The Tribune

In Britain, it is said politicians as a species need to have the skin of a rhinoceros to thrive or even survive in the hurly-burly of their chosen occupation.

Politics at Westminster can be a particularly brutal business, not least in the bear-pit of the House of Commons with political adversaries physically facing one another across the chamber at relatively close quarters in a fearsome cauldron of noise and confrontation as emotions often run high. Prime Ministers - with their high public profile and vulnerability to attack not only from the opposition party but also from their own ambitious MP colleagues with eyes on the top job - are under constant scrutiny and relentless pressure, and Boris Johnson is no exception.

Currently, it is no exaggeration to say he is under siege after a series of scandals rocked the Conservative Party. The last few weeks have been calamitous for him. Despite winning the 2019 election handsomely with a thumping 80-seat majority, his handling of a series of crises and accusations of chaos and disorganisation at the heart of government in No 10 Downing Street has brought his personal stock tumbling down. He has managed to go from triumph to near-disaster. He is now being called by some a serial liar and his integrity and judgment have also been called into question. According to the latest polls, some two-thirds of voters no longer trust him.

Reportedly, over the years Mr Johnson has had many sworn enemies inside the political establishment. But he is now said to be under real threat as a result of growing resentment among Conservative MPs about the shambles of mistakes, miscalculations and a lack of discipline at the very top of the government as it has lurched from one crisis to another.

As the Prime Minister’s grip on power weakens, these have included a series of humiliating U-turns together with, for example, trouble over the illegality of outsiders paying for redecorating his flat at Downing Street, his mishandling of recent Tory sleaze allegations and holding Christmas parties last year in violation of his government’s own COVID-19 regulations which he claimed had been adhered to. Some people may regard the latter as trivial, but it has become a matter of serious public concern when ordinary people were prevented by the rules at the time from associating with others and even from being with family members as they lay dying from COVID.

Mr Johnson’s general handling of the pandemic has also come under fresh scrutiny. His critics say he has allowed himself to be steamrollered into unnecessarily harsh restrictions by public health advisers who will always err on the side of ultra-caution while it is his responsibility as leader to take into proper account the whole picture of the nation’s economy and the effects on people’s lives. The new restrictions imposed last week because of the highly transmissible variant, Omicron, are due to be debated in the House of Commons today. There is the threat of a substantial Tory rebellion with some 60 of his own MPs voting against him since they believe the government’s new proposals are a step too far in a society protected by mass vaccinations already administered. But he is expected to survive this vote since the Labour opposition will probably support him even though the Party is now calling him the “worst possible leader at the worst possible time” and unfit for office.

So, during such trying times the big question now is whether Boris Johnson can recover. Or could the increasing pressure lead to his political demise? He has alienated some of his own Party, Labour are now in the lead in the polls and his personal ratings are well down. But he is well known for always bouncing back from political adversity and is a proven election winner so, in the words of one commentator, can he pull off another Houdini act of recovery?

Amid all this political turmoil, it was interesting to watch online last week what seemed like the normality of everyday business in the shape of the new Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, delivering a significant policy speech on foreign policy at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, also known as Chatham House. This was her first major speech in her new role. She emphasised her vision of a “confident, outward-looking, patriotic and positive future for the UK”, saying it was time for “Britain to be proud once again of who we are and what we stand for”. She stressed it was time to promote “the best of British business, culture and values of freedom, democracy and human rights around the world”.

Some say that projecting a strong global Britain in this way is linked to Ms Truss’ own political ambitions. But how reassuring her speech was as a sign of business as usual while the political infighting at Westminster continues to hit the headlines.

Worthy winners of the prize

Some critics of the Nobel Peace Prize maintain it is losing credibility. They cite, among other controversial recipients, the then-President Obama who was awarded it in 2009 for his “extraordinary effort to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation” when at that early stage of his presidency he had not made any impact worthy of the award.

Nonetheless, there is no denying the continuing worldwide prestige and honour of Nobel Prizes that recognise excellence in a variety of fields. So, the sharing of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize between two well-known journalists has attracted much attention and publicity, not least because the last time it was awarded to a journalist was as long ago as 1935.

Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov, who lead independent news outlets in, respectively, the Philippines and Russia, were awarded the prize at a ceremony in Oslo in October for “their efforts to safeguard freedom of expression which is a precondition for democracy and lasting peace”. In 2012, the former co-founded Rappler, an investigative journalism website critical of the Philippines government, while the latter was one of the founders in 1993 of the independent Russian publication Novaya Gazeta, one of the media outlets that does not simply follow the Kremlin line.

Journalists around the world have hailed this achievement by their two brave colleagues who have been subject to harassment and attack in their own countries but have had the courage to speak out in an era of increasing authoritarianism and tyranny - together with dissemination of endless misinformation designed to manipulate people and control opposition to those in power.

Investigative journalism now seems to be under unprecedented global attack. It has become an increasingly dangerous occupation with more violations around the world of journalists’ rights and media freedoms. According to the Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists, 45 writers and media workers have lost their lives this year while the number of journalists imprisoned around the world is on the rise, with 365 incarcerated in 2021 compared with 235 the year before. In the Philippines 22 have been killed since President Duterte came to power in 2016 while in Russia during the last 20 years six journalists from Novaya Gazeta have also died.

Maria Ressa has recently created a stir by speaking forcefully about the growth of authoritarianism, saying the greatest threat to democracy was “when lies become facts because that breaks our shared reality and allows the manipulation of the public”. She said that facts and truth are at the heart of solving society’s biggest challenges: “Without facts, you can’t have truth. Without truth, you can’t have trust. Without trust, we have no shared reality, no democracy and it is impossible to deal with the world’s problems”.

What telling words, indeed. As she says so dramatically, facts are facts and lies are lies but there is a constant danger of lies being regarded as facts. Moreover, there is a growing tendency for beliefs and opinions to replace facts and truth; for example, some of the US mainstream media which have turned into political platforms for expressing opinions as facts rather than practising real journalism.

But cynics often say it is not what actually happens that matters but rather what people think happens. They reckon the truly ignorant are gullible and hence prepared to believe anything if it is presented to them persuasively since they do not exercise critical judgment. Hence the importance of journalists sticking to the facts because the pen is mightier than the sword - and there is a need to be on guard against propaganda which in the hands of those with ill intent is a dangerously effective tool. That said, objective truth is often hard to determine other than being roughly defined as whatever is valid regardless of parameters or context - and for those interested in philosophical concepts of perception and reality that esoteric debate is never ending.

Notwithstanding all this, in practice it is incumbent on journalists to determine the facts and the truth as they see them. Press freedom is a key plank of democracy. It should enable people in the media to hold to account those in power and curb their excesses or any wrongdoing. But, of course, in the case of an authoritarian regime that is much more difficult if not impossible.

There is clearly widespread agreement that both Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov deserve much praise for their courageous stances as investigative journalists - and recognition of them as Nobel Prize winners will surely be a welcome tonic to their journalistic colleagues everywhere.

And then there’s Julian Assange

Last week’s court hearing in London of the US appeal against the earlier blocking by a UK judge of the extradition of Julian Assange, co-founder of WikiLeaks, has brought this long running saga to public attention again.

The decision to prevent extradition - on mental health grounds and the risk of suicide if he were committed to a US prison - has now been overturned by the High Court on the grounds of US assurances about humane treatment of him. He is facing charges under the US Espionage Act over illegally acquiring and publishing a decade ago thousands of classified documents disclosing sensitive defence information.

News that he has recently suffered a mini-stroke, which his supporters claim was brought about by the stress of his continued incarceration in a UK high-security prison and the prolonged uncertainty about extradition, could now produce fresh sympathy for him in some quarters, though public opinion in Britain about the seriousness of his actions has always been divided.

Assange’s supporters say he was “shining a light on all the corruption in the world” and exposing war crimes and other abuses carried out by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan; and they portray his treatment by US and UK authorities as a blow to free speech and a free press since his activity essentially amounted to nothing much more than investigative journalism. However, others regard such claims as baseless - if not risible - since he is accused of proactively and systematically conspiring to hack into US military databases to acquire highly classified material and then to publish such information that had been obtained illegally; and, by any reasonable yardstick, that goes beyond the bounds even of investigative journalism.

The issue remains whether it can ever be right or acceptable in a democratic society for a self-appointed body like WikiLeaks to determine what is in the public interest and thereby justify the theft and leaking of classified documents belonging to an elected government.

All that said, the punishment should fit the crime and everybody has the right to their day in court, until which time they remain innocent and should be treated humanely in accordance with the law - and the sad fact is many in Britain harbour doubts about the likely fairness of Julian Assange’s treatment in the US if he is eventually extradited there.