The Andrew Falloon debacle this week is a timely reminder that we have appallingly inadequate qualification requirements for anybody standing for public office.
The assumption that people who manage to get themselves elected to positions of responsibility have somehow been tested in the court of public opinion and are therefore suitably qualified for the job is obviously nonsense. The court of public opinion shows itself daily to be completely inept. There was a time when it was reasonably reliable. Times have changed, and that’s why political leadership is critically important, because never more than today, the speed of the leader is the speed of the crew. If the crew ain’t up to it, the leader has to whip them into shape or cast them aside — good on Judith Collins for not hesitating.
You don’t need to look very far to see just how inept some of our elected representatives are at all levels. It has to be a matter of grave concern, one that nobody seems interested in doing anything about. Do you think we should have minimum criteria for those seeking election to public office? What should those criteria look like?
We haven’t heard the last of this Falloon case. More will come out of the woodwork, and I’m sorry, you can’t throw up “mental health” and hide behind that (and therein is another story worthy of a full post).
I concede, I’m wondering why this complaint ended up in the PM’s office. It reeks of an attempted political hit job, which in no way diminishes the seriousness and stupidity of what we know about so far, but it is more than a little odd.
It could be said that our western society was formed on the back of two basic principles designed to work alongside each other in the best interests of our society: rule of law and traditional Christian values.
With our world becoming more secular by the day, we have thrown away the legs that support one side of the stool, and it really is struggling to stay upright.
A significant part of the equation on which we engineered our western ways has been disposed of so we shouldn’t be surprised when the answers don’t come out right. We are blurring too many boundaries.
Every boundary that is allowed to blur is a “thin end of the wedge” that becomes a part of our culture. Before we know it, values change and what wasn’t okay once becomes everyday behaviour.
Once upon a time the use of words like ‘bugger’ and ‘bloody’ in public was unacceptable and if used in the media would have resulted in sackings. Today it’s normal every day parlance along with much worse.
Once upon a time, naked pictures weren’t tolerated even in those adult magazines. They used to cover nipples with little tiny pasties, and anything below the stomach was always covered. Then the thin edge of the wedge started wriggling its way past the pasties and panties, and today you have hardcore pornography easily available to everybody. People think it’s okay to make their own and share things around that once were sacred.
That’s what happens when boundaries become blurred: they very quickly turn into no boundaries at all, as people are left to their own devices with no checks and balances and beliefs (or lack of them) to match.
As a libertarian at heart, the last thing I want to see is government imposed censorship or restrictions on my life or yours, but what options are left when it becomes clear that self imposed standards, principles, values – call them whatever you like – just don’t exist for some people?
What confidence can we have in our elected representatives to make sound decisions for all of us when their own moral compasses are clearly completely dysfunctional?
Have our own moral compasses also become completely dysfunctional?
If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.
