I could not bring myself to watch all of the Governor General's farewell speech to the nation last night. I'd had enough of the whole sorry saga of someone who said that he would pursue the people's agenda prior to taking office in 2001.
What I did hear amidst the continuing, though subdued, defiance to public opinion indicated a more contrite and forgiving person. Peter Hollingworth acknowledged that he had got things wrong, said he was sorry and he expressed regret over the way he had handled things. He seemed to have recovered, or made contact with, his long experience of working in social welfare. His penance was to return to working the welfare field.
The confession, for it was a public confession, was a year too late in terms of the public office. However, the man, once so aloof, elitist and desiring of the trappings of office, had been deeply hurt, if not shattered, by the tragedy. Hollingworth was bloodied and beaten.
How did he understand what had happened?
Interestingly, Peter Hollingworth did not seem to understand the gap that existed between the professional ethics of public office of Governor General and his own actions in discharging the duties and responsiblities of that office properly. It was almost as if he did not see the role of Governal General embodying a code of public conduct or professional ethics.
See this for an account of this. David Burchill argues that the clery think in terms of sin and forgiveness (the confession), and not in terms of the professional code of ethics of a public office.
Peter Hollingworth understood the problem in terms of the public controversy making it difficult for him to effectively discharge his official duties to the community----in a political not ethical way. At the political level Hollingworth had become a political carcass that was smelling, due to a failure to see the writing on the wall. Hollingworth was politically blind.
Gary, what role do you think the hierarchical and undemocratic nature of many of the institutions involved played? Is this more important than the failings of any one particular person? Is this one of the major reasons that these things happen again and again?
Posted by: dj on May 29, 2003 04:42 PMtragedy here is the conflcit beetween the political and the personal. The poltical required a certain sort of character to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the job; Hollingworth was a flawed human being. Hence disaster.
You can say the same about Simon Crean. The Opposition leader needs to act as an attack dog; but he should have backed off when Hollingworth was bloodied and broken and offered some sympathy of the person. Crean does not understand that there are times when an Opposition leader should not be an attack dog.
Crean is as flawed a character as Hollingworth.
Posted by: Gary Sauer-Thompson on May 29, 2003 05:30 PM