The resignation of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister is not only a significant political event. His time in office - and the nature of his departure - raise key questions about democratic values and institutions.
Blaming the failings of an entire political culture on the moral failings of a single leader may seem right, but most of us know that the rot runs much deeper than the ostentatious person. Fall Boris Johnson it can be seen as a historic moment to be seized and not only in Great Britain.
Some claimed that the political debate that preceded the Brexit referendum had hit rock bottom, that the public's hopes and fears were cynically exploited by politicians who did not even believe in the essence of their own message.
Johnson failed because he seemed not to recognize the difference between what was true and what was politically expedient. When this difference ceases to exist, democratic discourse becomes unsustainable, and political communication becomes a matter of constant decoding.
Integrity depends on binding structures, such as codes of conduct and ethics committees. It also relies on the cultural commitment of politicians and citizens to expose deliberate deception, corruption and hate speech. Johnson's downfall is a good moment for an explicit review of how willing any democracy is to tolerate, and even reward, Machiavellian tendencies.
The Johnson years highlight an important difference between popular governments and governments that bring about meaningful change for its people. All too often, bombastic, attention-grabbing solutions are offered to intractable challenges.
Transferring refugees to Rwanda or declaring Brexit "done" may have made headlines and polled, but such gestures are usually symbolic and often dangerously counterproductive.
Managing a country takes time and forethought. An honest assessment is also necessary, followed by serious efforts to address what is not working. This is quite different from managing by propaganda where every apparent failure is presented as a success and critics are ridiculed or shunned.
Parliaments, which are supposed to hold governments accountable on behalf of the public, should enforce that power. The British Parliament may have acted to remove a Prime Minister who appeared to be an electoral risk, but Parliament's more important role is to challenge policy proposals that are clearly not well thought out or are offered as crowd-pleasing gestures.
Johnson's government is far from unique in promoting a series of blanket policies. She is, however, unique in her willingness to flirt with the political rhetoric of populism.
Better discourse certainly involves paying attention to the ways in which our current media scene too often rewards the loudest, most contentious demagogues and provides opportunities for politicians who know how to exploit the worst practices of the journalistic trade.
A final, important point is how to bring a much wider range of voices and experiences into democratic politics. Recent events in the UK have included a lobbying scandal and multiple revelations that politicians were flouting their own lockdown laws during the pandemic. Further, Johnson's end came on the heels of allegations of serious sexual misconduct against a senior figure in his government.
All this may have attracted a degree of public interest in the Westminster soap opera. But the overall effect is surely a further erosion of the already low confidence of the electorate in politics.
The end of any leader's career is an opportunity to reflect on our expectations of democratic representatives. During Johnson's tenure, too much time was spent talking about how much the British public was willing to put up with. Johnson will soon leave Downing Street. Now the question must be asked, what do people want next - and how can they achieve it?
The author is a professor of political communication at the University of Leeds
The text was taken from the portal "Conversation"
Translation: N. Bogetić
Bonus video:
