The problem with BoJo that many are missing
Watching Boris Johnson give evidence at the U.K. Parliamentary Privileges Committee gave me pause for thought about his mental state. Few seem to recognise this let alone understand it.
I tuned into the U.K. Parliamentary Privileges Committee so-called Partygate hearing with former PM Boris Johnson in the interrogation chair. A few minutes into hearing his testimony and I was surprised. Here’s why.
Much of the adverse commentary around Partygate portrays Johnson as a liar and, as a person who deliberately misled Parliament. That’s serious stuff in U.K. politics. I see it differently. In doing so, I understand why some of his supporters call into question the terms of reference under which Johnson is being judged.
As I watched Johnson’s testimony and responses to pointed questions unfold, it struck me that regardless of how anyone else views the legalities or ‘following guidance’ issues, Johnson firmly believes he is in the right. In that sense he is not lying.
Nothing any of his interrogators threw at him would shift him, to the point where, on numerous occasions, his answers appeared nutty to just about everyone else, yet sincerely held. And therein lies the issue.
As a student of abnormal psychology (a euphemism for criminal psychology) schooled in the DSM criteria for assessing psychopathy, I was left puzzled. My studies in this area ended in 1997 when I completed a part time Masters in behavioural-cognitive psychology course so I’m long out of date on developments in the field of categorising different psychopathies.
So I did what we all do these days and ran a Google search. This is what I discovered and which I believe provides a good insight into how Johnson behaves and why he presents a problem for legislators who are considering his actions in the context of a procedural framework.
In May 2022, Steve Taylor at Leeds Beckett University (my alma mater) published a discussion document qentitled The darkness of Boris Johnson: a psychologist on the prime minister's unpalatable personality traits. His core argument starts with this theory:
Another, more wide-ranging model is called the “dark factor”. This suggests that the essence of “bad character” is a desire to ruthlessly put your own interests before other people’s, and to pursue them even when they cause harm to others. Besides psychopathy, narcissism and machiavellianism, the dark factor model includes traits of spitefulness, moral disengagement (behaving immorally without feeling bad), entitlement (believing you deserve more and are better than others), and egoism.
This is pretty harsh stuff but it explained to me why I could not put my finger on why Johnson behaves the way he does. He doesn’t fit neatly into one or other bucket of psychopathy but across a range of interlocking issues. The evidence we saw at the Privileges Committee hearing, alongside many anecdotes about Johnson’s past behaviour appear to fit this model. Taylor argues that:
An essential feature of “dark” personalities is that they are disconnected. They are trapped inside themselves in narcissistic isolation and find it difficult to take other people’s perspectives. As a result, they lack a clear sense of how their actions will be perceived, or of what type of behaviour is acceptable.
While Taylor is at pains to point out that he is not providing a diagnosis, in my mind, it is an apt description of what I saw on display.
Where does this leave the Privileges Committee deliberations? Chair Harriet Harman came closest to recognising this pathology when she called into question what was going on in this exchange. You see it at about 1 min 40 secs:
In my mind, this goes to the heart of what the Committee have to consider.
Some will undoubtedly argue (and already have) that Johnson acted on what he believed to be true and therefore didn’t lie. I argue that Johnson’s psychopathy was bound to take him down this path. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t lie in the commonly understood sense, or that he acted at best recklessly.
My view from here on is simple: Johnson is making the same intellectual argument that those who assume, legitimise and dictatorial power seek to do. It is not simply intellectually flawed, it’s a psychopathy of a particular kind that’s dangerous and corrosive to the well being of a functioning democracy. In that context he deserves sanctioning, an action he has already cast as ‘unfair and wrong’ before any judgment is cast. Where have we heard that before? Shall I start at Nuremberg?