By curious coincidence, three prominent leaders have been put on trial in recent days for multiple serious crimes against their respective nations. The very different ways in which the trials were conducted, their impact on democracy, and the public reactions deserve examination.

Those on trial include a recent British prime minister, a former president of the United States, and a Russian opposition leader. All three men have pleaded not guilty.

The first case against Boris Johnson in the UK is over. There were weeks of hearings by the House of Commons Privileges Committee to determine whether Johnson deliberately misled members of parliament (MPs) over what became known as “party gate.” At issue was a series of alcohol-fuelled parties attended by the prime minister and cabinet colleagues during the COVID-19 pandemic, when attendance at social gatherings was strictly prohibited. Photographic evidence showed Johnson at several parties, including one in the garden of 10 Downing Street with a spent wine bottle at his side.

Despite claims by Johnson that he’d been stitched up, the report of the cross-party group of MPs, which was endorsed by the House of Commons, was a devastating condemnation. It concluded that Johnson knowingly and repeatedly misled parliament about lockdown parties, leaked documents, and instigated a campaign to denigrate committee members. Johnson was to have been suspended from parliament for 90 days, but he evaded his punishment by resigning as Tory MP for Uxbridge just a day or two before the publication of the report. In doing so, he forced an unwelcome by-election on the government.  Johnson’s record as a proven liar and purveyor of broken promises leaves him with few friends in politics. Max Hastings, who edited The Daily Telegraph when Johnson was the Brussels correspondent, says it is important that Britain should see the back of him adding, “He is incapable of telling the truth; he is utterly unfit to be Prime Minister.”

Let’s now turn our attention turn to the trial of former US President Donald Trump, who has been indicted by the Federal Justice Department and faces 37 charges of removing classified documents from the White House when his presidency ended. Those familiar with the evidence collected by the Justice Department say the documents removed include one related to nuclear weapons and another to troop movements. Trump has denied all charges, and a further one of lying to investigators. He is the first former president to be arraigned on criminal charges. The case is prescient since Trump is the favoured choice of the Republican party to face Joe Biden in next year’s presidential election.

The judge does not begin to hear evidence until mid-August, but there is already increasing speculation that Trump’s lawyers are seeking to delay proceedings, possibly until after the November 2024 election. If convicted, could Trump still stand and serve as president? Public support for him remains strong, and some lawyers believe he could. The story will unfold as the evidence emerges. Already there are claims that Trump showed some documents to visitors at Mar-a-Lago, including to an unnamed editor and publisher. Characteristically, Trump remains defiant, claiming that the election he lost to Biden was a fraud and that America needs him back. He told a cheering crowd outside the Florida courthouse last week, “We have a country that’s in decline as never before.”

Meanwhile, an investigative team from the New York Times has been busy looking at Trump’s latest business activities. In a front-page story last week, the paper disclosed that Trump had lent his name to a huge high-end residential construction project overlooking the Gulf of Oman in the Middle East. The project’s backers include the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, and there was a contract to pay Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, $2 billion to design a golf course within the project. The breaking story will inevitably lead to questions in Congress about Trump’s business dealings in a politically sensitive part of the world while president. There will doubtless be many more revelations as evidence is given, which will challenge the fitness of Donald Trump to hold office again, and concerns about the future of American democracy will grow.

Both Johnson and Trump have claimed that they are the victims of character assassination by their rivals. Johnson described the Commons’ report as “rubbish.” Trump repeated his time-worn script that the 2020 election was “stolen” from him, while rattling the money boxes for donations to help his defence and, of course, to finance his 2024 presidential campaign.

The third trial is altogether much more dangerous and very sinister:  the ongoing persecution of Russian opposition leader, Alexei Navalny, by Vladimir Putin’s harsh regime.  Navalny is already serving a nine-year prison sentence for fraud (which he denies) and contempt of court, but the Kremlin seems determined to lock him away for decades and has brought him to trial on charges of “extremism.” Navalny has rejected the charges as absurd but, if convicted, they could keep him in prison for 30 years. Moreover, he is threatened with also facing terrorism charges in a military court. If found guilty he would be jailed for life.

Navalny is being held in a maximum-security prison at Mekhovo, a town 250 kilometers east of Moscow, far away from his associates and supporters. He is being tried in a specially sealed room, rigged up as a court, inside the prison. For a few hours at the beginning of his new trial, some journalists, including the BBC’s Moscow correspondent, were allowed to watch the hearing on closed-circuit television at a location in Mekhovo. Navalny was making his first public appearance since recovering from a hunger strike. His declining health had caused authorities such concern that they ordered special medical treatment to keep him alive. Navalny opened his defence with robust remarks about Putin, and the video link was abruptly cut and the reporters sent back to Moscow.

Navalny first came to international attention when he founded an anti-corruption foundation focussed on the documented activities of Putin’s government and the accumulation of his personal wealth. In August 2020, Navalny was rushed to hospital after being poisoned with Novichok nerve agent, then he was evacuated to Berlin for special treatment. Navalny accused Putin of ordering the poisoning, and an investigation has implicated agents from the Russian Federal Security Service. By January 2021, Navalny had returned to Russia to continue his campaigning, including making a documentary on corruption within the Putin administration, after which he was promptly arrested.  While media attention in the last two weeks has focussed on the rebellion led by the Wagner mercenary group and its leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, who is now seeking refuge in Belarus, the trial of Navalny has moved out of the headlines. But there is no doubt that Putin is a leader under increasing pressure.

What, if any, conclusions can be drawn from all this? It is a travesty of democracy and independent judiciary that two fallen leaders look as they could evade justice while a third man, who has put his life on the line in the name of democracy, could be convicted for life on trumped up charges by a judicial system which is under the thumb of government. In Russia, we see no limit to what Putin will do to silence his critics. In Britain, a dishonest politician could again challenge for the leadership. While in America, a convicted Trump could appeal, appeal, and appeal again and – should he be re-elected – may pardon himself.

Colin Chapman FAIIA is editor-at-large of Australian Outlook and a fellow of the Australian Institute of International Affairs. Colin is a writer, broadcaster, and public speaker who specialises in geopolitics, international economics, and global media issues. He was president of AIIA New South Wales.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Licence and may be republished with attribution.