Drawing lessons from the politics of judgement – Mitchell Amoamah writes

British Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, is under fire. For weeks now, there have been deafening calls for him to step down. Why? In two words: poor judgement. In one: Epstein.

In December 2024, the prime minister, in a bid to smoothen relations with Washington, appointed Lord Peter Mandelson as UK Ambassador to the United States.

Lord Mandelson, a connected politician with strong ties within the Washington, DC political web, had marching orders to cultivate a productive relationship between the British government and an unpredictable Donald Trump administration.

Then, in February this year, an Epstein email storm hit. Old emails were published in the United States between disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and Lord Mandelson.

They revealed that the two men had maintained a relationship during Mandelson’s stint as Acting Business Secretary in the UK government. The emails showed that then-Secretary Mandelson had disclosed privileged information to Mr Epstein. He had also given his business associate prior notice about a European Union economic bailout package.

With the damning revelations in every news bulletin across the world, Lord Mandelson resigned. The axe of accountability did not stop there. It is currently moving towards 10 Downing Street, where Lord Mandelson’s appointor resides.

You see, the argument goes that, in deciding to appoint Lord Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States, Keir Starmer demonstrated poor judgement. Mr Starmer, some argue, should have known Mandelson was questionable. If he personally did not know, a rigorous vetting process should have exposed his ties to the now world-famous sex offender. Be that as it may, he made the wrong call and is currently fighting for his job.

The reality is that Keir Starmer has not been directly linked to Epstein or to any dealings with the American in any way. Yet, calls for his resignation are premised on the argument that the prime minister cannot be trusted with national affairs if he is not competent enough to make good choices.

Perhaps we in Ghana can draw lessons from the politics of judgement that shapes British politics so clearly. When our leaders make wrong choices, we have got to muster the courage to call their very positions into question. It is not enough to sack a subordinate embroiled in a scandal.

The chief executive officer or president who made the decision to bring them onboard needs to also step down. This is the essence of ultimate responsibility.

When we demonstrate seriousness about this, our presidents will be careful about appointing individuals based on merit, not purely on political association or raised voices during the campaign that need to be honoured.

Our leaders must recognize that who they choose to appoint counts in assessing their administration. This is why British politics offers invaluable lessons on the politics of judgement.

Here is Keir Starmer, who has not behaved improperly towards anyone in any of the Epstein reports. Yet, they are calling for his head because someone he appointed had ties to him. Westminster politics is unforgiving on matters of integrity, poor judgement, and misleading behaviour.

Do not take me at my word. Britain has had six prime ministers in the last ten years. Exercise poor judgement, and you will be gone.