A columnist, Tunji Ajibade, wrote a piece on Boris Johnson’s removal for the Punch Newspaper on the 19th of August and without mincing words, I profoundly disagree with most of his submissions. I find the attempt to defend morally questionable actions of the prime minster not only problematic, but an indication of a serious misunderstanding of the purposes of governance and the importance of values.  Although Mr Ajibade begins the article by declaring his bias towards Boris Johnson, I am not convinced that a declaration of his subjectivity is enough to shield the piece from critical scrutiny. The author is a political scientist and as a politics and international relations scholar myself, this rejoinder should be considered in the spirit of peer review and critique.

Early in the piece, the author asks if there is any ‘book [that stipulates] how a politician should conduct the affairs of the state?’ On this basis, he argues that Boris Johnson could not be considered to have broken any supposed law of politics or guilty of the accusations levelled against him. Mr Ajibade ought to know that politicians are not freewheelers who could invent rules and refuse to be constrained by established norms. In a democratic order, political customs are as important as positive law. Also, as the United Kingdom operates an unwritten constitution, traditions and customs have come to assume a central role in regulating the political space. But more importantly, Mr Ajibade should have understood that the prime minister is subject to the law and constrained by the norms that govern the office he holds.

The author argues incorrectly regarding Mr Johnson’s innocence. One wonders if Mr Ajibade remembers that the prime minister was fined by the Metropolitan Police for violating the lockdown laws that his own government passed. And more significant, perhaps, is the damage to public trust that Mr Johnson’s actions triggered. Under the strict lockdown rules that the government implemented, ordinary citizens were fined for going to supermarkets considered an unreasonable distance from their place of abode or going to the local park to exercise more times than was allowed. Individuals were prevented from visiting relatives dying of covid-19 at the hospitals or to spend time with lonely grandparents.

Any society that is serious about the idea of the rule of law (and I hope that Mr Ajibade recognises the importance of this) cannot have one rule for those governed and another for those who govern. Sadly, the prime minister was ‘cavorting’ with members of his administration as thousands grieved over friends and families who died alone in hospital wards. It is deeply problematic that Mr Ajibade seeks to explain away the actions of the prime minister. He should be reminded that Mr Johnson is not an overlord whose actions are beyond reproach.

Read Also; Why Boris Johnson isn’t finished

A more concerning argument within the article is the seeming endorsement of Machiavellian principles in the conduct of state affairs by the author. In The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli extolled vices as virtues. Even in the 16th century, his ideas were so fundamentally unethical that the Church proscribed his work. Indeed, Machiavellian values are so outrageous that they have no place in contemporary domestic politics. Afterall, who would want to universalise principles that make it okay to murder opponents even if it has practical benefits or provides access to power?

From Ajibade’s rather cursory and dismissive discussion of the various scandals of the Boris Johnson’s government, one immediately recognises the absence of a comprehensive knowledge or understanding of Johnson’s transgressions and how they tear at the fabric of institutions critical to the functioning of the democratic order.  For instance, the author dismisses the controversy around the refurbishment of Downing Street and fails to recognise that at the heart of issue is corruption. In revealed text messages between the prime minister and the donor, Tory peer David Brownlow, it was evident that the PM intended to trade government funding for Brownlow’s Great Exhibition project for the refurbishment of his residence. Need anyone explain the dangers of allowing corruption to fester within the body polity to a Nigerian?

Ajibade argues that politicians are not perfect, and this is true. Most citizens do not expect or demand perfection. However, we cannot adopt a cavalier attitude towards corruption, dishonesty, and a disregard for the law. Whether in liberal democratic states or in societies like ours, there must be minimum standards of behaviour that political office holders are held to. If one follows Ajibade’s arguments to their logical conclusion, then by the standard of his own Machiavellian principles, that Richard Nixon was forced to resign over Watergate must be considered an outrage. After all, what law of politics did he violate and is there is any ‘book [that stipulates] how a politician should conduct the affairs of the state?

Journalists, especially opinion writers, are public intellectuals. There is a duty to educate readers in a way that strengthens civic norms and political values. Mr Boris Johnson routinely violated the law and undermined important political norms. My concern is that explaining away fundamental moral indiscretions of the prime minister creates a latitude for domestic politicians to act and justify similar indiscretions.

Our travails as a nation cannot be completely disassociated from our daily willingness to turn a blind eye to acts of dishonesty in our routine encounters or to justify nepotism and corruption that privileges us. Until we understand how routine practices of truth telling, integrity, fairness, and other social values provide the sub-structure that developed states anchor their societies upon, our hope to exit the misery of poverty and underdevelopment will forever remain illusory.

• Dr Adediran is an Assistant professor in International Relations at Liverpool Hope University. He can be contacted on: bolaadediran2020@yahoo.com