When he took
office, the capitol city’s infrastructure was in shambles. The economy was, of course, in terrible shape
as well. Domestic terrorism was a
constant threat that needed to be constantly monitored and addressed.
Before he went to work on fixing
the problems his governance would face, he took some time to learn about the
leadership methodology of his predecessors.
Something wasn’t right, of course, since the capitol city had been a
mess for longer than anyone could remember.
It didn’t take long to hear about the former governors’ approach: enjoy
all the rights, privileges and perks of the office – at the expense of the
people – and promote the dignity of the office by staying there – don’t get
your hands dirty with real work among alongside the people you serve.
The new governor could see that those
who came before him did not confront the obvious problems facing the capitol
city (failing infrastructure), and that the luxurious lifestyle at the expense
of those who were struggling created low morale and distrust among the
constituency.
The first thing he did was get his hands dirty. He dove headfirst into the problems that were
keeping his people from flourishing. He
researched secretly, in fact, because he wanted an unvarnished view of just how
bad things were on the street. His
security detail didn’t even know where he was.
He discovered that things were as bad as he had heard. He saw what affect the conditions were having
on the people, and it deeply moved him.
As soon as his report was ready, he went into the community, and rallied
the people’s support from the street level, calling on their sense of pride to
give them the energy and focus they had not experienced for years. People gave themselves to the work at hand –
they were inspired by the charisma, vision and character of their new leader.
Terror threats rose in light of the new attempt to rebuild themselves,
and when they did, the governor spoke encouragement to his people. Everyone took responsibility for their safety
seriously, and people were encouraged to arm and protect themselves if
challenged.
Not long into his term, however, he learned of an ongoing threat to the
future of most of his people. Wealthier
citizens came to the aid of the less fortunate in their time of need by
providing them loans to keep them afloat.
The loans really didn’t help, though, because the interest they were
charged was sinking them. Children were
sent to work to avoid default. None of
this was illegal, of course. The wealthy
agreed to terms that worked for them, and those who needed the loan signed the
contract. The wealthy had every legal
right to continue collecting on their loans, regardless of the plight of the
people making the payments.
But does legally right mean that it’s right?
The governor called these elite folks on the carpet. He painted the picture for them: abusing the
people had caught up with them.
Continuing to demand their legal rights was going to lead to severe
oppression on the people, which would be the undoing of the elite in time. He called for them to make deep changes to
help change the economy.
One of the reasons the governor could speak with such passion and
conviction was because of the way he had chosen to live his life while in
office. In contrast to the leaders
before him, he did not draw on his luxury allowances, which were funded by the
majority of the people who were mostly poor.
This decision not only lowered budget expenses, it included a tax cut
for the poor. At the same time, however,
he personally continued to foot the bill for many services required by his
office. He sacrificed for the good of
the people. He ate the cost of change
while he was relieving the price of life for those he led. All the while he served among the people as
they rebuilt their future together.
Amazingly, the wealthy elite changed their approach to their wealth. They forgave loans and returned that which
they had taken as collateral. In other
words, they did the right thing even though they didn’t have to legally. They paid the price for a problem they helped
to create. Some of them even got their
hands dirty right alongside the governor.
The time it took to turn the city around was unprecedented. Morale was higher than ever, people were
working again, the city was safe, and the future was bright.
What would it look like if our country’s leadership would take this same
approach of being with the people long enough to really understand the
problems? How would things be different
if our leadership led the elite by example, willingly sacrificing luxuries that
ultimately are paid for by those who have little to spare? How would the morale of the masses be
different if the elected leaders and those who lead with their pocketbooks
tightened up their lifestyle? What would
happen if the leadership and the wealthy few set aside – at least in part –
their legal right to accumulate wealth from the poor who pay them, and chose
something perhaps more “right” in relieving the burdened of those who struggle
at their own expense?
This governor got it right. He
inspired the rich and poor alike with his presence, his character, and his
charisma. His name was Nehemiah. He ruled over the city of Jerusalem and its
surrounding areas from 445-432 BCE.
While some of the historical context between our time and his is
difficult to appreciate and even harder to reconcile, how Nehemiah led when
faced with a terrible economy, poverty, terror, and greed is inspiring and
instructive.
