Thread by @redhistorian

This argument is not just foolish, it is dangerous to our democracy. It deploys "the will of the people", embodied in a heroic individual, as a battering ram for authoritarianism. It's a combination we've seen before & cannot be left unchallenged. [THREAD]
telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/…

1. Roberts casts Boris Johnson as the heir to Cromwell, fighting for popular sovereignty against a corrupt & undemocratic elite. It's a seductive argument: it delegitimizes Parliament & gives cover to the most radical constitutional acts. But it wholly misrepresents the problem.

2. The big question of democratic politics is not *whether* the people should govern but *how*. In a pluralistic society, how do we decide what "the people" want? To take the current controversy: how do we decide the *terms* of Brexit, an issue on which the referendum was silent?

3. Like Boris Johnson, Roberts regards some forms of Brexit as unacceptable. He denounced May's Withdrawal Agreement & Johnson voted against it twice. So neither, presumably, sees the referendum as an instruction to leave on any possible terms. (That would be gross hypocrisy...)

4. So how do we decide what terms "the people" would accept? One option would be to ask their elected representatives. Another would be to hold a second referendum. But Roberts proposes a third option: to let Boris Johnson decide. So let's assess Johnson's democratic credentials.

5. Boris Johnson has no direct democratic mandate of any kind. He has not won a presidential election. He has not led his party in a general election. His authority to govern comes *solely* from the consent of the Commons. If he loses that, where is his democratic legitimacy?

6. Roberts' answer is presumably that the referendum supersedes Parliament. But the referendum gave no instruction concerning the *terms* on which we leave. If Boris Johnson had the "moral right" to "subvert" May's proposals, MPs must equally have the right to block Johnson's.

7. What Roberts is arguing for is not democracy: it's the right of a political "strong man" to override Parliament, veto legislation & coerce MPs, in the name of a sovereign "people", whose will he alone can intuit. That's not democracy; it's something far more dangerous.

8. The creed of the heroic leader, who embodies in his own person "the will of the nation directly expressed"; who can sweep aside the tiresome antics of an illegitimate parliament, has a long & dark history. Note the similarity with Oswald Mosley, setting out his vision in 1933.

9. To be clear: I am *not* accusing Roberts of fascism (a term we should never use lightly). But we're at risk of normalising authoritarian versions of democracy that seek to undermine parliamentary institutions. We know where that path can lead. We should walk it with care.[END]