Keir Starmer’s resignation, which serves as a reminder of Britain’s long-standing culture of political sensitivity and the complete reversal of that principle in Cyprus

Keir Starmer’s resignation as leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister of Great Britain did not come as a bolt from the blue for the country’s citizens. It was a natural progression of the two-year journey since Labour’s victory in the 2024 general election, which, according to the party’s own base, was marked by unfulfilled promises. This resignation is an act of the highest political responsibility, based on ideological and political grounds.

In contrast to Cyprus, where even on fundamental ethical issues, those in power do not assume their fair share of responsibility. On the contrary, citizens are witnessing practices that can only be interpreted as a mockery of the very logic of political accountability. There are many instances in which the country’s political leaders either dismiss or ignore what it means to assume political responsibility and demonstrate political accountability. They even go a step further, they invert the logic under the pretext that resigning in a time of crisis is irresponsible, or they content themselves—whether unwittingly or deliberately—with assuming responsibility through a statement that is not accompanied by corresponding action.

The stark differences in the reactions of political figures in the UK and Cyprus—on the one hand regarding purely political issues, and on the other regarding ethical ones— at the very least, demonstrates the long road our country still has to travel toward political maturity.

An unwritten constitution with strict rules

The United Kingdom, along with New Zealand and Israel, one of only three countries in the world whose constitution is not codified in a single document, such as the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus. The British constitution is derived from five main sources: written laws, court precedents, constitutional traditions, academic writings, and international treaties, including EU law.

Constitutional traditions a cornerstone upon which British political culture more broadly—and not just the country’s constitution—rests, was also the basis for Keir Starmer’s recent resignation as prime minister. These are customs and practices that are accepted as customary or even established. One such tradition is that the prime minister is the leader of the largest party in Parliament. In this context, Keir Starmer’s resignation from the office of prime minister automatically entails his resignation from the leadership of the Labour Party. Precisely because traditions are practices that have been followed over time, some of them have been enshrined in law, such as the mandatory resignation of the government if it loses a vote of no confidence.

Another excellent example of the legislative codification of such traditions is the Ministerial Code, first published in 2011 and based precisely on historical practices and traditions. It is a code of ethics that sets forth the minimum standards of conduct for government ministers. Among other things, it stipulates that members of the cabinet must adhere to the “Seven Principles of Public Life,” known as the “Nolan Principles,” which since 1995 have served as the ethical foundation for those holding public office in the United Kingdom: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, transparency, honesty, and leadership. Looking back at the history of resignations by the country’s ministers and prime ministers, one finds that each of these cases, although not strictly due to health reasons, involved a violation of one of the seven principles listed above.

The Reasons for Starmer’s Resignation

With his resignation, Keir Starmer became the 21st British prime minister to resign since 1721. With the exception of five cases in which the resignation was submitted for health reasons, all other national leaders who resigned did so either for purely political reasons, following criticism of their handling of crises, or because they lost the confidence of their party or Parliament. Some notable examples include Anthony Eden, who resigned, citing health reasons, due to the Suez Crisis, Tony Blair following internal party pressure over the Iraq War, and Boris Johnson following the mass resignations of members of his cabinet over “Partygate” and the Pincher scandal. Most emblematic is the mere 49-day tenure—the shortest in the country’s history— tenure of Liz Truss, who was forced to resign due to the collapse of confidence in the markets and within her own party following the “mini-budget.”

Consequently, Starmer’s resignation is nothing more than the continuation of a long tradition that reflects a commitment to political ethics, stability of the political system, and a continuous effort by the country’s political leadership to uphold high standards. Since 2020, Starmer has served as leader of the official opposition, having taken over the leadership of the Labour Party from Jeremy Corbyn. He took the reins after a decade of continuous Conservative rule, and four years later led his party to a landslide victory in the 2024 general election.

The central message of that victory was a change in the established order, with the distinguished lawyer and academic Keir Starmer campaigning to restore seriousness to politics. The 33.7% vote for Labour was a reaction to 14 years of turbulent governance that saw the country leave the European Union, as a result of James Cameron’s clumsy handling of the situation —who also resigned—and the army of frivolous and out-of-touch figures who followed, from Boris Johnson to Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak.

Starmer failed to deliver the changes that voters and his party had hoped for, vacillating between appeasement and a principled stance toward the Conservatives and Donald Trump. His vacillation was unpopular and deemed inconsistent with his 2024 campaign pledges, resulting in the party’s defeat in the recent local elections and prompting voices within Labour to speak outin the person of Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham. The backlash, ranging from the grassroots to the fringes of the leadership, peaked last month when the Member of Parliament for Makerfield, Josh Simmons, resigned from his seat to clear the way for the “King of the North,” who, as expected, won the by-election and is now preparing to move into Downing Street.

Taking Political Responsibility: A Cypriot Model

It is easy to see that no comparison can be made with individuals or situations in Cyprus, given the repercussions of the announcement of the findings regarding the “Mafia State” and the reaction of Nicos Anastasiades and Democratic Alarm. The issue is not the resignations of presidents and the fall of governments, nor the replication of a parliamentary democratic system, but the distinction between what is legal and what is ethical, and the assumption of political responsibility. Obviously, no one is guilty until proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt. However, clinging to this legal principle is not enough for politically exposed individuals, who, precisely because they represent institutions, must, like Caesar’s wife, be—and appear to be—honest.

To gauge the extent of the gap from British political integrity, one need only refer to the “code of conduct” signed by the Cabinet under President Nicos Anastasiades in 2013 and 2018. The former President and his party will find that both the actions described in the Authority’s announcement and the statements that followed it contradict what the charter proclaimed. Is it “exemplary conduct” for representatives of institutions—and specifically the highest office—to take free flights on private jets? Is the approval of passports processed by a law firm bearing the name of the President—who heads the Council of Ministers that approves them—an example of “preventing any suspicion of personal interest”? Are evasive responses to self-evident cases of conflict of interest —regardless of whether criminal offenses were committed or not—comparable to resignation in the event of a violation of the “code of conduct”?

Keir Starmer resigned because the United Kingdom’s political ecosystem allows for scrutiny and accountability regarding acts of corruption, political deviation, or broken promises—and the removal of leadership—in a manner that is political, ideologically charged, yet fully coordinated, and which does not call into question the party’s smooth continuity. In contrast, the corresponding reactions we have seen from DISY involve hiding behind legal analyses that serve as a smokescreen for the fear of having even past leadership challenged. The former President’s delayed announcement of his abstention from the party’s collective bodies can be interpreted as an indirect admission of the damage this entire issue is causing to the party’s moral standing. An act that placed the current leadership in a position that should not have been difficult but rather self-evident, based not only on fundamental principles of political integrity and ethics—as exemplified so brilliantly by the United Kingdom—but also on the “code of conduct” proclaimed by the party itself.

This recent example, however, is not unique, but rather a symptom of an immature political system that has not yet established the fundamental political principles and values necessary to ensure the health of democracy in the country.