Wednesday 17 April 2013

Of Thatcher, leadership and grace

The death in the past week and today's funeral of Lady Thatcher has brought numerous reactions from all ends of the spectrum of politics, from the ordinary person in the street of the United Kingdom, as well as globally from prominent world leaders of the past and present.
As a '66 baby, I grew up in Thatcher's time in Politics as PM, so I believe I, like many others of this era, am qualified to make some small comment - even if it's subjective nonsense! I make these comments not showing any political colours - I cannot say growing up in Thatcher's Britain was easy, but our nation needed leadership and cometh the hour cometh the leader. And without a doubt she was a leader who had an enormous effect upon our country, and this in and of itself brings different reactions.

For the record, Churchill was our WW2 champion - given a state funeral, and rightly so! Cometh the hour, cometh the man! But Churchill was useless as a peace time PM and people disliked him for it and rapidly voted him out! Never let us forget that people allow themselves to go forward for public office - no easy ride or call. They do so to serve our nation - no easy task - would you like to do that? And are mandated by the people in vote - nb here, we get what we vote for! And some but not all reach the highest office in the land to serve our country - there are many good Politicians, but to be 'First Lord of the Treasury' is the big one! Big demand and normally a person of extreme ability where hard work, pressure, little rest - and yes pressure on the family too. That in and of itself is worthy of our thanks - to any PM of any colour. And I have no problem with any former PM, whether Blair or Brown or Cameron receiving such a funeral - whatever my opinions. Or will there be objectors at Blair's funeral over the Iraq war? If the nation wants no statesmen or stateswomen in the future, then don't bother honouring them! But in truth, all are worthy of our honour and thanks. And all were and are human beings who served to the best of their abilities, even if some decisions were wrong or badly handled.

But I have been unsettled and dismayed at some of the quite offensive reactions from some leaders of today, as well as by people celebrating, having parties, supporting "wicked witch" singles, turning their backs, blogging or social networking quite unnecessarily rude comments and statements. These are not the values of our British society, and whilst yes, there is a democratic right and freedom to express opinion, what is it that makes us feel we have a right to degenerate and be rude at someone's death? This is the direct opposite of the Christian fruit of grace and mercy, and against the principles and values of our country.

When someone dies we are always filled with numerous emotions, but with a death comes a funeral, and with a death comes grieving relatives - and Margaret Thatcher was a mother, a husband, a grandmother and a human being. In otherwords people are involved.

I have learnt as a Pastor over the years, that whenever a death and funeral arrives, my task is to commend someone into the hands of a loving and merciful God, and to pray and support their family and relatives. Actually I think that is the task of us all! Whatever we may feel.

But it is never appropriate to be rude, judgemental and offensive at these times. There will come a time when history - either in the micro-picture of family discussion or reflection or the national archives of history, which will be the appropriate judge of all of our lives in this world, and spiritually as the scriptures tell us - God is the spiritual and ultimate judge of our lives. And note that this is God's task and his alone! I do find many people seem to want to do God's job of judgement for him. But let not one of us ever think we are any more superior than another, let alone a stateswoman, in terms of our own track records and lives.

And this got me thinking about Leadership and Margaret Thatcher. One of the over-riding images I have of her is that she was a Leader. And Leaders often get a bad press. It comes with the territory mind you. It was said to me "if you stick your head out, expect to get it cut off!" I don't think thats a french revolution comment by the way!
But the one central main task of being a leader is to lead. There are followers - yes, and an awful lot of them, but perhaps in our political world today - not many leaders. Perhaps not of her calibre anyway. Ask any leader and they would more than happily give up sometimes and simply be a follower. Being a follower is easy! But being a Leader is a difficult and lonely task because as much as it's absolutely right to consult, consider and research, reflect, ask for opinion and be as collective as possible, sometimes leadership requires you and you alone to make a final decision. When you look for someone else to make this with you or for you, often many have deserted to the hills or the burrows! Leadership is always accountable, but often it is painful and lonely. As much as the leader - himself or herself requires someone else to make the decision, the central task of leadership is to lead. Even if its uncomfortable and sometimes unpopular.

Are leaders born or made? Good question! Probably both and probably never only born and never only made. In otherwords good leaders learn from their mistakes and from growing in life.
Yes we may want to make sweeping judements of leaders. Some of these may well be cheap and unworthy - why? Because we are not them. And we simply don't know the whole picture. We weren't there and were not privy to all of the information - some confidential, some secret, some only for the eyes and ears of leaders. Quick to judge? Do so and it might well be unfair and unworthy because we are not them, and we are not in their shoes. Judge without the full facts? Many of us do and jump to the wrong conclusions. And that is unfair. But the nature of leadership is sometimes, often, that things are confidential, come what may. Leadership requires gifts that not all have. Thats why some are not leaders, but followers. It's so much easier being a follower - no responsibilities! But at the end of the day, leaders must lead. And leaders must pay the cost of leading - often a high cost, of being misunderstood. The Bible has much to say on this - leaders will be judged far more than others.

So let us let history be the final mortal judge, and God the final spiritual judge. But let none of us be offensive. Yes if there is evil present - as in the case of Hitler or others, then we have a right to speak out and if necessary to take up weapons, but for our Prime Ministers let us give thanks to them for their service, honour their memory and pray for their grieving families. And let us pray and work for a country that has the moral backbone to the know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil and to behave properly. And let us pray for leaders everywhere.

2 comments:

Brian Davison said...

All Prime ministers before her had been treated equally. Even Clement Attlee, voted by historians as the greatest prime minister of the 20th Century received a dignified funeral, massively attended but not accompanied by military charades or gun salutes.
It is now clear that in fact MT had also requested the simple, person and God focused service that took place in the chapel, and had her wishes been met, all would have been well.
In the church, the focus is a human being before God.

We have a tradition of mentioning the good and cloaking the bad, and in the context of the funeral service, which is directed only at those INSIDE the chapel that is the pastoraly sensitive approach.

(afterwards people talk among themselves and will often recall the other side too, or correct what had been said in the chapel)

For a Public figure, it is hard to do that but the old tradition was a step in the right direction.

However when a show is arranged to celebrate her "achievements" debate is invited. Why was she worthy, above every prime minister since Churchill of that pomp and show?
If it was permitted for one prime minister to be feted above all others, why was the nation made to pay for it when it could and should have been sponsored by the Tory party, businesses, and those who wished to contribute?

Knowing that her life and her legacy cause bitter division in this country the right thing would have been to have had a quiet dignified journey to the church, and the service which I must say was spot on for what a funeral should be.
The provocative behaviour of her followers, could have led to awful scenes on the streets but people rose above it and stayed away.

I was a voter during her time, taken in by her rhetoric and promises in 79 that we must all tighten our belts, and utterly disillusioned with what followed as selfishness was proclaimed as the saviour of our nation and practiced. As blatantly unjust policies were perused without a drop of compassion

She was one of the rudest people ever to hold public office, deliberately dismissive demeaning and provocative.

France and Germany faced the same problems we faced yet without destroying their industries or denigrating those who used to work in them.
Yes they had redundancies but those people not needed were treated with honour and gratitude for what they had given to their country.

On leadership we must disagree. She was not a leader but a bully. She didn't bring people with her as a leader does, she shouted them down, rode roughshod over them and sacked those who would not do as told.

The rich got richer, the poor poorer and so downtrodden there were many suicides, villages still ghost towns today because unlike france and germany our leader did not honour industry - she believed our future was in commerce.

She was adversarial by nature - some see that as an asset. Many don't.

History shows she was the most divisive figure for many centuries, and whilst many admire her, many are sharply critical of the way she did things and the legacy she leaves.

Before God she is a sinner in need of Grace, like us all, and that is where the funeral day should begin and end like that of all her predecessors. To elevate her above all others is to open the door to critical comment also.
TO respond to the public outcry by increasing the cost and the honour after the thing is planned is either aburdly arrogant or deliberately confrontational.

Within the chapel, she is an old woman being laid to rest.

Outside it is not possible to avoid there being comment on her legacy, nor is it right to insist only the good is spoken of. To do so is to legitimise those parts of her legacy which should be questioned.

In short she was a prime minister like all the others.
There was good and bad, but in her case both were full on, and feeling about her runs high 23 years after her party stood up to her.

Whilst the service focused upon the human being, the debate outside reviews the past and points the direction for the future.

Brian Davison said...

"Yes if there is evil present - as in the case of Hitler or others, then we have a right to speak out and if necessary to take up weapons"

How much evil before we speak out?
Do we say nothing to a policy in which greed is the foundation of our economics (monetarism)?
Do we say nothing when there is no attempt to re-invest in villages and towns whose industries were lost because foreign imports were cheaper, and people could make more money if they bought their energy from abroad?
Do we say nothing when people are driven to suicide because of crushing debt not because of waste but because greedy landlords charge more than they earn?
Do we say nothing when we go to war, sending the SAS against young boys of 17 to prove our might over land we have no right to, and were negotiating to return anyway?

At what point does evil become gross enough for us to speak out ?

And when these values are being celebrated publicly as well as carried forward by our present govt do we say nothing in response?

When evil is feted we cannot stay silent.