特雷莎·梅或许会以一种特殊的方式青史留名_风闻

文：Gunter Schöch

译：李翠萍

6月7日，特雷莎·梅正式辞去英国首相兼保守党领袖一职，但其实这个日期并不重要，因为从5月24日开始我们就知道，这天她会这么做了。我们至少要等到7月底才能知道她的继任者是，而在此期间，特雷莎·梅将继续担任英国临时首相。而我们也是时候反思一下特雷莎·梅及其继任者等政治人物多年来一直在玩的权力游戏了。

我个人对权力的看法似乎与绝大多数从政者非常不同：首先，我认为一个好的领导人应该多听多看多想。只有当他得出必须改变某些事物或发起某项倡议的结论时，才应该去寻求权力来贯彻自己的方针。权力只是手段，目的才是第一位的。如果你自己都不清楚前面路在何方，就别要求获得领导权，这个道理在政治领域和商业领域是相通的。

西方民主国家政客们的做法与以上截然不同。首先，他们为了权力而寻求权力。接着，他们可能会制定政治议程来使用权力，但更常见的情况是，他们只把精力花在保持权力，防范政敌夺权上面，放任外部事件发展，带来避无可避的问题。

以我的祖国德国的总理安格拉•默克尔为例：她在德国国内和国际上都倍受尊敬，因为她自2005年执政以来德国保持长期稳定。但在其任期内，她改变了自己政治纲领的基石。改变的原因不是她根深蒂固的信念被颠覆了，而是因为这样做有助于她继续掌权。日本发生福岛核事故后，核电的支持者不再占多数，所以她叫停了核电，而就在几个月前她才刚刚续颁了德国核电站的执照。默克尔拥有量子物理学的博士学位，她能够看懂统计数据。她对核电安全性的判断并没有变，改变的只是她对政治的判断。与此类似，在最低工资、同性婚姻、移民和其他许多问题上，也可能出现这样的情况。

再来看看我妻子的祖国——法国的政治体制：在那里，成为顶级政治人物的经典方式是学习政治学，然后进入著名的法国国家行政学院，极少数精英在那里研习法国政府的内部运作机制，包括其官僚体制、军事制度和经济模式。这里的学生都经过严格挑选，选择的依据只有学术水平，不考虑他们的政治观点。

从这里毕业的学生最终将服务于哪个政党，几乎都是机缘决定的，它取决于学生哪年毕业以该年份的执政党是谁，因为执政党可以给出诱人的工作机会。毕业生一旦选择了为某个政党服务，就会被自动“打上烙印”，在今后的人生中很难做出改变。显然，与那些怀着满腔热血为了某项事业或某种意识形态而奋斗的人相比，法国模式培养出来的领导者对权力和晋升有更强烈的渴望。

罗雅尔、奥朗德和德维尔潘

再回过头看英国问题，特雷莎·梅和最有可能接班的鲍里斯•约翰逊都完全符合以上描述。在特雷莎·梅高中同学们的记忆里，她那时候就立志成为英国第一位女首相。事实上，她也的确成为了玛格丽特·撒切尔之后的第二位女首相。

在保守党阵营中多年摸爬滚打逐渐登上高位的特雷莎·梅，素来以坚定执着、顽强战斗和不善闲聊著称。戴维•卡梅伦辞职后，这些品质帮助她在未经大选的情况下于2016年7成为保守党领袖和英国首相。在那之前，卡梅伦试图通过公投来压制保守党内部的脱欧派，却意外地在英国“脱欧”公投中落败。

特雷莎·梅也投了“留欧”票，这就是说她本人是反对英国退出欧盟的，可她在公投期间一直保持低调，给自己留下后路。她把自己描绘成一双坚定的手，将以尽可能有序的方式履行人民的意愿，带领英国退出欧盟。当她着手完成脱欧政治任务时，我略感有些奇怪，一个选择“留欧”的人竟然组织英国“脱欧”。当然我必须澄清，我相信特雷莎·梅已经尽了最大努力去促成英国脱欧。我举这个例子只是要再次证明，哪怕在这样一个影响英国未来几代人的关键问题上，所谓的信念仍旧那么脆弱和可塑。

特雷莎·梅或许会以一种特殊的方式青史留名，因为她在各路人马的炮轰之下竟然撑了下来，其承受政治和情感打击的能力达到了新高度。老话说得好，“河中不换马，临阵不换将”。要不是因为英国面临脱离欧盟的特殊情况，换做正常时期特雷莎·梅遭受的失败足够她辞职几轮了，而且她放弃也没人会责怪她。这些重重打击不仅有来自反对党的不信任投票，甚至还有来自她自己政党内部的不信任投票，虽然梅最后都生存了下来，但从来没有明显的优势。

再看看她2017年6月的连任竞选，这本来会给她在脱欧谈判期间带来更大的支持力，但后来却演变成一场彻底的灾难。随着保守党失去议会多数席位，特雷莎·梅需要与执拗的北爱尔兰民主统一党合作，而后者在爱尔兰边界问题上的抗拒态度成为了她成功脱欧路上最大的障碍。特蕾莎·梅将与欧盟方面谈成的脱欧协议提交议会表决，结果其政府遭遇了英国议会史上最大的失败。

特雷莎·梅最终失败了，失败使她的所有努力都成了虚耗时间和冥顽不灵，而不是为达目标而英雄般的忍辱负重。她2016年7月刚成为英国首相时的计划全部被遗忘了。她当时承诺要建设一个更好的、服务于普通公民的英国，不受“少数特权阶层利益的驱使”。为了做到这一点，她指出了7种“迫在眉睫的不公现象”，结果这一切都在英国脱欧的乱象中被掩埋了。

特雷莎·梅最终不得不承认，她无法继续“从事这份她热爱的工作”。可除非你喜欢名义上的权力，或者你是受虐狂，否则怎么会喜欢这样的工作呢？

接下来，英国人将用6到8周的时间来决定谁将接替特雷莎·梅。大约12万名保守党成员将选举出一个人来领导英国6600万国民的命运。但在那之前，下议院的300名保守党议员先要把候选人范围缩小到两人。

我们不妨来大胆预测一下，根据YouGov（舆观调查网）的一项民意调查，截至2019年5月中旬，英国前外交大臣鲍里斯•约翰逊在保守党内以39%的支持率领先。排在第二位的是前任英国脱欧大臣多米尼克•拉布，支持率仅为13%。除他们之外至少还有十来个人选，这次候选者人数可能超过以往任何时候。但如果约翰逊能获得提名进入最终的二选一角逐，他就可能赢得胜利。那么，英国总理职位究竟有什么魔力，能吸引像鲍里斯•约翰逊这样的人？

当然不可能是因为“人越少，光荣就越大”——这是莎士比亚借英王亨利五世之口说的。也不是因为约翰逊有多么强烈的愿望，要带领英国完成脱欧。

对于鲍里斯•约翰逊来说，英国脱欧只是一个重大历史性事件，能为他这种喜欢引人注目和壮观场面的人提供舞台，脱欧的具体内容反倒是次要的。约翰逊这个人唯一的原则就是不讲原则，他的出轨、丑闻和谎言为他赢得了坏名声，却可能帮助他赢得首相的权力。

他会用首相的权力来做什么？当下没人知道，甚至就连约翰逊本人也不知道。对欧盟方面来说，这是一个“可怕的场景”，就像特雷莎·梅当初任命他为外交大臣一样。两年后他为抗议梅政府的脱欧计划而退出内阁，那时特雷莎·梅可能在后悔当初的决定。鲍里斯·约翰逊察觉到特雷莎·梅大势已去，自己要成为首相就必须与她保持距离。

约翰逊一直在利用英国和欧盟之间的紧张关系来谋取私利。

约翰逊曾在1989年至1994年间担任《每日电讯报》驻布鲁塞尔记者，他笔下的欧盟是个无法受控制、执迷于监管、处于独裁边缘的组织。

多年后，约翰逊在接受英国广播公司采访时承认：“我当年仿佛是在向墙的另一边扔石头，听它们在隔壁英国温室里砸出惊人的巨响。我在布鲁塞尔写的每篇东西都对保守党产生了惊人的、爆炸性的影响……我觉得，这真的使我有种很奇怪的力量感。”

他这么做，只是为了破坏英国的现状，而不是因为他打心眼里有种使命感。

约翰逊和特朗普一样，都不太正经，但这反而有助于博取普通民众和媒体的关注。他那标志性的发型完美体现着他独特的娱乐价值，你觉得他脑袋可能刚被割草机刮过。

约翰逊曾在许多场合出尔反尔，改变自己在关键问题上的态度，比如同性恋权利、移民、精英和商业等问题。

约翰逊和特朗普互相都非常欣赏对方，特朗普甚至违反外交惯例公开支持作为候选人的约翰逊，不过约翰逊还是谢绝与特朗普在其访英期间见面。约翰逊的朋友们透露，他和特朗普一样，都“极度渴望被人喜欢”，鉴于伦敦街头爆发了大规模反对特朗普的示威活动，现在会面似乎不太合适。

因此，很难知道约翰逊在英国脱欧问题上的真实立场，不管是过去的还是未来的。仿佛一切皆有可能。在英国脱欧公投前夕，约翰逊作了两手准备，写了两篇文章，一篇热切恳求留在欧盟，另一篇则强烈呼吁退出欧盟。

但他和特雷莎·梅之的处理方式会有什么不同吗?从“无协议脱欧”到“第二次公投”，几乎各种想得到的脱欧妥协方案都已经被考虑过，并且都被否决了。

目前英国公众认为约翰逊是支持脱欧的，而且把他看作那种能推动任何事的领袖型人物。不过另一方面，随着人们开始变得焦躁不安，只希望打破僵局，所以约翰逊也可能会利用自己的威望走一条相反的路。

May’s succession: seize power to get something done, or do everything to seize power?

On June 7, Theresa May officially steped down as Prime Minister and head of the Tory party in UK.

But this date has very little importance really: We knew she would do so since May 24, and we don’t know her successor: Finding him or her will take until end of July at least, and May continues as interim PM. Time to reflect upon the power game politicians such as May and her potential successors have been playing for the ages.

Personally, my idea of power seems to be very different from the vast majority of the political class: First, a good leader should learn and reflect upon what he learned. Should he arrive at the conclusion that things must be changed or a new initiative launched, only then he should seek power so he can implement his agenda. Power is a means to an end, and the end comes first. If you don’t know where to go, don’t ask to lead others. That is equally true in politics as it is in business.

The political class in Western democracies has a radically different approach. First, they seek power for the sake of having power. Then, they might develop a political agenda how to use that power, or more often they might just focus on clinging onto power, keeping rivals at bay, and let external events unfold to provide the unavoidable issues to solve.

Take Angela Merkel in my native Germany as example: She is highly respected nationally and internationally, especially for the stability which characterized her long reign since 2005. But over the course of her tenure she changed fundamental cornerstones of her political program. Not because deep rooted convictions were reversed, but because it helped to keep her in power. Nuclear power after the Fukushima accident no longer had a majority, so she stopped it only months after having prolonged the licenses of nuclear power plants in Germany. Dr. Merkel earned her PHD in quantum physics. She can deal with statistics. She did not change her judgment on nuclear power being safe or unsafe as such, but on what was politically opportune.

Similar cases could be made for minimum wage, gay marriage, migration and a host of other issues.

Or take system in my French wife’s home country: The classic way to become a top politician there is to go through studies of political sciences and then the famous “École Nationale d’Administration”, where a tiny elite learns the inner workings of the French state, including its bureaucracy, military and economy. Students are rigorously selected for academic excellence, not for their political views.

Which political party a graduate will eventually serve, is rather left up to coincidence: It simply depends on the year of graduation, and which political party is in power at that moment. They are the ones who recruit with attractive job opportunities. Once in the service of a certain party, the graduate is automatically “branded”, and it is very hard to change later on.

Obviously, this breeds leaders more hungry for power and advancement than those who passionately fight for a certain cause or ideology.  

Back to the UK, where Theresa May, and her most likely successor Boris Johnson, fit the description.During high school times already classmates remember May’s ambition to be the first woman prime minister (actually, she became the second after Margret Thatcher).

During her long political career, rising up the ranks in the Conservative party, Theresa May had a reputation for single-mindedness, tough fighting spirit and rather little sense of small talk.

This might have helped to make her Conservative leader and prime minister in July 2016 without a general election, after the resignation of David Cameron. Cameron had tried to silence the “leave” voices in his own party through the public referendum, but lost his bid spectacularly with the Brexit vote.

May also had voted “remain”, so against Brexit, but she hedged her bets by keeping a low profile during the referendum campaign.

​She portrayed herself as a steady pair of hands who would deliver the will of the people and take Britain out of the EU in as orderly a fashion as possible.

When she started on her mission, it struck me as odd that a “remain” voter should organize UK to “leave”. To be crystal clear: I am convinced May did her utmost to make Brexit happen. It only shows once more how weak and malleable the convictions are, even in such a key question which will influence UK for generations to come.

Now, she will probably be most remembered by history for her benchmark ability politically and emotionally survive severe punishment from all sides. There is an old saying: “Don’t change the horses in the middle of the stream”. If it had not been for the very particular situation of leading the country through Brexit, the defeats May suffered would have been sufficient for several resignations in normal times, and nobody could have blamed her for throwing in the towel. This included votes of no-confidence not only by the opposition, but also by her own party, which she survived, but never with a convincing margin.  

Or take her anticipated re-election campaign June 2017, meant to give her more strength during Brexit negotiations, and leading to a total disaster with the loss of the parliamentary majority for the Conservatives, and the need to cooperate with the single minded Democratic Unionist Party from Ireland. The DUP and their resistance to the Irish border backstop in the withdrawal agreement were the single biggest roadblock to success for May.

Putting her Brexit deal with Brussels to vote for the first time in parliament, she suffered biggest defeat for a government in parliamentary history in UK.

Losing in the end though makes all this effort appear in the light of lost time and stubbornness, not heroic stoicism to see her project through.

Her initial program when Theresa May became prime minister in July 2016 is all but forgotten. She promised to build a better Britain working for the common citizens, rather than being “driven by the interests of the privileged few”. As part of that, she identified 7 “burning injustices”, all buried in the Brexit turmoil.

Mrs. May finally had to accept she could not continue “in the job she loved”. Unless you love nominal power above all else or are a masochist, how can you love such a job?

The British will now take 6 to 8 weeks to decide on May’s successor. About 120,000 Conservative Party members get to elect the person who will guide the fate of Britain’s 66 million people. But before that, 300 Tories in the House of Commons will narrow the field to 2 candidates.

Looking forward, mid May 2019, former Foreign Minister Boris Johnson led the polls at 39% of the Conservative Party members according to a YouGov poll. In second place, former Brexit minister Dominic Raab, got only 13%. There are at least a dozen others, probably more than ever. But if Johnson can secure the nomination to the round of last 2, he seems the likely winner. So what draws all these people like Boris Johnson to the job?

It is certainly not, as Shakespeare lets King Henry V (1386 – 1422) say before the legendary battle of Agincourt against the French, hopelessly outnumbered, but ultimately victorious:“The fewer men, the greater share of honour. God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more. “

It is also not the overwhelming desire to carry through the Brexit.

For Boris Johnson, Brexit simply seems to be the pivotal, historic event which serves as the stage for somebody like him who likes the limelight and the spectacle. Content is secondary. He has made the lack of principles his only principle. But his notoriety, no matter if for his escapades, scandals and lies, might get him the Prime Minister’s power.

What he would do with it? Probably, not even Boris Johnson knows that today. For Brussels, a “horror scenario", just as when May appointed him foreign secretary, a decision she may have come to regret when he quit the cabinet two years later in protest at her Brexit plans.

He was already sensing that May was a losing ticket, and that in order to become Prime Minister himself, he would need to distance himself from her.

Johnson has always used the UK / EU tensions for his personal gain.

The former journalist Johnson wrote as the Brussels correspondent for the Daily Telegraph between 1989 and 1994, and depicted the EU as an uncontrollable, regulations-obsessed, borderline dictatorship.

Johnson admitted years later in a BCC interview. “(I) was sort of chucking these rocks over the garden wall and I listened to this amazing crash from the greenhouse next door over in England. Everything I wrote from Brussels was having this amazing, explosive effect on the Tory Party … and it really gave me this, I suppose, rather weird sense of power.”

He did it, because it rocked the boat, not because he was on a heart-felt mission.

Like Trump, he was not always serious, but it guaranteed him attention with common people and the media. His uniquely high entertainment value is highlighted by his trademark haircut, which makes you think he accidentally got under a lawn mower.  

Johnson has changed opinions radically on key topics on many occasions, e.g. concerning gay rights and migrants, elites and business etc.

Johnson and Trump mutually appreciated each other a lot, and while Trump broke protocol by supporting candidate Johnson publicly, Johnson  just now denied to meet during Trumps UK visit.

His friends say he has an “excessive desire to be liked”, just like Trump, but with large scale demonstrations in the streets of London against Trump, meeting did not seem opportune.

So it is unclear what Johnson’s true position on Brexit was or will be. Anything seems possible.

Ahead of the Brexit referendum, Johnson had prepared two articles: One containing a fervent plea for staying in the EU and the other a passionate appeal to withdraw from the union.

But what might he do differently than May? Almost every conceivable Brexit compromise has already been considered and discarded, from “no deal” to “no Brexit after second referendum”.

The public perception is that he is pro Brexit, and that he is the kind of alpha-male who can push anything through. On the other hand, people start to get restless and just wanting something to happen at all, and he might use his reputation to go the other way.

(End)