By Bob Travica
Prince Andrew, Boris Johnson, Novak Djokovic – three high-profile
cases marking the start of 2022 with a common thread of breaching rules or
norms. British Queen Elisabeth's son, Britain's Prime Minister, and the world's
No. 1 tennis player. Each man is a member of an elite, and each is a
transgressor.
Transgressor A. abandoned common social norms when he, as a
married man and a royal, ventured to the wild side to have fun with a 17-year-old American woman. Transgressor B. partied with his staff or turned a blind eye on
their partying in the midst of tough COVID-19 restrictions that his government imposed
on citizens. Transgressor D. tossed away Australia's immigration regulation of
double vaccination for COVID-19 while strategizing his visit to defend his 2021 grand
slam winner title.
While sharing the common denominator of crossing the lines applicable to most people, there are more subtle similarities and differences between the three transgressors. Transgressors B. and D. are connected via the exceptional pandemic situation that imposed rules these transgressors collided with. However, D. and B. are also different inasmuch as is the contrast between an adamant anti-vaxxer ideology and abhorrent negligence of duty, or between a challenger of order and the order's hypocritical keeper. As for A., there is nothing exceptional about his context of collision as his transgression originated from mundane cravings.
Transgressors A. and B. are Britons, while D. came from Serbia in South-East Europe. Both Britain and Serbia tend to stand on their own. However, while the former distinguishes itself from the rest of Europe as one of its most powerful countries, the latter struggles to act sort-of-that way based on assumed rather than real resources.
Although Britain generates significant social reforms from
time to time, it has for long maintained a stiff social stratification, part of
which is the longest-lasting royal dynasty in modern history. As transgressor A.
belongs to this dynasty, he was delivered by birth to the peak of Britain's social
Olympus. In contrast, transgressor B. is a commoner descending from the academic
segment of the middle class; he climbed to the peak of a political Olympus thus
acquiring enormous power of the British PM post. In yet a starker contrast, transgressor
D. came from an average family focused on sport and small business and worked his
way up to the athlete's peak of Olympus.
All the three transgressors are eloquent people, speaking
multiple languages, navigating easily through public discourse carved by mass
and social media, social commentators, and followers. This may not be
surprising for the two Britons that went through the education designed for the upper
classes. The Prince became a military officer with distinction. The to-be PM became
first a recognized journalist, writer, and a favorite guest in talk shows. Book-smart,
resourceful persons making their expected marks.
However, the Serbian counterpart certainly raises eyebrows as
a street-smart hero. With merely a modest education under the wings, his
natural intelligence, determination, and self-initiative have carried him very
far and very quick. He has become a global celebrity with the faces of athlete
and entertainer, a businessman, a political influencer in the tennis world, and
a multi-faceted icon in his native country (which he traded for a fancier place
as soon as his mushrooming pocketbook allowed).
Olympus is the resort for gods, and gods don't obey rules
but make them, and break them at will. Our transgressors created events that
amount to social dramas with legal, political and cultural aspects. They
mistook Olympian peaks for a natural habitat they are entitled to. And then, a sky fall
came down on them. They are now discovering that there is a line drawn between acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, which applies even to them.
Once doubt creeps into the Olympians' narratives and public imagery, ugliness rears its head. Private, juicy details of the Prince's visceral entertainment spill into tabloids and daily gossip. Downing Street partying turns into a series of 1001 night stories starting with "once upon a time when the PM was…" The tennis champ's arduous border crossing gets wild interpretations (say, he planned to enter Australia so that he contracts COVID-19 on a certain date, waits for a necessary time to get tested negative, and then seeks an exemption from the double-vaccination rule to get the visa). Once the poop hits the fan, the odor hangs on for incredibly long.
There are rules and norms that even Olympians have to abide
by. Huh – screams the folk's voice – that can't happen for real! The rich,
famous, and influential always find a way out of trouble. Their power is their
parachute. In the end of the day, they can still do whatever they want!
There may be some truth in this. The power shield works. But it can break too. Rumors on the Prince's unfit social contacts have lingered over years before the current scandal cracked open. The PM's and the tennis champ's paths to a showdown are likely to be shorter. Such an ending may not happen inevitably with every transgressing Olympian. But when it does, it is irreparable. The first blows into their throne come from their professional circles. Military officers request from the Queen that Prince Andrew be removed from military ranks. Seniors in Boris Johnson's party request his resignation. ATP players (most of whom are double-vaccinated for COVID-19) might ostracize Novak Djokovic. These inner circle blows are the hardest, although not as visible as the blows from broader circles that typically follow the suit.
The common sin of our besieged Olympians is in violating common rules/norms. They clashed with the dictum that nobody is above the law. It is clearly articulated in the principle of égalité (equality) that guided the French revolution against the old regime in 1789. Equality of all citizens before the law became a cornerstone of liberal democracy, a shaky creation that has been lasting a mere blip in a long history of governance by brute force, bloodline, and usurpation of power levers. As égalité is constantly challenged – not only by people akin to our Olympians but also by masses of doubters – this principle remains an ideal to achieve. For academically inclined political analysts, the keyword is a normative approach to politics rather than empirical or realpolitik. One more recent test of égalité was enacted by the former U.S. President Trump, who claimed that he could do anything he wanted with impunity just because he was the President, including shooting someone on 5th Avenue. Then he tried to overturn the presidential election results - and failed.
(See http://cogito-bob.blogspot.com/2020/09/ )
The tension between rules-based order and challengers
continues. Before making your final verdict on any of the three transgression cases
discussed here, try to answer to yourself: Which of these two sides do you want to
be at? And why?
