Parmi les relations les plus cruciales dans la vie du décideur gouvernemental, on trouve celles avec celles qui voient les choses différemment de nous, c’est-à-dire celles de l’opposition.

En démocratie, la majorité a la responsabilité de guider l’ensemble de la population, et pas seulement ses membres. Elle doit donc veiller à ce que les intérêts fondamentaux de chacun soient pris en compte, y compris ceux des minorités. Autrement dit, ceux qui détiennent l’autorité de gouverner doivent veiller à ce que la minorité ne se sente pas exclue et, par conséquent, reléguée au second plan. La majorité doit veiller à ce que la minorité se sente incluse, même si ses revendications ne peuvent l’être. Elle doit toujours veiller à ce que la minorité garde espoir et confiance dans la validité de sa voix. C’est fondamental pour un leadership au service des autres.

Il y a quelques années, j’ai constaté une grave incompréhension de cette responsabilité lorsqu’un président sortant a déclaré lors de sa campagne : « Que ceux qui ne votent pas pour moi ne s’attendent pas à recevoir quoi que ce soit de moi.» Ce n’est pas du leadership au service du peuple !

Comment notre Créateur envisage-t-il la relation entre l’opposition et la majorité au pouvoir ?

Le roi Salomon nous a transmis sa sagesse dans les conseils suivants concernant la prise de décisions au sein du gouvernement.:

Les plans échouent sans conseil, mais avec de nombreux conseillers, ils réussissent (Proverbes 15:22).

Conduisez la guerre avec des conseils judicieux : la victoire vient avec de nombreux conseillers (Proverbes 24:6).

Préparez vos plans par la consultation, et menez la guerre par des conseils avisés (Proverbes 20:18).

Le roi Salomon prônait une large consultation dans le processus décisionnel, s’appuyant apparemment sur le plus large éventail de réflexions possibles. Bien que Salomon ait exercé ses fonctions dans une monarchie, ses conseils s’appliquent à la gouvernance démocratique.

Examinons un principe clé du manuel d’instructions de notre Créateur, applicable à la majorité comme à la minorité : la persuasion. S’engager dans la persuasion pour tenter de changer la façon de penser de quelqu’un qui diffère de moi signifie que je reconnais qu’il est lui aussi créé à l’image de Dieu. Cela reflète le désir qu’ensemble nous puissions mieux comprendre la pensée de notre Créateur sur cette question, en reconnaissant que, par nous-mêmes, nous ne comprenons pas pleinement Sa pensée, comme notre Créateur l’a clairement indiqué :

« Car mes pensées ne sont pas vos pensées, et vos voies ne sont pas mes voies. » Telle est la déclaration du Seigneur. « Autant le ciel est élevé au-dessus de la terre, autant mes voies sont élevées au-dessus de vos voies, et mes pensées au-dessus de vos pensées. » (Ésaïe 55:8-9)

Que nous apprend le manuel d’instructions de notre Créateur sur la persuasion ? Examinons l’utilisation de la persuasion dans la vie d’un autre de ses serviteurs, où il a exprimé ce principe, bien que dans un contexte différent :

C’est pourquoi, connaissant la crainte du Seigneur, nous cherchons à persuader les gens (2 Corinthiens 5:11).

Le roi Salomon a témoigné de sa vision de l’efficacité de la persuasion, essentiellement dans son propre gouvernement :

Un dirigeant peut être persuadé par la patience, et une langue douce peut briser un os (Proverbes 15:25).

Comment cela fonctionne-t-il concrètement ? Un ami était enfant à une époque où son père était chef de l’opposition immédiatement après l’indépendance. Au Parlement, son père s’opposait farouchement au Premier ministre sur certaines questions. Mon ami était perplexe lorsqu’après le retour de la famille à la capitale après une visite dans leur circonscription rurale, le père apportait des boisseaux de légumes au Premier ministre à sa résidence. En privé, ils étaient proches. Ils étaient en désaccord sur de nombreux points politiques, mais ils s’appréciaient et se respectaient profondément. Je suis convaincu que c’est ainsi que notre Créateur nous a demandé de travailler avec ceux avec qui nous sommes en désaccord : non pas en les considérant comme nos ennemis, mais comme des êtres créés à l’image de Dieu, que nous pourrions au mieux considérer comme incompréhensifs. Cela nous permet également d’être réceptifs à l’enseignement et de reconnaître que nous, humains, pouvons mal comprendre la pensée de notre Créateur, alors que nous cherchons à nous persuader mutuellement pour parvenir ensemble à la vérité.

Une divergence d’opinions ne doit pas nécessairement engendrer une relation conflictuelle. Nous apprenons bien plus de nos critiques que de nos partisans et alliés. Une démocratie saine exige un dialogue avec les plus larges pans de la société. En effet, le dirigeant est chargé par notre Créateur d’unifier la nation et de faire avancer le navire tout entier, et pas seulement la majorité. Une véritable compréhension de la démocratie et du leadership au service du peuple ne nécessite pas de s’opposer à ceux qui ont des opinions différentes, notamment sur le plan politique. Le chef du gouvernement a reçu pour mandat de donner des orientations au gouvernement, et non d’étrangler tous les autres ni d’étouffer ceux qui ont des points de vue différents. Le chef du gouvernement doit considérer l’opposition avec la même précision : ceux qui perçoivent le problème et/ou la solution différemment. Il est regrettable que nous puissions faire d’une telle personne un ennemi personnel et, par là, un ennemi de l’État.

J’ai été encouragé de voir le président Nelson Mandela appliquer ce principe. Un jour, alors qu’il devait quitter son pays, il a nommé son rival Mangosuthu Buthelezi président par intérim. Je suis convaincu que l’on gaspille trop d’énergie à polariser les camps politiques. Après tout, ce n’est pas notre parti qui est si important, mais notre nation. Et je suis convaincu qu’aucune nation ne pourra atteindre la qualité de vie que notre Créateur lui a promise sans l’application de ce principe.

Le président Abraham Lincoln m’a impressionné lorsqu’il a intégré à son cabinet plusieurs hommes politiques influents qui s’étaient opposés à sa candidature à la présidence, notamment William Seward comme secrétaire d’État et Salmon Chase comme secrétaire au Trésor. Lincoln savait qu’il prenait des risques, car il risquait de les voir utiliser leur position d’autorité pour le défier à la tête du pays. Cependant, il était convaincu qu’ils étaient les mieux placés pour assumer leurs responsabilités et que la nation pouvait bénéficier de leur expertise. À mi-mandat, les risques se sont matérialisés. Chase a tenté de déloger Seward, apparemment dans le cadre de sa contestation du président. Le moyen le plus simple pour Lincoln de résoudre ce conflit aurait été de révoquer l’un d’eux, voire les deux. Lincoln a décidé qu’il avait besoin des deux dans son cabinet et a donc géré le conflit de la manière suivante : il a demandé et obtenu leur démission. Lincoln a ensuite rejeté les deux démissions. Le conflit s’est éteint et n’a jamais refait surface.

S’engager dans des relations importantes avec ceux qui s’opposent à nous exige que je reconnaisse que je ne possède pas toute la connaissance. C’est une leçon d’humilité, mais c’est réaliste. Derrière cela se cache une attitude d’appréciation mutuelle, quels que soient nos points de vue. Notre Créateur explique que notre capacité à agir ainsi est guidée par deux grands commandements, exprimés par Jésus, Dieu incarné :

Aime le Seigneur ton Dieu de tout ton cœur, de toute ton âme et de toute ta pensée. C’est le plus grand et le plus important commandement. Le deuxième lui est semblable : Aime ton prochain comme toi-même (Matthieu 22:37-39).

Aimer Dieu implique d’accepter la mort de Jésus sur la croix comme le paiement substitutif de mes péchés qui m’ont séparé de notre Créateur, comme le confirme sa résurrection d’entre les morts. Comme Jésus l’a clairement indiqué :

Je suis le chemin, la vérité et la vie. Nul ne vient au Père que par moi (Jean 14:6).

Ensuite, grâce à la puissance de Dieu agissant en moi grâce à ma relation avec Dieu par Jésus, j’en tire un immense profit : aimer mon prochain. Je crois que cela est essentiel pour apprécier et respecter ceux qui sont en désaccord avec nous dans la gestion des affaires de l’État. De plus, il est réconfortant d’être assuré que chaque fois que nous tentons d’obéir à notre Seigneur dans une situation difficile, il ajoute sa puissance à nos efforts pour nous aider :

Car c’est Dieu qui agit en vous, vous rendant capables de désirer et de réaliser son bien (Philippiens 2:13).

CONSIDÉRATIONS POUR L’HOMME D’ÉTAT

Suis-je prêt à discuter avec ceux qui ne sont pas d’accord avec moi et à les persuader pour trouver ensemble la bonne approche ?

Ai-je accepté le pardon de mon Créateur comme une partie de mon amour pour Lui, comme le fondement de mon amour pour mes semblables, y compris ceux dont le point de vue diffère du mien ?

The post L’homme d’État reconnaît la valeur de l’opposition appeared first on CENTRE FOR STATECRAFT.

Among the most critical relationships in the life of the government decision-maker is those who see things differently than we do – those in the opposition.

In democratic governance, the majority has the responsibility to shepherd the whole population, not just those within the majority. Therefore, the majority must make sure that everyone’s basic interests are cared for, including those in the minority. In other words, those with the authority to govern must be sensitive to ensure that the minority does not feel left out and, therefore, second-rate members of society. The majority must make sure that the minority feels included, even if everything it advocates cannot be. The majority must always ensure that the minority maintains hope and confidence that its voice is considered valid. This is fundamental to servant leadership.

A few years ago, I saw a serious misunderstanding of this responsibility when one incumbent President campaigned with these words, “Let not those who fail to vote for me expect that they will receive anything from me.” That is not servant leadership!

How does our Creator envisage that the opposition and majority should relate to each other in governing?

King Solomon left for us the benefit of his wisdom in the following advice as it relates to making decisions within government:

Plans fail when there is no counsel, but with many advisers they succeed (Proverbs 15:22).

You should wage war with sound guidance — victory comes with many counselors (Proverbs 24:6).

Prepare plans by consultation, And make war by wise guidance (Proverbs 20:18).

King Solomon advocated broad consultation in the decision-making process, apparently drawing upon the broadest array of thinking available. Although Solomon operated in a monarchy, his advice applies to democratic governance.

Let us look at a key principle from our Creator’s instruction book that applies to both the majority and the minority – persuasion. Engaging in persuasion in seeking to change the way that one who thinks differently from me means that I recognize that he also is created in the image of God. It reflects the desire that together we can come close to understanding the mind of our Creator on this issue, recognizing that by ourselves we do not fully understand His mind, as our Creator made clear:

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not My ways.” This is the Lord’s declaration. “For as heaven is higher than earth, so My ways are higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9).

What do we learn from our Creator’s instruction book about persuasion? Let us look at the use of persuasion in the life of another of His servants, where he expressed this principle, even though in a different context:

Therefore, because we know the fear of the Lord, we seek to persuade people (2 Corinthians 5:11).

King Solomon testified how he viewed persuasion working, essentially in his own governance:

A ruler can be persuaded through patience, and a gentle tongue can break a bone (Proverbs 15:25).

How does this work practically? One friend was a child at a time when his father was the Leader of the Opposition immediately after independence. In Parliament, his father strongly opposed the Prime Minister on certain issues. My friend was confused when after the family returned to the capital from visiting their constituency in the rural village, the father would take bushels of vegetables to the Prime Minister at his residence. Privately, they were close friends. They disagreed on many policy issues, but they deeply appreciated and respected each other. I am convinced that this is the way our Creator would have us work with those we disagree with – not to view them as our enemy but as one also created in the image of God, whom we may view at best as misunderstanding. It also leaves room for us to be teachable and to recognize that we, as humans, may be misunderstanding the mind of our Creator, as we seek to persuade each other in attempting to reach the truth together.

A difference of opinion does not need to mean an adversarial relationship. We learn much more from our critics than from our supporters and allies. A healthy democracy requires dialogue from the broadest segments of society. In fact, the leader is charged by our Creator with unifying the nation and moving the whole ship ahead, not just the majority component. A true understanding of democracy and servant leadership does not require that we be adversaries with those of different views, especially politically. The Head of Government has been given the mandate to give direction to the government, not to strangle all others or to stifle those with differing perspectives. The Head of Government must see the opposition as precisely as that: those who see the problem and/or the solution in a different way. It is sad that we could make such a person into a personal enemy and, from there, into an enemy of the State.

I was encouraged to see President Nelson Mandela apply this principle. On one occasion, when he needed to be out of his nation, he appointed his rival Mangosuthu Buthelezi as Acting President. I am convinced too much energy is wasted in polarizing of political camps. After all, it is not our party that is so important; it is our nation. And I am convinced that no nation can achieve the quality of life our Creator intends for it until this principle is applied.

President Abraham Lincoln impressed me when he brought into his cabinet several strong politicians who had opposed him in seeking the presidency, including William Seward as Secretary of State and Salmon Chase as Secretary of the Treasury. Lincoln knew that he was inviting risk because there was the likelihood that they would use their positions of authority to challenge him for the leadership. However, he was convinced they were the best individuals available for their responsibilities and the nation could benefit from their expertise. Mid-way through his term, the risks materialized. Chase attempted to dislodge Seward, apparently as part of his challenging the President. The easiest way for Lincoln to resolve this dispute would have been to dismiss one or both of them. Lincoln decided that he needed both of them in his cabinet so he dealt with the conflict in this way: He requested and received resignations from both of them. Then, Lincoln rejected both of the resignations. The conflict died and never resurfaced.

A commitment to the important relationships with those in opposition to us requires that I recognize that I do not have all knowledge. This is humbling but it is realistic. Behind this is an attitude of appreciation for each other, regardless of our viewpoints. Our Creator explains our ability to do this as being driven by two great commandments as expressed by Jesus, God in human form:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and most important command. The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:37-39).

Loving God involves embracing Jesus’ death on the cross as the substitutionary payment for my sins which separated me from our Creator, as confirmed by His resurrection from the dead. As Jesus made clear:

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me (John 14:6).

Then, based upon the power of God working within me as a result of my relationship with God through Jesus, the overflow of this is to love my fellow human. I believe this is essential to our ability to appreciate and respect those who disagree with us in the administration of affairs of State. Furthermore, it is satisfying to be assured that whenever we attempt to obey our Lord in something difficult, He adds His power to our efforts in order to help us:

For it is God who is working in you, enabling you both to desire and to work out His good purpose (Philippians 2:13).

CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE STATESMAN

Am I willing to sit down with those who disagree with me and engage in persuasion to seek to arrive at the correct approach together?

Have I embraced my Creator’s forgiveness as a part of loving Him, as the basis for loving my fellow humans, including those whose perspective is different from min

The post The Statesman Recognizes the Value of the Opposition appeared first on CENTRE FOR STATECRAFT.

The Statesman faces a dilemma while operating within democratic governance. The Statesman cannot single-handedly enact legislation to support his/her vision without the help of those who are largely Politicians. Hence, one of the greatest challenges the Statesman faces is influencing those who are Politicians to support his/her vision. We have already argued that the Statesman is not yet the norm. Rather, the self-interested Politician is. In this current era of governance, we need significant numbers to support the vision of the Statesman. Hence, the Statesman will not succeed unless he/she can influence Politicians to achieve a common vision. In effect, our goal must be to motivate those who are naturally Politicians to become statesmanlike.

We have an effective example in George Catlett Marshall who, as a Statesman, was more concerned with doing good, using the authority at his disposal rather than aspiring to a higher position. His great genius was the way he brought out the best in those who governed with him. Marshall’s efforts to achieve what became called the Marshall Plan for the rebuilding of Europe after World War II provide a beautiful example of this trait of the Statesman: the capacity to make his vision contagious and draw others into it, including those from the opposition. Some of those Marshall drew into his effort and whom he motivated to statesmanlike behavior were: Senator Arthur Vandenberg, Will Clayton, Richard Bissell, Paul Hoffman, W. Averell Harriman, Ernest Bevin, Jean Monet, Robert Schuman. As an example, Senator Vandenberg was the key member of the U.S. Senate controlled by the opposition party, whose support he needed to procure the necessary Government funding. The partnership between these two leaders, whose party affiliations opposed each other, is a beautiful example of rising above party for the good of the people. Marshall was apparently able to appeal to the humanity, or the heart, in those whose cooperation he needed.

As an aside, bipartisanship should not be surprising. The goals of the Statesman do not belong to a particular party but rather belong to the well-being of humanity. As such, regardless of party and political differences, all should be able to support them. Nevertheless, the Statesman must convince those preoccupied with party to share the same human goals.

A corollary of this is that the Statesman has a different attitude toward the opposition than the Politician does. I believe that one of the most important relationships in the life of the Statesman is with those in the opposition. 1 They will help us to see potential blind spots. One official shared with me that his father was the Leader of the Opposition in the early days after independence of his nation. In Parliament, his father was sharply critical of the Prime Minister. However, every time his father visited the village, he brought back bushels of produce that he then took to the residence of the Prime Minister. Privately, they were close friends. I am convinced that those in the opposition should be among our closest friends. We need their perspectives.

What are options available to the Statesman to motivate those around him/her to statesmanlike behavior? We have already argued that the most effective way to operate as a Statesman is to govern under the guidance of our Creator. If we could facilitate those in the governing class gaining this perspective, it could potentially be the most effective method of all. Thus, it could also contribute to ensuring continuing statesmanlike behavior after us. An example is the effort by one 21st Century Prime Minister who challenged those serving in Government with him, beginning with his own testimony of the need for God’s help:

I needed assistance, direction and strength that even my family, friends and colleagues could not give. I realised that the support I was looking for could only come from God. To that point, my relationship with my Maker was something I didn’t think much about. I took it for granted. I suppose I was one of those lukewarm Christians, who coasted along in the hope that if I generally behaved myself and said my prayers I would get to Heaven. That was not enough to sustain me in my new job as Prime Minister. Increasingly, I found myself turning to God. I submitted myself in total surrender and obedience to our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. As I seek knowledge and wisdom through constant prayer and from daily readings of God’s Holy Word, I opened my heart to the Holy Spirit to counsel me and guide me. Ladies and gentlemen, I can tell you that this truly is the Way; for it is God Himself who is the real leader of a nation. And it is only in Him and from Him that we can be blessed as individuals, as communities, as organizations and as a country.

Here is a leader of Government challenging those serving in Government to submit to the guidance which God provides. If we could motivate those who serve with us to view themselves as God’s instruments on behalf of the people and to learn to depend upon His guidance, I am confident we would find ourselves working more harmoniously. This strikes me as being the ultimate in Statesmen challenging the teachable to become Statesmen.

Another long-range approach would be challenging the Religious Institution, e.g. the Church, to fulfill its God-given responsibility as “the pillar and foundation of the truth” 2 from God our Creator to every segment of His creation, including Government. As a part of the Church myself, I quickly acknowledge that we in the Church have not fulfilled our responsibility in this area. I would support you in galvanizing the Church to fulfill this responsibility.

References

1. Gary I. Allen, “Relationships Essential for Maximizing the Effectiveness of the Head of Government and His Cabinet”, in Leadership for Nation Building, 3rd ed. (2010), pp. 107-114.

2. Bible, 1 Timothy 3:15.

The post The statesman creates statesmanlike behaviour in those around him/her, including inducing members of the opposition, to participate in the vision appeared first on CENTRE FOR STATECRAFT.