Crosslink column
By Richard Davis
Research Executive Officer
Joint Methodist Presbyterian Public Questions Committee
What becomes of the non leaders?
Leadership is one of the hot topics of the year. In November's general election we will elect those who will lead the country for the next three years. The campaign is likely to be a battle between the leaders of the two major parties, Jenny Shipley and Helen Clark. Within the church, debates continue on whether to have homosexual leaders and the Presbyterian Church is discovering what servant mission leadership is. This focus on leaders is understandable for leaders can provide with a vision and encourage us to work toward it. They can stimulate others to achieve more than they otherwise would, and can teach us to be self-sufficient and autonomous. But with all this focus on leaders what becomes of the non-leaders?
In his essay 'Neither Leaders nor Followers: Citizenship under Strong Democracy' Benjamin Barber, a Professor of Political Science, argues that our desire for strong political leaders has made us weak citizens. Strong leaders turn people into spectators or followers who feel that they do not know what is best for them and defer to those in power. Knowledgeable leaders, experts and other professionals relieve people of the burden to understand their world and participation in running it themselves, creating dependence on experts. The New Zealand Study of Values regrettably showed that Barber's argument holds true here in Aotearoa. In a recent survey a staggering 39% of those questioned were in favour of a technocracy, where technical experts would run the country. Not only do we expect leaders to have more knowledge than us; we also expect them to have higher moral standards, creating further distance between leader and follower. In the church there are also risks with strong leadership. Strong ministers can turn whole congregations into spectators and their impressive theological credentials can discourage lay theological reflection and expression.
For both church and world our standard for leadership should be one that empowers people, rather than disenfranchising them. For Barber good leadership leaves a group more capable when the leader departs than before they arrived. In his words it is a leadership that can boast "Now that she is gone, we can do this ourselves." This kind of leader "resembles more the teacher than the administrator, the judge more than the legislator, the therapist than the surgeon, the moderator than the chairman." This approach to leadership demands a humility missing from our current political leaders, but is one that will hopefully develop in the church through servant mission leadership.
The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the Public Questions Committee.