Under Boris Johnson, we can’t take democracy for granted

As members of a democratic socialist party, we have focused on the social implications of our election defeat: lost opportunities and the additional suffering that will be caused to the weakest and poorest in our society. However, the potential consequences for our democracy are no less far-reaching.

Boris Johnson is a Tory Prime Minister of a new type in the UK. He has shown himself uniquely able to utter falsehood after falsehood without embarrassment or apology – from the Brexit myths of the £350m per week for the NHS, and the imminent immigration of the population of Turkey, to the 40 ‘new’ hospitals that are in fact only upgrades to six existing ones.

The Daily Mirror identified 60 deceptions and obfuscations by Johnson. And analysis of Facebook ads in early December found that 88% of those from the Conservatives – and none from Labour – contained misleading factual statements. He ruthlessly suppresses opposition in his own party and has reduced political debate to the mindless chanting of political mantras like ‘take back control’ and ‘get Brexit done’.

Although relatively new to the UK, this disdain for the truth has many parallels with authoritarian strongmen abroad in countries such as Russia, Turkey, Poland and Hungary, who hide behind a veil of elections and referenda. However, the example of Donald Trump in the USA is particularly relevant to us because it shows that democratic values can be systematically undermined, even in a well-established democracy.

In How Democracies Die, Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt identify some warning signs. One is extreme polarisation and a general intolerance of different views. Political opponents and media critics are not persons who happen to have different opinions, but enemies of the country or of the people, where ‘the people’ doesn’t mean everyone but typically a native ethnic sub-group.

Constitutional safeguards against abuse of power by the executive – such as an independent judiciary, the rule of law and supervision by an elected chamber – are derided as means by which elites frustrate the popular will, as represented by the government. The executive abuses powers designed to only be used in emergencies to bypass challenge and supervision. To cling onto power, mainstream right-wing political parties form alliances and come to accommodations with far-right populists who they think they can control but then can’t.

There are many parallels between Johnson and Trump. Both have no values apart from increasing their personal power. Trump used to be a Democrat. Johnson penned an article supporting Remain in the EU before the 2016 referendum, but then changed his position because he realised that being pro-Brexit would help him become elected leader by Conservative Party members.

Both abuse constitutional mechanisms in their own interests. Trump declared a state of emergency in order to make an executive order to finance his Mexican wall. Johnson prorogued parliament to prevent it discussing his Brexit deal, until this was overturned by the UK supreme court.

Both avoid expert scrutiny. Trump has withheld his tax records and documents on the Ukraine scandal impeachment. He has refused to be represented at the hearings at the House of Representatives. Johnson refused to release a report on Russian interference in the 2016 referendum or an assessment of the impact of a no-deal Brexit. He refused to attend a Channel 4 party leaders’ debate on climate change or be interviewed by BBC’s Andrew Neil during the election campaign. His ministers are reportedly boycotting the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

Both seek to suppress criticism. Trump supporters are funding investigations into critical media reporters in order to destroy their careers. Johnson has threatened to undermine BBC finances by decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee. This was in response to its relative journalistic independence – compared to the privately-owned media – and Andrew Neil’s criticisms of his refusal to be interviewed. It has been reported that the Tories have also threatened to review Channel 4’s public service broadcasting obligations.

Trump has shifted the balance of the US Supreme Court by making two hard-line conservative appointments. According to The Times, Johnson will “pave the way for sweeping changes to the constitution that could include making Britain’s most senior judges more accountable to parliament.”

Almost all the most powerful Republicans now publicly embrace Trump, someone they previously mostly regarded as a pariah. The Tory leadership have sold out to a right-wing populism they previously despised: Johnson and Nigel Farage were in open alliance during the election campaign.

In several states, Republican administrations have brought in ID requirements at polling stations that they know ethnic minorities will tend to find it harder to meet, as a form of voter suppression. Johnson is proposing ID checks in the UK, despite the absence of any significant level of impersonation. However, the 15-year limit on UK expatriates voting will be removed – after all, they tend to be Tories. EU nationals living in the UK aren’t allowed to vote in general elections regardless of how long they have been living here – and they are, of course, less susceptible to populist nationalism.

There is not currently a Tory majority in the House of Lords. But, according to the Daily Telegraph, Johnson is planning to “beef up the House of Lords with Brexit-supporting experts to create a ‘working’ upper chamber”. We can expect the ‘get Brexit done’ mantra to be used to disguise a one-party takeover of many key elements of the legislature and bureaucracy.

A key role of parliament is the detailed scrutiny of new legislation and there are many examples of unforeseen consequences where this hasn’t been done effectively. But Conservative candidates were required before the election to give up any independence of thought by committing themselves in advance to supporting Johnson’s Brexit proposals. In a one-party state, loyal acquiescence is valued more than constructive criticism.

This shows all the signs of a major attack on democracy during this parliament. Our first-past-the-post electoral system means Johnson can do this with well under 50% of the popular vote. He is proposing a review of constituency boundaries that may make this situation worse. We cannot afford to wait for the possibility of a Labour government after the next general election to prevent Johnson and the far right undermining democratic safeguards that have taken centuries to build.

Preserving and strengthening our democracy is essential to achieving the sort of future society we in the Labour Party seek. Fortunately, however, concern for democracy is not unique to democratic socialists but still runs deep in our political culture.

Johnson will try to present his position in terms of an increased polarisation between Brexit nationalism – ‘the people’ – and entrenched unpatriotic elites. To combat this, Labour will need to build the broadest possible alliance across all political parties and social groups in support of democratic safeguards and checks and balances on executive power. We will have as bedfellows people who we have normally regarded as political opponents, and it will in many ways be a new political style for us. We will have to recognise that we do not have a monopoly of insight and wisdom and that new thinking will be needed that cannot be reduced to partisan loyalties.