3 years ago the Labour Government was ousted quite dramatically - and were left with only 7 out of 89 seats in the Parliament. From such a massive swing against them it was fairly sure it would be several terms of government before they were likely to have even a chance of being back in power. The Liberal/National Party looked like having a comfortable hold on power for a long time.
However, just this past weekend, there was a cliff-hanger election and a Labour government was returned. The LNP leader was even ousted from his seat, ending his political career.
Last year a similar situation occurred in the state of Victoria. There, the LNP in the 2010 Election had ousted the Labour government of 11 years. But in 2014 the Labour Party ousted the LNP after only one term in government, though the swing (3.5%) wasn't anywhere near as strong as in QLD (14%). It was the first time in 60 years that a Victorian government was voted out after only one term in power.
Also a few weeks back saw a leadership coup attempt in the Northern Territory.
And of course there were the Federal leadership spill possibilities just past.
Without making comments on what I think of the choices of the Australian populace in each state, I would like to make an observation that is glaring at me in flashing lights!!
Australians are/have become, extreme in their emphasis on 'Achieved Honour'....
But when honour comes through 'achievement', lack of expected achievement can all too easily result in dis-honour.
Yes, in any event there are always multiple factors at play and I'm not saying that only honour factors were at work....but I think the honour factors are maybe more significant than we might realise.
In a chart I have, which highlights differences between individualistic-guilt based cultures and collectivistic-shame bases cultures, there is the following contrast:
30. We like the efficiency of being able to change our leaders frequently.
|
30. We like the stability of being able to keep the same leader for a long time.
|
Maybe God has used the Aussie extreme to help us observe the differences we encountered here in Africa. It's much easier to notice the differences between things when the difference are greater.
The Achieved Honour emphasis of Australia is at the opposite end of the Spectrum from the Ascribed Honour emphasis of traditional Africa.
Traditional African leadership is on the basis of Chiefs who gain the position through inheritance and are expected to be honoured with loyal unquestioning support whether they 'perform' well or not. Honour is given simply because of the office/position they hold, not really on the basis of personal achievement. The perspective that long leadership is a 'good' thing has been seen even in government in various African situations.
Australian leadership is on the basis of an elected Parliament and Prime Minister, and could I say, there is almost no honour or respect simply because of the position - except maybe a little for the first couple of weeks of being in power. After that, from an Aussie perspective, you had better perform as leader according to the desires of those who elected you (in the party room or electorate) or else you will be 'out on your ear' in a flash. It is not that an elected leader starts with no honour and must build it entirely, but It is almost as if when an Aussie is voted into office, that the initial honour given can only be maintained to the degree it can morph into achieved honour as people are satisfied with what they 'get'. If what they think they 'get' doesn't match up with their expectations, the achieved honour doesn't build up to replace the initial ascribed honour, and before you know it people are talking about replacing the leader.
In fact, Australia in recent years has gained a reputation internationally of not even waiting until an election comes around to change leaders.
Over the past few years even Australian Federal politics has swung all over the place. After 11 years of LNP under John Howard, Labour, under leader Kevin Rudd, won the 2007 election. But before he even served out his term, the Labour Party felt he was doing them more harm than good and so after only 2.5 years they removed him as their leader and put Julia Gillard in his place. She went on to win the election she called almost immediately. But before she completed her first term, the Labour Party again didn't like her performance and so ousted her and put Kevin Rudd back in as leader. He was subsequently voted out 2 months later at the 2013 election.
As I look at other Western nations, none seem to be so extreme as Australia. Purely on the basis of observation as an outsider, the USA appears to have much more of a 'balanced' approach, in this regard, to its leadership. A high level of Ascribed Honour is expected alongside some degree of Achieved Honour. Maybe I misread the situation, but as an outsider, I remember at the time of Bill Clinton's infidelity, Aussies saying that he must be innocent since he remained in office and his support ratings were still high. I remember making the comment in return on a few occasions, that you couldn't judge an American scenario based on an Aussie context. Americans are much more likely to remain loyal to a leader because he is in the office of President. In an Aussie context, the leader wouldn't have an ounce of hope of staying in office under such allegations. He would lose support from his country and thus his party almost in an instant, - as no office or position in an Aussie's mind gives you any greater 'right' to loyalty than any other if you don't perform in accordance with the standards expected of that office.
Well, which is a correct position to have - Achieved Honour or Ascribed Honour? Let me humbly suggest that I believe it is both. The reason I say that is because of what I see in Scripture.
God is given honour both on an Ascribed level and Achieved level. We praise Him because of who He IS and because of what He DOES. He deserves highest honour. He is who He is in perfection and He does what He does with perfection, with no 'shadow of turning' on either basis. He is holy, true, faithful and good - all the time, from and to eternity.
Scripture also tells us to grant honour to others according to both - we are to 'Honour everyone' (1 Peter 2:17) but we are also to confront sin in others and not just accept it or 'turn a blind eye' because of a position they might hold.
Scripture also tells us to grant honour to those who rule over us in government and in the church (Romans 13:1-7, Hebrews 13:7,17) but we are also to choose leaders based on how they have 'performed' in life - in their families and in the eyes of their communities (1 Timothy 3:1-7)
As an Aussie, I would like to suggest that we tend to be far too quick to criticise, judge and disrespect our leaders. We like to think it is good that we 'stand for no nonsense' and are 'brutally honest and outspoken' in our opinions. But we also leave too little room for gentleness and time and effort to ascertain carefully and wisely the background and other perspectives on situations. In fact I think we have become worse in this regard. A few decades back children began to be taught that they had 'rights' and no-one could tell them what to do, not even their parents or teachers. Some could see this was a slippery-slide to instability and destruction of society.
I'm not here to make a political commentary, but it does seem to me that what I believe to be our 'out-of-balance approach' tells the world a few things about us. We may think we show the world that we hold our leaders to account and are quick to deal with leaders who we think make bad choices. But we also tell the world we are fickle and unstable as a nation of people. We tell the world we have little respect for leadership and giving them space and time to govern. Even if we think we deal with bad performance quickly, maybe we by default are saying we are poor judges of character in the first place to elect such people who so quickly show themselves to be poor choices. Anyone can be excused for being 'hood winked' by a leader once, but Australia is developing a pattern and reputation for such ill thought out quick decisions. Either our choices are ill thought-out or else we are being very selfish and impatient in our demands on leaders.
We have become so obsessed with Achieved Honour, and benchmarking whether someone is worthy of honour based on how well they perform to 'my' expectations according to 'my' timetable that I fear we are telling the world that we are a nation of impatient, selfish, disrespectful, superficial thinkers wanting immediate gratification of one's desires. You see, such an extreme 'Achieved Honour' state is reflective of a nation of people who want what they want, how they want it and when they want it, and 'you' had better give it to me, or else I have no time of day for you.
So my question to the Australian church is this: - what is being done about changing such a mindset and making sure it doesn't infiltrate the church?
Where is the church taking care to teach their members how to think deeply and carefully, kindly, prayerfully and scripturally about how they make decisions in life, not least political choices at the ballot box?
I'm not advocating for churches to promote one political party over another, but I am advocating that as Aussie Christians we need to do a far better job at learning to think through on what basis we elect/choose our parliamentary representatives, community and church leaders, and the type of honour we give them, under God.
How and why we honour them in Achieved or Ascribed ways, should not be based on our whims or selfish desires but on God's priorities for life and godliness.
No comments:
Post a Comment