Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, formally announced his resignation some weeks ago. There’s a flip side to the issues that led to this situation and it’s what I interrogate. Note that here I’m thinking as lawyers do though I’m not a lawyer. But I’ve seen enough of the manoeuvres of clever lawyers to know that what they do for clients in court, a journalist with political scientist background can also do regarding a politician in the political space.
Lawyers go to courthouses to use the law to get their clients discharged and acquitted. They would, even when they knew an act considered an offence actually took place. Lawyers know they can overturn a case based on technicalities, at least. When a judge dismisses such a case based on technicalities, plaintiffs may cry injustice. But once technicalities are breached, the law can’t see ‘guilty’, so the judge can’t see ‘guilty’ too. Has the reader heard a lawyer argue that even with all the evidence brought forward, their client isn’t guilty? The lawyer may base their assertion on the argument that claims made by a plaintiff’s lawyer are “not known to law.” This is where I’m headed with regard to the ‘offences’ attributed to Johnson.
I’ve never hidden the fact that Johnson can’t do anything wrong where I’m concerned. What I do here though is call our attention to the flip side of the narrative regarding Johnson’s resignation. Does any book stipulate how a politician should conduct the affairs of the state? I would like to be shown a nation’s leader who observed such stipulations 100 per cent even in liberal democracies. In any case, stipulations, as made by Western political philosophers, are suggestions, not law. So, is there a law of politics on which basis Johnson could be pronounced guilty of any of the accusations levelled against him? Whoever is familiar with Niccolo Machiavelli’s work, The Prince, knows where I’m headed. He captures what is realistically obtained in the conduct of state affairs. With the failings humans bring into whatever they do, people who disagree with Machiavelli’s idea regarding the conduct of state affairs must be lovers of fairy tales.
The worst commentary on Johnson’s resignation claimed that his tenure as PM “was marred with so many controversies, scandals, and accusations.” Which government never attracted controversies and accusations, especially where the opposition party is free to criticise? What are the offences opponents accused Johnson of? There was the Chris Pincher allegation saga. Pincher was appointed as Deputy Chief Whip. It was stated that Johnson knew about some allegations made against Pincher regarding his conduct in 2019 but still went ahead to appoint him. His administration is criticised as being dependent on food imports which makes the UK vulnerable to volatile food prices. Note that this situation predated Johnson’s government. In 2021, Owen Peterson, a former Conservative member of Parliament, faced suspension after he was accused of breaching lobbying rules. Johnson was later accused of trying to overturn the suspension. During the COVID-19 lockdown, Johnson was accused of flouting COVID-19 restrictions rules because he attended some gatherings of officials at Downing Street.
In 2020, Johnson was accused of seeking funds to refurbish his Downing Street residence from a Conservative Party donor and he didn’t properly disclose the source of the fund. It was also said that Johnson asked the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five months during the Brexit period. This was alleged to be a case of using the law in his own favour. Did these “offences” breach any rule known to politics? If the reader views politics from a Machiavellian perspective, their answer is obvious. If the reader is of a realist disposition, as I am, their answer is obvious too. It’s from this second position I proceed.
By the standard in a non-liberal democracy, there was nothing to the stated ‘offences’ to expect a political leader to resign. But the UK is a liberal democracy and there’re values that are held sacrosanct. That some ministers left Johnson’s cabinet, thereby forcing him to resign, was largely because of their view of Western liberal values, which to them were breached by the ‘offences’ stated. Even at that, I still wonder if Johnson did anything no Western political leader ever did before. Canada and France’s past and current leaders have been accused of worse offences. To me the offence a politician may be accused of is relative when compared to other politicians who occupied the same post either in the past or in the present. If what Johnson is accused of is compared to what some past politicians in Western democracies did, he’ll come out as a saint.
No political leader gets it 100% right and none gets it 100% wrong. I state this as a journalist with political science background, a person who’s familiar with the criticisms levelled against US presidents and UK prime ministers from the 1930s onward. I state it as a person who has read biographies of former presidents, prime ministers, as well as political issues written by celebrated Western journalists, such as Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodard. There were also the great memoirs of some British political journalists whose names I don’t immediately recall. If those journalists were alive and asked to compare what Johnson is accused of to what some former UK PMs were accused of, they would rate Johnson relatively high as Liz Truss, the UK Foreign Secretary, did in a recent TV debate.
During the debate, Truss was asked to rate Johnson’s performance. She said, “7/10.” When her rival in the race for the post of PM, Rishi Sunak, was asked the same question, he gave a long and winding response. Johnson did well in some areas but didn’t in others, Sunak said. Pressed to be specific, Sunak scored Johnson “10/10” on issues such as Brexit and his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, thus implying Johnson scored 0 on other issues. Some clapped for him in the audience.
The crowd will applaud what it likes to hear, but I know from experience that this doesn’t mean the crowd is right. Can any statesman have 100% and 0% regarding their handling of public issues? Even the handling of Brexit still has critics and so does the handling of COVID-19. I noted such criticisms in 2020 on this page at the time COVID-19 happened, particular criticisms from UK health care workers. That’s the handling of the COVID-19 outbreak which Sunak scores 100%.
I’ve dismissed Sunak’s response as contrived, evasive, insincere and not politically realistic. But I’ve noted Truss’s response as honest and politically realistic. Why? She thoughtfully placed Johnson’s three-year tenure side by side with some past administrations and was convinced Johnson scored 7/10. That’s how to rate a politician’s relative performance, not that you score them outright 100% and 0%. Performance is always relative.
Even one of his worst critics, Helen Lewis, a journalist, admits that Johnson “shares (Winston) Churchill’s ability” and that Johnson’s wasn’t worse than “Churchill’s mistake-strewn career before the Second World War.” Had I the opportunity, I would have looked into the archives to check if previous PMs never supported and promoted a loyal MP, who wasn’t popular with colleagues; if no past PM was ever criticised for not disclosing all information, particularly Churchill in the war era; if none ever attracted “controversies and accusations.”
For American presidents from 1945 till date, many had criticisms levelled against them, some worse than Johnson’s. Only Richard Nixon resigned. Johnson showed loyalty to loyal political colleagues. All politicians surround themselves with loyal people. Johnson did in office what he had to do to get the job done. All politicians do, conducting affairs of state based on the realities of the time in which they operate. Those who accuse Johnson of ‘offences’ did based on their understanding of values eulogised in Western democracies. Viewed especially from a Machiavellian prism Johnson isn’t guilty of any offence known to politics, the same way no one can be guilty of an offence unknown to law.
Note from the Editor: The column titled, “The depth of Femi Kuti’s mind,” featured last Friday was written by ’Tunji Ajibade. The mistake made regarding the author is regretted.
