特雷莎·梅或許會以一種特殊的方式青史留名_風聞

文：Gunter Schöch

譯：李翠萍

6月7日，特雷莎·梅正式辭去英國首相兼保守黨領袖一職，但其實這個日期並不重要，因為從5月24日開始我們就知道，這天她會這麼做了。我們至少要等到7月底才能知道她的繼任者是，而在此期間，特雷莎·梅將繼續擔任英國臨時首相。而我們也是時候反思一下特雷莎·梅及其繼任者等政治人物多年來一直在玩的權力遊戲了。

我個人對權力的看法似乎與絕大多數從政者非常不同：首先，我認為一個好的領導人應該多聽多看多想。只有當他得出必須改變某些事物或發起某項倡議的結論時，才應該去尋求權力來貫徹自己的方針。權力只是手段，目的才是第一位的。如果你自己都不清楚前面路在何方，就別要求獲得領導權，這個道理在政治領域和商業領域是相通的。

西方民主國家政客們的做法與以上截然不同。首先，他們為了權力而尋求權力。接着，他們可能會制定政治議程來使用權力，但更常見的情況是，他們只把精力花在保持權力，防範政敵奪權上面，放任外部事件發展，帶來避無可避的問題。

以我的祖國德國的總理安格拉•默克爾為例：她在德國國內和國際上都倍受尊敬，因為她自2005年執政以來德國保持長期穩定。但在其任期內，她改變了自己政治綱領的基石。改變的原因不是她根深蒂固的信念被顛覆了，而是因為這樣做有助於她繼續掌權。日本發生福島核事故後，核電的支持者不再佔多數，所以她叫停了核電，而就在幾個月前她才剛剛續頒了德國核電站的執照。默克爾擁有量子物理學的博士學位，她能夠看懂統計數據。她對核電安全性的判斷並沒有變，改變的只是她對政治的判斷。與此類似，在最低工資、同性婚姻、移民和其他許多問題上，也可能出現這樣的情況。

再來看看我妻子的祖國——法國的政治體制：在那裏，成為頂級政治人物的經典方式是學習政治學，然後進入著名的法國國家行政學院，極少數精英在那裏研習法國政府的內部運作機制，包括其官僚體制、軍事制度和經濟模式。這裏的學生都經過嚴格挑選，選擇的依據只有學術水平，不考慮他們的政治觀點。

從這裏畢業的學生最終將服務於哪個政黨，幾乎都是機緣決定的，它取決於學生哪年畢業以該年份的執政黨是誰，因為執政黨可以給出誘人的工作機會。畢業生一旦選擇了為某個政黨服務，就會被自動“打上烙印”，在今後的人生中很難做出改變。顯然，與那些懷着滿腔熱血為了某項事業或某種意識形態而奮鬥的人相比，法國模式培養出來的領導者對權力和晉升有更強烈的渴望。

羅雅爾、奧朗德和德維爾潘

再回過頭看英國問題，特雷莎·梅和最有可能接班的鮑里斯•約翰遜都完全符合以上描述。在特雷莎·梅高中同學們的記憶裏，她那時候就立志成為英國第一位女首相。事實上，她也的確成為了瑪格麗特·撒切爾之後的第二位女首相。

在保守黨陣營中多年摸爬滾打逐漸登上高位的特雷莎·梅，素來以堅定執着、頑強戰鬥和不善閒聊著稱。戴維•卡梅倫辭職後，這些品質幫助她在未經大選的情況下於2016年7成為保守黨領袖和英國首相。在那之前，卡梅倫試圖通過公投來壓制保守黨內部的脱歐派，卻意外地在英國“脱歐”公投中落敗。

特雷莎·梅也投了“留歐”票，這就是説她本人是反對英國退出歐盟的，可她在公投期間一直保持低調，給自己留下後路。她把自己描繪成一雙堅定的手，將以儘可能有序的方式履行人民的意願，帶領英國退出歐盟。當她着手完成脱歐政治任務時，我略感有些奇怪，一個選擇“留歐”的人竟然組織英國“脱歐”。當然我必須澄清，我相信特雷莎·梅已經盡了最大努力去促成英國脱歐。我舉這個例子只是要再次證明，哪怕在這樣一個影響英國未來幾代人的關鍵問題上，所謂的信念仍舊那麼脆弱和可塑。

特雷莎·梅或許會以一種特殊的方式青史留名，因為她在各路人馬的炮轟之下竟然撐了下來，其承受政治和情感打擊的能力達到了新高度。老話説得好，“河中不換馬，臨陣不換將”。要不是因為英國面臨脱離歐盟的特殊情況，換做正常時期特雷莎·梅遭受的失敗足夠她辭職幾輪了，而且她放棄也沒人會責怪她。這些重重打擊不僅有來自反對黨的不信任投票，甚至還有來自她自己政黨內部的不信任投票，雖然梅最後都生存了下來，但從來沒有明顯的優勢。

再看看她2017年6月的連任競選，這本來會給她在脱歐談判期間帶來更大的支持力，但後來卻演變成一場徹底的災難。隨着保守黨失去議會多數席位，特雷莎·梅需要與執拗的北愛爾蘭民主統一黨合作，而後者在愛爾蘭邊界問題上的抗拒態度成為了她成功脱歐路上最大的障礙。特蕾莎·梅將與歐盟方面談成的脱歐協議提交議會表決，結果其政府遭遇了英國議會史上最大的失敗。

特雷莎·梅最終失敗了，失敗使她的所有努力都成了虛耗時間和冥頑不靈，而不是為達目標而英雄般的忍辱負重。她2016年7月剛成為英國首相時的計劃全部被遺忘了。她當時承諾要建設一個更好的、服務於普通公民的英國，不受“少數特權階層利益的驅使”。為了做到這一點，她指出了7種“迫在眉睫的不公現象”，結果這一切都在英國脱歐的亂象中被掩埋了。

特雷莎·梅最終不得不承認，她無法繼續“從事這份她熱愛的工作”。可除非你喜歡名義上的權力，或者你是受虐狂，否則怎麼會喜歡這樣的工作呢？

接下來，英國人將用6到8周的時間來決定誰將接替特雷莎·梅。大約12萬名保守黨成員將選舉出一個人來領導英國6600萬國民的命運。但在那之前，下議院的300名保守黨議員先要把候選人範圍縮小到兩人。

我們不妨來大膽預測一下，根據YouGov（輿觀調查網）的一項民意調查，截至2019年5月中旬，英國前外交大臣鮑里斯•約翰遜在保守黨內以39%的支持率領先。排在第二位的是前任英國脱歐大臣多米尼克•拉布，支持率僅為13%。除他們之外至少還有十來個人選，這次候選者人數可能超過以往任何時候。但如果約翰遜能獲得提名進入最終的二選一角逐，他就可能贏得勝利。那麼，英國總理職位究竟有什麼魔力，能吸引像鮑里斯•約翰遜這樣的人？

當然不可能是因為“人越少，光榮就越大”——這是莎士比亞借英王亨利五世之口説的。也不是因為約翰遜有多麼強烈的願望，要帶領英國完成脱歐。

對於鮑里斯•約翰遜來説，英國脱歐只是一個重大歷史性事件，能為他這種喜歡引人注目和壯觀場面的人提供舞台，脱歐的具體內容反倒是次要的。約翰遜這個人唯一的原則就是不講原則，他的出軌、醜聞和謊言為他贏得了壞名聲，卻可能幫助他贏得首相的權力。

他會用首相的權力來做什麼？當下沒人知道，甚至就連約翰遜本人也不知道。對歐盟方面來説，這是一個“可怕的場景”，就像特雷莎·梅當初任命他為外交大臣一樣。兩年後他為抗議梅政府的脱歐計劃而退出內閣，那時特雷莎·梅可能在後悔當初的決定。鮑里斯·約翰遜察覺到特雷莎·梅大勢已去，自己要成為首相就必須與她保持距離。

約翰遜一直在利用英國和歐盟之間的緊張關係來謀取私利。

約翰遜曾在1989年至1994年間擔任《每日電訊報》駐布魯塞爾記者，他筆下的歐盟是個無法受控制、執迷於監管、處於獨裁邊緣的組織。

多年後，約翰遜在接受英國廣播公司採訪時承認：“我當年彷彿是在向牆的另一邊扔石頭，聽它們在隔壁英國温室裏砸出驚人的巨響。我在布魯塞爾寫的每篇東西都對保守黨產生了驚人的、爆炸性的影響……我覺得，這真的使我有種很奇怪的力量感。”

他這麼做，只是為了破壞英國的現狀，而不是因為他打心眼裏有種使命感。

約翰遜和特朗普一樣，都不太正經，但這反而有助於博取普通民眾和媒體的關注。他那標誌性的髮型完美體現着他獨特的娛樂價值，你覺得他腦袋可能剛被割草機刮過。

約翰遜曾在許多場合出爾反爾，改變自己在關鍵問題上的態度，比如同性戀權利、移民、精英和商業等問題。

約翰遜和特朗普互相都非常欣賞對方，特朗普甚至違反外交慣例公開支持作為候選人的約翰遜，不過約翰遜還是謝絕與特朗普在其訪英期間見面。約翰遜的朋友們透露，他和特朗普一樣，都“極度渴望被人喜歡”，鑑於倫敦街頭爆發了大規模反對特朗普的示威活動，現在會面似乎不太合適。

因此，很難知道約翰遜在英國脱歐問題上的真實立場，不管是過去的還是未來的。彷彿一切皆有可能。在英國脱歐公投前夕，約翰遜作了兩手準備，寫了兩篇文章，一篇熱切懇求留在歐盟，另一篇則強烈呼籲退出歐盟。

但他和特雷莎·梅之的處理方式會有什麼不同嗎?從“無協議脱歐”到“第二次公投”，幾乎各種想得到的脱歐妥協方案都已經被考慮過，並且都被否決了。

目前英國公眾認為約翰遜是支持脱歐的，而且把他看作那種能推動任何事的領袖型人物。不過另一方面，隨着人們開始變得焦躁不安，只希望打破僵局，所以約翰遜也可能會利用自己的威望走一條相反的路。

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)