PM and President sign new Atlantic Charter

Is symbolism important? Yesterday, Boris Johnson and Joe Biden agreed a new deal setting out their joint vision for future prosperity and the world's recovery from the coronavirus crisis. It was an unlikely double act. In a hotel conference room in the tiny Cornish resort of Carbis Bay, Joe Biden and Boris Johnson sat and shared a joke. The socially distanced audience politely clapped as they signed a wad of paper, then shook hands. Yesterday afternoon, the leaders signed a new version of the Atlantic Charter, an agreement signed in 1941 between Franklin D Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. “Eighty years ago,” said Johnson, “the US President and British Prime Minister stood together promising a better future. Today we do the same”. The allusion could not be clearer: two allies taking after their celebrated wartime predecessors, united to correct the world’s ills. Biden and Johnson have used Roosevelt and Churchill as symbols to represent their renewed alliance in light of a crisis – even posing for a photo that imitated a famous shot of the wartime leaders. Never mind that Britain is no longer a superpower. Or that, earlier in the same day, the US government had slammed Johnson, accusing him of “inflaming” tensions over Northern Ireland. Symbols have played an enormous role in political history. Medieval kings used to kiss to symbolise peace between their nations. And to symbolise his conception of states, Thomas Hobbes used the image of a giant man, built from individual citizens, with one ruler as its head. Sometimes political symbols are people or objects. The French Revolution had sans-culottes and the cocarde tricolore. In fascist Italy, Benito Mussolini’s militias were nicknamed after their black shirts, while the gilets jaunes of contemporary France are named after their hi-vis vests. Ideologies also often become identified with symbols, whether it is the hammer and sickle for communism, the red hand of Ulster for unionism or the raised fist for Black Lives Matter. For some thinkers, symbols are important in public life. Political theorist Michael Walzer described it as: “an art of unification; from many, it makes one.” States are invisible. Symbols allow them to be given a form that can be known, shared – even loved. They provide anchors amidst instability. “A week,” quipped British prime minister Harold Wilson in the 1960s, “is a long time in politics”. Today, things can change dramatically in hours. Symbolic gestures allow us to focus our attention on a particular moment, removing it from the muddle of politics. But symbolism can also distort the importance of events. Former US president Donald Trump staged theatrical confrontations with Kim Jong-un. But despite the meetings, the North Korean dictator continued to develop nuclear weapons. Worse, symbols can distract from the nitty-gritty of government. As Telegraph columnist Jeremy Warner writes of Johnson: “What’s needed are quick, practical fixes, not largely meaningless appeals to the spirit of FDR.” Is symbolism important? Words and deeds Yes, say some. A world without symbols is a chaos of thoughts and deeds. Symbols might not always tell us the whole truth but they can indicate direction. Biden and Johnson may not see entirely eye-to-eye, but their charter reveals a general agreement. And symbolic gestures can become self-fulfilling: by making their commitment public, the two leaders might become obliged to honour it. No, say others. They can create false expectations. “Symbols will always disappoint,” says writer Mychal Denzel Smith. They can also be dangerous, allowing leaders to paint over the ugly truths that characterise politics. Besides, as citizens, we have the right to know what is actually happening behind closed doors, rather than receiving a staged version designed to provide assurance. KeywordsThomas Hobbes - An English philosopher who is regarded as one of the founders of modern political theory.