As a people we are often highly critical of our leaders, particularly those in the political sphere. These criticisms, on the part of some, can lead to bitterness and sheer hatred. Such has been evidenced in recent days with the passing of Margaret Thatcher, the former British Prime Minister.

It was, to say the least, disturbing to see people in the street celebrating and toasting her death. One person interviewed, filled with morbid glee began to chant, ‘The wicked witch is dead!’

There seems to this author to be several inherent problems with such callous displays.

1. Dictatorship: Whilst Maggie was nicknamed the “Iron Lady”, there is no evidence that she was a bloody dictator. One could understand great cheers at her demise, if she had been the instigator of death squads and midnight disappearances.

However, her greatest wrong seems to have been nothing more than a forthright and honest effort to rectify the failings in and of her nation.

2. Democracy: I am often puzzled by the reactions of the electorate towards representatives in power; by comments made in the media, particularly by politicians. England, like Australia, is a democracy – well that is what they would like us to believe! People are elected by the majority vote. Why is it then that some are so critical of people elected to office? Why is it that opposition spokesmen, especially those recently tipped from power, are so vociferous against their fellows?

It seems to me that we are unhappy with democracy or at least the form of democracy under which we toil. In regard to Maggie, the simple reality is that she was the longest serving British Prime Minister of the 20^th century. The majority of the British people thought that she was the best of the choices available for that period of time. Therefore, to gloatingly rejoice at the death of an elected representative is to mock democracy.

Now, I do not like Julia Gillard, our current Prime Minister. I do not like her for a substantial number of reasons. However, I must accept that our system has allowed her to become Prime Minister of this country. To do otherwise, is to attack the concept of democracy on which our country is founded. It is also, and this is the real issue, to agitate for a more despotic system of government.

This seems to be the point missed by most. To celebrate or desire the death of a leader when they have done nothing worthy of death is to inherently attack the system of government and democracy upon which our respective countries have been founded.

It is also, of course, a theological issue. It is to say to God that we are unwilling to rest under His providence. It is to say to God that we deserve other than that which He has given to us. Again, the problem with such criticisms is that they are based solely in the subjective opinion of the voter. The lazy person who has existed on government handouts will vote for the person who prolongs and increases these handouts and not for the government that is going to call him to account. Similarly, the person who works hard and pays taxes is going to vote for the person who, in their opinion, best uses those taxes.

The issue with both of these positions is that they are nothing more than subjective elements being expressed by fallen men. They are not the dictates of Almighty God.

3. Desert: This leads us to consider what I would think is the “elephant in the room” in regard to this topic.

What is man’s desert? Okay, I may need to be a little didactic. No, I am not talking about a waste region. I have not misspelled the word referring to that part of a meal that is full of sweet goodies. I am speaking of the archaic form of the word “deserve”. We most commonly understand it in its plural form in the idiom, “just deserts”. The phrase means to be given a reward, good or bad, for one’s actions. Consequently, we must explore the question of the desert of the voters.

In our modern Western democracies, we tend to see the voter as all powerful. It is people power in action. “Yea!” for us. We the people elect the representative most suited to the welfare of the people; and we the people are never wrong.[1] Well, at least this is the fundamental presupposition that we are taught and on which we are urged to vote.

However, if this fundamental presupposition be so right, why is there so much dissatisfaction with government? Why are governments so unable to resolve problems?

Please, unveil the elephant!! (Shield the children’s eyes!)

In our godless Western democracies, we shut God out of the picture. Therefore, we never stop to contemplate that, in regard to the election of officials, often God gives us exactly what we deserve! We never ask the question, “Has God given us the ruler we deserve and not the ruler we need?”

2 Samuel 24:1 states: “Now again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” Here we see clearly that God is angry with His people. Israel had sinned and Yahweh was displeased with this sin. Yahweh’s method at this point was to “incite” the king to an action against the people in order to manifest that sin and bring judgement upon the people (c.f 2 Samuel 21:1 ff)

In light of such a statement, we must ask ourselves if our leaders do not act foolishly at times because the Lord God Almighty is indeed angry with us as a people. We are quick to react against seemingly silly and errant decisions on the part of our leaders, but do we ever stop to ask, “Is this foolishness a consequence of my sin?”

As that question resonates in your mind, do not forget the apostle Paul’s teaching in Romans chapter one. There, in verse 24, 26, and 28, Paul acknowledges that God “gave them up” to their sinful desires as a judgement in consequence of their sinful desires.[2]

When we view these two principles in combination, we are faced with the fact that, in the political realm, God will in fact incline to our cry as a people and give us what we want, not what we need. In short, God will give us our just deserts; the very thing that we deserve for our constant rebellion against Him.

David’s sin seemed innocuous. Yet it was devastating! What is wrong with counting heads? To us, maybe nothing. However, we must respect the text and note two important things. In 2 Samuel 24:10 David’s heart was stricken and he realised that he “had sinned greatly against the Lord.” Then in 2 Samuel 24:15we see that seventy-thousand men perish from the land as a result of the pestilence brought by God’s judgement.

David’s sin in counting the people may have been an act of foolishness that denied the protective power of Yahweh. It may be that he momentarily relied upon the numbers of men rather than Yahweh’s sovereign power. For us, the matter is really inconsequential. It matters naught what motive David had. At this juncture we need to hold fast to the two major premises of the text. First, Israel sinned. Consequently, the anger of Yahweh burned against Israel. Second, in order to bring judgement, David was provoked to an act if sin in order to facilitate the required judgement.[3]

Thus, when unpacked this text shows us clearly that the guilt belonged to the people and the people ultimately paid the penalty. The king was secondary in the incident. His actions were but the trigger. The obvious import of this text, its clarion lesson, is aimed at the people and not the ruler.

When these things are considered, we may well have an “Aha!” moment in which we realise that the circus in Canberra is a consequence of us as a people sinning before the Lord. It may be that we get a good glimpse at that elephant and realise that it is within our power to open the door and usher it away.

There is a distinct Biblical principle that shows that the people will never be better than their leaders. However, as we have seen, even when there is a good ruler, the sin of the people can cause that ruler to do foolish things with disastrous consequences for the people.

When we pour out our prayers to God in regard to our governments – and they certainly need our prayers – do we stop to offer a prayer asking for the forgiveness of the sins of the people? Do we contemplate that laws on homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia, begin with the desires of many within our nation and not just with elected officials?

What then will be our response to this situation? Are we prepared to tackle these issues with our fellow citizens? Next time you are involved in a conversation and an expression of dissatisfaction is made, will you ask that person the question, “Has your sin put that person in office or brought this decision to the fore?”

It is sobering, is it not, to think that our sin as a people could be the very reason that God has allowed a Julia Gillard to be elected and to prosper, despite foolishness, opposition, discontent, and rancour?

If we desire to see Revival and Reformation in this land, then it is time that we, the people, began to confess sin and shun evil.[4] When we clean up our act and prove a desire before God for righteousness, maybe our Lord will relent and give us the governments we need to continue the pursuit of righteousness.

Next time you are apt to criticise or share in the criticism of the elected officials in this nation, can you please pause and ask, “Has my sin contributed to our current estate?” Then we need to ask ourselves what we are doing to quell the sin of the nation. Does my position allow me to instigate a programme that would see people sin less? Do I have the ability to teach and mentor in such a way that people would sin less? Am I willing to give up comfort in order to point out sin to people?

In an election year we would do well to ask ourselves these and similar questions. We are apt in our despondency to lodge a “donkey vote” or an informal vote. Yet it is worth remembering that the Donkey we have to saddle come September 14 may have a lot to do with the asses that voted!

Sin is a disgrace to any people (Proverbs 14:34). Does our sin, as a people, make for disgraceful government in our nation? Now there is a question to contemplate!