic values and institutions.
Blaming the failings of an entire political culture on the moral deficiencies of one leader might make us feel righteous, but most of us know that the rot goes rather deeper than one flamboyant character. The fall of Johnson could be taken as a historical juncture to be built upon – and not just in the UK.
Some have argued that the political debate preceding the Brexit referendum was a nadir; that public hopes and fears were cynically exploited by politicians who did not even believe the substance of their own messages. Johnson’s premiership fell because it seemed to recognise no distinction between what is true and what is politically expedient. Once that distinction ceases to matter, democratic discourse becomes unsustainable and political communication becomes a matter of permanent decoding.
Integrity depends upon binding structures, such as codes of conduct and ethics committees. It also relies on a cultural commitment by politicians and citizens to call out intentional deceit, corrupt practices and hateful speech. The fall of Johnson is a good moment for explicit reflection on how far any democracy is prepared to tolerate, and even reward, Machiavellian tendencies.
Red-meat politics
The Johnson years highlight the important difference between a popular government and a government making meaningful difference to its people. Too often, attention grabbing “red-meat” solutions have been proffered in response to intractable challenges. Flying refugees to Rwanda or declaring Brexit “done” may have made for ephemerally forceful headlines and opinion poll effects, but they are typically merely symbolic and often dangerously counter-productive.
Governing takes time and thought. And it calls for honest appraisal, followed by serious efforts to fix what does not work well. This is quite different from government by propaganda whereby every manifest failure is described as a success and critics are sidelined or mocked.
Parliaments, which are supposed to hold governments to account on behalf of the public, need to assert their power. The British parliament may have acted to remove a prime minister who looked like an electoral liability but a more important role for parliament to play is to challenge policy proposals that are clearly not thought through or are offered as mere crowd-appeasing gestures.
The Johnson government was far from unique in having promoted a number of simplistic policies. It was, however, perhaps unprecedented in its willingness to flirt with the policy rhetoric of populism.
Better discourse surely involves paying attention to the ways in which our current media ecology too often rewards the loudest, most contentious demagogues and enables politicians who know how to capitalise on the worst practices of the journalistic trade.
Oxbridge politics in a changing world
A final, important matter, is how to bring a much wider range of voices and experiences into democratic politics. Recent events in the UK have included a damaging lobbying affair and multiple revelations of political figures breaking their own lockdown laws during the pandemic. Further, Johnson’s end came in the immediate wake of accusations of serious sexual misconduct against a senior figure in his government.
These might all have attracted a degree of weary popular interest in the Westminster soap opera. But the overall effect has surely been further erosion of the electorate’s already low trust in politics, fuelling renewed motives for disengagement.
The end of any leader’s career is an opportunity to reflect on what expectations we have of our democratic representatives. During Johnson’s tenure, too much time has been spent discussing what the British public is willing to put up with. Johnson will soon be gone from Downing Street. The question instead should be what do the people want next – and how can they make it happen?
Stephen Coleman, Professor of Political Communication, University of Leeds
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Boris Johnson breaks from his party in bitter resignation speech – what he said and what he really meant
THE CONVERSATION
Published: July 8, 2022
Having apparently delayed the inevitable for as long as he could, Boris Johnson finally took to a podium outside 10 Downing Street on July 7 to say he would be stepping down as leader of the Conservative Party. This ultimately means his time as prime minister is over too.
This followed a torrid few days during which many of his MPs turned on him by either calling on him to resign or resigning themselves from government jobs. Johnson said he would stay in post as prime minister until the governing Conservatives had elected a replacement.
Resignation, defeat and concession speeches in politics are difficult to make. Johnson, like so many departing leaders before him, wanted to shore up his reputation while also taking aim at his enemies and those who brought him down. This is always a tricky line to walk. Too much attack and you are the sore loser, too much self-praise and you are deluded.
Did he manage to walk the line? Not really. The speech was followed by objections over its tone and led to calls for him to depart straight away rather than staying on until his successor is appointed.
Join thousands of Canadians who subscribe to free evidence-based news.Get newsletter
Here are a few things we learned from Boris Johnson’s resignation speech.
1. He still doesn’t believe he should go
The build-up to Johnson’s eventual resignation involved a stand-off with his own ministers and a protracted refusal to quit. Even though Johnson has now agreed to leave, it was abundantly clear from his speech that this is a man who struggles to accept what has happened to him.
2. He’s lost what interest he had in his party
Johnson has pressured his ministers into agreeing to let him stay on as a caretaker prime minister until a new leader is in place. But the tone of his speech has already triggered their regret at making such a concession. Conservative Party grandees have weighed in, with former prime minister John Major arguing that months with Johnson as PM would be “unwise”.
Johnson’s resignation speech.
It is usual in these type of speeches to pledge support for a successor. Johnson’s version of this tradition was lukewarm at best:
0ur brilliant and Darwinian system will produce another leader equally committed to taking this country forward through tough times … And to that new leader, whoever he or she may be, I say: I will give you as much support as I can.
It is often said that he is not as rooted in the Conservative party as many of his fellow MPs – and this speech left it hard to imagine him staying on as a backbencher after he finally leaves Downing Street. Before becoming prime minister he had seen no problem in rocking the boat. Those Conservatives aching for a period of calm will be worried about letting Johnson continue in Downing street when he no longer has a stake in future elections.
3. He remembers the highs and has already forgotten the lows
The broader style of Johnson’s speech was also unusual. The rhetorical devices he deployed are common in politics, but perhaps less so in resignation statements specifically. Groupings of three ideas are popular in political speeches, for example. Johnson said he “felt it was my job, my duty, my obligation” to stay on in the role of prime minister.
Lists using very active language are also popular and Johnson opted for this style to remind us of his achievements:
getting Brexit done and settling our relations with the continent after half a century, reclaiming the power for this country to make its own laws in parliament, getting us all through the pandemic, delivering the fastest vaccine rollout in Europe … leading the west in standing up to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine.
These devices are standard in campaign-type speaking, or in speeches at party conferences or conventions. But the boosterism sounded odd in a speech effectively marking a huge (personal) defeat. Anyone without background knowledge who tuned in for this speech could have been forgiven for wondering why on earth he was resigning.
4. He’s still not interested in apologising
Perhaps the most significant words were those missing from Johnson’s speech – “thanks” and “sorry”.
It’s normal in a speech like this to thank your colleagues, even if things ended badly. There were thanks for the public, Johnson’s family and the civil service but none for any ministers or MPs. Where, I wondered, was the thanks for those ministerial colleagues who had been defending him in parliament and in the media for several months? Many had of course ended up advising him to quit but it is quite a snub to not rate a mention.
It is fair to say that the speech elicited an immediate backlash. Critics pointed out that there was no sense of taking responsibility and no sense of apology. This is not part of Johnson’s DNA and while using apologetic language in the House of Commons has sometimes been necessary in recent times, he probably felt he had little to gain by saying sorry at this final moment.
Published: July 8, 2022
Having apparently delayed the inevitable for as long as he could, Boris Johnson finally took to a podium outside 10 Downing Street on July 7 to say he would be stepping down as leader of the Conservative Party. This ultimately means his time as prime minister is over too.
This followed a torrid few days during which many of his MPs turned on him by either calling on him to resign or resigning themselves from government jobs. Johnson said he would stay in post as prime minister until the governing Conservatives had elected a replacement.
Resignation, defeat and concession speeches in politics are difficult to make. Johnson, like so many departing leaders before him, wanted to shore up his reputation while also taking aim at his enemies and those who brought him down. This is always a tricky line to walk. Too much attack and you are the sore loser, too much self-praise and you are deluded.
Did he manage to walk the line? Not really. The speech was followed by objections over its tone and led to calls for him to depart straight away rather than staying on until his successor is appointed.
Join thousands of Canadians who subscribe to free evidence-based news.Get newsletter
Here are a few things we learned from Boris Johnson’s resignation speech.
1. He still doesn’t believe he should go
The build-up to Johnson’s eventual resignation involved a stand-off with his own ministers and a protracted refusal to quit. Even though Johnson has now agreed to leave, it was abundantly clear from his speech that this is a man who struggles to accept what has happened to him.
An awkward moment in parliament on Johnson’s last day. Alamy
His choice of words was telling. Johnson revealed that he had argued to his cabinet that a change of government at this current moment would be “eccentric” given the country’s needs. He accused his own parliamentary party of acting under a “herd instinct” and referred to a “Darwinian” method of leadership selection. He, it seems, was the victim of his party’s senseless antics.
“Them’s the breaks” he concluded – a phrase used when something happens outside your control.
His choice of words was telling. Johnson revealed that he had argued to his cabinet that a change of government at this current moment would be “eccentric” given the country’s needs. He accused his own parliamentary party of acting under a “herd instinct” and referred to a “Darwinian” method of leadership selection. He, it seems, was the victim of his party’s senseless antics.
“Them’s the breaks” he concluded – a phrase used when something happens outside your control.
2. He’s lost what interest he had in his party
Johnson has pressured his ministers into agreeing to let him stay on as a caretaker prime minister until a new leader is in place. But the tone of his speech has already triggered their regret at making such a concession. Conservative Party grandees have weighed in, with former prime minister John Major arguing that months with Johnson as PM would be “unwise”.
Johnson’s resignation speech.
It is usual in these type of speeches to pledge support for a successor. Johnson’s version of this tradition was lukewarm at best:
0ur brilliant and Darwinian system will produce another leader equally committed to taking this country forward through tough times … And to that new leader, whoever he or she may be, I say: I will give you as much support as I can.
It is often said that he is not as rooted in the Conservative party as many of his fellow MPs – and this speech left it hard to imagine him staying on as a backbencher after he finally leaves Downing Street. Before becoming prime minister he had seen no problem in rocking the boat. Those Conservatives aching for a period of calm will be worried about letting Johnson continue in Downing street when he no longer has a stake in future elections.
3. He remembers the highs and has already forgotten the lows
The broader style of Johnson’s speech was also unusual. The rhetorical devices he deployed are common in politics, but perhaps less so in resignation statements specifically. Groupings of three ideas are popular in political speeches, for example. Johnson said he “felt it was my job, my duty, my obligation” to stay on in the role of prime minister.
Lists using very active language are also popular and Johnson opted for this style to remind us of his achievements:
getting Brexit done and settling our relations with the continent after half a century, reclaiming the power for this country to make its own laws in parliament, getting us all through the pandemic, delivering the fastest vaccine rollout in Europe … leading the west in standing up to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine.
These devices are standard in campaign-type speaking, or in speeches at party conferences or conventions. But the boosterism sounded odd in a speech effectively marking a huge (personal) defeat. Anyone without background knowledge who tuned in for this speech could have been forgiven for wondering why on earth he was resigning.
4. He’s still not interested in apologising
Perhaps the most significant words were those missing from Johnson’s speech – “thanks” and “sorry”.
It’s normal in a speech like this to thank your colleagues, even if things ended badly. There were thanks for the public, Johnson’s family and the civil service but none for any ministers or MPs. Where, I wondered, was the thanks for those ministerial colleagues who had been defending him in parliament and in the media for several months? Many had of course ended up advising him to quit but it is quite a snub to not rate a mention.
It is fair to say that the speech elicited an immediate backlash. Critics pointed out that there was no sense of taking responsibility and no sense of apology. This is not part of Johnson’s DNA and while using apologetic language in the House of Commons has sometimes been necessary in recent times, he probably felt he had little to gain by saying sorry at this final moment.
Author
Paula Keaveney
Senior Lecturer in Politics, Edge Hill University
Disclosure statement
Paula Keaveney is a member of the Liberal Democrats
Senior Lecturer in Politics, Edge Hill University
Disclosure statement
Paula Keaveney is a member of the Liberal Democrats
No comments:
Post a Comment