The good bit, among so many other good bits, about western democracy is the decency with which rival politicians campaign against one another for high office, the grace with which the defeated accept the triumph of their adversaries and the politeness with which leaders leave power when the pressure builds on them to call it quits.
The manner in which Boris Johnson took himself out of the race to be Britain's Prime Minister on Sunday is an instance of this trait in western democracies. He certainly did his arithmetic on the probability or otherwise of his return to Downing Street, found that the numbers did not add up and so decided to accept reality. It was a reminder, in recent times, of a similar attitude put on display by his immediate predecessors.
The bruised Liz Truss, having bravely told parliament that she was a fighter and not a quitter, knew within twentyfour hours that she could not go on fighting. After a mere forty four days as Prime Minister, she courageously told Britons she was leaving office. Within hours of the referendum on Brexit, which he expected to win but ended up losing, David Cameron informed the country that he was resigning. His successor Theresa May, when her moment came, did likewise when she lost the confidence of her party in her leadership.
Western democracy, for many of us in Asia, Africa and Latin America, has raised a good number of questions over the decades in such areas as foreign policy. Western leaders' attitudes to climate change and conflicts of the likes of Ukraine have been hugely controversial. The relentless way in which the West has been flailing away at China, Russia and Iran is deplorable. The feeling of moral superiority the West has historically demonstrated has been exasperating. Its condescension has been disturbing.
But where democratic practices within the countries of the West --- Donald Trump is an ugly exception --- is the idea, the quality of leadership and the lack of it, the acknowledgement of realities is what remains an impressive feature of democracy. A brief journey back through time gives us images of how such realities have shaped and consistently underscored the working of democratic institutions in the West.
In 1960, Richard Nixon's followers, worried that a good number of votes had been stolen from him by the Democratic machine operated by Richard Daley in Chicago in order to give the edge to John Kennedy at the presidential election, urged him to challenge the result. To his credit, Nixon thought better of the situation. He did not wish to undermine the political system by questioning the result. He conceded victory to Kennedy.
Decades down the line, it was for Al Gore, who was clearly headed toward gaining the White House in 2000, to accept the ruling by the Supreme Court that George W. Bush would succeed Bill Clinton in presidential office. In Britain, back in 1975, Edward Heath was bitter about losing the leadership of the Conservative Party to Margaret Thatcher. He made it a point, though, of not revealing his disappointment in public. He went on to serve in the House of Commons and by the time he died, he had earned respect as the Father of the House.
Margaret Thatcher left 10 Downing Street in an emotional state when her party compelled her to quit office. Her own colleagues had done her in. But she never revealed in public that she was hurt or disappointed or angry. And, of course, there was Harold Wilson, who voluntarily left office in 1976, handing over the keys to Downing Street to James Callaghan. Harold Macmillan could have stayed in power for a good many more years after 1963, but chose not to. He remainedChancellor of Oxford University, a position he had beenbestowed in 1960.
Western leadershave chosen to walk away from power before any demands could arise for them to go. They left on their own, aware of the moral responsibility that came with leadership. Willy Brandt resigned as Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1974 when an East German mole was discovered among his staff. President Charles de Gaulle, keeping to his promise to leave office if he lost a referendum he had called in April 1969, promptly reigned when the results went against him.
Besides resignations, western politicians --- if you ignore the handful of rabid elements inveighing against immigration and climate issues and the like --- have always made it their mission to focus on the policies they mean to pursue if and when they are elected to high office. They do their homework in every field where they will or may at some point be expected to make decisions. In media interviews and in interactions with voters, they are clear about their positions on the issues.
An added charm about western politicians is an articulation of their policies through writing for the newspapers. It is a mark of the intellectual depths such politicians bring to the profession, for when a politician writes in leading newspapers, readers are brought up to date with his or her views on contemporary issues.
British politicians are regular writers in the newspapers and so are American and European leaders. In the mid-1960s, before he gained the White House in 1968, Richard Nixon wrote prolifically in newspapers and reputed journals on foreign policy.
Western politicians have been regular speakers before thinktanks interested in hearing them flesh out their ideas on governance and their approach to the world. In humility, with a liberal sprinkling of humour, they appear before audiences gathered to enjoy the lighter moments of life with them. Everyone enjoys those moments.
In interacting with one another, political leaders in the West observe a cardinal rule, which is that they do not hit one another below the belt through employing language that is insulting, humiliating and degrading. Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen are far apart on policy matters and yet in their televised debate before the last presidential election they showed the utmost respect for each other even as they focused on their policy differences.
Western leaders traditionally gather around them people known for their professional and intellectual acumen. They listen to such enlightened people when issues need to be debated at length. They are in touch with poets, writers, artistes, regularly arranging sessions with them, thereby enriching their leadership with aesthetics.
In the West, politicians do not expect people to genuflect before them. They carry their own bags. They have no time for vainglory.
