Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 158999

> > a_svirn:
> >
> > However, the blood projection thing, or, say, that wonderful
> > Voldemort-baiting plan in OOP was another matter entirely. Here
> > Dumbledore again didn't share his plans and intentions with other
> > phoenixes, and he didn't have the same excuse as with Snape. 
Yet, it
> > didn't seem to occur to anyone to question his dictatorial style.
> > (Except, probably, for Sirius – again). They all adopted an 
attitude
> > that can be summed up in Lupin's  words "It isn't our business to
> > know, it's Dumbledore's business". And it's just, well, weak. To 
say
> > the least.
> 
> 
> montims:
> but he was, wasn't he, the commander of their (unofficial) army?  
That being
> (if so) the case, you don't question your commander's decisions or 
actions
> or orders - it's not a democracy, it's a chain of command.  And 
yes, he
> should have an appointed second in command, but even that person 
is supposed
> to obey without question.  He was considered, rightly or wrongly, 
to be the
> greatest wizard of his time, and he had defeated Grindelwald.  He 
was also
> charismatic - kind of the WW Winston Churchill.  With hindsight, 
we can
> criticise Winston, but at the time he was instrumental in keeping 
Britain
> free, and upholding morale.
<snip>

a_svirn:
Yes, of course, you are right– to a point. The big difference 
between Dumbledore and Churchill is that Churchill, being as he was 
an *official* leader of a democratic country, was ultimately 
accountable for his actions. Sure enough, his orders meant to be 
obeyed, but couldn't afford to do as he pleased and keep everyone in 
the dark as long as he please. Nor could he have made as far as he 
did, had he possessed the same mile-wide authoritative streak as 
Dumbledore. I don't think that his colleagues and friends would have 
appreciated to be ignored and/or deliberately misled on important 
issues. 

Now, Dumbledore, he had a much nicer deal. He was the law onto 
himself and loved it. Actually he had a better deal than any 
Minister for Magic too. Just think – a big family scandal and Crouch 
is out of the running. One major screw-up – and Fudge is out of his 
office. But Dumbledore failed time after time, year after year, and, 
although he got fired from Wizengamot and lost twice his 
headmastership (after all those were *official* offices), his 
position as a leader of the Order was untouchable and unshakable, 
and the style of his leadership wasn't supposed to be criticized. 
And why? Because other phoenixes simply abjured all responsibility. 
They were content to leave the whole "business of knowing" to him. 
Personally, I don't think much of this kind of attitude. I agree 
with Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except 
for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."