Do you remember "Freedom Day"?
On July 19th 2021, after several delays COVID-related restrictions were lifted from several UK civil liberties. It was branded 'Freedom Day' by the central government media apparatus, and this narrative was used by the main media outlets. At the same time, Prime Minister Boris Johnson decided to cancel a 'Churchillian' speech on 'Freedom Day'. Partly, this is political theatre without much substance. Few outside the media give weight to either the Freedom Day narrative or PM Johnson's Churchillian aspirations. However, appearances are important in politics: more political meaning can be found in both Freedom Day and Johnson's Churchillian aspirations, but not much of it good.
It took less than a week for the Freedom Day narrative to age poorly. The phrase itself is used in an episode of Futurama, which is available online. In it, a patriotic celebration of freedom is comedically derailed and becomes the occasion for a hostile invasion. Given the gravity of what is at stake, this does not look good. More substantively, freedom was not restored. The 2020 Coronovirus Act, and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, remain in force which is the justification given for the illiberal emergency powers that the UK Government has given itself. Not only that, but PM Johnson chose this day to announce digital vaccine passports. Parliament's Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee said that the Government has so far failed to make the scientific case, passports would disproportionately discriminate on basis of race, religion and socio-economic background and raised concerns over data protection. These have many problems, the most severe is that they would facilitate digital control of all aspects of citizen's lives. For example, the NHS app includes space for recording "information relating to the family of the individual and the individual's lifestyle and social circumstances. information which relates to the ethnic origin of the individual; information relating to the genetic biometric details were processed to uniquely identified individual; and criminal convictions or alleged criminal behavior". Parliamentarians and citizens should ask for a convincing justification for the inclusion of this and other data collection in a record of health status. This exacerbates worries caused by UK governments' extensive surveillance of and data collection on citizens; the development of a digital identity; the development of a digital currency; illiberal censorship of speech online - to name only a few worries. All this makes 'Freedom Day' as Orwellian a piece of language as Victory Gin, or anything else in 1984.
What should we make of PM Johnson's apparent Churchillian aspirations light of this troubling narrative? If appearances are to be believed, PM Johnson aspires to the sort of national historical significance that Churchill has. That is, because he provided political leadership in difficult times, he should be honoured publicly; that his opinions and decisions matter to the fate of a nation, and in the lives of the people in it; and his actions should be studied to inform the actions of today.
A head of state is the figure for a collective effort, and must take praise and blame for those collective actions. They, after all, have ultimate responsibility for the people under them, and ultimate approval rests with them. But the personal characteristics of a head of state matter. Whatever benefits a safe-pair-of-hands administrator brings about, they are not remembered as founders of the nation. To be remembered as Churchill is requires a mix of talents, achievements and luck in a particular set of circumstances. Amongst other things, it is to be a wise moral legislator and, sometimes, a moral example; to articulate the political landscape; to administer well; and to be a patriot - that is, someone whose concern is the nation as a whole, and not some of it, or even none of it.
Churchill was the nation's figurehead in wartime, so his reputation is inevitably filtered through the wartime propaganda apparatus. He was not a saint, but there do seem to be any serious negative public consequences to his private behaviour. As an administrator, he was lucky enough to be on the winning side: his bad decisions are forgiven and his good decisions appear prescient. Historians can advise about his actual skill as an administrator, in war time and after. But, at the same time, he was good enough to be on the winning side. Presentation - oratory, rhetoric, persuasion, appearances, symbolism - all this matters in politics. Churchill obviously had speech writers and advisors, but was an accomplished author himself. His broadcast speeches are still with us, as are many of his political formulations. There are not many politicians of whom that is true. Importantly, he was definitely a patriot, however complex that idea is. Maybe it was impossible to be anything else, but he acted for the nation and appeared to feel it as well. That is the source of the huge popular support he had then. As a historical figure, he still has support now. And morally, he was able to judge Hitler's Germany correctly. That may seem trivial to us now, but history shows that many people did not then. The same is true of his judgements of Stalin's Soviet Union. All this sets a challenging standard for anyone aspiring to be a significant name in a nation's history. That is as it should be.
No politician in living memory has made as much play with comparisons to Churchill as PM Johnson. He wrote "The Churchill Factor: How One Man Made History", claiming that Churchill to be the greatest Briton of all time. Johnson has said he grew up enraptured at hearing his father recite Churchill’s war speeches; he heavily critised the vandalism of Churchill's statue... and so on. However, aside from a slight resemblance in build, there is little substance to the comparison between PM Johnson and Churchill. The Churchill comparision was also often made with Margaret Thatcher, but she had political substance of her own. With Johnson, it appears to be more about an aspiration to appear something or become something. At worst it seems like he never got over having Churchill’s poster on his wall.
Johnson is a good enough writer to earn his living as a professional journalist, even if his ideas and prose are not memorable. He is by no means the worst public orator in UK politics. Much of his popular support comes from his time as a likeable performer on television, and an affable if distant manner with the public. He is, however, not someone the public looks to for guidance and reassurance. Whilst personal virtue is a minor issue for politicians whose failings do not affect their public decisions, it is widely accepted that Johnson personally is not much of a moral example to anyone. For example, it was not surprising that he was so muted about Matt Hancock's behaviour that precipitated his recent departure of from the Cabinet. It was clear that PM Johnson had little moral high ground from which to criticise him. From the outside it is difficult read Johnson's real intentions, and it is difficult to know how much his professional public image is a manufactured persona. Many people think he is untrustworthy, and he is often accused of being an unrepentant liar, even in Parliament. There is a judgement that he has few if any principles apart from his own advancement.
Most of his public statements appear scripted rather than following from conviction. He appears to have few friends or allies within the governing Conservative party, and as a result no reservoir of political ideas to draw on. For example, it is clear that he has nothing invested in Britain's withdrawl from the European Union, despite that being the wave that brought him into power. He is cosmopolitan, and affluent with little real loyalty to Britain, and he and his family would be equally at home in the EU's superstate, or anywhere the weather is nice. He has little appreciation of the concerns of the deprived places that voted for Brexit and against Jeremy Corbyn. Consequently, being the leader of the Brexit administration gives him little political capital. Relatedly, PM Johnson has professed patriotism several times, such as standing on a huge flag of St George and wearing an England shirt during the recent football European Championships. Whilst this kind of signalling is common, it is difficult to see who it will convince, or that it would develop a Churchillian stature.
Private probity is a minor issue for politicians whose personal lives are visibly separated from public responsibilities. However, Johnson also maintains some troubling personal relationships. His wife, Carrie, who is elected by no-one, appears to have significant political influence - in for example the animal welfare bill, and in decisions over staff such as Dominic Cummings. Similarly, the relationship with his father, Stanley Johnson, is also worrying. Stanley Johnson, who does not care to live in UK, has links to Communist China lasting half a century, and openly advocates for the Chinese regime. He also advocates for global depopulation, apparently by coercive methods. PM Johnson has made no effort to clarify the influence his family members have on his decisions, and seems to feel no pressure to do so. That he is not robustly challenged about this by the mainstream media is as much an indictment of them as of him.
Boris Johnson has not shown that he has the reserves of character needed to be a statesman of Churchill's stature, if that is what he desires. His official biographer, Tom Bower, has said that he would like to remain in office for ten years, comparable to Margaret Thatcher. In contrast, his former strategist Dominic Cummings has said that Johnson is more concerned to leave office soon and enjoy his wealth and leisure. Johnson's decades in the public eye gives more weight to Cummings' interpretation. However, for politicians, crises are the opportunities to show what they can do; and to influence their reputation, in life and after. Global crises are the opportunity to gain a place in the national story and in historical myth. For Churchill, it was World War II. PM Johnson has the SARS-COVID2 pandemic. He is still in office. He still has the opportunity to legislate wisely and administer well on behalf of the population in whose name he governs. With significant numbers of people facing death or serious illness; with the economy facing severe challenges for the foreseeable future; with the liberal foundations of UK society under threat - it is difficult to see how the political stakes could be higher. If PM Johnson is concerned to earn for himself a place of honour in Britain's history - now is the time to do it.