In Italian, ‘Fare brutta figura’ means ‘to make a bad
impression’. It translates literally as to ‘present (or make) an ugly face’. In
China the words ‘saving face’ carry great social, political and personal significance.
It is easy to suppose that both these expressions are a matter of what the
British might in the past have called ‘keeping up appearances’ but now it seems
that we are far less concerned about appearances, and more, perhaps, is the
pity.
It is true that ‘appearances’
convey little, if any, of the wider and more significant meaning of what people
say or do, but how those in the public eye behave, what ‘face’ they present,
tells us more about the kind of people they are than they themselves perhaps
realise. This pertains especially to the way politicians are viewed in public
and in private (and what is private will inevitably become public sooner or
later), but it also applies to other role models, opinion formers and trend
setters. The ‘face’ they present in both private and public spheres, tells us
quite a bit about who they are and what they really want, but little about what
they believe, what their vision or dream for goodness and truth consists of, assuming
they believe in some form of higher good. What powerful or influential people believe
about goodness and truth really matters for the rest of us – and it will show
in the ‘face’ they present.
How politicians behave in public tells us about the extent
to which they honour those who have entrusted them to govern in a way which is
both good and truthful, and for whose well-being they are responsible. Politicians
are elected through a democratic process (allowing for whatever one may feel
about the lack of proportional representation in the UK) which is founded on
trust. But trusting politicians to do what they say they are going to do gives
only a partial view of the kind of trust needed between the electorate and
those who exercise power. Trust also requires integrity. A person has integrity
when they are ‘integral’, or ‘at one’ with themselves and act from that
integral place. Acting with integrity requires the ability to remain connected
to the essential truth about God’s love which is planted within a person by God
himself.
Politicians, and
all who hold any kind of power or influence over others, are therefore accountable
to God for the way they have retained that integrity and used it to work God’s
love and goodness into their particular sphere of influence. With politicians
of all persuasions, integrity is revealed in the kind of ‘face’ they present to
the world, a ‘face’ which, whether they like it or not, is transparent to who
they are. When their speech and actions are at odds with their own integrity,
or goodness, it indicates that they are not at one with themselves. It
indicates a lack of integrity. Where there is no integrity power is exercised in
a way which is not only untruthful, but damaging for the way our democracy
functions because it undermines our fundamental trust in the political process
as such. People feel that politicians have lost their way and, if they continue
to engage with politics at all, these people will be increasingly drawn to
those who beguile them with dangerously simplistic answers to perceived social
problems.
This is probably why the nasty and personalised invective
which passes for ‘lively discussion’ and ‘feeling passionate’ about issues,
specifically in the context of House of Commons debates, simply will not do. Not
only is it irresponsible, immature and dangerous for a healthy democracy, it
also clearly reveals that short-termism linked to personal gain are what count
most for politicians today. Here, in particular, politicians could benefit from
the wisdom of the Iriquois people of North America whose decision-making
processes take account of the well-being of the next seven generations. Our own
‘playground bully’ style of political debate cannot possibly deliver anything
like this because it fails to educate politically by setting an example of intelligent
and humane discussion aimed at the common good. So, perhaps in the short time left before key
elections take place in Scotland and, later, in the rest of the United Kingdom,
we need to step back from the political scene before us and ask ourselves what
it is we hope for our nation, or nations in, say, 100 years’ time? Perhaps we
have no dreams at all for times in which many of us will no longer be around.
In which case, what does that say about us as citizens of a democracy for the future?
All of this begs the question of what, as a nation, we
really think we are? Here I am not talking about ‘Englishness’, or, for that
matter, ‘Scottishness’. I am talking about righteousness under a righteous God,
as opposed to bland secularism or extreme religiosity with no clear framework,
vision or motive for articulating and wanting the good for society as a whole.
Our nation is rooted and grounded in that righteousness. It owes its identity
and parliamentary system to Jesus Christ, to the principles he taught and died
for. Being a Christian nation, in the context of the public and private sphere
of politics, means behaving and legislating in a way which conveys that
specific underlying sense of who and what we are. In politics it could be called
seeking a gracious integrity. A gracious integrity would present the saving
face of the Redeemer, a face which is transparent to wisdom and compassion for
the nation which politicians are called to serve. Where shall we find politicians
capable of rising to such a challenge? Start praying now.
No comments:
Post a Comment