Anniversaries of big events can be useful reminders of the changes that have taken place during lifetimes, or over centuries. I must admit to having been quite shocked to find out that women were only allowed into the House of Lords in 1958. I also hadn’t been aware that when women were granted the vote in 1918, they had to be over 30 to exercise that right! Right now, I’m asking a few fellow peers their views on the anniversaries of women’s participation in the political sphere with a view to writing an article for a newspaper: I’m looking forward to reading the results.
I had a long discussion about leadership today, particularly in the cultural sector which is my area of professional interest. Notions of leadership are of importance in many areas: are we changing leadership styles? What are the different ways of thinking about what leadership is and might be? Do we get the leaders we deserve?
I note that it was not until 1963 that hereditary Peeresses were allowed to sit in the HoL. It seems that full equality for women tends to happen sooner when there is a complete change of the system, such as in the USSR after the abolition of the monarchy.
There are many leaders in the social hierarchy, from the family unit upwards. Context must also be considered, for example, whether the leadership is inherited (as in a family) or earned (as a boss) or elected, or a social situation such as a debate. The situation of ‘community’ leaders is fuzzy where there seems to be an non-inherited, unearned, unelected assumption or, put another way, who makes the first move.
What is troubling today is the general lack of respect towards leaders, especially those who could have expected it in the past whether they be from the clergy or the state; worse is the preference by some kids to be led by a gang than by their parents.
Either today’s leaders don’t deserve respect or society is incapable of selecting suitable leaders. I veer towards the second (admittedly very generalised) explanation. Some of the blame must go towards the media and some is due to the leaders who have generated the lack of individual responsibility.
That’ll do for a start. Look forward to furthering the debate if anybody cares to!
Tiz
Hi Tiz
One of the curious things is that “peeresses” are not women peers–they are the wives of male peers! But it hardly matters.
Surely leaders earn respect by the actions they take and usually over a prolonged period of time? One of my great heroes, the 7th Earl of Shaftesbury, who campaigned in the mid nineteenth century for a number of social causes provided leadership and a voice for campaigners outside parliament for well over 50 years, although he never reached high office and was content to persevere and persuade.
Perhaps one of the problems today is that not all that many high fliers put themselves forward for election to parliament and too many MPs come into parliament without any experience of life outside politics. Political life then becomes an end in itself and party politics in particular.
But I suspect that political leaders have never had greater respect, one only has to look at the virulent cartoons in the eighteenth century to realise we are actually quite polite and respectful compared to then.
Interesting choice. Yes, Shaftesbury was a reformer, mainly for the good though, for example, comments have been made regarding the care of his own staff whilst campaigning for factory workers. But then again, I can’t think of anyone who could be termed the perfect leader, though Ghandi would come pretty close. Or HM The Queen?
I agree that the calibre of today’s parliamentarians needs improving, and soon. To this end, I have long advocated reducing the number of MPs to allow for a decent increase in salary.
Another problem is the microscope someone’s life comes under at the selection stage, to prepare them for the inevitable public scrutiny. There aren’t that many who would give up the chance of a partnership in a law firm, say, and opt for a future where half the people want to rip your throat out. More true for women who, if successfully elected, then face the delights of chauvinism!
However, the biggest problem is the party system, since most people are not devoted to one party. Recent indies have been a result of protest against the incumbent, but there is little chance of someone beating the main parties.
Yes, Westminster has had a long history, it will be shame to see it closed down when Lisbon finally kicks in and Britain a mere region of the EU.