Is this the end for Boris Johnson?

After his victory in the 2019 General Election, Boris Johnson bestrode the UK’s political scene. Comparisons to Winston Churchill abounded, depicting him as bold and decisive leader, able to reach parts of the electorate ordinarily closed to Conservative politicians. By early 2020 he had fulfilled his promise to “Get Brexit Done” after years of contentious wrangling over the manor and timing of the UK’s departure from the European Union. 

Yet today Boris Johnson has been left with very little in the way of a positive legacy. The political project with which he is most associated, Brexit, is increasingly viewed as a failure by the public. His personal conduct in office proved so unethical that it’s was not only the direct cause of his downfall, but is continuing to cause scandals even beyond his time as Prime Minister, resulting in continuing problems for the Conservatives and his eventual successor Rishi Sunak. 

The one positive part of his legacy is and will remain his early and fervent support for Ukraine. In doing so, however, he was only reflecting the overwhelming public support in the U.K. for such support, which has continued unabated under his less vocally hawkish successor — as in the decisions to supply Challenger II tanks and long range Storm Shadow missiles ahead of other allies.  

While Conservative activists retain much affection for him, he has been left extremely unpopular in the country as a result of the scandals which precipitated his fall from power. And the Conservative Party itself is unlikely to retain its majority after the next election. 

How did it all go wrong for Johnson? The immediate trigger was the so called “Partygate” affair, in which it was revealed that Johnson and his staff had been breaching lockdown regulations imposed on the country as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. But Partygate was only the latest of a series of scandals with a common theme; the routine and casual dishonesty of the Prime Minister and his closest associates.  

Hypocrisy and dishonesty in politics are rarely unforgivable crimes. Supporters at least are frequently lenient when everyday deceptions can be justified in terms of pressing national interests or higher ideals.  But politicians who lie only in service of themselves are not judged so forgivingly. Whereas Nixon was impeached for Watergate, Reagan escaped Iran-Contra with his presidency and reputation surprisingly intact.

Johnson’s scandals were not of the latter variety. His Brexit deal was expedient but deeply flawed, leaving his successor to renegotiate a deal he assured the public was “oven ready.” The response to the pandemic was effective at points, but marred by corruption and insider dealing. At times, the primary activity of his government often seemed to serve little clear purpose other than to advance the personal and often financial interests of Johnson and his inner circle, memorably described by one veteran journalist as a series of “f— ups and schemes” which dragged in even the top levels of Britain’s notoriously impartial civil service. 

His ejection not just from government but from Parliament now forms the likely final chapter in his political life. Britain has been left worse off for Boris Johnson’s term in office. But deeper questions remain about how it was allowed to happen in the first place. These questions are not just for the Conservative Party, who must of course take much of the immediate blame, but for all those who were prepared to overlook personal ethics in the name of access to power and Churchillian bon vivant style over workmanlike substance. 

Just as the U.S. is still wrestling with the broader forces which brought a man to power who was allegedly willing to defy laws he himself signed and sequester secret documents in his shower, the UK will need to ask deeper questions about its institutions if the damage done by Johnson is to be repaired and prevented from occurring again. 

Part of this will be in recommitting to the fundamental principles of a parliamentary democracy. Britain’s unwritten constitution and system of parliamentary sovereignty means that no other body than parliament is capable of upholding standards in British  government. The inquiry which led to Johnson’s resignation is a positive step in this direction. But more will need to be done to ensure an ethics machinery adequate to the task of holding powerful leaders to account. 

Deeper questions will also need to be asked about a political culture in which distrust of the political class as a whole can be leveraged by populist figures who ultimately deepen the issues they play on rather than resolving them. For now, however, the UK can take some solace in having finally ended — at least for now — the career of a politician revealed to be the person he always was. 

Nicholas Dickinson is a Bingham Fellow in Constitutional Studies at Balliol College, University of Oxford.