When ideals collide with pressures of power

Entering politics with knowledge of what is to come requires either courage or foolhardiness. Or maybe both.

BRITISH Prime Minister Theresa May survived a vote of no confidence in her leadership of the Conservative Party last Wednesday.

This was brought about by those within her party who did not like the Brexit deal she struck with Brussels, particularly the idea of the customs “backstop”, which means that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after the United Kingdom leaves the European Union.

The rebels – including the archetypal countryside Tory Jacob Rees-Mogg and former mayor of London and foreign secretary Boris Johnson – want more control over borders and customs arrangements, but they failed to muster enough votes from colleagues to unseat their party leader.

If May had been defeated, a new leader would have had to be selected according to the rules of the Conservative Party and the UK would have had a new prime minister.

(In 1990, Margaret Thatcher resigned as both party leader and prime minister when she withdrew from a challenge to her leadership.)

This week, it was the turn of the Labour Party to threaten a vote of no confidence in the prime minister in the House of Commons.

It is not without confusion though. Although the Fixed Term Parliaments Act allows for such an event, the leader of the opposition Jeremy Corbyn did not call for a vote of no confidence under those terms. So it is unclear what will happen next.

In short, the position of the British head of government is seeing challenges at a time when one of the biggest votes in its parliamentary history – to accept or reject terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU – is looming.

The position of the Malaysian head of government, by contrast, has been unquestioned since his appointment in May. Such was the significance of his feat, although the length of his tenure has been the subject of much scrutiny and clashing opinions.

However, as previously written, many U-turns on policy have already been made and there has been an apparent increase in the machinations from individuals and factions within the coalition he heads, as well as in relation to members of the main opposition party.

One portion of my speech in parliament last week (for the inaugural session of the Speaker’s Lecture Series) went thus: “In recent years, I have been fortunate to have interacted with members on both sides of the House, some of them since before they became MPs. Most went into politics for noble reasons, and yet I sympathise with the multiple pressures that they experience.

“Pressure from leaders to support ill-considered proposals. Pressure from party colleagues to support their bids for positions. Pressure from progressives who want reforms. Pressure from conservatives who don’t. Pressure from corporate players who want contracts in exchange for donations. Pressure from unionists who want legislative change in exchange for support.

“And at the end of the day, I have seen even

And at the end of the day, I have seen even the most enlightened, most idealistic individuals surrender to these pressures, entering a downward spiral of ever more promises that cannot conceivably be delivered.

the most enlightened, most idealistic individuals surrender to these pressures, entering a downward spiral of ever more promises that cannot conceivably be delivered, and the continuous placation of disparate groups.”

Many of the moves made this week are manifestations of these pressures.

These moves include the stepping aside (but not resignation) of the leader of the main opposition party to stem the tide of defections; an assurance from the Prime Minister that defectors will not easily be welcomed into his party; the resignation from party posts of the prominent daughter of the president of the largest party and the Deputy Prime Minister; and the friendly overtures made by prominent members of the opposition towards members of the government party.

Naturally, there’s probably a lot of hedging going on, since a political career rests upon the trajectories of others and the occurrence of variously predictable events.

But one viral message lamented that “comrades who ... had been so eloquent in (advocating) these ideals as ends ... are now treating them as wares to sell to the politically needy in exchange for power.”

This is a succinct encapsulation of many examples I have seen of power (or the pursuit of power) becoming the prime motivator in an individual’s life.

Conveniently, the presence of different sources of pressure enables any decision to be justified by an appeal to the sources that coincide with that motivation. “I have listened to you.”

At the end of the day, in this cynical, some say post-truth world, no one’s real motivations will ever be universally agreed upon.

All manoeuvres will be interpreted widely, and legacies will be interpreted equally widely.

If knowingly going into such a profession represents courage rather than madness, then perhaps it should be saluted.