The Parsonage Ignites

When Boris Johnson was Prime Minister of England and COVID hit, the country created all these safety rules about distancing, human interaction, and appropriate behavior to follow to keep people safe. It was a sacrifice, but people were asked to follow them.

Then it came out that Boris and other leaders weren’t following them. Tales of lavish parties emerged, and not just one. It became known as “Partygate”. He became the first British Prime Minister fined by the police for violating lockdown laws.

How often have you seen it? Someone tells you have to change but doesn’t change themselves?

Rarely does this go well. It certainly didn’t in the United Kingdom. Boris Johnson stayed as prime minister for only seven months after news broke of “Partygate” and only three months after he was fined by the police.

Do as I say not as I do rarely works.

As early as age seven, children can become aware of the hypocrisy they encounter from their parents who tell them not to do something while the parents continue to indulge. By the teenage years this rebellion is often in full force.

This made me think of a handful of parents tell their stories to me of counseling their children to behave in one way, then when they thought or knew the child was out of earshot would then say to me, “And don’t do as I did.”

I’ve been meaning to circle back to those children (all of whom are adults now) to see how much they knew and what that did to them.

Often when children sense or perceive their parents as being hypocritical in this way, they feel their own self-worth is being attacked. This then leads more often than not to acts of defiance.

The double standards are often obvious. Double standards lead to resentment, disconnection, and then defiance. They imply superiority, duplicity, and privilege.

I’ve wondered if Boris was aware of this, if he cared even if he did notice the difference, or was just seeing what he could get away with. It certainly played out that way.

Initially after the details of Partygate came out, Boris expressed regret. He later regretted his stated apologies and called doing so a mistake on his part. He argued that it was essential to have these parties to boost staff morale during the pandemic. I’ve wondered if he came up with that talking point on his own or was it from someone else, though that almost doesn’t matter. Once out of his lips, the comment belonged to Boris.

He would later say he had misled Parliament when he told them he had been following the rules at all times and had unknowingly broken them based on assurances from his staff that doing so was okay.

He added later that he had been ambushed by a cake by staff. He also said that Privileges’ Committee that had investigated him had been a “kangaroo court”. To this day, he has never said he did anything wrong.

Laying blame elsewhere as justification for double standards doesn’t end well for someone with that much power. Or those that follow.

Liz Truss was prime minister for 49 days. Rishi Sunak was prime minister for 619 days or 1 year and 254 days. That’s just a couple days more than a year and 2/3rds. Liberal Party Prime Minister Keit Starmer needs to make it to March 17^th next month to make it to 620 days.

I suspect, though I could be surprised, he will surpass 619 days, though his approval rating is way day.

A leading response is a desire for things to get back to normal, though what normal was is often a matter of some disagreement. Most people are simply tired from the loss of trust, being asked to change, while politicians keep being politicians and seem to be above it all.

Being asked to be the holders of change while others carry on as is (and was) creates more distrust. And a sense of not mattering.

Sometimes that’s what the politician wants, often an autocrat. Beat people down to a level where no leader is perceived as being honorable so that the devil you know is better than the one you don’t.

We’ve certainly seen the Boris playbook here in the United States. And we’ve seen some learning from it. Perhaps Boris was taking notes from the US playbook.

But asking people to change when the leader doesn’t change just doesn’t last long historically.

When Nicolae Ceausescu was the leader of Romania, which he was 24 years, he was in complete control. It began to slip. A pastor was speaking out against him. Ceausescu tried to evict him from his parsonage, but the pastor refused. And it inflamed the nerves of the people to the tipping point.

But it wasn’t just about the pastor and the parsonage. Things had been getting worse as people became aware that the austerity programs Ceausescu had started which were to pay off the foreign debt the dictator had rung up. Then his security forces opened fire on protesters. Then Ceausescu was jeered at a live broadcast rally in Bucharest that the dictator had orchestrated which was meant to show him as leader.

The next day his military defected. Ceausescu fled that day, but the military found him in a few hours. Three days later he was court-martialed and executed by firing squad on Christmas Day.

The pastor, Laszlo Stokes, was the moment the match was struck that set the country ablaze. That happened only 9 days before the execution. Ceausescu’s end came fast. Undoubtedly because the military was tired of enforcing the dictator’s wishes.

People had gotten tired of the double standards and the years of “You will do as I say” while the leader didn’t play by his own rules. Ceausescu had been able amass power in about 4 years. He became head of state in 1967 and was seen as totalitarian as early as 1971. At that time there was no free press, no social media, no easy ways to resist. But once the double standards became public conversation and into the awareness of people, the end came very quickly.

In fact, it probably came more quickly by Ceausescu’s attempt to shut it down. At that point the teenagers had had enough of the hypocrisy.

Romania took about 15 years to stabilize after the overthrow. Only when the country integrated with NATO (2004) and the European Union (2007), along with the loosening of strict social laws did things change. The Romanian people could see they had opportunities like other European countries.

Multiple causes led to multiple effects.

Political corruption still exists in Romania and there is some romanticizing of the old regime. While I’m sure there are still many double standards in Romania, as long as the memory of the stricter double standards of Ceausescu remain vivid, the current government will be seen as a better option.

Until the memory fades. Until the corruption spreads. Until the double standards grow . Then history could repeat itself.

But what I find remarkable about the story is that in some ways the rebellion was not only about freedom in Romania, not only about an end to double standards, but about the fact that the people had something to say about who they wanted to be and in essence wanted leaders who would work with them toward who they wanted to be.

They wanted leaders who led with them, by example, who shared their burdens and struggles, who would live by the same standards.

Mutuality and trust improved.

The question is, always, can we learn from those around us as we lead. Not only those who staunchly support us, which is important, but also those who we disagree with. Seeing yourself as superior to those you disagree with is the beginning of the end. Though it may take years to get to the tipping point.

These are lessons we shall see if both the United Kingdom and the United States can navigate. But at some point, the hypocrisy will be too much. The jeering will reach that tipping point, and then we’ll have to figure out together what’s next, and who we want to be.

Perhaps instead of thinking about wanting to go back to the way things were, we need to think about who we want to be collectively. Maybe we should start doing that now. And perhaps with the caveat of “And not at the expense of someone else.”

Minnesota is teaching us that now.

Will the leaders learn from it?