It may be that Britain’s political slide into Boris Johnson’s populism was inevitable in the struggle over Brexit. But his initial onslaughts against the “mother of Parliaments” have been rebuffed with laudable resolve.
The Brexit referendum in 2016 elevated the question of membership in the European Union to a faith-based schism that touched every British nerve from Ireland to lost empire, evenly sundering the British electorate and confounding Britain’s tradition-bound political system.
Somewhat like other populists who took advantage of discontent and confusion to win power, Mr. Johnson emerged as prime minister from a deadlocked Parliament in July by proclaiming himself the true voice of “the people,” assailing as traitors all those who disagreed with his eagerness to break with the European Union even without a negotiated deal to smooth the exit. With an Oct. 31 deadline looming for a no-deal Brexit, he labeled legislation to bar that possibility a “surrender bill” and accused legislators who wanted to remain in the bloc of “collaboration” with Brussels.
That’s the stuff of modern-day populism, and, as Max Fisher wrote in The Times’s The Interpreter column, Mr. Johnson promptly followed its well-thumbed playbook by manipulating the rules, conventions and procedures of British politics to try to consolidate power over Parliament and his own Conservative Party, undermining both in the process. He tried to exploit a political rule to curtail parliamentary debate, purged his party of dissenters and started maneuvering to hold early elections.
Yet unlike the American president with a four-year lock on the White House, or the populists in Poland and Hungary with their rubber-stamp parliamentary majorities, Mr. Johnson has found himself blocked, at least for now, by the system he has tried to game.
He has suffered defeats in at least four votes in Parliament, the first met by jeers and punctuated by a cry of “Not a good start, Boris” from one member.
Twenty-one prominent Conservatives — those Mr. Johnson subsequently expelled from the party — joined in the vote not to allow a no-deal Brexit, and Parliament refused Mr. Johnson’s call for new elections. And in the ultimate slap to Mr. Johnson, his brother Jo Johnson quit the government, citing “unresolvable tension” between “family loyalty and the national interest.”
Mr. Johnson and his shadowy strategist Dominic Cummings are not finished. Their plan is to force an early election, while Mr. Johnson is still riding high with the public and before the catastrophic cost of a no-deal Brexit begins to be felt. Yet the head of the opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, and other critics of Mr. Johnson’s tactics are determined to first pass a law against leaving the European Union without a deal, which according to most independent analyses would be an economic nightmare.
But however popular Mr. Johnson’s bluster may be with the public, the British political establishment has no trust in him or in his words. And however much Mr. Johnson may argue that the “system” is frustrating the popular will, the institutions of democracy are doing what they are meant to do in resisting the excesses of populist appeals.
How or whether Britain parts with the European Union remains as uncertain as ever. But the country’s elected representatives have shown that they will not surrender democracy to populist ploys. There is little question that Britain will face another election before long, but the members of Parliament who voted against Mr. Johnson were right to demand that a no-deal Brexit be taken off the table first.
No matter how frustrating and chaotic the political stalemate over Brexit, it is a reflection of a deeply polarized society, and not necessarily of a dysfunctional system. Mr. Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, was widely criticized for her failure to achieve a workable exit from the European Union. Yet she dutifully negotiated what may well be the only possible agreement, which Parliament rejected, and her integrity and motives were never questioned.
Mr. Johnson, by contrast, has built his career on exaggeration, showmanship and outright lies, presenting himself as whatever sells best at the moment. All that may be an inalienable part of modern politics, but the politicians who have risen up to block Mr. Johnson, including his own brother, suggest that in Britain, at least, it is not the whole of politics. In Britain’s excruciating struggle over Brexit, and over its own future, this much is reassuring.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Source: Read Full Article
Home » Analysis & Comment » Opinion | ‘Not a Good Start, Boris’
Opinion | ‘Not a Good Start, Boris’
It may be that Britain’s political slide into Boris Johnson’s populism was inevitable in the struggle over Brexit. But his initial onslaughts against the “mother of Parliaments” have been rebuffed with laudable resolve.
The Brexit referendum in 2016 elevated the question of membership in the European Union to a faith-based schism that touched every British nerve from Ireland to lost empire, evenly sundering the British electorate and confounding Britain’s tradition-bound political system.
Somewhat like other populists who took advantage of discontent and confusion to win power, Mr. Johnson emerged as prime minister from a deadlocked Parliament in July by proclaiming himself the true voice of “the people,” assailing as traitors all those who disagreed with his eagerness to break with the European Union even without a negotiated deal to smooth the exit. With an Oct. 31 deadline looming for a no-deal Brexit, he labeled legislation to bar that possibility a “surrender bill” and accused legislators who wanted to remain in the bloc of “collaboration” with Brussels.
That’s the stuff of modern-day populism, and, as Max Fisher wrote in The Times’s The Interpreter column, Mr. Johnson promptly followed its well-thumbed playbook by manipulating the rules, conventions and procedures of British politics to try to consolidate power over Parliament and his own Conservative Party, undermining both in the process. He tried to exploit a political rule to curtail parliamentary debate, purged his party of dissenters and started maneuvering to hold early elections.
Yet unlike the American president with a four-year lock on the White House, or the populists in Poland and Hungary with their rubber-stamp parliamentary majorities, Mr. Johnson has found himself blocked, at least for now, by the system he has tried to game.
He has suffered defeats in at least four votes in Parliament, the first met by jeers and punctuated by a cry of “Not a good start, Boris” from one member.
Twenty-one prominent Conservatives — those Mr. Johnson subsequently expelled from the party — joined in the vote not to allow a no-deal Brexit, and Parliament refused Mr. Johnson’s call for new elections. And in the ultimate slap to Mr. Johnson, his brother Jo Johnson quit the government, citing “unresolvable tension” between “family loyalty and the national interest.”
Mr. Johnson and his shadowy strategist Dominic Cummings are not finished. Their plan is to force an early election, while Mr. Johnson is still riding high with the public and before the catastrophic cost of a no-deal Brexit begins to be felt. Yet the head of the opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, and other critics of Mr. Johnson’s tactics are determined to first pass a law against leaving the European Union without a deal, which according to most independent analyses would be an economic nightmare.
But however popular Mr. Johnson’s bluster may be with the public, the British political establishment has no trust in him or in his words. And however much Mr. Johnson may argue that the “system” is frustrating the popular will, the institutions of democracy are doing what they are meant to do in resisting the excesses of populist appeals.
How or whether Britain parts with the European Union remains as uncertain as ever. But the country’s elected representatives have shown that they will not surrender democracy to populist ploys. There is little question that Britain will face another election before long, but the members of Parliament who voted against Mr. Johnson were right to demand that a no-deal Brexit be taken off the table first.
No matter how frustrating and chaotic the political stalemate over Brexit, it is a reflection of a deeply polarized society, and not necessarily of a dysfunctional system. Mr. Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, was widely criticized for her failure to achieve a workable exit from the European Union. Yet she dutifully negotiated what may well be the only possible agreement, which Parliament rejected, and her integrity and motives were never questioned.
Mr. Johnson, by contrast, has built his career on exaggeration, showmanship and outright lies, presenting himself as whatever sells best at the moment. All that may be an inalienable part of modern politics, but the politicians who have risen up to block Mr. Johnson, including his own brother, suggest that in Britain, at least, it is not the whole of politics. In Britain’s excruciating struggle over Brexit, and over its own future, this much is reassuring.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Source: Read Full Article