A THOUGHT FOR NOW - POLITICIANS 'TAKING RESPONSIBILITY'; A SYMBOLIC GESTURE?

Avoid using others to get 'your star to shine brighter than the others.

We often hear politicians, including the leaders of countries, boldly, if glibly declare, 'I take responsibility for ..'

But, what does it mean to 'take responsibility' for ones decision and/or the actions involved in implementing it? Does it mean that you accept that what has been done has been done at your behest and that you do accept both the intended and unintended consequences for the decision you took? That you accept that you are liable for both the foreseen and the unforeseen consequences of your decision?

And what about the consequences for you, of you declaring that you do take 'full responsibility' for 'the decision' or 'the action'?  Is there really any point to 'taking responsibility' for something, if there are no consequences for you?

Take the case of Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister who, along with the former American President, George Bush, declared what probably most people considered to have been an illegal war on, and invasion of Iraq.  Following the report of the Chilcot Enquiry into Britain's role in the whole sordid and tragic affair, Mr Blair declared that he "took full responsibility" for the decision to make his country a party to the war.  One can imagine that, had Mr Blair spoken thus, that he took "full responsibiity", before he left office, he might have resigned or forced out of office. But he did not, conveniently, took the 'responsibility' while he was in office, as he would have had to pay the political and other price.  Only after he left office, and 7 years after the enquiry was set up, that Mr Blair 'took full responsibility.' When it hardly mattered, you might think.

If a man commits murder or is complicit in the murder of another person, and then, publicly, declares what he has done, you would expect that the police would become involved, investigate the purported crime, and take whatever action is called for.  But, ironically, such logic does not apply to certain politicians, such as Mr Blair and Mr Bush, who are responsible for the unjustified deaths of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people, both combatants and civilians. The law, is appears, does not apply to them, because they have immunity from its normal application.

And so, it seems to me, that, when Mr Blair stands in front of the media and declare that he takes 'full responsibility', for taking his country into participating in that illegal and catastrophic war, which is still continuing over 13 years after, he only does so because he knows full well that he is at little or no risk of having to pay the heavy price - such as imprisonment - for his glib and symbolic gesture.

Live your life as happily as you can, and avoid requiring others to forfeit their lives and happiness for your decisions; however much you believe your decisions 'are right', and your willingness or otherwise, to 'take full responsibility', knowing that it costs you comparatively nothing to make such declarations.