Summer Edition: The Search for Global Leadership

The Israeli government is once more in a state of political crisis. On June 13, 2022, the departure of Member of Knesset Nir Orbach from the anti-Netanyahu governing coalition put the government into the vulnerable position of holding only a minority (in this case only 59 seats out of 120) of seats in parliament. Adding insult to injury, Orbach was also mulling defecting to Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party. Remarking upon the severity of these actions, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett commented that “We have a week or two to settle the problems in the coalition…But if we don’t succeed, we won’t be able to continue.” In effect the survival of the government rested upon drawing a member of the opposition coalition into the government (or at least to not vote against the government) and the avoidance of further defections. This was rather a tall order, and it involved a complicated political juggling act to try restoring a semblance of stability to the coalition. In the end, on June 20th, Prime Minister Bennett and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid announced that this gambit had failed and that consequently they were going to dissolve the government. The month of June has not only thrown the Israeli government into a political crisis but threatens to do the same with France given the results of their second round of parliamentary elections. Both countries are examined in this essay.

Coalition crises were not new to this Israeli government. The government itself was borne out of a multiplicity of otherwise divergent ideological camps and interests that aligned against the previous Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The main charge against Netanyahu, the longest serving Prime Minister in Israel’s history, was that he had corruptly used his office. The roots of this political alignment against Netanyahu came from the then Attorney General of Israel’s, Avichai Mandelblit, announcement in 2019 that he would be charging Netanyahu with acts of criminal conduct like bribery, fraud and breach of trust. It took the opposition until 2021, however, to mount an effective bid for power against Netanyahu and they only managed to succeed with their scheme to oust Netanyahu by recruiting former allies of his like Bennett who had broken his promises to not seek a rotation government with Yair Lapid and going against his previous comments that no one should be the Prime Minister of the country while commanding a party with under 10 seats. Even when the governing coalition was established, it was a fragile combination of ideologies and interests from onset that rested on total consensus to avoid legislative logjams or defections.

The early on defection by Amichai Chikli, the inability of the government to pass basic legislation, and a declaration by a member of Ra’am that this will not be the last crisis highlighted these fractures. The further defection of Idit Silman, from Yamina, the same right wing religious party that Bennett belongs to, in May put the government and opposition with an equal number of seats. Her defection was over reservations she had about what she saw as leftist and secularization policy that the government was adopting. The temporary resignation of Rinawie Zoabi from the government threatened to leave the government with a minority of seats and vulnerable to a vote of no confidence. Zoabi, who comes from Meretz (a left-wing party in Israel), blamed the right-wing coalition members for the government’s ills. Bennett himself at times was leaked as saying that he thought it was unlikely that the government would serve its full term. The government also has had a major popularity problem with only 30 percent of Israelis approving of Bennett, with Bennett showing that only a quarter of his base were certain to vote for his party in the next election, and with 69 percent of the public disapproving of a scenario where an Arab party is in the next government. It certainly did not help that the government’s tenure was marked by a terror wave of shootings and stabbings in large cities in Israel that were mostly carried out by Israeli Arabs.

Netanyahu’s trials over the corruption charges lodged against him have also not provided the coalition with a sense of vindication. The trials have revealed a shocking level of prosecutorial (and especially police) misconduct, changes in vital witness testimony on material facts, and failed attempts by the state to revise what it charged Netanyahu with. The judges have even voiced criticism with the state. Nevertheless, the coalition has survived these various crises. Given these string of scandals and setbacks, the rebuked prosecution was considering whether to try to convict Netanyahu on an unlisted charge. All these events when translated into the political arena make it more difficult for the coalition to present its case against Netanyahu.

What was unique about the crisis that finally brought down the government is that it threatened to leave the government vulnerable to a vote of no confidence as it only has a minority of seats in parliament and that various entire factions of the coalition were reported as talking or considering the possibility of talking with Netanyahu about jumping ship. Mansour Abbas, the head of the Islamist Ra’am party, recently commented that he would not rule out partnering with Netanyahu. Old protégés of Netanyahu were also reported as testing the waters over defecting from the coalition (although they deny it). Gideon Sa’ar was reportedly engaging in deep discussions over potential ministerial portfolios of a government with Netanyahu. Bennett himself was accused by the press of weighing an alternative government with Netanyahu. With the announcement of the intent to dissolve the government, it remains to be seen whether a new election will be necessary (which is the most likely option) or whether there is time for Netanyahu or someone else to, through parliamentary maneuvers, form an alternative government.

France is another state whose government is experiencing a crisis. The failure of the President Emmanuel Macron’s centrist Ensemble coalition to secure a governing parliamentary majority in the June 19th elections for the National Assembly threatens the government’s legislative agenda. While Macron, who won re-election with 58.2 percent of the vote against Le Pen, is the first French president since Jacques Chirac in 2002 to win re-election, the reason for his victory was not so much a triumph of the French center and its policies or even enthusiasm for Macron, who remains unpopular. His victory boiled down to an adverse reaction by the older generation and by the Left to the prospect of a Le Pen presidency. The decimation of Ensemble from 347 seats to 245 seats, which was below the 289 seat threshold for a governing majority, and the rise of non-establishmentarian opposition parties as evidenced by Jean Luc Melenchon’s NUPES coalition going from 58 seats to 131 seats and Raassemblement National, the party of Marine Le Pen, going from 7 seats to 89 seats, should be seen as a warning sign to the center that they need to reform their policies to better appeal to the French electorate, lest they risk total collapse. While the French center is not dead and commands the most seats in parliament, it is certainly not the force it was in 2017 when it won both the presidency and the parliament by large margins. The great irony in Macron’s loss of his majority in the National Assembly is that Macron himself has contributed to the decline of the French center by combining the fortunes of center right and center left together into one party. These political forces, once represented by the Socialist Party and Union for a Popular Movement party, had previously been the stabilizing power behind the French Fifth Republic that was founded by De Gaulle. In doing so, the opposition was free to create a distinct identity of its own that was at a distance from the centrist coalition and evidently these largely anti-neoliberal identities have caught on with a large swath of the public.

Macron’s options at the present time are to govern with legislative gridlock, call for new elections, or try to form a working coalition with an erstwhile opposition party by adjusting his agenda. Forming a working agreement with the conservative Les Republicains, a once mainstream political party that itself is experiencing declining fortunes in recent elections, would theoretically be the easiest route for Macron but the head of the party said that they would stay in the opposition. Macron could try to form a deal with Jean Luc Melenchon by offering him the premiership, a post Melenchon has stated he desires. Such a pact, however, would involve major compromises over domestic and possibly even foreign policy stances by Macron. The fact that Melenchon’s parliamentary coalition is itself somewhat fragile may also present obstacles to reaching a durable understanding given that certain parties to the left coalition could abandon the government any time they feel that their sub-faction’s demands are not being satisfactorily met. Additionally, given France’s present economic woes such a union with the anti-establishment left may only exacerbate these problems. For instance, one of the anti-establishment left’s planks of spending more government money would not be wise given the inflation crisis gripping the country. Hence even if Macron can pull off an alliance with Melenchon that would be politically beneficial to him such an alliance may not be beneficial to the country. If Macron should try to sway Le Pen’s political party to his side, this would not only risk major policy compromises but also ideological repudiation from the center that are much more antagonistic toward Le Pen than Melenchon. It therefore remains to be seen if Macron can form a stable government in his second term. If he cannot then France risks legislative deadlocks becoming a feature to its politics and his domestic and foreign agenda risk being largely stymied.

On July 8, Shinzo Abe, the former prime minister of Japan was shot from behind at close range while delivering a campaign speech for a fellow Liberal Democratic Party (LPD) candidate. Due to the crude nature of the improvised firearm, the shooter’s first round did not hit, but the second round proved to be fatal, with doctors reporting that Abe had no vital signs by the time he was transferred for medical treatment. The brazen and public killing shocked and saddened the Japanese public and people around the world who mourned the loss of a titan in Japanese politics, one who had served as prime minister for nearly a decade, over two different terms.

Abe was very much atypical among Japanese policy makers as he wasn’t necessarily liked or well received, but was highly and widely respected. Many saw Abe as the lesser of two evils; as reported by NPR, “A majority of respondents in public opinion polls [in 2017] said they don't want Abe to continue as prime minister, but he will — because of no plausible alternatives — and voter apathy.” Japan’s culture is based on a hierarchy of mutual respect, and politeness. So being respected by the public is a particularly crucial ingredient for political success in Japan, and Abe was always more respected than his political opposition.

Despite the fact that violence was commononplace in Japanese politics during the 1930’s, the last politically charged assassination of a Japanese politician occurred 62 years ago, in 1960, when the head of Japan's Socialist Party, Asanuma Inejiro, was killed by a rightwing extremist during a televised debate. The killing was reminscent of a dark era in Japenese politics, when political assassinations were used as a mechanism to eliminate and indimatdate the political oppponents of the millatary’s growing political influence. However, modern-day Japan has one of the lowest rates of gun violence per-capita in the world, which makes the recent shooting of Shinzo Abe ever more surprising. In simple terms, obtaining a legal or otherwise illegal firearm in Japan is an incredibly cumbersome bureaucratic procedure, and that’s not including the separate permit for ammunition which is also heavily regulated. Shinzo Abe's assassination illustrates how even with maximalist government restrictions, those with malicious intent can acquire deadly weapons. However, the fact remains that when there are fewer guns in a country, it experiences fewer gun murders (including political killings). Guns may not kill people on their own, but they are certainly helpful tools for those who intend to kill people.

Abe was killed by a former Japanese marine named Tetsuya Yamagami. He confessed to murdering the former prime minister and told police he was motivated to kill Abe because he believed the politician had close ties with the Unification Church. The Korean based Unification Church (colloquially known as Moonies), has approximately two million members in Japan, and has faced its fair share of controversies, with some accusing it of being a financially motivated cult. Yamagami developed resentment for the Church after massive donations from his grandmother (who was a member) allegedly resulted in the bankruptcy of the Yamagami family. How Tetsuya Yamagami acquired the weapon is still unknown, but it has been theorized that he built it himself.

During his administration, Abe strengthened US and Japanese ties, particularly with former U.S. President Donald Trump, and formed a practical partnership with China. In his first term, Abe unleashed sanctions against North Korea, while promoting revision of Japan’s postwar constitution. Although well respected, Abe was no stranger to controversy: he was an unabashed nationalist, and conservative traditionalist, who was always armed with a nice way of saying no. In 2014, when Japan was being scrutinized globally for its inhuman treatment of dolphins in Taiji, Abe responded to the criticism, saying, “In every country and region, there are practices and ways of living and culture that have been handed down from ancestors. Naturally, I feel that these should be respected.”

Abe had also been criticized for whitewashing Japan’s history of atrocities during WWII. Abe wanted to change Article 9 of Japan’s postwar constitution, which forbade the nation from developing the military capacity for, or engagement in, offensive purposes. His hawkish agenda eventually resulted in the 2014 reinterpretation of Article 9, which now allows Japanese security forces to engage in overseas operations for the collective defense of allies.

In September 2007, one year after being elected, Abe prematurely stepped down as the prime minister for personal health reasons. His resignation did not last long as he was reelected in 2012 and never fully backed away from politics, although he ultimately resigned in 2020 for similar reasons. Abe’s second term seemed more promising, as his economic policies, dubbed "Abenomics", were touted as rejuvenating measures for the Japanese economy, which had been anemic since the 1990's The policies of Abenomics included measures to induce short term spending, increase government spending, and ease regulations to allow more migrant workers to join the workforce. Abe’s policies were later credited for decreasing unemployment throughout Japan.

However Japan’s initial economic boom in the first few years of Abe’s second term (from 2012 to 2017 Japan’s GDP grew by an average of 1.4% annually), didn't last and by 2018 it had ended and its economy entered a recession soon after. In 2020, support for Abe’s leadership regressed in part because of an economic strategy implemented during COVID-19, which promoted a campaign of subsidized domestic tourism that resulted in an uptick of infections throughout Japan.

The long-term consequences of Shinzo Abe's assassination for Japanese politics are still unknown, but so far, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) increased its majority in the upper house of parliament winning eight new seats (63 seats up from 55 seats). Will Abe’s murder be a spark for future instances of political violence, or will the new prime minster, Fumio Kishida, maintain the political status-qou of the last 60 years? How will Kishida balance this domestic crisis against economic interests after COVID-19, and rising tensions with neighboring China? As titans become fossils, what crystallizes is their legacy, and Abe’s leadership will not be forgotten anytime soon. His legacy was far from perfect but his political longevity holds an important lesson for current Japanese premier Fumio Kishida: earning the respect of the Japanese people is an essential ingredient for being an effective leader in Japan.

Anyone with a younger brother knows they have a penchant for breaking things that you build - as exiled and former president Gotabaya Rajapaksa seems to have just done with the political dynasty established by his brother Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2005. After defeating the infamous Tamil Tiger insurgent movement, the Rajapaksas got carte-blanche to remake Sri Lankan politics in their image, thereafter amending the constitution and establishing the Executive Presidency. This new office had far more power than before, and for a decade they were the preeminent force in domestic politics. From 2005 until 2015, Gotabaya Rajapaksa was the Defense Secretary under President Mahinda. This meant that he was a newcomer to electoral politics when, in 2019, he won the presidency in a landslide victory on a platform of Sinhalese nationalism. Yet after decades in power, and a former stranglehold on Sri Lankan politics, the Rajapaksa dynasty has collapsed after numerous disastrous policy decisions, an ongoing economic crisis, and the largest sustained protest movement in the nation’s history, since its independence in 1948.

Since mid-March, thousands of protestors have been out in the streets of the capital, Columbo, and the countryside nearly every day, at certain points swelling to tens of thousands. Unprecedented shortages of food and fuel along with record inflation and blackouts inflicted widespread discontent in Sri Lanka. Since January, inflation has risen above 50%, pushing more than 2 million people (9% of the population) below the poverty line. Additionally, a critical lack of foreign currency has left Sri Lanka struggling to service its ballooning $51bn foreign debt, which led Sri Lanka to default on its debt, in April this year, for the first time in its history.

At the end of 2019, Sri Lanka had $7.6bn in foreign currency reserves, which have dropped to around $250m. A number of policies by then president Rajapaksa played a major role in draining the federal coffers. Large tax cuts he introduced in 2019 to boost domestic support lost the government more than $1.4bn annually, and ill-advised use of commercial loans held at much higher interest rates to build flashy new infrastructure projects were already overstretching the Sri Lankan economy. In 2019, 56% of Sri Lanka’s debt was held by commercial lenders, compared to only 2.5% in 2004. And that was before Covid tanked the entire global tourist and foreign remittance economy overnight (the two largest sources of foreign currency reserves for Sri Lanka). Moreover, Sri Lanka now imports $3bn more than it exports every year.

This is also partly thanks to a shortsighted policy implemented by Rajapaksa. When Sri Lanka's foreign currency shortages became a serious problem in early 2021, Gotabaya decided to ban chemical fertilizers (which were imported) to make Sri Lankan farming “all organic” — a move that devastated the tea industry, Sri Lanka’s main export crop. Yet, tea was not the only agricultural product affected, in fact all food production suffered, and the ongoing global grain shortages due to the war in Ukraine have driven rising food insecurity on the island nation. According to Ahilan Kadirgamar, a political economist at the University of Jaffna, "compared with six months ago, the price of bread has tripled, the price of rice has tripled, the prices of petrol and diesel have more or less tripled.” Coupled with inflation, that's about 6 times less buying power than at the start of the year.

The World Food Program's most recent analysis reported that 86% of families were either skipping meals, eating less or buying worse food. Ahilan Kadirgamar, further stated, “The straw that broke the camel’s back was [when Rajapaksa] tried to militarize and privatize education. The teachers, the students, university teachers—all of us started to protest”. Lingering frustrations from the disastrous fertilizer ban also rapidly mobilized the rural agricultural communities once the protests began in Columbo.

However, along with rising prices, the people have had rising voices. Basil Rajapaksa stepped down as Minister of Finance in April, as the entire cabinet resigned, and he tried unsuccessfully to leave the country in May. Then Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa stepped down and parliament was dissolved on May 9. Crowds gathered daily outside the President’s office calling for him to resign, with “Gota Go Home” - the mantra of the demonstrations. On May 12th, Rajapaksa appointed Ranil Wickremesinghe, an establishment figure who had already been Prime minister 6 times, for another stint in the office. However, on July 9th protestors occupied the presidential palace and burned the Prime Minister’s house.

On July 14th, the 96th day of mass protest, President Rajapaksa resigned via email from his self-exile, or rather, escape to the Maldives. This marked the achievement of one of the protest movements key demands. Last month, the loosely organized leadership of the movement articulated their demands in the July 5th Action plan:

(1) Gotabaya Rajapaksha should immediately resign as president; (2) PM Ranil Wickremesinghe and his government should also quit immediately; (3) An interim government should be established for a maximum period of one year; (4) A new constitution that endorses people’s sovereignty be established through a referendum, hopefully within a year; (5) President’s executive powers should be reduced and democratic institutions strengthened until the new constitution is drafted; and (6) The fundamental objective of the interim government should be to implement the above proposals;

In the aftermath of Rajapaksa’s resignation, the Sri Lankan Parliament was left with the task of electing a new president to complete Rajapaksa’s term. In a secret ballot on July 20th, Parliament elected Ranil Wickremesinghe as the acting President of Sri Lanka - much to the dismay of those seeking a compromise coalition to reign in the escalating economic crisis.

Many trade unions warned of a countrywide industrial strike if Wickremesinghe takes over as full-time president. Although there is not yet evidence of union action in Columbo, there is palpable resentment towards Wickremesinghe. Melani Gunathilake, another leader of the protest movement, told al Jazeera that “ what Ranil Wickremesinghe did by accepting the prime minister’s post was more of a betrayal of ‘aragalaya’ [“the struggle”] than a political ploy… We need somebody who can find solutions to our burning issues, not someone who was rejected by the people.” In fact, protestors even burnt an effigy of Wickremesinghe in the streets, according to the Associated Press.

Political stability will be crucial for the negotiation of International Monetary Fund relief or for international aid to reach the country in a timely manner. Unfortunately, former president Rajapaksa’s party (SLPP) still holds a majority in parliament and without their cooperation, a credible government can not be elected and mass protests may continue. Protestors have opposed an all-party government because of Rajapaksa's SLPP majority. Instead, they are calling for an interim government to prepare for elections. The movement does not have centralized leadership, but several socialist student groups have been key organizers, particularly in the capital city of Colombo. However, some of that leadership was arrested in the wake of Wickremesinghe’s parliamentary election as President. If one looks at the exponentially rising inflation in Sri Lanka, it becomes clear that time is running out to get this crisis under control. A stable government will be necessary for any resolution of these compounding issues, and it remains to be seen if one can be found.

The date of the 4th of July holds great patriotic significance for Americans since it marks their Independence Day. On this day, eloquent oratory is offered, parades are well attended, and fireworks are dedicated toward a celebration of all things American and of its founding. Yet, in addition to the celebratory revelry there is a need for a sober appraisal on the future of American institutions. There is low public confidence in many of these institutions such as Congress, the press, public health officials, and the presidency. The state of the rule of law in the United States has also become more fragile even in the nation’s capital. The American people are estranged from the institutions which are supposed to represent them. What can be done to repair this alienation and restore not just public confidence to the institutions but ensure that these institutions rightly reflect American values?

In 1838, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois about the perpetuation of America’s institutions and here he noted a similar landscape of the deterioration of the rule of law that now exists in the present day. In particular he warned:

Yet, notwithstanding all this [the capacity of the American people to suffer much for the sake of their government], if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.

With such a danger of alienation in our own time, we would do well to heed Lincoln’s warnings. This article will showcase how some of the reaction to the June 24th, 2022 Dobbs v Jackson decision provides an example of how these institutions have failed to uphold the rule of law and it will try to provide a template of how to move forward from here.

The Dobbs v Jackson decision found that abortion was not a constitutionally protected right and sent the matter back to the purview of the states for them to make as many or as little restrictions as those states want. The ruling had a fivefold argument over why abortion was not constitutionally protected: (1) that Roe and Cassey usurped the normal democratic process in a failed attempt to resolve a politically sensitive matter, (2) that these previous decisions regarding abortion had fabricated law and failed to do a relevant historical review of the customs, laws, and traditions of the American people, (3) that those rules and standards derived from Roe and Cassey proved unworkable in execution, (4) that Roe and Cassey led to distorted effects on other areas of law, and (5) that overruling these decisions would not upend substantial reliance interests (see pages 43 to 66 of the Dobbs decision for a detailed analysis). This decision on a politically salient topic obviously provoked great controversy. Many an article have been written defending the verdict as just in its allowance for the right to life of the unborn to be acknowledged or attacking the verdict as unjust in allowing the taking away of women’s reproductive choices. Some noted with concern the heated rhetoric unleashed when the verdict was announced, while also noting that abortion rights may be better secured and settled by a public vote than by the decision of nine justices on a remote court.

It is not the rhetoric that followed the decision which is the main subject of this article but rather the illegal actions taken prior to the announcement of the verdict and encouragement of these actions by public officials. One could disagree with the leaked draft or the final draft of the verdict all one likes. It is not illegal to protest or applaud a Supreme Court decision (or the prospect of such a decision). Abraham Lincoln, a future president of the United States, himself protested the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision on the grounds that the Court had fabricated law, history, and was at odds with the plain and reasonable reading of its own source material, in particular that of the Declaration of Independence, used to come to that decision. It is not this dissent that threatens public confidence in the institutions of the United States.

It is or rather was the illegal congregation of targeted protestors outside the homes of the conservative justices in question with the aim of making the justices alter their decision. This is a violation of both federal and state picketing laws whereby one cannot seek to influence a judge over a pending decision. In the case of these protests, they were clearly targeted at the conservative justices by the fact that the homes were doxed and by the presence of, at times, very uncivil protestors surrounding these houses. An assassination attempt was also planned upon Justice Kavanaugh’s life. Even if the protests were entirely civil, however, they may still be in violation of picketing laws. Such was the situation that the Supreme Court had to ask Marylander and Virginian officials to put an end to people picketing at the justices’ homes. The governors of both these states in turn requested that the Justice Department enforce the law. Also witnessed after the leaked decision were attacks on pro-life centers throughout the country.

It was not only that the illegal picketing took place and that an assassination plot was hatched that is of great concern but that federal officials encouraged people to engage in illegal picketing activity to begin with. The Biden administration in particular here was a serial offender as their press spokespersons made a number of statements encouraging such conduct. For instance, Jen Psaki remarked as follows at a May 10th press breifing:

I know that there is an outrage right now, I guess, about protests that have been peaceful to date. We certainly continue to encourage that outside of judge’s homes and, that’s the president’s position. [emphasis added]

Whether the protests were peaceful or not is not the principal issue, that the administration was encouraging people to violate both state and federal law is! Nor was this the only time that Jen Psaki was dismissive of such criticism over where people protested. Even following the foiled assassination plot (which the Biden administration to its credit condemned), the same lack of concern for law was uttered by White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. Her utterances were as follows:

We have not weighed in on where people should or should not protest. We have said that all Americans have the right to peacefully protest, whatever their point of view, but that attempts at intimidation and violence are totally unacceptable, and that they need to be condemned anytime they happen, regardless of who does it. [emphasis added]

This cavalier attitude by the Biden administration toward the law when it comes to protests they like in comparison to their attitude towards protests they are less in favor of has opened them up to criticism of having double standards and of them holding politicized attitudes when it comes to upholding the law. In effect then the Biden administration stands accused by its critics (and not without merit) of not upholding the rule of law that is basic to any functioning democratic system. I submit that such disrespect of the law and partisan encouragement to break the law by an American institution is one of the main causes behind the deterioration of public confidence in the institutions.

This has not been the first time that American institutions have taken a partisan lean. As I described in my first article for the Platform Mag, the press coverage of the Chauvin trial by their attempts to racialize it and excuse the looting and violence that emerged from protests over it were damaging to the rule of law in the United States. I also pointed out in the same article that the response by public health officials in approving of some protests while disproving of others was also very inappropriate. In another article for the Platform Mag, I criticized the inappropriate conduct of some journalists and their attempts to insulate themselves and their profession from public criticism. All these things point to how various institutions, which the public expects to be professional and neutral, are run by people who do not hold themselves to these expectations. Instead, these institutions are swept by the partisan passions and fads of the moment rather than dedicated toward a more sober and objective analysis. This needs to change if these institutions are to restore public confidence in them. As Lincoln put it in his aforementioned Lyceum Address:

Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence.--Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws: and, that we improved to the last; that we remained free to the last.

It is time for our institutions to return to a general state of reverence for the constitution and the laws of the United States and to be bulwarks rather than breakers of the rule of law. Those that break the law should be, after a fair trial, sentenced appropriately. Those officials who refuse to carry out the law and encourage such lawbreaking should be expunged from the civil service. These actions are the appropriate measures to restore public confidence and they ought to be taken post haste.

On July 7th, Boris Johnson's luck finally ran out, when dozens of members of his administration had quit or called for his resignation within a two day span. Johnson initially insisted during the first wave of resignations, that he should stay on as Prime Minister, arguing that the " record level of victory [in the 2019 General Elections] showed the people backed him", but he eventually decided to resign, amid an onslaught of cabinet members calling for his resignation, including cabinet members such as Sajid Javid (the Minister of Health), Michael Gove (former Leveling-Up Secretary), Priti Patel (former Home Secretary) and Rishi Sunak (former Chancellor of the Exchequer). Johnson explained his decision to resign as an inevitability, acknowledging that “It is clearly now the will of the parliamentary Conservative Party that there should be a new leader of that party” and described the escalating pressure he was under and his decision to resign, saying, “when the herd moves, it moves”.

Johnson became leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (UK) in 2019 with a simple campaign slogan,“get Brexit done”, a simple promise to implement the decision that the British people had voted for in June of 2016 (51.9% leave, 48.1% stay), to exit the European Union. After more than 2 years had passed since the UK referendum, Johnson’s predecessor Theresa May, had still failed to reach an agreement with the EU that would deliver Brexit. Although Johnson initially struggled to pass his withdrawal deal past Parliament in October of 2019, he eventually passed it a few months later. The withdrawal agreement between the UK and EU officially took effect (in legal terms, this is when a treaty “enters into force”) on February 1st, 2020.

In general, assessing a leader’s economic legacy can be challenging, given the fact that many factors determine the economic health of a country (or the world) and many economic variables that influence the state of the economy, are out of the control of the leader. In Johnson’s case, it is particularly hard to assess Johnson’s legacy on the UK economy, given the unique and unforeseen COVID situation that developed, which forced countries around the world to mandate lockdowns, shutter businesses and curb tourism. So, it should be unsurprising the UK’s GDP growth showed the British economy shrank dramatically in 2020 (-9.3%), because COVID had such a negative economic impact across the world. Similarly, it is complicated to give any credit to Johnson for the strong rise in UK GDP growth in 2021 (+7.4%), because the UK government had begun distributing vaccines and opening society up, allowing previously forbidden economic sectors (such as nightlife or sports) to resume business, which lead to higher GDP growth. However, there has been a dramatic rise in inflation in the UK since 2021 (inflation rose 8.8% compared to July of 2021) although, it is unreasonable to place blame on Johnson for rising inflation in the UK, given how many countries have experienced inflation at a similar level or worse. Johnson was also lambasted for raising the payroll tax rates in September of 2021 by 1.25% for both workers and employers, and also increasing the tax rate for shareholder dividends by the same margin, breaking a campaign promise to refrain from increasing taxes. However, Johnson’s argument that he was forced to raise taxes because he felt “it would be irresponsible to [continue] to meet the costs of higher borrowing and higher debt”, has strong merit, given the large and unforeseen economic expense of combating COVID.

In January of 2021, Johnson was caught attending a party that featured alcohol and broke a lockdown imposed by his administration. This wasn’t the first time Johnson faced scrutiny for violating his own self-imposed COVID regulations. Prior to the gathering of January of 2021, there were a number of incidents in 2020, in which Johnson and members of his administration were caught flaunting the governments COVID laws, including one which took place on the same day that the UK government tweeted that citizens were “only permitted to meet someone outside their household, if the meeting was limited to two people, took place outdoors and those people remained 2 meters apart”. Johnson’s blatant and consistent socializing and drinking champagne amidst the draconian COVID regulations his government had been enforcing, led to a drop in support for Johnson. Although Johnson narrowly survived a ‘no confidence’ vote on June 6, earlier this year, Johnson’s leadership was on 'thin ice' with the party. A few months later, another scandal erupted when a number of allegations emerged of a cabinet official named Chris Pincher, groping and sexually harassing fellow cabinet members. The Chris Pincher scandal proved too much for Johnson to overcome, as many blamed the UK PM for his irresponsibility at appointing Pincher, who already had a reputation for fondling and sexually assaulting other MPs (Members of Parliament) and somehow was still appointed to a position in the cabinet.

The announcement of his resignation indicates that the end of Boris Johnson's time as Prime Minister of the UK was arriving shortly, beginning a new contest amongst the leadership of the Conservative Party (sometimes called the Tories) for leadership of the party and the position of UK Prime Minister. The reason why the departure of Johnson hasn’t led to public elections is because in the UK there is a general election at least once every 5 years unless the current majority party decides to call elections (to get a stronger mandate to govern from the public). During the general election, UK citizens vote for MPs that will represent their individual constituencies. A constituency is a specific geographical area that elects a specific leader to represent their area in parliament. The party that wins the most constituencies/MP elections (a majority) in parliament, is given the right to select the next Prime Minister. Public elections can be held before the end of the 5 year waiting period, if any of the following scenarios take place: 1) the leader of the majority party calls for new elections or 2) if there is a vote of no-confidence in the current government that passes with a majority in Parliament.

An internal leadership contest (only Tory members and Tory MPs can participate) will take place if the leader resigns or is forced out by other members of the party through an MP putting forth his candidacy (requirement is 20 MPs’ signatures). Tories elect their leader through a two step process. First, the Conservative MPs hold an internal election amongst themselves and have a vote to decide which two candidates will go on to the next round. In the 2nd round of the nomination contest, the rest of the approximately 200,000 party members are eligible to vote to select their next leader. Following Johnson’s resignation, Tory MPs have already chosen the two candidates who will be the finalists for the 2nd round, which will take place this year on September 5th.

The current favorite to win, Rishi Sunak, is the former chancellor of the exchequer (similar to the Secretary of the Treasury in the US) and a rising star in the party, since he was elected to the House of Commons in 2015. Sunak was appointed by Johnson to be Chief Secretary of the Treasury in July of 2019, making him the 2nd highest ranking official in the treasury, soon after (February of 2020), he was promoted to lead the treasury, replacing the recently fired and former Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid. Despite Sunak’s impressive resume which includes degrees from Oxford and Stanford and successful stints in the finance world, Sunak’s candidacy does come with some concerning flaws and his approval rating has dropped heavily in recent months (26% favorable, 44% unfavorable in April this year), which is a concerning sign for Sunak’s chances of being elected by his fellow Tories in September.

The other candidate is Liz Truss, the current foreign secretary, who was a rare Johnson loyalist within the cabinet, resisting pressure from the rest of her party to quit or call for his resignation. Truss has been a Conservative MP since 2010, when she was elected to represent South West Norfolk. Like Sunak, Truss attended Oxford, served as chief secretary of the treasury (Sunak’s predecessor) and served in a range of different cabinet roles before mounting a bid for the leadership.

There are understandable explanations for Sunak’s recent fall from public grace. Sunak is still heavily tied to the economic legacy of Johnson’s administration, because he served in the 2 most senior positions in the Treasury for Johnson’s government and shares a degree of responsibility for the government’s economic policies over the last few years. It would be strange if Tory voters looking for a change in economic strategy and upset by the government's economic policies over the last few years (for example, Johnson’s large tax raise), decided to back Sunak, considering his involvement in setting those policies. Furthermore, like Johnson, Sunak was also fined for breaking COVID regulations. Similar to Sunak, Truss’s legacy is also intertwined with Johnson to a degree. Given her stalwart support for Johnson, she may be too strongly associated by voters with the outgoing PM, whose administration she continued to support, even as Johnson’s hold on the leadership was slipping rapidly. Although Sunak is considered as the most likely candidate to be chosen as the next Tory leader, Truss still has a strong chance to win. In less than a week, Tory members will get to choose from 2 candidates who have ties to Johnson that are a bit too close for comfort and select their least disliked candidate to become the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.