The most interesting thing I have found to be the worst part of the noughties is the suspicion of inerrancy on the part of leaders. This is indeed the one sin that Christians in particular and all people in general should never be guilty of.
We should NEVER suspect either ourselves or any other person in history to be capable of inerrancy.
Leaders who wish to only hear “helpful” or positive comments and who are only interested in positive feedback should never be leaders in any democratic system.
Members of any organisation in any democracy in the world must at all times be heard and must themselves at all times be adamant about being heard.
Leaders who feel that large bodies of members are cumbersome and unwieldy and hence demand full powers of decision-making from those bodies are not leaders that belong in democracy. Such should join the Ceauşescu fan club.
Members of decision-making bodies that wish to abdicate their decision-making powers have no business being in any such body.
Indeed the adage “I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it” should be engraved in stone in any organisation and be engraved on plaques in every office of every NGO, church, parliament, ministerial office and presidential palace.
Anything less than a full and explicit adherence to this principle is the death of democracy. Organisations where the decision-making powers are given into the “capable” hands of a select few who are “entrusted” with these powers achieve just the opposite of what they want. Decision making becomes more cumbersome, is met with great resistance, hailed with scorn from people inside and outside the organisation. Processes become more unwieldy than ever. Goals and objectives seem ever further out of reach and one becomes what one purports to fight. Soon, the organisation begins to lose the confidence of its members and the people it is supposed to represent and defend. Immediately people within the organisation find themselves at odds with it and find they have to start fighting for their own very rights within this organisation. Soon witch hunts are held against those who are not being “helpful” or “uplifting”. Soon leaders find themselves being guilty of abuse of power and conspiracy against a lowly individual who is seen as a threat rather than as the asset that they in fact are.
Soon edicts are issued and guillotines erected.
In fact, leaders in organisations need to get over themselves. In most cases, sharp criticism is highly deserved and when listened to, highly helpful indeed. After all, it is just as important to know where to step as it is to know where not to step.
Imagine a captain of a ship that wishes to only hear the positive navigation hails of the helmsmen. The ship would soon be wrecked on the very rocks that could so easily have been avoided. Likely such a captain would blame those who were trying to warn. Only to be found before the court-martial, undoubtedly at odds with the decisions that court would be making.
In many countries the lament is heard that churches, ngo’s and political parties find ever more empty seats and disinterest. Maybe true and rigorous adherence to democracy rather than vicious tenacity of power would save many an organisation and cause a rebirth of youthful enthusiasm of would be adherents of any age.
