The Tribune

It is almost a truism that corruption and sleaze exist in politics worldwide. History abounds with examples. But in today’s conditions of instant and often intrusive communications, when politicians are under greater scrutiny than ever before so that reprehensible behaviour is harder to hide, it seems to be worse than ever.

Corruption is an all-embracing term describing moral depravity and an absence of integrity and honesty while sleaze seems to mean anything that is sordid or disreputable. Since both of these can affect us here in The Bahamas as in any other country, it might be interesting to look at a case that is top of the news agenda in Britain at the moment and is fast becoming a cause celebre.

The term sleaze is currently being bandied about in the UK as the opposition Labour party and sections of the press seek to turn Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s controversial refurbishment of his grace-and-favour flat in Downing Street into a politically-motivated scandal. It seems they have been emboldened by the recent decision of the Electoral Commission watchdog to launch an investigation into the funding of the refurbishment, after saying that it had carried out an initial assessment and was ‘satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred’. Somewhat portentously, the commission has stated it will demand documents and interview witnesses under caution.

Unsurprisingly, all this has brought a characteristically robust response from Mr Johnson who has called the whole thing a “farrago of nonsense”. So, what are the facts?

Downing Street provides the office as well as the official residence of British Prime Ministers and is therefore, of course, government property. Apparently, new incumbents can spend up to the equivalent of some $40,000 of public funds on refurbishing the flat which becomes their home. Mr Johnson’s fiancée, Carrie Symonds, who occupies a flat in Number 11 Downing Street with him, apparently did not like the décor left by Theresa May. She overspent on the refurbishment project by about $80,000 and the PM sought contributions from Tory party donors to pay the difference.

His then chief adviser Dominic Cummings, who left office under a cloud last November as a discredited individual and is now a critic and adversary, claims he warned Mr Johnson at the time that his plan to have donors “secretly pay” for the renovations was unethical and foolish and almost certainly broke the rules on proper disclosure of political donations. Nonetheless, the extra costs were duly paid by donors without Mr Johnson declaring this to the appropriate authorities, though later he paid those costs in full out of his own pocket.

Looking at this from afar and without necessarily knowing all the details, seeking help from Tory donors looks to have been an unwise move by the PM and a lapse of judgement, or incompetence on his part, in not meeting his obligation to declare any donations under the ministerial code. But there has been no suggestion of any misuse of public funds since he ended up paying for the project himself – the balance above the authorised limit of official expenditure – and, in the process, the condition of government property was improved.

Thus, many people are asking what all the fuss is about and whether this can be reasonably regarded as sleaze which in political life can be very damaging and can become the defining story of a government. Look no further than the premiership of John Major after the fall of Margaret Thatcher in 1990 and which lasted until the Labour victory in 1997.

The period became known as the Tory sleaze of the 1990s - described as “sexual shenanigans and financial jiggery-pokery” - when a succession of Conservative MPs and ministers were caught with their hands in the till or, in the words of one commentator, in a bed that was not a marital one!

What has contributed to the current febrile atmosphere is that Mr Johnson is also under pressure on other fronts – from claims of talking inappropriately about coronavirus to speaking directly last year to a billionaire businessman about supplying ventilators while the government was being criticised for handing out contracts to friends during the pandemic. There is also the case of former Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron who is facing serious allegations of lobbying ministers on behalf of a controversial financier from whom he stood to ‘make millions’; though Mr Johnson has ordered an independent investigation into this so suggestions of Tory sleaze should not affect him personally in this instance.

Meanwhile, his overall approval rating has held up and the Tories’ lead over Labour has been maintained in the polls during the run-up to local elections this month. Outside the so-called metropolitan elite in London – also known as the Westminster bubble – the latest public reaction reported in the press suggests that ordinary people now believe they have better and more important things to worry about than “Boris’ wallpaper and furnishings”. So there is already a growing feeling that those concerned may have misjudged the public mood in pursuing the PM on the issue. Moreover, even though Mr Johnson will more than likely face some official criticism and censure, he will probably escape any serious sanction since this was a case of misjudgement – together with possible incompetence -- rather than any intent to defraud the public purse.

To many, however, it is important that he should be seen to have been held to account in order to show that no one is above the law. As before in other incidents of various kinds in the past, I cannot help wondering whether there are lessons to be learnt from all this that may be applicable to life in other democracies like our own.

At last we can close book on Brexit

Next month marks the fifth anniversary of Britain’s referendum about the nation’s future relationship with the European Union. It feels longer than that since the newly-minted word of Brexit, following the ‘yes’ vote to leave the EU, seems to have been around for ever – and it would be no exaggeration to say that, after the intervening years of endless debate, controversy and wrangling over the terms of Britain’s withdrawal from the bloc, many people never want to hear the word uttered again.

So they will be more than glad to know that last week another significant – and this time final - milestone was reached when the European Parliament ratified the post-Brexit EU/UK trade deal known as the TCA (Trade and Co-operation Agreement) which had applied provisionally from January, 2020. It did this by an overwhelming majority – 660 votes in favour, 5 against and 32 abstentions. This ratification was hailed by Boris Johnson as the “final step in a long journey” and he said that, although the UK was still locked into negotiations over Northern Ireland, the trade deal would provide “stability to our new relationship with the EU as vital trading partners, close allies and sovereign equals”. It was also described by both sides as a new chapter of friendly relations after four years of division.

For Britain, the TCA means the formal ending of its membership of the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union and of free movement of people between the two parties. It provides for free trade in goods -- though UK access to EU markets will be more limited than when it was a member state because goods now have to be checked at borders and there will be bureaucratic delays – limited mutual access to services and co-operation in a range of policy areas and UK participation in some EU programmes.

Amid much evident goodwill, it seems that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen could not resist a parting shot by warning that so-called ‘faithful implementation’ of the agreement was essential and that the TCA came with real teeth in the shape of a binding dispute settlement mechanism which the EU would not hesitate to use as appropriate.

It seemed to me significant, too, that, alongside the ratification of the agreement, a resolution by MEPs was passed saying Britain’s exit from the EU was a ‘historic mistake’. But perhaps that was inevitable given the EU must continue to be seen to condemn Britain’s withdrawal and make it as hard as possible in order to deter other member states from trying to leave as ‘euroscepticism’ grows across the rest of Europe.

Meanwhile, the UK’s chief negotiator, Lord Frost, has said that, while ratification brings certainty and allows both sides to focus on the future, there will be much to work on together in the new partnership council and a need to find solutions that work for mutual benefit. His words come amidst optimism about the UK economy generally. A range of financial institutions and forecasters, including Barclays Bank and Goldman Sachs, now predict that Britain is on the brink of an economic boom as pent-up demand and new investment is released with the lifting of coronavirus restrictions.

Thus ends the tortuous Brexit process that cost two of Mr Johnson’s predecessors their jobs. But even as - to the relief of everybody - the term itself now falls away with the development of a new EU/UK relationship, no one is under any illusion about the obstacles lying ahead. Just don’t mention the word Brexit again!

History tells the story - if only we learned its lessons

It comes as no surprise that President Biden’s recent announcement of the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan has received a mixed reaction. It has been welcomed by some but, for others, how this is put into operation is already causing concern.

Supported by close allies like Britain, the US invaded Afghanistan in late 2001 following the 9/11 attacks. Its aim was to dismantle the terrorist organisation al-Qaeda. By removing the Taliban, which supported the group, from power, the US would be able to deny al-Qaeda the continued use of the country as a safe haven to plot terrorist attacks against targets in the West. British forces joined those of the US on the same timescale and NATO also established a presence. The US’s longest war in history has cost nearly 2,500 American lives with over 38,000 Afghan civilians killed while more than 450 British service personnel have died in the conflict.

As the years have gone by – and with a widening of the terrorist threat from the Middle East following the US-led 2003 invasion of Iraq – the UK objective developed into preventing Afghanistan once more becoming a place from which al-Qaeda and other extremists could attack the UK and its interests; and it sought to establish stability and help secure an Afghan-led political settlement that represented all Afghan people.

The US objective of stopping al-Qaeda was partly achieved through killing its leader Osama bin Laden and President Biden has now said America can no longer justify its soldiers dying in Afghanistan. He has announced that its remaining forces - numbering about 2,500 - will be withdrawn by September, the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. UK combat troops left in 2014 though some 750 remained as part of a NATO mission to train Afghan forces. There appears to have been no mention by the President of his predecessor’s 2020 peace deal which provided for a full withdrawal of US forces by May 1 provided the Taliban ceased its attacks on US forces, severed its ties with al-Qaeda and entered into negotiations with the Afghan government. But, although it has not targeted US forces over the past year, the Taliban failed to honour its other commitments under the agreement.

To weary observers in the West, the ideal of an inclusive power-sharing agreement brokered by the US may sound logical and attainable within the norms of diplomacy. But to the growing numbers of cynics the situation has become something of a charade. Do policy-makers not realise, they ask, that history shows that Afghanistan -- as a large country with a diverse population of currently about 40 million - cannot be subdued through foreign intervention or influence? To help to understand that, one only has to study the Anglo-Afghan wars of the 19th century when from its base in India Britain sought endlessly to control neighbouring Afghanistan in order to oppose Russian influence there.

Furthermore, at a practical level, many now doubt the wisdom of announcing US intentions about withdrawal publicly months in advance, thereby providing others with plenty of time to plan fresh trouble and putting the diminishing numbers of troops at greater risk of attack. A gradual withdrawal without any fanfare would surely be less hazardous. The Taliban is said to control vast swathes of the country and, reportedly, new clashes between it and the Afghan government have caused more than 100 deaths during the last few days. So, with little or no prospect of the Americans being able to broker any power-sharing deal between them, there is a threat of civil war – and many are now saying there are real fears that this deteriorating situation could fast become an uncontrollable mess that will not end well.