Perhaps even a political leader.
Let’s imagine for example that a political party came to power on the back of powerfully stated, unequivocal promises to do A, B and C and never to do X, Y or Z. Imagine further that they knew that people had lost faith in politicians because of broken promises and lack of integrity. So they also promised to bring a new level of transparency, honesty, integrity, and even care to political debate and political decisions.
And let’s imagine that when they came to power they believed they had inherited a financial situation far worse than even their own dire predictions. And let’s say for the sake of the argument that they were right. How might they proceed toward their first budget?
Well, if they still held to their commitments to transparency, honesty, integrity and care, and they believed the situation was truly perilous for the country, then I suppose they might do something like this:
- Commission the key government departments, without political interference, to produce one set of agreed financial statements and agreed ranges of predicted results with full disclosure of assumptions.
- Engage the opposition parties around those statements in working sessions to hammer out agreement on the current situation, what actions could achieve bipartisan support, and what could not.
- Engage leaders representative of a broad range of ‘communities’: indigenous, small and large business, government agencies, unions, education at all levels, charities, migrants, rural and urban, volunteers and more.
- Allow the input of these consultations to challenge their own assumptions and commitments
- Set a budget they believe is for the best possible good for all.
Then imagine the government delivered that budget in parliament beginning with words something like this…
“We believe we face a dire situation. After full and transparent discussion, we have reached bipartisan agreement, as far as possible, on the scale of the problem. The causes of this situation stretch back over previous governments of all persuasions. Some are the unintended and unforseen results of otherwise good decisions. We have consulted widely with leaders from all walks of life in our nation. Simply, we face… In broad terms, to address these issues, and to ensure the best possible outcomes for all people, we believe we have no choice but to break our promises to do A, B and C and never to do X, Y and Z. We accept in doing this that we have wronged all who heard our promises. We do not take these decisions or besmirch our integrity lightly. We do so because we believe our equally public commitment to transparency, honesty, integrity and care leaves us with no choice but to admit we were wrong and now renege certain of our promises. We thank all members of this parliament and the leaders we have consulted for their generosity of spirit in helping us forge as far as possible a bipartisan budget. They do not and cannot agree with every measure we now put forward, nor should they. The responsibility remains ours alone as the elected government. The blame remains ours alone for broken promises. But we share the belief that together we can turn this situation around and ensure the future prosperity in every true and meaningful sense of our great nation.”
Finally, imagine the opposition leader began his or her reply with words something like this…
“We do not agree with every measure in this budget. We cannot. We agree on the broad assessment of the current financial situation. We agree that only a bipartisan approach can move the nation forward constructively. And we applaud the transparency with which the government has undertaken to set their budget. We will not crow at broken promises, since the people of this nation remember only too well the promises we have broken in times past, and that every political party has broken. We will agree to everything we feel we must agree, and we will oppose everything we feel we must oppose…”
There is extraordinary, and I use this word carefully, power in speaking the truth boldly, frankly, and with hope.
I know what I’m saying is virtually unthinkable and may seem hopelessly naive. But it has happened, or at least something very similar in spirit. Some leaders have dared to speak truth with hope.
Abraham Lincoln did the unthinkable in his 1863 address at the dedication of the Gettysburg memorial cemetery.
The war was still raging. The crowd expected him, wanted him, to dwell on Northern victory and Southern defeat. They expected him to take the high moral ground on their behalf over the spectre of slavery and the brutality of the South. They expected Lincoln to expound the claim of the Constitution over the rebellious southern states. But he did none of these things.
Lincoln went back to the common foundation of North and South: the Declaration of Independence. He gathered all, North and South, around their common grief at the loss of fathers, husbands, sons and brothers. He lifted the issue to the survival of democracy, not simply for America, but for the world:
“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Truth can be spoken with hope and we must never stop believing it.
If your leader admitted he or she had wronged you, had broken your faith, but otherwise now acted on your behalf, would you follow her or him again?
When have we used the words “I’m sorry” to dodge the much harder words “I have wronged you.”
COMMENTS: Unfortunately I have had to turn off comments because of automated trolls filling the pages with random spurious text messages. My apologies. For those who want to interact, please email me at mark(at)markstrom(dot)co.