They say "they never come back," and in most instances, once a prominent politician has exited center stage unless higher offices await – such as the position of United Nations secretary-general or, for European Union member states, the role of president of the European Commission – well-paid early retirement becomes the order of the day.
Enter Lord Cameron, a former U.K. prime minister. Historians will one day debate what exactly his lasting legacy on British politics is, but regardless of party affiliation, most observers already today agree that Cameron gambled his entire career on a supposedly "winning ticket," which as we all know turned sour, big time.
He ill-fatedly refused to listen to his closest aides for quite some time before the summer of the fateful year 2016, expecting, that if he took his country to the so-called Brexit referendum he would win, meaning Britain stayed put in Europe. But, the electorate had different ideas and by a margin of 4% (48% versus 52%, respectively) his fellow countrywomen and countrymen opted out. Result: Britain out, Cameron soon out, too.
That was then, or so we thought.
A few weeks ago a big Cabinet reshuffle happened in London; once more a hapless some even say racist home secretary was forced to quit (Suella Braverman), the foreign secretary became the new home secretary, and as if out of a magical tricks box Prime Minister Rishi Sunak presented former Prime Minister David Cameron, by now Lord Cameron, as James Cleverly’s successor as secretary of state for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs. Confused? The "ordinary" men and women in the capital as well as the entire nation’s streets, respectively, for sure are.
They better be – if public opinion polls are anything to go by (see rather a skeptical comment about Brexit referendum voter intentions above) opposition Labour would take 45%, Sunak’s Tories a meager 22% of the vote, should a national election be held today. We have however to factor in the unique first-past-the-post system – it is technically possible that despite a national big win for Labour percentage-wise, a majority of individual constituencies might still go to the Tories if tight contests are fought and even more so should over three or four candidates run for a particular seat. But as it seems and unless a rather dramatic U-turn in voter appreciation takes place the opposition is set to take over Parliament with a comfortable majority.
Enter the Cameron factor – formula for success or recipe for complete disaster? Here are three considerations concerning potential outcomes.
First, initially, Cameron was in favor of staying in the EU, even more so while being faced with stiff verbal competition from the side of Boris Johnson who claimed should Britain stay put and Türkiye would join, 70 million Turks are on their way to English shores.
Circles close to Cameron at the time knew his hopes and his opponents' desires only too well – hence it makes good commentator’s sense to look back and listen to other voices, notably professor Tim Bale, who on Oct. 4, 2022, published his razor-sharp reflections on a piece titled "Why David Cameron called the 2016 referendum – and why he lost it" on ukandeu.ac.uk. Bale argues, "naturally, Cameron was aware he was running a risk – after all, his best friend in politics, Chancellor George Osborne, told him so again and again.
"But he thought he would win the vote, not least because he believed – mistakenly it turned out – that he could (a) negotiate a decent deal with the EU and, just as importantly, (b) rely on the personal loyalty of influential colleagues (not least Michael Gove and Boris Johnson) to trump their Euroscepticism (and, some would say, their opportunism)."
Question number one: Would the wider public who voted against his very own political masterplans and regain trust in his political foresight analysis skills? Would they vote for the Tories only because Cameron is foreign secretary? Answer number one: highly doubtful, even for the Tory faithful.
Second, ever more so after the mishandling of the pandemic and as wide segments of British society evaluate government (over-)reactions to a global health situation as exactly that – mishandling – and if one admits that a sitting government is worried about performance at the ballot box, would it really make sense to present a "has been" as a key personality?
On the one hand, there may be no one else available, or put it frankly, no one intent on risking it, on chancing it with a dubious outcome. If the Tories lose big time, whoever was on board temporarily will be regarded as a loser, too.
On the other hand – and yes indeed the same line used twice – there may be no one else available. This time however because the Tory party completely neglected letting aspiring young party members climb the ladder.
Question number two: Will the public accept the fact that yesterday’s heroes all of a sudden become tomorrow’s heroes once again regardless of their massive misjudgments and failures? In other words, would the public rather vote for what is standard political fare or look elsewhere, younger, more enterprising, free from past mistakes? Answer number two: In all likelihood, yes indeed, it would.
Third, a very important aspect often sidelined in the psychology of politics so to speak. A former German chancellor running as mayor in a 50,000 citizens-strong rural constituency? A past French president becoming head of a regional assembly far away from the capital? The only viable option would be to one day rerun for the same elevated position.
But a former prime minister acting as foreign secretary under another prime minister? Question number three: As the country needs to look ahead after another Cabinet reshuffle, is it not an inherent factor in politics that stepping back into the ring, yet in a much less influential position than the one you had before, and assuming you still have some loyal supporters amongst the party rank and file you might consider returning to No. 10 Downing Street straight away?
Some analysts already argue Boris Johnson is hatched by his own loyalists to do just that, too. One sitting prime minister, two potential rivals, one on the inside, one still on the outside of power, respectively? Answer number three: if there is one thing a disgruntled public would not want to see elected officeholders engage in government and/or party infighting for their own careers instead of working for the common good. In far too many places across Europe, this has led to the rise of the far-right extreme populist movement’s ill-fated agenda.
Evaluated from both Ankara and London, and to sum it up, the wider world, and especially the Republic of Türkiye, is closely watching developments in London.
With Tory party infighting expected to be on a steady rise until the next general elections can Cameron focus on his job? What is his opinion about NATO enlargement? On delivering modern fighter jets to Türkiye, both from Europe and the U.S.? What is his stance on the Palestine human catastrophe? What is his viewpoint on immigration, although mostly a domain reserved for the home secretary, or does he have a clear insight into Rwandan domestic humanitarian affairs after being so long away from politics? What is his viewpoint on urgently needed reform of the veto and voting rights in the U.N. Security Council? And ultimately, what is his stance toward voices to say, let us get back into Europe? Or has he dropped his pro-reformed-EU views altogether?
The next weeks and months early in the new year 2024 will prove crucial in this context. If Cameron this time round intends on leaving a lasting positive legacy behind he should embrace Türkiye’s 360-degree foreign policy approach as his compass, too. London and Ankara are allies and partners by default – David Cameron’s coming of foreign policymaking – age would be very welcome in Türkiye and beyond.
Fascinating to watch, never a dull day in British politics that is certain. To be continued...
*Political analyst, journalist based in London
