If Boris Johnson’s premiership saga was about to unfold in India, yet groups of lawmakers would be held in resorts with the aim of restoring Johnson as leader. Resort-democracy, the flavor of the Indian political season, has not arrived here in the form of reverse colonization in Britain.
However, the focus of the Indian media remains on the possibility of Rishi Sunak possibly getting the key to 10 Downing Street. This determination is way off the mark for a number of reasons, but it again highlights the indiscriminate nationalism of the Indian media.
This saga provides a quick relief to the present critical times of Indian democracy. British parliamentary democracy has triumphed over the power of personality. It is more important for the Conservatives to take Johnson’s skull off as he scored the biggest victory for them since Margaret Thatcher in 1979. Just as Johnson’s personal power overtook both parliament and his Conservative Party, the end of his premiership would reinvigorate democracy as it halts the seductive powers of democracy.
Such an outcome, where a highly popular leader is ousted by any institutional or democratic regime for refusing to play, is unimaginable in India. The real definition of Indian democracy is the pursuit of individual power at the expense of institutions. From legislatures to political parties, to say nothing of the courts, all seem hostage to the whims and desires of the individual leader. This is as true of Kolkata and Mumbai as it is of New Delhi.
India’s comparative mass democracies such as the US and UK are now trying to do away with the obsessions that have led to a strong personal identification with the leader, hoping to slack off and eventually restore more democratic powers of rules, procedures and institutions. are supposed to. Certainly, it is not due to any moral awakening. Rather, the post-pandemic world and the complexities of the domestic system now demand restraint and expertise.
Read also: Modi government’s attack on democracy is more frightening than emergency. look at the differences
Strongman Democracy
Clipping and chopping Johnson’s personal powers is no trivial feat. With this veiled call, it is perhaps also the final act of the era of the mighty man who shaped global democracy in our time.
But Johnson was a little late in the party of personalities who rocked democracy (and non-democracy) at large around the world. in your most recent book The Age of the Strongman, editor of foreign affairs financial Times Gideon Rachman identified a new global political arc.
Marked by those who borrowed from celebrity copybooks as they reduced democracy to personal popularity, these leaders sculpted themselves as authentic and wildly popular embodiments of ‘the people’. From Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil to Vladimir Putin in Russia, even Xi Jinping in China, Narendra Modi in India, Donald Trump in the US and literally the last entrant in this galaxy—Boris Johnson—all the saviors of the millennium. emerged as
You could call them ‘populists’ or ‘democratic authoritarians’ or ‘conservative democrats’ – even of commentators and academics – but to my mind none of these leaders wields messenger power, and in turn those who are infallible’ demanded obedience, loyalty and even devotion from the people.
As a good orator he has successfully deployed a cunning mix of humor and the dramatic in his rhetoric and words to construct a new political truth, namely that institutions are obstacles to the power of the people. Each country (UK, US and India) has created a new and distinct terminology of abuse and ridicule against the recently established political system.
In Britain, more polite epithets include ‘Westminster bubble’ and ‘LME’ (liberal metropolitan elite) or ‘citizens of nowhere’ who became political targets and enemies mainly because of their specialization and rejection of xenophobia.
Read also: The biggest paradox of Indian democracy: civil uprisings but no protests
The first and last PM after Satya
The post-truth may have given rise to Brexit, but it is now a major impediment to the functioning of the British government. Johnson has been dubbed as the first post-truth British prime minister and may be the last.
There is no hiding in the harsh reality of the grave global economic challenges being felt by citizens anywhere, anywhere and everywhere. The Tories eventually acknowledged that the government’s sluggish work could not be replaced by a gripping soap opera.
The Johnson episode is instructive because its end comes from within the heart of his own political party, which is right-wing and has risen to power. His prime ministership has seen an illegal prorogation of Parliament, an open competition with the judiciary (particularly over asylum), apart from the ‘partygate’ rhetoric. Above all, Johnson’s wayward skating on the thin ice of truth triggered the endgame.
The Conservative Party is now attempting to reverse the rot and cult of personal ambition and pride that have haunted the British political landscape for nearly a decade. Through this internal Tory put, a party run by ruthless power has separated the government from power.
In relinquishing his greatest personality, British democracy hopes to be re-empowered. The single collapse of Johnson’s premiership has restored the powers of both the party and parliament. The absence of personality game is already evident in many contenders for the party leadership. Amazingly, each resignation from Johnson’s cabinet reiterated his belief in the politics of ‘honesty’. A lack of personal charisma does not necessarily mean a return to soft managerialism. British politics is likely to return to the competition of a competitive approach to government as the opposition Labor Party also swung into action.
Such erosion of individual power is impossible in India’s democracy, which has now become synonymous with elections only. The reasons are many but the main thing to note for now is that the de-institutionalization of Indian politics is much older than the present era of strongmen. What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that India will soon be a sore throat in the global club of mass democracies. Indians no longer care (but they really do!) what global clubs and rankings think about it. In their current addiction to power politics, it will be India’s much-loved ‘people’ who will actually pay for their blind devotion to a charismatic leader.
Shruti Kapila is Professor of Indian History and Global Political Thought at the University of Cambridge. She tweets @shrutikapila. Thoughts are personal.
(Edited by Prashant)