We take our responsibilities very seriously …

….vs  ‘The truth shall set them free’?

I have recently found myself asking a simple question: ‘What happens when casuistry becomes embedded in democracy and the methods by which it achieves, and then maintains, that power?’  I am careful about how I pose that question. I grew up in the context of two ‘great wars’ that were (allegedly) ‘fought for democracy’, by which I thought was meant accountability, in which truth must be a key element or, as someone said – I do not quite remember who, but he was famous:  “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

From a very long time ago, I recall a silly story that lived with me. A family had found a tiny bird-like creature of a type that they did not recognise, but, because it was immensely cuddly, they took it in and gave it the title of ’Rarey’.  A year later, though still lovable,  it had become a huge predatory creature with very large wings. The family realised that it had to go, ‘to be freed’.  That said, the question was: How?  In the end, they took it to a local cliff, and there, on the edge, they explained that the plan was to push it over the edge so that it could spread its wings and fly. The creature looked uncertain, went to the edge of the cliff and looked down with huge eyes that were filled with tears. It said: ‘It’s a long way to ‘tipaRarey.’  Silly, but it helped embed an understanding, albeit vaguely,  that there are risks in finding something, caring for it, but then finding that it was unsustainable

‘Trust’ is a funny thing in its own right, but without truth and accountability I find myself, increasingly, asking, ‘What is the point of any of it?’

It is “In God We Trust”: so said those folks, who recently moved across an ocean, and who fought not only for their freedom from Empire and Royalty but also, latterly, for freedom for some and unity for all and the end of slavery.  In that fight for freedom and accountability, 750,000 people died (according to historian J. David Hacker) out of a population of circa 31 million people.

When I was a lad, in seemingly simpler times, we might have spoken of someone we did not trust as ‘saying one thing but doing another’. But the search for ‘plausible deniability’ has become, it seems, a central part of so-called ‘governance’, even in a so-called democracy, as has also become ‘gaslighting’ and a multiplicity of such phrases in these times.

These days it often seems to old folk like me that the things we fought for in World Wars 1 and 2 with our ‘American cousins’ alongside (if not leading), that in thhis age of ‘new media’, no one is immune to censorship: “A historian and author says he is “genuinely dismayed” after a comment about Donald Trump was removed from a lecture”  he delivered on BBC Radio 4.

But what if the things I am fearful of are not just real only ‘sometimes’; but if, rather, they have become the norm: embodied, even embedded, in our governments and institutions, locally, nationally and internationally?

What became of “The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth“, which was the standard wording of an oath or affirmation administered to a witness before they gave testimony in a court of law or other formal proceedings?

What are we dealing with, and how might we deal with the situation, if elements of the media are established simply to reflect one perspective, even if the core issues are not of global importance but are intensely local?

If we look at the international scene we see Trump et. al. in full pursuit of his beloved idea – a Nobel Peace Prize based in part on the manufactured illusion of a ceasefire in Gaza and the forthcoming announcements of a similar, ‘manufactured’ deception in Ukraine;  an arrangement which reflects not quite the promise made somewhat earlier:  Peace in our Time.

Meanwhile, ‘back on the ranch’, or rather theCafé’s village home, Kirk Harrison, North Northamptonshire Council’s executive member for regulatory services, said the ‘Travellers’ site was “by no means a done deal” but remained “the only council-owned option that met the necessary criteria”, by which statement, one is forced to conclude that the newly elected party under the banner of ‘Reform’, prefers to employ obfuscation and casuistry in its dealings with the elected national government?

But then, in this precise context, it is reported that Harrison went on to say that ‘the facilities’ would be “deliberately unattractive”, with running water but no electricity, adding: “Paying for such meagre facilities, I don’t think, is going to be particularly popular.” So, what happens if we add a touch of cynicism and a hint of ‘obfuscation’ to this rich melange?  And, by the way, the context here is that locals are all aware that Traveller groups are highly familiar with lobbying for facilities.  For example, one such facility that was granted land a couple of years ago, which may be seen to have  ‘evolved’ – and in some style – on the other road leading out of Woodford village  towards the mainland?

So, I ask myself, where are we with this?  In our local case, if the ‘governance ‘of an elected role requires someone who is elected on ‘a platform’ to do something in a way that he/ she believes to be in contrast with the basis on which the selection was held. But,  ‘Can it be right to carry out one’s duties in a way that is fundamentally opposed to that which is required? ‘ Put simply: yes!   ‘I did it, but I deliberately did it in a way to make sure it would not work as intended!’  ‘Pretence’ emerging via photosynthesis to become ‘farce’?

If that were to happen, wouldn’t every political party and every element that constitutes the whole of our present ‘representative structure’ (?) be devalued by what has been done?   ‘You can’t have it both ways, lad’ is something I grew up with.

Thus, for me, in my simple way, the choice would be clear; (1) I tell central government that I will not do this and I will ask my constituents for their instructions and or (2) I would tell my constituents that I am doing something I do not believe in but it is the law and ask them to decide for me. But I know also, ‘Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who draws strength from mere flesh’ (Jeremiah 17:5 ).’

In my own personal ‘journey’ seeking ‘faith’, I recall being deeply drawn by the pristine desert to ‘submission’ and Islam – and then losing it as a result of the cynicism of others. I recall also how, in Dharmshala, I could not easily rid my mind of a group of Monks in full robes and ‘uniform’, marching with hand bells ringing down the unmade street and, in the process, pushing out of their way an old lady who was begging for food. Even yesterday,  we saw ‘The dangerous rise of Buddhist extremism: Attaining nirvana can wait’. But let us not discriminate, Christianity is not unaffected: ‘The far Right and Christianity.  (I would have mentioned Sikhs – favourably, of course –  but ‘She-who-Must-be-obeyed’ is a Punjabi Sikh who sleeps with a ‘kirpan’ under her pillow!)

So, it was that, very late in life, I did an MA in New Media and Creative Writing, and boy, in my innocence did that help change things until we began to see the evolution of ‘free speech and the promise of ‘a voice for all’: but, a decade later, it seems there were caveats embodied in that supposed promise …. only in a way, and only for some.

So, because of ‘corruption’, Zelenski falls, Putin triumphs, and Trump gets the Nobel Peace Prize for Gaza et al?!   Dear God, how did we ever get to this?

As the evening twilight encroaches, one asks: where is ‘principle’ in all this? If we can no longer trust our institutions, the media, the people whom we elect, nor the institutions to which they are elected, then one asks, in God’s Name:  in what and/or whom do we trust and, by the way, how do we even get close to ‘the old fellow’ – if He cannot trust us?