Some thoughts on… Standing Still

The Supreme Court reviewed two cases this week that examine the issue of marriage equality in the US.  One of them contests the Defense of Marriage Act which federally defines marriage between a man and woman, therefore excluding over 1000 national benefits to same-gender couples, including medical visitation rights and inheritance tax.  The second is a review of California’s Proposition 8, which places in limbo tens of thousands of couples who were granted marriage but whose status is in question after the referendum passed.

One potential outcome for both cases is that the Court may choose to do nothing, arguing that it is not their responsibility to decide these cases.  Given the outpouring of support for marriage equality from conservative and liberal constituents, such a move by the Justices might be considered a slap in the face to the public, and a failure to move forward a civil rights issue in the country.

But is it a failing of leadership for the Court to stand still and do nothing?  Let’s see what the arts and life have to say about this.

The Oscar-winning movie Lincoln brings together an extraordinary team of artists – Steven Spielberg, Tony Kushner, Daniel Day-Lewis, amongst many others – similar to how the 16^th President brought together a cabinet to lead a country and to address the issue of slavery in the United States.  The movie is an homage to the man widely recognized as one of the greatest Presidents with Day-Lewis transforming into the role.  Kushner based his screenplay on the book Team of Rivals, and narrates ably from the erudition of legal concerns to the cut-throat politics of implementation.

It is Spielberg’s steady hand that brings the story to life.  Although pedantic at points, he shows us that below the noble intention of Lincoln’s decision to end slavery through constitutional amendment there is a seamy underbelly of politics which must be reckoned with. To lead the country through the brackish waters to a more perfect union, hands must get dirty, ultimatums offered, and half-truths paraded.  At times, it seems the President is pulling the boat by himself with little help from the country.  But we know that is a mistake.  If the tides weren’t pushing with him, he likely wouldn’t have taken on the Herculean effort.

In our recent visit to Burma, we saw a country on the cusp of tremendous change.  A few years ago tourism was 500,000 people a year, next year it will be 3 million.  No country can adapt to this level of change – neither the infrastructure nor the people can remain the same. The military government opened the doors to reformation, and the global population is streaming through.  At the cross-road between India, Thailand, and China, all the super-powers – Japan, US, China, Russia – are vying for the natural resources and geo-political stature that the country affords.  The impact of changing from an autarky to an open economy for the government officials is obvious – they will make a fortune.  The impact on the people is yet to be seen.

Given isolation over the past 50 years, the populace had been sheltered from the machinations of capitalism.  Blackberries don’t work in the country and internet is still dial-up.  All Buddhist men at the age of 18 are required to go to the monastery for two years.  Food is readily available, but there is little luxury.  Opening up the country will undoubtedly bring improvements, but change for change’s sake is not necessarily the optimal path.  The government’s role in leading through this time is critical.  They could push heavily for commercialization and industrialization, leading the charge towards a more modern state.  It will definitely make money for people at the top.  If they choose this course, they need to recognize that growth and development towards a western ideal may come at the cost of losing the authentic nature of the country.

A large part of a leader’s job is to move people to new positions or new grounds that they may not necessarily have gone to on their own. Whether on the battlefield, in the workplace or in politics, people look to leaders to provide direction on the way forward.  Hopefully, the new destination is better than where they were before.  In the case of President Lincoln, if he were not in front steering the ship towards a new path, it may have taken decades to remove the yoke of slavery from the neck of the US. 

Many times though, leaders may not need to steer because the people are already moving in a preferred direction.  In these cases, the most a leader should do is gently guide the group towards the chosen path, and at a minimum not be an obstacle to the progress.  This is the hardest job, because leaders instinctually feel they need to be out in front.  In the case of the Burmese government, their best role may be to let the people have a greater choice on the direction and rate of change, and gently nudge or stay out of the way.

For the Supreme Court, if they choose not to rule on these two cases they are demonstrating a more gentle leadership style.  The lower court rulings would still be upheld, and they would be staying out of the way of progress.  It is not a failing of leadership to do nothing in this situation.  If they do rule on the cases pushing for marriage equality, then they put themselves in a situation where they need to force a number of states to follow.  This is a more accelerated and difficult path for the country. 

If done right, both choices demonstrate leadership, and as the protagonist sings in Bombay Dreams, “Sometimes standing still can be the best move you ever make.”

March 31, 2013