Until a while ago, Sue Gray was a typical British civil servant, merely seen but rarely heard. Unfortunately, fate and, perhaps, history have thrown her into limelight. Indeed, the principal private secretary now seems likely to determine the political future of her boss, British prime minister Boris Johnson, as the report of an investigation into an alleged social indiscretion by the latter is eagerly awaited within the next week.
Did the prime minister, in the early days of eruption of COVID-19 in Britain, engage in a drinking spree with his staff in the gardens of his official residence, 10, Downing Street, London, at the very time Boris Johnson imposed near-total restriction on the entire country? One law for Britons and another law, if any, for the prime minister and his coterie of presumed close staff? These irreconcilable standards are the subject of a probe being conducted, ironically, by the prime minister’s principal private secretary. Whatever the outcome, it may not be pleasant for British politics, which, for hundreds of years, had, intermittently, caused fall of administration or resignation of member of parliament concerned, be he ordinary member, minister or prime minister. That is the risk awaiting prime minister Boris Johnson, should his principal private secretary’s probe report land him a death blow. Johnson will have to resign on honour or be voted out of office by his party or the entire parliament.
Even if she found the boss accountable, would private secretary Sue Gray merely report accordingly, leaving it for British parliament to impose the sanction or would recommend the prime minister’s resignation? The only saving grace for Johnson to recover from his series of somersault. He initially claimed that the party never took place, only to concede thereafter that he mistook the gathering for a work event, which he even dignified on the ground that nobody among his staff intimated him with implications of such a gathering or even advised him against that entertainment. Against all these denials, the prime minister’s current most hostile prosecutor was his disenchanted erstwhile powerful adviser, Dominic Cummings, who is obviously on a revenge mission for his sudden exit from the government. Cummings had been exposed in the media in the early days of COVID-19 in Britain for violating government’s total lockdown by driving from London to his parents in Scotland, a journey of some four hours on the highways.
Prime Minister Johnson, as it turned out, stoutly defended his adviser against public and media criticisms. But those were the good old days of two very good friends. Prime Minister Johnson acquiesced at the humiliation of his first chancellor of exchequer, Savid Javid, who resigned rather than have his advisers sacked and replaced by the personal choices of Mr. Cummings.
However, when Mr. Cummings’ controversy within the administration remained unabated and extended to Johnson’s wife, the PM had to sack his friend. Since then, Mr. Cummings has been levelling one allegation after another against the prime minister. In furtherance of that frustration, Jonson’s ex-special adviser (Domonic Cummings) is exploiting his friend’s current problem with an offer to swear on oath to prove that Johnson was warned on the implications of his drinks gathering at Downing Street in May 2020.
This is a dangerous political dart aimed at ending Johnson’s political career. Tied to the eagerly-awaited probe report of principal private secretary Sue Gray on the alleged drinks party, the consequences may trigger the British political convention for the demand of the resignation of any member, especially a prime minister, if he ever lied to the British parliament. Did Prime Minister Boris Johnson lie to the parliament so far?
To worsen matters, such an attempt to uphold the moral of British political standard may end up creating a fresh double standard in making statements in British parliament. If, for example, Johnson is eventually exposed (by the probe report) that he innocently or deliberately misled parliament on the drinks issue, he faces the risk of paying the standard price by resigning. In which case, the moralists in British politics will have to justify the kid gloves treatment meted out to former Prime Minister Tony Blair who blatantly lied to the British parliament that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein possessed such weapons with which the man could invade Britain in under one hour. That was Blair’s propaganda to justify the invasion of Iraq by allied forces in March 2003.
Eventually, the whole world detected the lie only after the war. Most unusually, British parliament overlooked Blair’s war against humanity. Between two British prime ministers, Tony Blair and Boris Johnson, who misled British parliament?
Lesson from Australians
World leading lawn tennis champion Novak Djokovic dominated news headlines on the eve of the Australian Open, of which he is the current champion. The man had arrived in time for the imminent commencement of the tournament. But, most probably, not to his surprise, Djokovic was refused entry on the genuine ground that he failed (deliberately too) to get vaccinated against COVID-19.
The Serbian had not hidden from the whole world his detestation for any idea of getting vaccinated, which, in a way, is his fundamental human right. In fact, Nigerians who till now are not easily persuaded may not be easily placed to criticise any foreigner refusing vaccination, provided such Nigerian(s) never attempted to enter other people’s countries where vaccination against COVID-19 is mandatory. Djokovic deserved the treatment he got in Australia. Here is a country, which like any other well-regulated country, operates on a set of rules, especially against COVID-19. It was, therefore, not as if Australia set out to embarass or even humiliate an outstanding world tennis player. Indeed, Djokovic was well aware of the rules and regulations in Australia against the deadly disease, yet, proceeded on his journey with such flamboyance, which indicated one or two reasons.
First, realising the tournament was a world event, the Serbian publicised his departure, thereby making his trip either a testing ground or provocation by daring the rules and regulations of a foreign country, on no other ground than “I am Novak Djokovic, the world lawn tennis champion.”
Otherwise, he should have complied with the health laws of the proposed host country or kept away. In these days of COVID-19, how many countries do not restrict entries and exits of passengers or insist on vaccinations? What is more, Djokovic was well-known for his background as a non-conformist on vaccination precaution.
Secondly, Djokovic arrogantly relied more on his personal fame in attempted violation of the health rules of another country. On both grounds, he miscalculated and was properly handled by the Australian authorities. Fortunately, no new rules were specially inflicted on the person of Mr. Djokovic. All rules employed against him would have been applied against any arriving foreigner. Indeed, countries all over the world, including Djokovic’s Serbia, would not allow any foreigner to ignorantly, deliberately or mischievously throw his weight about. The response at the entry point would be unmistakable: “Comply with our rules or get on the plane, back to your country.”
The Australians dished out a lesson.