Boris Johnson has emerged as a huge national asset – and the outpouring of support from world leaders proves it

Like him or loathe him, he attracts friendly feelings on a very human level. On the international map, he is now firmly established as a largely welcome character, writes Mary Dejevsky

The warmth being shown towards Johnson, it should be stressed, is not unique to abroad (Getty)

Guess which national leader sent this message to Boris Johnson after the announcement of his hospital admission? “Dear Prime Minister,” it read, “Let me express my sincere support for you at this difficult moment. I am sure that your energy, optimism and sense of humour will help you defeat the illness. With all my heart, I wish you a speedy and full recovery.”

Here are some clues. It was not from anyone in the European Union nor from anyone in the Commonwealth, and you know it was not from Donald Trump, because his assurances that “all Americans are praying for him” and that “he’s a great gentleman and a great leader” were splashed all over the British media.

Nor was it from anyone who would be regarded as a particular friend either of the UK or of Johnson personally. In fact, this these good wishes came from none other than the Russian president Vladimir Putin. And I would add, just for clarity, that neither in Russian nor English is there the slightest hint of ironic intent.

Putin’s message was just one of a flood of messages that came in from around the world in the hours after Johnson’s hospitalisation had been made public. And what struck me was not just the number of messages, the speed of response, and the geographical spread – but the tone. Almost every one, including Putin’s, struck a personal note. They were not, for the most part, just cut and pasted from the standard manual of diplomatic protocol. They reflected an appreciation of Johnson’s distinctive character on the part of the well-wisher. When has any official message from the usually poker-faced Putin, for heaven’s sake, mentioned anything about a “sense of humour”?

Now you may or may not have voted for Johnson – or at least for his Conservative Party – at the last general election. You may despise him and all you think he stands for – plenty do. But the international response to the British prime minister contracting Covid-19 needs to be seen for the rather remarkable phenomenon that it is.

As someone who spent many years reporting from foreign parts, who covered the UK’s foreign policy during a spell as diplomatic editor for The Independent, who studied Russian and is steeped in the Kremlinological skills of reading between the lines, I can conceive of few national leaders – still less a recent British leader – whose illness would prompt anything akin to this outpouring of good will.

Yes, these are unusual times, and the coronavirus is a global threat. We live in an age where news travels instantaneously and national leaders have taken to communicating in less formal, less inhibited ways. Nevertheless, would even as international a presence as Tony Blair have elicited such personal, almost familiar, messages? Or Margaret Thatcher? Only, I would submit, after she was toppled. Extend the range of contenders internationally? Perhaps Ronald Reagan, at a stretch.

This makes Johnson – like him or loathe him – into a potentially big national asset abroad. He may not be admired or even particularly respected; he is no Angela Merkel or Emmanuel Macron. But he attracts friendly feelings on a very human level. And, yes, he has been around a while. He was a high-profile mayor of London, including during the 2012 Olympics, and he was – rather reluctantly and unsuccessfully, it seemed – foreign secretary when Theresa May was prime minister. But he has been prime minister for less than a year and his electoral mandate is still more recent than that. Yet he is now firmly established as a largely welcome character, if not (yet) a serious statesman, on the international map.

It was apparent, from the moment he took over the Brexit negotiations last September, that for all the tensions with Brussels and other EU leaders (inherited and not), Johnson was able to establish a personal rapport with most of those he met. Past indiscretions, insults even, were, if not forgotten, pushed into the background, played down.

How much will he be able to capitalise on this in the national interest? British diplomacy, officially at least, tends to prefer formal frameworks and expert drafting to the risk and caprice of personal relations. Trumpian glad-handing is treated with a shudder. But fellow feeling, or empathy, can make openings where otherwise none would be. This is something Johnson can do, and with his cosmopolitan background he travels more successfully than many of his fellow-countrymen (David Cameron and Theresa May come to mind).

The warmth being shown towards Johnson, it should be stressed, is not unique to abroad. Outside the polarised metropolitan chatterers, his domestic popularity has only increased since he became prime minister. What is more, his appeal extends far beyond his Conservative constituency, as was clear from the sometimes tearful contributors to media vox pops after he fell ill. There is a sense in which Johnson has very quickly established himself as a national leader capable of persuading and rallying people, including those who would not be his natural supporters.

Beware, oh beware – I hear Johnson’s detractors caution here – the seductive tunes played by the pied pipers of populism. And it is true that national – and, in the case of the pandemic, international – emergencies provide fertile ground for such figures to grow. But Trump’s election suggested something else: a retreat from the idea that accomplished technocrats promising competent government were mostly what voters craved. And Johnson’s electoral landslide signalled a similar trend. Voters might think they want competence, but it is not enough. They also want someone to lead.

In fact, Johnson has a record of recruiting technocrats to his team, from his days as London mayor. The problem with having a “character” to lead is not whether he comes with or without “experts”, but the extent to which the effectiveness of the government and its message depends on the leader alone. The way journalists at the daily Downing Street press briefing harped on about cabinet unity and ministerial precedence after Johnson was admitted to intensive care became tedious. But their questions, based on the seeming timidity of the designated number two, illustrated what can happen when a leader whose personality is what holds everything together is suddenly extracted from the whole. There may be a chain of command, but it does not really work.

To this extent, Johnson’s personality-based leadership is a mixed blessing. It is a huge asset abroad, giving the UK a distinctive face and ensuring this country a more sympathetic hearing than might otherwise be so. It is also an asset at home at a time of crisis – who else would appeal to the public in such wrenchingly desperate terms as “please, please, please stay at home”?

But there is a liability, too, and it comes when that personality and that voice go missing. A void is left that neither the designated deputy, however proficient, nor the most team-minded cabinet of ministers can fill.