Who Will Rescue Britain?

When the renowned diplomat, Niccolo Machiavelli, wrote his "Letter to Lorenzo de' Medici" 500 years ago he considered Italy to be "divided...leaderless, lawless, beaten, plundered, broken and overrun, ruined in every way". Thanks to poor government amidst successive crises, Britain now ticks all these boxes. If any Prime Minister since Blair had even read Machiavelli's entreaty, then they can only have done so in order to break every rule in the book; and Johnson's successor is already bound to follow suit. Who will ride to the rescue - and when - is anybody's guess. Yet, like Italy 500 years ago, the time is right. If only the next leader will heed Machiavelli's advice...

The best illustration of how not to become 'World King' (as he infamously fancied himself) has been drawn by Boris Johnson. 

While a man of his education and alleged intellect should have read The Prince, it would not surprise me if it turned out - very ironically - that he claims he has but, in fact, has not. 

If Johnson has read The Prince, then perhaps he believes that, like so many others, those rules don't apply to him...

Machiavelli advocated that a good ruler should strive to appear wholly compassionate, loyal, humane, honest and religious, yet know how to occasionally act otherwise when required. He or she must adapt their chosen strategy or tactics to changes in fortune or 'luck'. A ruler must not seize or steal their subjects' property or women/men; or be seen as "changeable, superficial, effeminate, fearful or indecisive." The ruler's choice of ministers will immediately demonstrate to the country either "good sense or lack of it." Ministers should be intelligent people with permission to tell the ruler the truth, rather than flatterers. The ruler should build a reputation for 'meanness' rather than generosity:

"...if you're determined to have people think of you as generous, you'll have to be lavish in every possible way; naturally, a ruler who follows this policy will soon use up all the wealth to the point that, if wants to keep up his reputation, he'll have to impose special taxes and do everything a ruler can to raise cash. His people will start to hate him and no one will respect him now he has no money... his generosity will have damaged the majority and benefited only a few..."

Above all, "a ruler must avoid any behaviour that will lead to [their] being hated or held in contempt."

Did Johnson follow any of these principles?!

While he began his brief tenure as Prime Minister already flawed in ways that soon became glaringly apparent, Johnson's earlier political moves were at least promising. He rightly spotted that Ken Livingstone's woeful performance as Mayor of London presented a golden opportunity to quite as an MP and seek mayoral office of the nation's capital to garner popular support. He adapted his strategy to luck. Winning a second mayoral term was also key to emphasising that popularity; and breaking his promise not to run as an MP in the next available general election was something that Machiavelli also would have applauded, since he stipulated that there are times when keeping a promise is not important as breaking it in order to survive. 

Yet, we now know that Johnson is incapable of 'being good', let alone generally keeping his promises, or even affecting any of the qualities that Machiavelli advised. His three word slogans were all a cover for doing the opposite.

One need only consider his delay in managing Covid, serial philandering (even during his then wife's illness) and dishonesty over the likely effects of Brexit. 

His choice of advisers, ministers and unwillingness to sack them (too late, if at all) showed a complete lack of good sense. 

His dithering and repeated U-turns showed him to be changeable, superficial, effeminate, fearful and indecisive.

Even while Mayor of London, Johnson had literally been sowing the seeds of his eventual demise by becoming embroiled with Arcuri, allegedly helping himself (again?) to other people's women and money. And even if that were not in fact the case, Machiavelli would say it's the appearance that counts. 

Taking up with Carrie while married, trying to get her a public job, setting up a 'VIP lane' for Covid contracts, appointing cronies to the Lords and grasping at donors' money to refurbish his flat only cemented Johnson's snow-balling reputation for poor judgement and plundering his subjects' money.

Partying during lockdown in violation of his own rules while exhorting others to comply in the most dreadful circumstances was exactly the sort of behaviour that would lead to his being hated and held in contempt.

Indeed, ultimately, Johnson's lavish misuse of public money did in fact use up all the wealth to the point that he had to impose special taxes and do everything he could to raise cash. And his people did start to hate him and lose respect when he had no money, his generosity having damaged the majority and benefited only a few. 

In fact, Johnson's misconduct has amounted to such a gross violation of Machiavellian principles that one wonders if his rise to Prime Minister was not, ironically, the successful application of those very principles by some other head of state... 

But even Putin appears to have lost his touch.