Ram Guha on BoJo's fall

Why did the Rajapaksas fall? They were lazy, corrupt and stupid. It took a popular uprising to topple them. That was unusual. In Democracies, lazy and incompetent leadership generally leads to a rebellion within the ruling party. There may be defections and alliances with other parties- as has happened recently in Pakistan and  Maharashtra. This sort of purely political maneuvering- as opposed to any institutional process- is how bad leaders are toppled in a Democracy.

What lesson can Indians learn from BoJo's downfall? The answer is obvious. Don't tell stupid lies which your colleagues will have to defend in their official capacity. Sooner or later, they will resign rather than allow themselves to be branded as stupid liars.

Congress and the Left told stupid lies about Modi for 20 years. This helped him greatly. That is why he is in power while they are going extinct. Indeed, Sonia herself may be in danger of a prison sentence for Ahmed Patel's machinations post-Godhra. 

Ramachandra Guha, with typical fatuity, takes the opposite view. Changes in leadership in a democratic country aren't the result of purely political realignments. They happen for 'institutional' reasons.

In 2018, two Harvard professors published a book called How Democracies Die. Prompted by the surprising ascendancy to the American presidency of Donald Trump, the book argued that even old, established democracies should not take the continuance of their political system for granted.

Yet the American political system has survived perfectly well probably because it was and remains as crooked as shit. Nobody thinks Steven Levitsky & Daniel Ziblatt were smart. You didn't see them being consulted for their opinions on the American elections a couple of years ago. Why? Neither are experts on American politics.

For a demagogue appealing to the basest instincts of voters and with scant disregard for the independence of institutions could quickly undermine democratic functioning.

There is no evidence for this at all. Demagogues may improve democratic functioning. Equally, they may be irrelevant in its rise or decline. The same is true of 'institutions'. 

Recent events in the United Kingdom prompt the thought that a sequel to that book could perhaps be written with the title, How Democracies Survive.

Why? Nothing unusual has happened in the UK. A party leader may lose the confidence of the rank and file. It happened to Thatcher and Cameron and May just as it happened to Asquith and Gladstone. Guha is supposed to be a historian. He has lived in England. Why is he so ignorant?

This would take as a principal case study recent events in the United Kingdom where, a mere two and a half years after leading his Conservative Party to an emphatic victory in a general election, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has had to resign from office.

Because of misconduct- specifically, he told lies. His cabinet colleagues were having to lie for him. But this would have destroyed their own credibility. Thus many of them resigned and Boris was forced out. 

British general elections are about two (or more) parties contesting against one another. They are rarely presidential in nature.

No. They are rarely not presidential- for as long as I've been alive. 

And yet, the election of December 2019 was won by the Conservatives largely on the basis of Boris Johnson’s charisma and popularity.

No. It was won on the basis of Jeremy Corbyn being a woke, anti-semitic, piece of shit.  BoJo was useful because he neutralized Nigel Farage. 

He was a witty speaker, whose tousled hair and shambolic mode of dress apparently endeared him to ordinary British voters.

He was a cross between Billy Bunter and the Energizer bunny.  

His party won its highest number of seats since 1987, and its highest share of the popular vote since 1979. Its main opponent, Labour, won a mere 202 seats, their lowest since 1935. Working-class districts in the North that had voted Labour forever had gone over almost en masse to the Conservatives.

Because of Corbyn. The fellow was obsessed with Palestine and Kashmir and so forth.  

Boris Johnson’s success at the polls had propelled him to a position of dominance in his own party.

No. His dominance of his own party helped his party win more votes. This was because BoJo could outflank both Farage and Corbyn (a long time Eurosceptic but for stupid Lefty reasons) by appearing to be the man to push Brexit through on British terms.  

Among first-time Tory MPs especially, there was a cult of BoJo in place, placing the leader above criticism.

First time MPs don't criticize the leader. That's not how Westminster works. They brown nose till they get on the ladder of promotion. Only when this proves impossible do they turn bitter and critical. There are one or two exceptions to the rule but the House is impatient with them.  

Johnson had clearly been influenced by Trump’s success, and his politics was in part inspired by the American demagogue.

He was already a two-term Mayor of London before Trump entered politics. His persona and style of rhetoric did not change in any way because of Trump. He had already perfected his persona. Guha must be thinking of Rees Mogg who now only eats cheeseburgers and sports a baseball cap much to the distress of his dear old Nanny. 

On the other hand, Trump did help BoJo win big. The notion was that Trump would lean on the Europeans to give the Brits a better deal. Biden's election harmed Boris because Biden identifies as Irish Catholic and thus will give the Brits a hard time. 

He disregarded the party machinery to appeal directly to the masses.

No he didn't. We are speaking of an Old Etonian, not Fidel fucking Castro.  

He relied for counsel more on a set of unelected advisers than on his ministers.

As did Thatcher. But 'Yes Minister' reflected pre-Thatcherite practice.  Paul Hacker was Labour. He went to the LSE. He had unelected advisers. But the Mandarins soon got the better of them. The reality was things had been moving in the opposite direction even under Heath. When Heath declared a State of Emergency his head of the Civil Service went mad and started rolling around naked on the carpet of number 10. Whitehall wasn't what it used to be. 

He talked grandly of making Britain great again.

As opposed to shitting on it. But Gordon Brown had used precisely the same terms.  

When he led his party to victory in the 2019 elections, Boris Johnson was just 55.

Blair was 44 when he became PM. He won three elections.  

By way of comparison, he was eight years younger than Narendra Modi when Modi became prime minister of India, and a full 15 years younger than Donald Trump when Trump became president of the United States of America.

Obama was 47 when he became President.  

In December 2019, Johnson would have been thinking perhaps of enjoying two, even three, terms in office.

Two terms was feasible. But Johnson had several vulnerabilities and knew that Gove and others were plotting against him. There was a recklessness to him which suggested he knew his days were numbered. 

He was young, and he had his party and the electorate at his command. And the main Opposition party, Labour, was in disarray.

They got rid of Corbyn quickly enough. Sadly, Starmer lacks charisma.  

And yet, halfway into his term, Boris Johnson has had to resign as prime minister – not of his own volition, but in disgrace. How did this happen?

He kept telling lies and his Cabinet decided that they could not cover up for him. The voter might forgive Billy Bunter's fibs- the boy likes cake and we like cake- but their own reputations for integrity would be damaged. This might make them toxic to the City of London- i.e. no cozy Directorships after they were forced out of office.  

This is because he was held accountable for his actions by the still-functioning institutions of British democracy.

No. This is was because his Cabinet started resigning in droves. The guy had become toxic. He might take them all down with him. Boris could bounce back on a reality TV show or by taking up pro-wrestling. But his colleagues would be shunned by the City. No nice directorships. No peerages. They'd be social pariahs.  

Such as the press. Prior to entering politics, Johnson had – not unlike Trump – a reputation for being economical with the truth. His tendency towards dissembling did not matter much when he was mayor of London or even foreign secretary, but as prime minister he deserved – and got – more rigorous scrutiny from an independent media.

He said he didn't know a guy he'd appointed kept groping young men. Then it turned out he did know. It was one fib too many. His colleagues could no longer cover for him.  

Thus, when it came out that the prime minister was partying with his staff during Covid lockdowns for the public that he had ordered, his transgressions were widely reported in newspapers and on television.

It was this type of recklessness which suggested that he knew his reign would be brief. Even now, he's off partying rather than attending a COBR meeting. Apparently, he is planning one final bash at Chequers rather than getting on with Cabinet work.  

In some less well-functioning democracies (such as ours), the lies and deceit of the prime minister might not have been so closely examined by newspapers, radio, and television.

Modi is not a party animal. He does not lie about the sexual shenanigans of his minions. He gets on with his job with formidable dedication and stamina. There can be no comparison between the celibate Modi and the philandering Boris.  

But while there are papers in Britain that slant towards Labour and those that are of a Tory bent, fortunately there is no ‘godi media’ in that country, taking its instructions from politicians in power.

The Media was irrelevant. The public didn't care about either partygate or some gay dude who kept groping young men. It was BoJo's cabinet which did for him. He personally blames Rishi's ambition. We can expect him to say something really nasty about Hurree Jamset Ram Singh when it will do that wog most harm. 

Once the press had documented the British prime minister’s breaches of the law and of propriety, the matter was vigorously taken up in that country’s Parliament.

Not really. Starmer had 'curry gate' hovering over him. Every party has gropers and pussy grabbers. Parliament wasn't doing much. This was a 'House of Cards' style Cabinet coup.  

In matters large and small, there are real debates conducted in the British Parliament, unlike in our country, where important bills are passed in a matter of minutes, and where the prime minister is never asked to directly answer questions posed by the Opposition.

Britain is tiny- smaller in population than Tamil Nadu- compared to India which has many different languages. TV coverage has not improved the standard of debate though, it must be said, Modi can hold his own in the House.  

In the UK, on the other hand, the custom of Prime Minister’s Questions allowed the new Labour leader, Keir Starmer, to relentlessly quiz Boris Johnson, who was given the opportunity to defend himself, though not always adequately or convincingly.

Starmer, despite having been a prosecutor, could make no headway against Johnson. Angela Rayner however did get him quite aroused.  

Though he may lack charisma, Starmer is clearly more focused and hardworking than his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn,

Corbyn may have been hardworking. The problem was that he was focused on stupid shit.  

and with a keen interest in policy. Labour’s disposal of Corbyn after he led his party to two successive election defeats and its desire to make itself competitive once more are in striking contrast with the inability of the main Opposition party in India to get rid of its entitled and incompetent First Family.

Rahul is a cretin. Sonia is okay. Priyanka may be okay. The problem is that the Opposition has no PM candidate. Rahul can't even be president of Congress. What alternative to Modi is there? The other problem is that Modi's Cabinet appears united. Rajiv was brought down by his cousin and VP Singh. Even Indira didn't trust Jagjivan to be caretaker. By contrast, Modi does not fear anyone on his team. But then, his team will get rid of him if he ceases to be able to do his job better than anyone else.  

Rahul Gandhi is a proven failure as a vote-catcher (he even failed to win re-election in the family pocket borough), and, yet, he seems set to resume the presidency of the Congress, once his mother, who has been ‘interim’ president of the party for some three years now, decides he can.

The poor lady is being forced to keep the job because her son won't take it.  

While Labour, perhaps belatedly, recognised that having Jeremy Corbyn as its leader only worked to the advantage of the Conservatives,

This is mad. Corbyn was deeply hated within the Labor party. The kids liked him. But Kids are as stupid as shit. They liked Bernie Sanders.

the Congress apparently will never recognise that Rahul Gandhi remains its greatest gift to Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party.

But also to the TMC and the Communists in Kerala and the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra and Kejriwal in Punjab and so on and so forth.  

(As this column was being drafted, news came in that Rahul Gandhi had gone on another holiday in Europe, further proof that he remains the BJP’s most reliable political ally.)

Anti-casteist Hindu Nationalists are the BJP's most reliable ally. But Kejriwal and others like him may offer us a better deal.  

In the United Kingdom, exposés in the press about the prime minister’s misconduct, when followed by these debates in Parliament, compelled Boris Johnson to institute an official enquiry.

Which is the traditional way of brushing things under the carpet. Fuck happened to the Belgramo? Who fucking cares? 

Once entrusted with the responsibility, the British police and civil service conducted this enquiry with exemplary efficiency and did not shirk from documenting the misdeeds of politicians in power.

But the result is always a whitewash or some lame-duck deciding to bow out.  

Again, the comparison with India is telling. The Modi government won’t even refer important bills to a Parliamentary Committee, let alone agree to official enquiries into lapses in governance.

It would, if it were in its interest to do so. All administrations find ways to kick the can down the road or sweep things under the rug. Modi's is no different.  

Even if it did, the Indian civil service under Modi is too timid and risk-averse to ever place on record anything that might show the prime minister in poor light.

Unless the guy is headed for the chop anyway. But that is true of every bureaucracy. 

As these enquiries were being conducted, and as these debates escalated in the press and in Parliament, Boris Johnson sought to bypass democratic procedure by presenting himself as an international statesman enhancing Britain’s image in the world.

Because that was his job. 'Democratic procedures' would be some other dude's job.  

He made trips to Kyiv, cynically using the Russian invasion of Ukraine to claim that he was on the side of the oppressed.

British voters were happy he did that.  

He came to India, boasting of a trade deal he would forge with a man who said he considered Johnson his khas dost, his special friend.

Guha would have preferred him to come to India boasting of how he'd send a Brigadier to shoot darkies in Amritsar. 

Through these publicity-seeking measures, Johnson was seeking to shore up support within his own party.

No. He was just doing his job. India is important to Britain. It needs a trade deal. Johnson made a point of going to Gujarat because of local opposition there to some aspect of this.  

This, however, proved impossible. Faced with irrefutable evidence of their leader’s deceitful behaviour, as documented by the press, showcased in Parliament, and certified by an impartial police and civil service, an increasing number of Conservative MPs began deserting the man who had helped win them the general election of December 2019.

Some MPs had come under pressure from their constituencies but it was the Local Election results in May which concentrated minds. Many would lose their seats if Johnson was not dumped. The Tories dumped Thatcher when it became obvious that the poll tax was a bridge too far. 'Partygate' however had to do with anger among the Tory rank and file at a culture of impunity within an elitist bubble. The resurgence of Evangelical values and mores has something to do with this. Labor voters were more relaxed about Boris's escapades. But they would switch back to Starmer now Corbyn had been well and truly buried. 

A confidence vote among party MPs was called, which Johnson won, but not authoritatively. Reading the signs, members of the cabinet began tendering their resignations,

Some had already done so for reasons of integrity but it was following two by-election losses that you had the stampede of the fifth and sixth of July. 

and the prime minister, much against his will, had finally to tender his own resignation too.

33 ministers had resigned. Boris should have quit immediately and handed over to the Deputy PM. He wanted to hang on so as to have a big party in Chequers. The Energizer bunny was gone. Billy Bunter remained- but this was an older, sadder, grosser, Bunter.  

Boris Johnson had sought to construct a personality cult around himself in the Conservative Party, à la Trump and the Republicans and Modi and the BJP.

 No. He had sought to have a good time while doing the minimum of work. The fact is, he could have shielded himself better from things like the Pincher affair. He was simply too lazy to do so. 

Unlike them, he failed. This is in part because the sceptical British do not go in much for hero-worship – they even dumped Winston Churchill after the Second World War –

but he returned to Number 10 as an unassailable hero once voters discovered Labor was shit. 

and in larger part because Conservative MPs were now willing to make it known that Johnson was unfit to be their party leader or prime minister.

Because he was lazy. Had he kept his eye on the ball he could have survived.  

Again, the contrast with India is depressingly stark.

For Britain- sure. We don't have celibate workaholic politicians like Modi and Yogi who can appeal to ordinary voters. We had Billy Bunter who rose by luck and Cummings. 

Not one of the BJP’s 300-odd MPs has the courage or independence to even mildly criticise the prime minister in a party meeting, even with regard to such disastrous policies as demonetisation

which yielded electoral dividends 

or the first Covid lockdown.

which was in the public interest 

On the other hand, they seek to outdo one another in sycophantic praise of their Great Leader in public.

Because he deserves it. If you want to be considered sensible, you must praise the deserving while shitting on Guha.  

The defenestration of Boris Johnson is a tribute to the institutions of British democracy.

No. It is the result of one man's laziness and recklessness. BoJo had it all. Then he threw it all away.  The kindest thing anyone said about him was that he needed a strong hand on the leash. His wife, it seems, was an eager participant in his self-indulgent folie de grandeur. 

By functioning as they should, the media, Parliament, the civil service, the Opposition and the ruling party have all helped the British political system to survive and renew itself.

No. They failed. Britain was badly governed. Billions were wasted. Why? The Media was shitty. The Civil Service was shitty. The Cabinet was incompetent and shitty. A lazy, reckless, PM must be corralled by his colleagues. His nose must be held to the grindstone. If he says 'let's Party', his colleagues must say 'let's not. We've got a lot of files to get through. Why not have a nice cup of tea instead of a bottle of bubbly?' 

In our country, on the other hand, these five institutions are all malfunctioning or compromised.

Guha's brain has been malfunctioning for a long time. The fact of the matter is that there are serious lacunae in India's governance. But Modi has the energy to take a pro-active approach. Nobody else does. Thus, at the Center, the BJP has no serious rival. The States, thank God, are a different matter. 

Therefore, much as we Indians may scold and chastise the British for their imperial past,

This stupid cuck doesn't get that the 'five institutions' he mentions were all British inventions which they and they alone introduced into India. 

there may yet be lessons for us in how they conduct their democratic present.

If Rishi gets in and proves a hard-worker, then, sure, India would have taught us a lesson. But Bunter is biding his time. He will sink a dagger into the back of his former pal Hurree Jamset Ram Singh just when it will do the most damage. That may be a good thing. Chancellors seldom make good PMs. Look at what happened to Callaghan, Major and Brown. They couldn't get re-elected. Rishi should go back to being very rich. BoJo will then envy him to his dying day.