Future Australian Leaders

Okay so this is probably a lot of sour grapes because neither of my daughters got to be School Captain. Oh reader, you will have to judge...

I'm really disturbed by the process of choosing Captains in Primary Schools here in Sydney. If our local primary school is typical of the public school system then it is basically a popularity contest.

Candidates promote themselves through a poster and a speech (apparently all candidates are uniquely qualified, caring, brilliant at public speaking etc.) and then the pupils decide via a straight ballot paper. I understand the teachers have a little influence but do we really appreciate children from (let's say) year 3 downwards to be able to make sensible choices over a poster and a speech?

It gets particularly frustrating when one person is elected who is famous throughout the school for their (note the non-gender specific language) bad behaviour in class. But they are well popular with the kids. Leadership is about being well known it has nothing to do with good character.

And then we wonder why our political system is in a mess?

I think this has a lot to do with confusion over consensus and consent, between popularity and leadership, and listening and representation.

Leaders who are appointed through a straight popularity contest will:

1. Seek consensus rather consent all the time. Consensus is an ideal but people disagree most of the time about most things. Frequently consent to move ahead is what is required.
2. regularly do what is popular rather than what is needed. It is built into the way we think about appointing leaders right from primary school.
3. get confused about what representation means. Good leadership listens to all those who are represented. That does not mean that the leader has to present all possible views of those represented though.

What say ye?

(Although it has been so long since I posted anything maybe you've all gone to sleep!)

[PS Coincidently I've just noticed an article in the SMH complaining about awarding Dave Warner the man of the match instead of Kiwi Doug Bracewell - apparently it was decided by a vote from Australian viewers!?]

We need to talk about Kevin

I have to admit that I'm in shock. With all the hype over the World Cup last night I've only just found out that Kevin Rudd is out and that Julia Gillard is the new Prime Minister of Australia.

We need to talk about Kevin is the title of a novel by Lionel Shriver. Without giving too much of the plot away, it is made up of letters from a Mother trying to come to terms with the fact that her son is a sociopathic murderer. I don't want to be melodramatic but I feel a similar need to come to terms with what on earth has happened to Kevin Rudd. Heralded as the conquering hero in 2007, how can he be booted out before even finishing a first term?

Here's some more heralding (from the SMH):

The move against Mr Rudd was sparked by a report in yesterday's Herald that Mr Rudd had used his chief of staff, Alister Jordan, to sound out the backbench over the past month on the level of support for him. This followed a Herald/Nielsen poll which showed the government would lose if an election were held then.

But Mr Rudd's action was regarded as a sign that he did not trust the repeated assurances by Ms Gillard that she would not stand.

"It was offensive and disloyal," said a Gillard supporter

... and apparently absolutely correct! It is quite possible that there is all sorts of stuff behind the scenes that I don't know about, but it seems incredibly harsh on Kevin.

I wonder what this teaches us about leadership in Australia?

What I like about Kevin is that he seems to have convictions. Politics is a tough game for Christians who have convictions because it is entirely based on compromise. I remember the British Tory Cabinet minister, Brian Mawhinney, being interviewed about how his Christian faith impacted cabinet discussions. He replied, "You can only resign once." In other words there are constantly issues raised with which you disagree, but once you have stated your case and the cabinet decision goes against you, then you have to decide whether you resign over it or not. Resignation may give you a self-righteous satisfaction but it also ends your influence in the running of the country.

Kevin clearly had to let some of his ideals go. That's politics. But generally he stuck to his guns and that is why he was fired! It seems the Mines are just to powerful for him.

What concerns me most is I think this represents a prevailing attitude to leadership in Australia. We want results fast and when decisions prove unpopular we cave in with equal speed.

As a starter for discussion, here are some possible lessons for churches:

1. Let's give our leaders time. It takes years to grow a tree, cress seeds sprout in days. Churches are supposed to have the perspective of eternity - you don't get much longer-term planning than that.

2. Let's support our leaders when unpopular decisions are made. That's not to say that we shouldn't be able to criticise bad decisions; just that we should expect change to be hard work and not give up too easily.

Conservatives & Politics

This has been an issue buzzing away in my brain ever since the comments about the definition of marriage and civil partnerships. Christians always seem to be protesting against gays but never protesting against the wrong treatment of gays.

I wonder if part of the problem is the current system of western politics - based around special interest lobbying.

Things get done in politics today by coalitions around issues. Human nature being what it is, it is really hard to get people to agree on anything these days - therefore the 'voice' put out by various groups is usually black and white, without any nuance.

Generally conservatives (politically and theologically) are opposed to gay marriage and feel they can impact public policy if they put up a united front. As soon as nuance is added to the debate coalitions get scared that they will lose the majority vote they think they need.

I want to be clear, I'm not at all trying to justify this - for example it is wrong that conservatives do not speak out enough against violence to homosexuals. I'm just saying that our whole political process makes that hard to do so. The bigger issue is the need to change how we do politics. (Indeed, I would argue that films like Milk protray how the gay rights movement only started to make ground when they started to adopt this style of politics themselves as well - it is the only way to get things done at the moment but it actively encourages division and factionism, the them and us mentality.)