‘Authority without wisdom is like a heavy axe without an edge, fitter to bruise than polish.’
Anne Bradstreet, poet (1612-1672) from 'Meditations, Divine and Moral'
The phrase ‘giddily elated’ has achieved a new status in the English language, following Charles Spencer's much-reported quote about his telephone conversation with the then Prince of Wales, immediately following his sister's death. Would it be a fair description of Andy Burnham's press interviews in the wake of his first Labour Party conference as Prime Minister? The controversy over his remarks about Manchester City certainly seems to suggest that it might.
People who are endowed with high authority are very often challenged by it ‘going to their heads’ — that's what ‘pride comes before a fall’ is all about. Many would agree that Donald Trump is the epitome of such a characteristic, and the start of his fall may be coming soon, in the mid-term elections. There have been a few, very few, people in positions of real power who have withstood this temptation, such as Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi.
The Church of England lectionary for the last Sunday in September put forward a very interesting reading on authority from the gospel of St. Matthew, chapter 21. This draws a contrast between top-down and servant-leader authority, and it's well worth a read.
These issues of understanding what authority really calls for were brought home to me in a full-page article in the Church Times, headed ‘Growing fear that the AI rich may inherit the earth’. The authority assumed by big tech entrepreneurs has no democratic foundation and it represents no autocratic national responsibility; yet their influence over world development exceeds that of most of the world’s individual countries. Its scale is already mind-boggling, and there’s already evidence of ‘giddy elation’ going to many of their heads: such as Elon Musk dancing around with a chainsaw in his hands following his appointment as the Head of Trump's ‘Department of Government Efficiency’.
Of course, not all top-down authority is giddily elated. It's often harsh and dictatorial, showing very little empathy and interest for those over whom it is exercised. Communism has seeded a series of such leaders and, in countries like Russia, it is proving very hard to break out of that cycle of imposed control. But even in the United Kingdom, not only in politics and business but also in the Church, there are plenty of examples of self-centred control where little interest is shown in care for others. Often this may well be accompanied by mental conditions such as autism.
The extract from the gospel of St. Matthew is interesting because it shows conscience in action, helping to enable a shared responsibility. There are two aspects to this partnership: that of the leader and that of the led. Leaders should demonstrate their empathy for the people they lead, but those people must also show that they understand why something is being asked of them, and they should indicate a wish to participate in the decision to take things forward.
Let's take an example from Artificial Intelligence. When Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, was asked who decided what was morally right or wrong for their AI models, he replied, ‘We have a model behaviour team, but the person I think you should hold accountable for those calls is me’.
Meanwhile, the deputy chief executive of Epworth Investment Management (who is also a member of the central finance board of the Methodist Church), Revd. Dr Andrew Harper, said, ‘Big changes that would normally be generational and involve all sorts of collective thought amongst the general public are being forced upon society without any democratic process. What we are saying, subconsciously, is that convenience and efficiency are worth more than aspects of our own life, and of the life of our neighbour, and the environment, and those in the poorest parts of the world’.
So, while we allow ourselves to be absorbed in this way with passive disinterest, those top-down AI leaders are dictating what happens in future. No wonder some of them become giddily elated with their sense of power and lose any interest they may have had in servant leadership.
Listeners will be aware of the Share Alliance research into ‘Stock for Data & Creativity’ which seeks mass participation in share ownership in big tech companies. The purpose of this initiative is participation, not only in their immense wealth creation but also in their corporate governance — having a voice to help steer the way their strategy is developed for the future. However, this kind of participation in corporate governance requires active interest by, and empowerment of, the people who will own these shares. As anyone who has sought to be an active shareowner will know, this can be a big challenge. It requires awareness of the issues at stake, and the ability to take a longer-term perspective.
However, it’s not impossible. At the start of this commentary, we referred to Andy Burnham’s remarks about the football club Manchester City, which is in the midst of a major challenge resulting from multiple breaches of financial regulations. The tight control over this club, which has extended to various questionable involvements in Manchester generally, is in sharp contrast to football in Germany, which is subject to the Bundesliga's 50+1 ownership rule. This requires fans to maintain a controlling interest, and it has proved to be effective in ensuring that the interests of the wider public are properly maintained.
There is no doubt that authority should be exercised through servant leadership. It not only has a strong biblical foundation, but it also enables participation for all, encouraging the empowerment and awareness needed to support sensible outcomes and reflecting the role of human conscience in making the right decisions.
Gavin Oldham OBE
Share Radio