David Cameron and political integrity

It doesn’t matter that David Cameron’s political demise may have come from a loose-cannon election promise. It also doesn’t matter that the “Brexit” referendum outcome that doomed his leadership might have partly sprung from a conspiracy. What matters is that he faced his downfall graciously. He might not have had to announce his resignation had he been the leader of another country, but it was a respectable step even by the political standards of his nation. By quitting, he kept his integrity intact.

If he was observing a political tradition, it’s definitely a good one. Whatever it is – tradition or his own principles – it calls for a man to sacrifice all things political to preserve something more important. His was the kind of conduct that can enhance any political system, no matter what flaws it has.

There is always the question of why elected Thai politicians need to be ejected by force. In other words, why does a coup always have to be the “solution” in Thailand? The simple answer is that over here, few politicians would resign to preserve their integrity. 

Most people, not just those in the political sphere, think that resigning is an admission of guilt, or a weak surrender to the enemy. In the Thai context, resigning is associated with shame, not honour.

This is why politicians accused of doing wrong in Thailand, or failing, always say they will not flinch an inch until they exhaust all legal avenues and their fate is sealed by the Supreme Court. 

It’s a bad custom that does not only encourage people to cling onto their positions for dear life, but also to promote smear campaigns or amplified allegations because simple, straightforward accusations will not do.

In his resignation speech, Cameron talked about democratic principles. He suggested that since the people of the United Kingdom decided to choose a different path from the one he wanted to guide them on, it would be better for a new leader, preferably someone whose thinking did not conflict with the majority’s, should take the country’s helm. 

What’s remarkable here is that he was not caught cheating or engaging in a dirty business deal. He decided to quit over an ideological issue that leaders in his predicament in other countries could spin or distort 

to their own advantage.

Again, Cameron’s move could have been politically motivated. But it was a good gesture all the same. He might have slipped. His referendum promise appeared to have been a gamble. The referendum result could have been destined by that apparently ill-advised gamble. He might have fallen prey to a conspiracy that exploited that gamble. 

What mattered, however, was he could have chosen to plough ahead and make a real mess of it. But he didn’t.

And make no mistake, a real mess can still be the fallout of the referendum but a good example is now out there, set by Cameron’s principles. That example can ensure that when bad comes to worse, people will have a benchmark to follow when trying to cope with a difficult situation. And it’s a peaceful, unprovocative standard.

Some attribute Cameron’s move to a strong democracy. Perhaps it’s the other way around. Perhaps democracy can become strong because of people like him. 

After all, if a democracy is simply an application, a lot will have to do with those who apply it, especially their constructiveness and integrity.