My readers will be expecting me
to throw some light for them on the suspension
of the British Parliament – and I never like to disappoint. At this time of
the year there is normally what is called a “parliamentary recess” (approved
by the House) and the current one started only a day or so after Johnson was
elected the Leader of the Conservative party and went to kiss the Queen’s hand –
at the end of July. According to the House of Commons website, the recess
was due to end next week (September 3) – at which point a variety of
parliamentary games will be deployed – including a possible “vote of confidence”
On Wednesday, however, the
Prime Minister asked
and received from the Queen a “prorogation” (ie suspension) of Parliament from 9 September until
14 October – leaving only 2 weeks
before the country is scheduled to leave the European Union.
The reaction has been outrage –
even from Conservative MPs and ex-Ministers. MPs are given only four days next week to hold the government to account…Although I grant you that MPs have not been able to do much with the additional power they have had for the past 2 years (since we got what is called a "hung parliament" ie one without a clear government majority)
The historian, Richard Evans, has
an article in the current issue of Prospect Magazine which puts this action
in a useful historical context -
It was to Hitler’s advantage that nobody apart from
his own followers took him seriously. An upstart from Austria with a comical
moustache and a funny accent, he didn’t fit the image of a normal politician.
Trump and Boris Johnson may not be upstarts in the
same way—far from it—but it is striking that neither possesses the gravitas the
electorate used to expect of its leaders. Many voters are amused by these
showmen. And in Britain, many lend Johnson (and perhaps the equally
convention-defying Nigel Farage) support because they imagine, as many German
voters did in the early 1930s, that they will do whatever is
necessary—including breaking the rules of politics—to resolve the crisis into
which the nation has got itself, in Johnson’s case bypassing the elected
representatives of the people.
But if Hitler’s rise teaches us anything, it’s that
the establishment trivialises demagogues at its peril. One disturbing aspect of
the present crisis is the extent to which mainstream parties, including US
Republicans and British Conservatives, tolerate leaders with tawdry rhetoric
and simplistic ideas, just as
Papen,
Hindenburg, Schleicher and the rest of the later Weimar establishment tolerated
first Hitler and then his dismantling of the German constitution. He could not
have done it in the way he did without their acquiescence. Republicans know
Trump is a charlatan, just as Conservatives know Johnson is lazy, chaotic and
superficial, but if these men can get them votes, they’ll lend them support.
Weimar’s democracy did not exactly commit suicide.
Most voters never voted for a dicatorship: the most the Nazis ever won in a
free election was 37.4 per cent of the vote. But too many conservative
politicians lacked the will to defend democracy, either because they didn’t
really believe in it or because other matters seemed more pressing.
On a lighter note, Fin
O’Toole has an excellent piece in “The New York Review of Books” which catches
an important aspect of the Etonian public school fool who is now UK PM
The
anthropologist Kate Fox, in her classic study “Watching
the English”, suggested that a crucial rule of the national discourse is
what she called The Importance of Not Being Earnest:
“At the
most basic level, an underlying rule in all English conversation is the
proscription (banning) of ‘earnestness.’”
Johnson has
played on this to perfection—he knows that millions of his compatriots would
rather go along with his outrageous fabrications than be accused of the
ultimate sin of taking things too seriously.
“Boris being
Boris” (the phrase that has long been used to excuse him) is an act, a turn, a
traveling show. Johnson’s father, Stanley, was fired from his job at the World
Bank in 1968 when he submitted a satiric proposal for a $100 million loan to
Egypt to build three new pyramids and a sphinx.
But the son
cultivated in England an audience more receptive to the half-comic, half-convincing
notion that the EU might be just such an absurdist enterprise.
What he honed
in his Brussels years is the practice of political journalism (and then of
politics itself) as a Monty Python sketch. He invented a version of the EU as a
gigantic Ministry of Silly Walks, in which crazed bureaucrats with huge budgets
develop ever more pointlessly complicated gaits. (In the original sketch, the
British bureaucrats are trying to keep up with “Le Marché Commun,” the Common
Market.)
Johnson’s
Brussels is a warren of bureaucratic redoubts in which lurk a Ministry of
Dangerous Balloons, a Ministry of Tiny Condoms, and a Ministry of Flavourless
Crisps. In this theatre of the absurd, it never matters whether the stories are
true; what matters is that they are ludicrous enough to fly under the radar of
credibility and hit the sweet spot where preexisting prejudices are confirmed.
This running
joke made Johnson not just highly popular as a comic anti-politician but, for
many of his compatriots, the embodiment of that patriotic treasure, the English
eccentric. There is a long tradition of embracing the eccentric (though in
reality only the upper-class male eccentric) as proof of the English love of
liberty and individualism in contrast to the supposed slavishness of the
European continentals. No less a figure than John Stuart Mill wrote in “On
Liberty” (1859) that
“precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as
to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through
that tyranny, that people should be eccentric.”
Mill
associated eccentricity with “strength of character,” but Johnson has been able
to turn it upside down—his very weakness of character (the chaos, the
fecklessness, the mendacity) provides for his admirers a patriotically heartening
proof that the true English spirit has not yet been chewed up in the
homogenizing maw of a humourless and excessively organized EU.
For those who want to know more about the constitutional issues
involved, the same magazine has this useful note on the issue
Update
For the political junkies who want to know the full
story behind the plot to suspend parliament, it’s here
Will Hutton is
a respected economics writer who has analysed and mapped the choices open to
the British people to bring it into the 21st Century in a variety of
books – starting with The State We’re In” (1995), He also has a useful
article in today’s Guardian on the constitutional issues behind the
suspension.
No comments:
Post a Comment