.....It's a dramatic demonstration of the way Australians are losing the ability to fall in behind a leader.
All of us know the nation's problems won't be overcome without decisive leadership. We regularly bewail our politicians' lack of courage and conviction, their reluctance to risk their personal survival in the country's best interests.
Yet we give our leaders so little loyalty. The announcement of a government decision is taken as the occasion for the outbreak of dissent. All those with a reason for objecting cry out and their criticism is amplified by the media, whereas those who agree fall silent. No one feels obliged to actively support the leader, even if just because she is our leader and someone has to accept ultimate responsibility for deciding what we'll do and how we'll do it.
Of course, no one wants to live in a country where the leader's will is never challenged. We each have the democratic right to oppose all government decisions by all legal means. But we also have the democratic right to support, defend or even just acquiesce in the judgment of the people we elected to lead us.
Ross Gittins
4 comments:
Do you have a link to the original article? Looks worth reading.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/a-rabble-without-a-cause-20110201-1acep.html?skin=text-only
Thanks
A sad thing about not falling behind a leader in democracy, is that it can create a culture of "serve the polls," versus serve the needs of the people, or serve the ways to make the polls better as people cannot be trusted. These ways often are at the cost of the very people that one aims to support.
A real leader will shirk popularity when it is not in the best interests of the people, but will raleigh people to a worthwhile cause. A real leader will lower themself under what is right or best.
We need to table real societal needs and then do Cost (inc. social cost) benefit analysis to optimise solutions.
Our system is a bit dubious. We need to do better constructive mudslinging. For example, local folk often vote for a person who is generally ineffectual in their portfolio, but effective locally in some of "popular issues."
Eg. Aged care minister has people protesting because the elderly are stealing to eat, due to untethered inflationary pressures, caused by their government and little support or care. They then get elected back in, because its a safe party seat and they save a park.
This applies to Christian leadership too. Local and general are important considerations.
Unfortunately at times we reinforce what is popular leadership, at the cost of what is right, best or true.
There is some value in this. For example, a person thinks they are better served, because the "leader" is more esteemed. This in turn gives them more value, by perceived service.
This might reinforce false teaching though, where Jesus was nothing to look at and despised of men, to crucifiction. That His value comes not from people, but from Himself and His Father. That he creates the more "Platonic" not Aristotlean archetypes of LOVE as an example, demonstrated, modelled and set in Him alone, that God is love.
We have to watch this perceptual shift. We do still believe the last shall be first don't we ? Or that if they spat on Him, they'll spit on us.
Post a Comment