In early April 2020, rumours were growing that the UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson had been infected with the coronavirus. After a period of self-isolation in Downing Street, he was admitted to hospital, initially just as a “precautionary measure.” When he was subsequently taken into intensive care, even his staunchest critics fell silent…

Soon after his discharge, however, Johnson’s repeated absences both before and during the crisis experienced a huge “second spike” of criticism. Attention was rapidly refocused on his non-attendance at key UK Government crisis-management meetings and his decision to go on holiday in mid-February as the virus had been taking hold.

“There is nothing new about the question: Where’s Boris Johnson? Throughout his career, Johnson has developed a reputation for picking and choosing whether and when to show up – whether to TV debates, regions suffering flood-damage, difficult press conferences, or vital crisis-management meetings. UK readers of this blog might recall BBC political heavyweight, Andrew Neil’s reaction when Johnson refused to be interviewed for the 2019 election coverage: There is no law, no Supreme Court ruling, that can force Mr Johnson to participate in a BBC leaders’ interview. But the Prime Minister of our nation will, at times, have to stand up to President Trump, President Putin, President Xi of China. So it was surely not expecting too much that he spend half an hour standing up to me…We do [these interviews] on your behalf to scrutinise and hold to account those who would govern us. That is democracy.”(1)

In more normal times, Johnson has mostly got away with his patchy attendance record. Indeed, he may have been using the strategic no-show as a way of disrupting the rhythm of political commentary, frustrating many in the “mainstream media” by refusing to dance to their tune. His apparent lack of deference to the establishment has resonated with an electorate disenchanted with “The System” and willing to be entertained by those who challenge it. This helps to explain the paradox of his leadership persona, namely that he can appeal to broad swathes of the population with an anti-elitist message despite being at the highest echelon of the establishment elite himself (Eton College, Oxford University, Bullingdon Club, etc).

But there are key differences between peace- and war-time leadership – specifically now a war against a virus. In war-time, we have a much deeper need for our leaders to show up consistently and reliably to prove that they care. Their steady presence sends a signal – both consciously and unconsciously – that the crisis can be managed and endured. Successful caring leaders acknowledge that things are tough, whilst reassuring us through their presence that “we are all in this together.” After the disastrous no-shows around the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, the Queen now understands this perfectly. Her recent TV address to the nation to mark VE Day 75 came only a matter of weeks after her previous TV appearance acknowledging the terrors of COVID-19 and honouring the work of the country’s care professionals.

Leaders who regularly go “missing in action” are failing in this most basic duty of care. This intensifies our sense of helplessness, reawakening our most primal fears of loss, abandonment, and betrayal of our inner child. The crisis outside becomes the crisis within. When we are already feeling afraid of a present but invisible virus, any leader whose presence and visibility are unreliable will make us feel much more vulnerable.