The word "sanctimony" can often be the first word that comes to mind when reading commentary on organisations such as political parties, but especially criticism of individuals who dare to challenge or place themselves in the public arena where past actions come under some scrutiny.
Sanctimony is defined as an action or practise of acting as if one were morally superior to other people.
It is the affected piety or righteousness of those which includes religious hypocrisy.
One of the most well-known phrases from the Bible on this subject is "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."
Even though we may have access to some very large gravel pits, most would drop the rock immediately after a moment or two of reflection.
The question that now arises is why some receive tirades of abuse in the media and others not just escape such abuse for some appalling decisions — they receive postings to some leafy university or diplomatic posting.
Some find it’s far easier to launch into those who find no fault with freedom yet would be the first to confess to their imperfection.
There are few if any who would withstand past comments or actions being placed under a microscope to determine whether they as a candidate are a "fit and proper person" to represent us all.
Such a procedure then begs the question — what is the appropriate criteria for our representatives bold enough to give it a go, and who decides what exactly defines a fit and proper person?
For most of us it is only when one is in the trenches (a metaphor for tough going) that real character surfaces.
For others it seems, it is a year or two at a finishing school that determines suitability for representation in public life.
Some would also see spending your formative working life years in a minister’s office as the most appropriate way of securing a well-placed position on the political ladder.
Just how that qualifies a person to ultimately be in charge of billions of dollars of other people’s money when they in no way would have done so were it not for politics, is a minor mystery.
Well, actually it isn’t a mystery at all. Judgement and real-world experience are always outdone by left wing dogma.
The current perception appears now to be that all who enter public life should have a background CV starting with serving time as choir boy or girl on their personal journey to becoming an academic in their chosen field.
This may include receiving a doctorate for the study into the life cycle of a promotional mascot.
On achieving that happy state, it then apparently allows them to disseminate advice to the public on all manner of completely different yet complex subject matter.
We all face such complexity on a daily basis, and many will possibly find off-colour or ribald humour as a way of coping with the stresses of life.
Do we really want to demand the right not to be offended by someone else?
Is that really what we want as a society? "To adulate the unexceptional" as the late Barry Humphries put it.
One other possible explanation for the unbridled sanctimony exhibited by the few must be self-conception.
There can be no other explanations.
Just as we know our own truth, so too do each of us laugh and cry at different times and for entirely different reasons.
And that is as it should be.
- Gerrard Eckhoff is a former Otago Regional councillor and was a two-term Act New Zealand list MP from 1999-2005.
