The Interpreter newsletter will soon be reserved for Times subscribers. |
 | | Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said that he would resign after his Conservative Party has chosen a new leader.Carl Court/Getty Images |
|
Good morning from the United Kingdom, where Boris Johnson seems to be having some trouble with the size of his mandate. |
Yesterday, Johnson bowed to intense pressure and criticism from his party, and said that he will step down as prime minister after the process of choosing a new party leader is complete. In the preceding days, he had faced an unprecedented number of resignations by cabinet ministers and calls to step down from rank-and-file Members of Parliament. |
The collapse of Johnson's premiership has brought a fresh scandal or political intrigue approximately every 30 minutes since Tuesday evening. But I have found myself fixating on one small, seemingly boring detail: When Johnson announced his plans to resign, he said pointedly that he was leaving because of "the will of the parliamentary Conservative Party" — the politicians, that is, not the voters or even party members. And throughout the preceding days, as calls for his resignation mounted, Johnson insisted that he would remain in office because he had a "mandate from 14 million voters" to do so. |
The implication, barely concealed, was that he was being forced out by elites, in violation of the will of the people. But here's the thing: He doesn't have a personal mandate of 14 million votes. He has one of just over 25,000. |
Johnson was referring to the number of votes cast for the Tory party in the 2019 general election. (He rounded up a bit.) It was widely seen as a landslide victory. But it was a victory for the party. Prime ministers are not directly elected, so the only people in that election who actually cast their ballots for Johnson were the 25,351 who voted for him in his home constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip in London's outer suburbs. Johnson is the head of his party because he was elected by M.P.s and other party members. By elites, in other words, not the public. |
There is no reason to believe that Johnson is actually confused about the electoral system. His statements may have been intended to remind his fellow conservatives that he has more fame than any of his potential successors, and to claim personal credit for leading the party to its 2019 victory. And there is evidence that his popularity, and policies, helped the Tories more widely. |
But it is a classic of the populist's playbook to claim to be the true representative of the people, and that losses are the result of illegitimate machinations by elites. And over time, research shows, that kind of politics can weaken public trust in elections and government institutions, and even democracy itself. |
One incident by an outgoing politician wouldn't make that happen on its own, of course. But over the years, when I have interviewed researchers who study populism and democratic erosion, they have consistently told me that it is important to take violations of political norms seriously. So Johnson's characterization of his mandate stood out to me. |
And although Johnson has said he plans to step down as prime minister, he has not actually yet left office, and many of his detractors are taking a "believe it when I see it" position on his doing so. |
Dominic Cummings, a former adviser to Johnson who is now one of his harshest critics, has warned that he expects Johnson to make a play to stay in office if he is allowed to remain while a new leader is elected. "I know that guy & I'm telling you — he doesn't think it's over," Cummings wrote on Twitter yesterday. "If MPs leave him in situ there'll be CARNAGE." |
Reader responses: Books that changed your mind |
I had never read a local perspective of African colonization before, and the big, slow, heavy "aha" moment for me was the dawning realization of how much of WWII was fought on African soil, with African lives as collateral, and celebrated as "victories" in Europe and the West. Of course I was taught the history of the Allies in WWII, and how they were liberating millions of innocent people, but somehow the cost of liberation with hundreds of thousands of African lives as pawns in a military exercise was never included in that narrative. |
Although I have always thought of space activity primarily in positive terms, I was aware of potential dangers. I think most people have some understanding of the perils, since among the powerful science fiction narratives shaping public opinion on these issues, dystopian visions of Mars colonies and orbital cities are not uncommon. What changed my perspective, however, was the thesis, central to Dudney's book, that space expansion would make nuclear war more likely. The author underlines that military technological imperatives, mostly linked to nuclear weapons, as well as interstate rivalries, have played central roles in opening and exploiting space. |
Thank you to everyone who wrote in to tell me about what you're reading. Please keep the submissions coming! |
I want to hear about things you have read (or watched or listened to) that gave you an 'ah-ha!' moment — a realization about how things work, or don't, that changed your perspective on the world. |
| ICYMI: INTERNATIONAL STORIES FROM THE TIMES | | | | | | |
Enjoying this newsletter? Subscribe to keep receiving it. |
We've reserved a selection of newsletters, including this one, for Times subscribers. Subscriber support ensures we have the resources to deliver this must-read newsletter that provides original analysis on the week's biggest global stories. |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment