By ’Tunji Ajibade
tunjioa@yahoo.com
Party loyalty is a basic requirement in politics. The elementary subject of Government, particularly the topic Parliamentary System of government, teaches the convention of cabinet collective responsibility. Members of the cabinet must publicly support all governmental decisions made in Cabinet, even if they do not privately agree with them. This support includes voting for the government in the legislature. If a member of the Cabinet wishes to openly object to a Cabinet decision then they are obliged to resign from their position in the Cabinet.
We know though, from practice, that the nature of Parliamentary system makes it necessary that all members of a ruling party support the government in the parliament otherwise any dissention may lead to their party being thrown out of power. But, now that the vote-winner for the UK Conservative Party is facing accusations about a garden party held in 2020 during the covid-19 lockdown, some Tory MPs are becoming disloyal to their party leader whose popularity had helped them garner votes in their different constituencies. It’s unpardonable in politics. Disloyalty is unpardonable and one is surprised that some MPs appear unaware of this considering the alarm they are raising over what they claim is a campaign of intimidation targeting them.
These Tory MPs allege that some who work at Number 10, Downing Street, are intimidating them for displaying act of disloyalty towards their own party. They claim they are being blackmailed not to support any move that would lead to a vote of No Confidence being conducted on the UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. The claim is made further that officials at Number 10 threaten to withdraw funding for projects in their constituencies. These are allegations that have not been proven. The PM has denied it and none of his closest aides has been named by anyone. Meanwhile, they are weighty allegations except that in politics and in the game of survival in politics the willingness of any player to apply both the stick and the carrot when the stakes are high and every leverage is explored is nothing new. Give and take is all part of politics and if anyone would shout red herring over public funds that always have alternative uses, if any MP would interpret any possible review of allocation of scarce resources as punishment for the party disloyalty they display, they must be greenhorns in the game of politics.
One is not stating here that blackmail happens as alleged and one is not stating that it has not happened. The point being made is that if the movement of funds across constituencies is the flag some MPs now raise to discredit their party leader and his government, they must be naïve about what politics entails. They may even find their allegation difficult to prove. They may not be able to establish that any law has been broken and this is where those who make the allegations need to tread more carefully.
History of politics gives no indication that it is a pleasant game of cards anyway. Playing politics is more complex than that. Here we have in focus power, and any student of Politics would have come across the exercise of power in many of its various forms. It also inherently involves the use of leverage. What a person has is what he uses to get what he wants. What politicians have is what they use to ensure they remain in office. Or who has forgotten the definition of politics? Who gets what, when, how? The politician in power determines who gets what. Who gets what from the politician is to some extent determined by who gives what. That’s one reason the heaviest contributors to election victory get rewarded in diverse forms – ministerial appointment, ambassadorial appointment, member of Boards etc. especially if they qualify for it.
Sometimes, funds are released for certain projects in a constituency and they are not released in another. It is part of the political play, the basic decision regarding who gets what. On other occasions, a party is voted because its candidate for a particular constituency has promised to bring some specific projects there, or get funds released to implement programmes that matter to residents. The funds are not limitless. Those who give a party support get the chunkier part on most occasions. It’s part of politics that is about who gets what. There is no single MP who doesn’t know this. It is the reason some of them donate funds to their party, contest, and show loyalty to a particular Prime Ministerial candidate. Whoever brings nothing to the table sometimes gets little or nothing from it. That’s politics and the practice is largely amoral. So if any MP in a Parliamentary System becomes disloyal and expects to not see some hands waiving a warning sign, then it’s not politics they are playing.
But some Tory MPs are crying foul. One would want to assume they should know better. Disloyalty to party and its leadership has its cost, even as one is not stating that any officer in Number 10 has done what has been alleged. Didn’t former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher ensure that those who became disloyal to her and led the rebellion for her ouster never got near the seat they treacherously sought? One other point is that the Tory MPs are better off sticking together at this time. If they don’t, everyone of them might soon find themselves in the wilderness. It is what the opposition is working hard to make happen. And failing to support their own party when such is all that is needed to keep the mouth of the opposition shut at this crucial hour doesn’t make Tory MPs come across as politicians worth trusting with votes of citizens. Each disloyal Tory MP is a loser if they don’t stand with their party leader and ride through this together as one.
