Daily Times

With much trepidation among the masses and those elected to represent them, Britain is, slowly and surely, waltzing its way “back” into a burlesque; if it has not done so already.

If there is one thing Britain has effectively borrowed from its European neighbours, it is the political theatre that they have staged for the past four years. As burlesques would go, Britain exported it to their Trans-Atlantic allies, which, in itself, is a political concept left to the whims of the realist mind.

As the Conservatives across the Atlantic would normally have their way in areas of conflict, it was expected that a Brexiteer, that too, someone who championed the cause when it mattered, could manoeuvre Britain out of the “ostensibly” ineluctable political, economic and legal regulations of the European Union.

Au contraire, Boris Johnson seems to have careened Britain, tout court into a predicament, not dissimilar to that of his predecessor. However, while Theresa May sought to valorise the Brexit referendum, Johnson seems more intent on playing around, not with the narrative but the optics of the withdrawal agreement and Britain’s eventual exit. He wishes to valorise instead his premiership, his political future and the reputation he has managed to carve for himself, which has never been at stake as precariously as now.

Though much has been said and written about Johnson’s various criticisms of the European Union, an equally significant aspect of Johnson’s premiership is his relationship with the US President Donald Trump, whose own penchant for political strongmen, regardless of the nature of their governance, is hardly a secret.

Johnson did not set out to create a new image of a Britain, which pulls him apart from Trump

Since the second half of the 20th century, the dominant European centre-right and political actors from across the political spectrum in Britain, including those who ventured close to the poles, have striven to maintain a relationship with the US that complemented the other’s political and economic aspirations.

The relationship was a result of ideologically and politically established institutions; diverse in method and conduct, interacting along unanimously agreed on avenues of liberal governance.

The transition now is such that the relationship between Britain and the US is the closest it has been in Donald Trump’s tenure. Given that both leaders came into power by debunking the very institutions that almost set in cement the “special nature” of the Trans-Atlantic relationship, it is almost too convenient that comparisons between the two leaders and the similarities in their narrative and approaches will be drawn.

The political reality, however, cannot be farther from such rhetoric drawn parochially with alacrity for convenience rather than academic research.

While both Trump and Johnson rode populist waves coming into power, they did indeed do so while polarising the public they set out to serve. It ought to be noted that populism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Their successes are rather a reflection of the societies and institutions that elected or nominated them to power. Such is the appeal of modern-day populism. It is not prosaic by any stretch of the imagination.

While there does exist some semblance of similarity in the narratives–the impending doom that both have used to garner legitimacy–, their methods to succeed involve differing rhetorics.

Johnson did not set out to create a new image of a Britain he had envisioned or a different definition that fit a specific criterion, which in itself pulls him apart from Trump. He focused his efforts on redefining the British identity that empathised and found itself in similar stead to the conundrum of the British identity immediately following the conclusion of the Second World War; championed by Johnson’s political hero, Winston Churchill.

Johnson’s rhetoric, much evident in his speeches pertinent to Brexit, was rooted in restructuring the very nature of the “British identity,” back to when it saw itself as the saviour of Europe; basking in the glory of its victory and its newly founded trust and dependence on the US.

Having been educated by a system that has supported the strengthening of national institutions, Johnson is not one to campaign for their overhaul. His disapproval to let foreign hands near the National Health Service (NHS) is a testament to the notion, much to the chagrin of Trump, who had, rather absent-mindedly, hinted at American interest in the NHS as a part of trade deal during a press conference with Theresa May not too long ago.

Johnson is a man trained in the art of politics. His campaign against the European Union is not emblematic of a crusade against institutions, national or international. To believe otherwise would be utter hyperbole. On issues of policy discussed in the recently concluded G7 Summit in France, his narrative on fair trade as means to deter trade conflict, the raging forest fires over the Amazon and the Iran deal, was at odds with Trump. His preference for bilateral trade deals after Brexit is synonymous with much of Trump’s foreign policy choices, though Johnson has made it clear that he intends to engage with his allies and partners while respecting internationally best practices, keeping his European “friends” in the loop. More importantly, Johnson does not want to isolate Britain as many international academicians have referred to Trump as doing so for the US.

Trump’s political inexperience worked not much to his disadvantage but has rather given him licence to attack political institutions and mechanisms regardless of their use to him; the Electoral College being a prime example and one if he supports before 2020 might not be because it got him elected but that Elizabeth Warren has come out in strong opposition to it. There has been a little discernible genius in his time in office; for his agenda could have been predicted right off the bat. His political aides, the lot of them, have not been the best sources of political guidance. It is noteworthy that among the privileged cohort, Steve Bannon stands out as one of the more prominent ones, who shaped the earlier months of Trump’s presidency. Bannon’s comparison to Dominic Cummings is an exercise in futility. While the former achieved political stardom through ardent support of the President; echoing his stance at every chance, he got, the latter worked his way to success building on the gaps in British consciousness in a bid to reframe British identity.

Though in a world where governmental populism is only just beginning to take shape, it is important to understand the emergence of populist leaders concerning their words and policies; as to the audiences they serve. This is indeed an uber-divisive point in history and sensationalist rhetoric from either side of the audience will only complement socio-political divisions. It is imperative hence that institutions, national and international, play their role to the best of their capacities. In this respect, Johnson has his hands full for he is set to take Britain out of the European Union, though in what terms remains to be seen.

The writer serves as an Assistant Research Officer at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI)