The years after, Cameron’s career is a mosaic of flirting with parliament seats and the premiership. The Tory loss in the 2005 general election propelled Conservative Party leader Michael Howard to step down, and Cameron, by then an MP, began his campaign.
Cameron was the youngest among the candidates, which is traditionally considered a red flag, but which Cameron skilfully leveraged to his advantage. His resonance with ‘youth’ was impossible to miss in his campaign. His age and supposed relatability was seen as essential in gaining the support of the under-thirty-fives, who they had not been able to pull in the general elections. In October 2005, a month before the party elections, Cameron delivered a speech to the Conservative Party envisioning a modernized party anchored in, what Cameron described as, the needs of the ‘new generation’:
We can lead that new generation. We can be that new generation, changing our party to change our country. It will be an incredible journey. I want you to come with me . . . If we go for it, if we seize it, if we fight for it with every ounce of passion, vigour and energy from now until the next election, nothing, and no one, can stop us. 52
On 6 December 2005, thirty-nine-year-old David Cameron was announced leader of the Conservative Party, beating his opponent by a margin of more than two to one. 53
Cameron had wanted to ‘switch on a whole new generation’ 54 and perhaps he truly believed he had successfully done so in the following years into his premiership. Perhaps he believed the younger generation of social entrepreneurs, businessmen and businesswomen would see the leader as one of their own. Perhaps they would overlook his two silver spoons and see him as a man who had experienced, understood, and sympathized with their struggles.
But when their support was put to the test, Cameron failed.
In the 2015 referendum, the votes of Cameron’s ‘new generation’ were pivotal. Although the young people who did turn up at the booths voted in Cameron’s favour—to remain in the EU—their overall turnout was insufficient. As the Liberal Democratic leader Tim Farron put it, ‘Young people voted to remain by a considerable margin, but were outvoted.’ 55 UKIP and the pro-Brexiters had successfully secured the older, less-educated, working class votes. 56
This is not to say that Cameron was a failure as a leader. But it is undeniable that Cameron’s privileged upbringing, his confines to the upper legions of society, and his rapid-fire ascension up the political ladder detached him from the people he so earnestly desired to serve. Regardless of his intentions, Cameron was a perfectly unfit contender to combat the populist insurgency of the right-wing Eurosceptics.
On the other side of the battle, the Brexit campaign was led by Nigel Farage, a self-professed ‘middle-class boy from Kent’ 57 with an arsonist tongue characteristic of a populist leader. He correctly felt the mood in parts of the country and rode the anti-immigrant tide. He tethered the resurrection of the British identity—a past-time homogeneous white identity that so many of the Leave voters yearned to return to—to the referendum. Essentially, he convinced enough people that remaining in the EU would put an end to the British national identity.
Privileged though his background is, 58 Farage convincingly painted himself as one of the ‘left-behinds’ who his party fought for. He fostered a connection with his base that in many ways Cameron failed to do with his. Farage’s brazen and open discontent with the establishment resonated with far too many people. Cameron may not have been a failure as a leader of his party, but given his repeated miscalculations leading up to the 2015 referendum, it is difficult to argue that he did not fail as a leader of the Remain campaign.
Delusion Begets Delusion
‘I will do everything I can as Prime Minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months, but I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination . . . I do believe it’s in the national interest to have a period of stability and then the new leadership required.’ 59 These were the hopeful words of a defeated Cameron as he delivered his resignation speech shortly after the results of the EU referendum were announced.
Theresa May was elected Cameron’s successor, a Remain supporter who previously served as Cameron’s home secretary. Given Cameron’s delusion-tarnished legacy at the time he left Downing Street, it would be impressive for his replacement to eclipse his time in office. But in the time since May has taken office, the prime minister is well on the path to prove that delusion begets delusion.
On 18 April 2017, in an attempt to gain more power for the Tories in preparation for the Brexit negotiations, May called for general election, which was not due until 2020. 60 Polls at the time had been showing promising figures for the Conservative Party’s success, and May thought she could turn these numbers into parliamentary seats. 61 The election, she argued, was ‘necessary to secure the strong and stable leadership the country needs to see (it) through “Brexit” and beyond’. 62
When campaigning for the prime minister’s job, Theresa May had pledged to continue in the footsteps of her predecessor. In calling the general election in April 2017, she had succeeded in venturing down the same superfluously tumultuous path as Cameron.
The elections took place less than two months after May’s announcement, on 8 June 2017. The Conservatives lost their parliamentary majority, and Labour gained seats. After the embarrassing results, May then resorted to forming a new government with the Democratic Unionist Party in order to secure a governing majority. 63
Three supreme examples of delusional thinking and politics. One, the calling of a referendum that was not required. Two, allowing the referendum’s outcome to be shaped by the uncertainties of democratic politics without due diligence, hard work and safeguards being put in place to ensure the nation’s future. And finally, calling an election when it was not due and when the government had a comfortable majority. Where does it say that a larger majority in the legislature strengthens a country’s negotiating position? Delusional thinking and taking political decisions based on such flawed analysis are clearly not in short supply in the United Kingdom.
Where to Now?
Already in June 2016, the British pound had plummeted to its lowest level in the past three decades. By June 2017, the UK had become the worst-performing advanced economy in the world, sinking to the bottom of the G7 economies (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and the US). 64 The city of London is now scrambling to resolve what exactly the ‘British position’ is.
For the time being, London remains the financial capital of the world. One in seven UK jobs are in the financial sector, which makes up eight per cent of the country’s GDP. 65 Within Europe, London houses the most number of large companies’ headquarters. 66 London will likely remain the financial capital, at the very least, of Europe for the foreseeable future. But businesses and banks are seeking contingencies outside London, and the competitors are welcoming them in. London’s loss of its financial prowess, it would appear, is not an ‘if’ but a ‘when’. 67
The dark clouds over Britain post its exit from the EU are not confined to the economic sphere alone, and have in fact raised significant existential questions over the ‘unity’ of the Kingdom.
In Scotland, the demands for another referendum over full independence are only growing. A majority of Scots voted in favour of Britain remaining a part of the EU, and most recently, Nicola Sturgeon has termed ‘Hard Brexit’, i.e., giving up full access to the single market while making new trade deals, and retaining complete control over British borders, being ‘dead in the water’. 68 She went on to cite a report which stated that Brexit would cost each Scot £2,300 a year, and accused the Conservative government in power of being hypocritical in calling her and her party members ‘scaremongers’ as they themselves knew of these consequences. 69 Some reports, however, suggest that in the event of another referendum to determine Scotland’s fate in the United Kingdom, Brexit might actually go against parties like the SNP. 70 It would be premature though to assume that c
ome voting time, Sturgeon, who has been credited with ‘doing the absolutely right thing’ 71 in advocating for the UK to remain a part of the single market, will not be able to swing votes in her favour.
The situation is somewhat similar in Northern Ireland, which, like Scotland, predominantly voted to stay within the EU. It now finds itself in the midst of domestic turmoil as the two parties that were running the government, the Democratic Union Party (DUP) and the Sinn Féin, have opposing views. The former is a pro-British unionist party that wants to leave the EU along with the rest of Britain, while the latter, a nationalist party, has announced it wants to remain, and has called for its own referendum, for Irish unification. 72
After spending a year on negotiating Northern Ireland’s fate, Sinn Féin pulled out of the coalition government, and the country now faces the prospect of being run directly by its civil servants.
As Inter Press Service founder Roberto Savio succinctly put it, ‘Only now the British are realizing that they voted for Brexit, on the basis of a campaign of lies. But nobody has taken on Johnson or Farage publicly, the leaders of Brexit, after Great Britain accepted to pay, as one of the many costs of divorce, at least 45 billion Euro, instead of saving 20 billion Euro, as claimed by the “Brexiters”. And there are only a few analysis on why political behaviour is more and more a sheer calculation, without any concern for truth or the good of the country.’ 73
I would like to conclude with three passing observations. One, given that all indicators point to a downward spiral and unravelling of the United Kingdom in so far as its ‘Great’ and glorious past is concerned, surely the most obvious thought that an attempt be made to restore the status quo ante needs to be expressed. Surprisingly, there appears to be no consensus in this direction. On 18 December 2017, Prime Minister May made a pitch to Parliament whereby, during the transition phase, when both EU and UK iron out a deal, they would both have access to each other’s markets. A large section of her own Conservative Party, however, is likely to oppose such a plan, and they baulked at this suggestion when it was made by Finance Minister Philip Hammond. 74
Two, there seems to be little or no thought being given to the possibility that the collateral damage from Brexit could be much larger than anticipated and in areas least expected. ‘Brexit or Remain’ offered voters a binary choice, without making them aware, if at all that was possible, that many of the initial presumptions were flawed. To cite just a few: It was not and will not be possible to retain access to the larger European common market without allowing the Polish worker access to Britain’s labour market. Two, groupings like the Commonwealth, an association of former colonies, are unlikely to take kindly to their students being picked on as part of an overall anti-immigrant posture and stance. India is a case in point. Those were the years the British mindset was partly conditioned by the ready availability of a strong trans-Atlantic alliance as an alternative, if the bureaucrats in Brussels proved difficult. This thinking did not factor in ‘Trump’ and finally there is irreversible damage in terms of standing on the global stage.
Is it at all possible to measure a country’s international standing? If so, what would be the indicators/template or benchmark for doing so? Institutions and countries take years to build. This needs assiduous hard work, focus and determination, apart from clarity of purpose and vision. The upward journey is time-consuming and can cover generations. Even so, often it is the sacrifice of a previous generation that allows a succeeding one to enjoy the fruits of investments and wise decisions of the past. Equally, it is the astute individual who ever so often places himself, his group or country either on the winning or losing side. Adolf Hitler may well have been on the winning side if he had not made those costly mistakes, covered in an earlier chapter.
The journey downhill is much faster. Even the mightiest of empires can, and do, get unravelled in the shortest period of time. I am personally familiar, as a student of history, with the history of the decline of the Mughal empire whose causation lay in the agrarian crisis. Equally, the Soviet empire collapsed under the weight of its own internal contradictions. Would it have survived if its leadership had opened up earlier or did it collapse because of the opening up? The answer to that question is not as important as it might seem. In fact, it might not be important at all. A simpler working hypothesis might be to accept the position that it is almost impossible to sustain political and economic systems that are closed and inward-working, more so if they are surrounded by a sea of humanity that expresses itself and is anchored in various forms of human freedom.
There is much about the United Kingdom that I admire and greatly value. Its contribution to constitutional governance, starting with the Magna Carta (1215), King in Parliament, and finally democracy itself; from Shakespeare to Adam Smith, UK’s contribution to modern political thought and literary culture is perhaps second to none.
At its very peak, the British empire, under the control of Her Majesty’s Government, covered twenty-five per cent of the world’s land surface area, and at one point or another, ruled vast areas of Asia, Africa, North America, and Australia. 75 Its crowning glory was perhaps its rule over India, often called the British Raj, which embodied all that was ‘Great’ about British imperialism, namely loot, man-made famines, and abject poverty of its subjects. The Raj is covered, to a limited extent, in the India Chapter.
The loss of India from the empire in 1947 was perhaps the beginning of the end of Britain’s greatness. With the rise of the United States and Russia post-World War II, and more recently the increasing influence of China, India, and other developing nations in global affairs, have coincided with a fall in the UK’s global standing. The Brexit referendum has perhaps sealed this fate—no longer part of the European bloc, it is difficult to imagine the UK’s role in international politics. Worse, the impression one gets, even as the UK unravels, is that the internal dynamics do not seem to be getting any less delusional, at least in the foreseeable future.
CHAPTER 3
Trump and the Global Delusional Order
‘You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?’
—Hillary Clinton 1
Till he decided to run for the forty-fifth President of the United States (POTUS), Donald Trump was a relatively unknown entity in the global political arena. As a resident of the Trump World Tower in mid-Manhattan on 47th Street and First Avenue, I met him twice between May 2009 and early 2013, on both occasions at an annual party that brought the residents and Donald together. Like most others, I did not take him seriously. I wasn’t impressed with his TV show The Apprentice either. This, however, probably reflects more my subjective worldview and prejudices rather than his qualities, i.e., those that impressed his support base. Having spent more than four decades in a profession broadly categorized as diplomacy, I tend to get more easily impressed by a good author, philanthropist or a smart politician, rather than someone who has constructed impressive-looking buildings in Manhattan—the sheer delight of living in apartments 34B and C of the Trump World Tower, owned by the government of India, notwithstanding. So, when he greeted me with, ‘Mr Singh, are you enjoying living in the Trump Tower?’ I had no inkling I was talking to the man who would be the forty-fifth POTUS less than five years later.
When did he exactly make up his mind to run? Did he always harbour the ultimate political ambition? Was this even partly conditioned by the tongue-lashing he got from the forty-fourth POTUS at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner on 30 April 2011? 2 This requires serious analytical context-setting. The jury is still out.
Context Setting
‘Say what you will about Mr Trump—he certainly would bring some change to the White House.’ 3 Amidst a symphony of cackle by White House staffers, celebrities and corporate big shots, President Obama took jab after jab at The Celebrity Apprentice star. Donald Trump, the reality-television star and face of the so-called ‘birther’ mov
ement, had been invited to the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, having gained recent media attention for his tirade against the legitimacy of President Obama’s presidency. The camera alternated between the podium—where the President paused in satisfaction between roars of laughter at what was clearly intended as a humiliation of Trump—and Trump, who sat stone-faced, unmoved, blanketed beneath the ridiculing stare of the audience.
The White House released a copy of the President’s long-form birth certificate 4 six short weeks after Trump began questioning President Obama’s birthplace. The reality television star was silenced. But while the movement died down, its ethos did not.
The birther movement struck a particular chord with the American right. It gave form to the sentiment of Americans who had pegged President Obama’s tenure as the source of their growing dissatisfaction with their everyday lives. They suffered ‘due to automation, off-shoring, and the growing power of multinational vis-à-vis their workforces,’ 5 but they found it easier to blame their President, the first African-American to occupy the Oval Office. They viewed him as disconnected from the people he was mandated to serve. With or without reason, they viewed his trade and immigration policies as being flawed. In their view, these had robbed them of their livelihoods. They saw a cultural revolution led by a President they could not relate to. For these people, the movement served as a vessel to house and voice their unease. It was, in their eyes, a legitimate way to discredit a President whom they did not favour. Rather than risking being labelled as racist or ignorant by the left, they positioned themselves as protectors of the US constitution against a man who held a position to which he was not ‘entitled’. To this group, it mattered little that the man they were attacking, though African-American, had outstanding credentials and was resoundingly elected the forty-fourth President of the United States. 6, 7
Delusional Politics Page 5