25th July 2022
“And what should they know of England who only England know?” was a question once posed by an imperialist poet.
One of the problems of commentary is insularity: you comment about what is familiar, with nods to things which are – you think – recognisable.
And so it is with law and policy commentary, even when (like this blog) one strives not to be Anglocentric and seeks to pay as much attention to (say) Edinburgh and Dublin and Washington and Brussels as to London and Birmingham.
In particular, one thing commentators seem to do is emphasise endogenous explanations – for example, about what the example of Boris Johnson tells us about the historic weaknesses of the United Kingdom polity and constitution – with a sideways glance at the United States
But Johnson is also a local manifestation of something happening in many countries.
Johnson is not the only one.
*
In a fascinating and insightful new book The Revenge of Power, Moisés Naím – a former Venezuela trade minister and editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy posits the 3Ps:
“3P autocrats are political leaders who reach power through a reasonably democratic election and then set out to dismantle the checks on executive power through populism, polarization, and post-truth.”
In his preface he mentions a list of applicable politicians – and although Johnson is discussed in the book, he does not even make this primary list:
“We have in mind here Donald Trump, of course, but also Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte, India’s Narendra Modi, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, and many others.”
In turn, the 3Ps are defined and illustrated:
“Populism may be the most persistently discussed of the three Ps and the most often misunderstood. Because it ends with “-ism,” it is often mistaken for an ideology, a counterpart to socialism and liberalism in the competition for a coherent governing philosophy. It is no such thing. Instead, populism is best understood as a strategy for gaining and wielding power.”
“Polarization eliminates the possibility of a middle ground, pushing every single person and organization to take sides.”
“In their current approach to post-truth, leaders go far beyond fibbing and deny the existence of a verifiable independent reality. Post-truth is not chiefly about getting lies accepted as truths but about muddying the waters to the point where it is difficult to discern the difference between truth and falsehood in the first place.”
*
Of course, elements of all three are not new.
And we can self-indulge in a parlour game of “well, actually, there is this antecedent”.
Yet, the combination is a current phenomenon, made more potent by technological and political changes, such as the decline of parties and of traditional news media.
And it seems to be something liberals and progressives – and even conservative constitutionalists – are finding difficult to combat, or even comprehend.
And even though the Boris Johnsons and the Donald Trumps may personally leave office one way or another, the frames of mind with which they are associated are likely to linger.
The problem may therefore ultimately not be about the peculiarities of uncodified British constitution or its codified American counterpart.
The 3Ps were (are) going to be a problem whatever our constitutional arrangements.
It is not the fault of us not having a codified constitution any more than it is the fault of the Americans having a codified constitution that privileges illiberal and low-population states.
The problem is not (ultimately) constitutional or legal, but political.
It is about our sense as a polity: about what is acceptable in our political leaders, about what we value as checks and balances, and about how we believe political decisions should be made.
And because it is a political problem then it needs a political solution.
No constitution-mongering, by itself, will offer an easy way out.
The cases for liberalism and progressivism – and indeed constitutionalist conservatism – all need to be made afresh and in new ways.
Even seeking to place fundamental rights beyond the reach of 3Ps politicians will not be enough, as these politicians and their political and media supporters will simply politicise and discredit and trash the rights instruments, rather than respect them.
*
It was never going to be inevitable that the world would become more liberal and progressive, and enlightened and tolerant – despite the triumphalism of some liberals and progressives in the heady halcyon (ahem) days of Clinton, Blair, Obama and the EU constitutional treaty.
That said, it is also not inevitable that the 3Ps politicians will win – their triumphalism may, in turn, also be ill-based.
So it is still all to fight for.
But.
In this contest, we should not think these are just local problems for local people.
The 3Ps politicians are part of a worldwide trend, and so we need to be aware of what works and does not work elsewhere – and not just in the United Kingdom and the United States.
Where has the case for constitutionalism – codified or not – been made successfully?
Where have people been made to care that their politicians are lying?
Where have voters and politicians valued checks and balances that may go against their partisan and personal advantages?
For, to adapt the poet:
“And what should they know of Johnsonism and Trumpism who only Johnson and Trump know?”
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
