Hope instead of instability 1, October 21, 2005 AD
The Beginning
and End of Politics
Part One
Politics in our day is confusing. In Australia it
is usually about arguments, about who wins and who loses in arguments about what
the Government should do and the laws we should have. The arguments are about
policies which, the politicians tell the voters, were endorsed by their votes
at the last election.
It's been a regular occurrence over the past
decade for the current Prime Minister to emphasise that politics is about
making a choice between " two sides". He does this on a regular
basis; he especially does it when he is in a tight corner and the basis upon
which he has made a decision is not clear. Having referred to the two sides of
politics, he emphasises that what he has done is different from what Labor, the
"other side", presumably would have done. Looked at critically and
carefully, we note, time and again, that this is the way John Howard "wins"
political arguments; but when the detail of what he has said is examined
closely, it becomes clear that there are not two sides at all. The
justification for his "side" is that what he proposes are not as
deficient as the proposals of the "other side". For all his adherence
to "two sides", John Howard's approach to politics comes down to an
assertion that his side, in his view, is the side of principle although that
principle is not really explained. When challenged by the observation that John
Howard's principles today are not what he affirmed previously, his rejoinder morphs
into the view that his most recent decision was endorsed by the voters at the
last election. And thus the circularity, and its attendant frustration,
continues. It is not easy to locate the logical beginning and end of John
Howard's political arguments.
According to this Prime Minister politics is all
about deciding which of the "two sides" is going to govern. Since
taking over the reins of power in Canberra since 1996, following the
comprehensive political reform of the Labor Party since 1983, it has been
easier for the electorate to say that the Labor Opposition "side" has
an ambiguous stance. After all, the Howard Government in domestic policy has
simply endorsed and extended the "economic rationalism" begun by
Hawke and Keating. Labor found itself incapable of criticising this extension, because
their thorough-going reform of "two-party" politics was its basis.
And so Howard has stayed in office by maintaining the Hawke-Keating
"economic rationalist" status quo. How could the Opposition oppose
that?
This has been demonstrated in stark form in the propaganda
that has been sent to all Australians about the proposed changes to Industrial Relations.
The lie, and it is a blatant deceit, is in the first paragraph: "Over the
last ten years something important has been happening in Australian workplaces.
Australian workers and Australian businesses have started to change the way
they work." The implication is that this change parallels the reign of the
Howard Government. At this point I will leave aside the matters of IR
legislation. What is significant is that the Howard Government is sending out
this propaganda which is contrary to
the recent OECD report about Australia's current state of wealth. This "good
economic situation" has everything to do with the reforms of the
Hawke/Keating Government from 1983-1996 with respect to the large-scale move to
casualisation and part-time work, with respect to the reforms that were
effected within the union movement to move away from adversarial bargaining, and
in terms of the changes to Government owned and public enterprises. Now the IR
propaganda exposes the desire of the Howard Government to suggest that the micro-economic
reform is in some undefined way its doing. The "argument" it is
presenting about IR reform, quite apart from its alleged commitment to a free
market, is that it is the key player in the important developments in
Australia's workplaces over the last ten years.
This latest example of a blatant deceit is a real
moral problem. But it arises because of a dogmatic blindness that comes from this
view that there are but "two sides to politics". Howard is trying to
force the issue. In fact his failure is that he doesn't understand that "the
two sides of politics" are united in their commitment to economic
rationalism and the IR reform process based upon economic rationalism that
began in the Hawke/Keating years. In the process the "second side"
has simply fallen away. It might be that politics has now become an argument
about two ways of viewing political argument - there is John Howard's view of
"two ways" versus the unrealistic view or views of those who dissent
from his endorsed viewpoint. His is a retreat to the comfort of a myth that
says your views are acceptable to the nation if a majority has voted for your "side".
And that is why for ten years, it has not only
been John Howard's "side" which has prevailed over Labor, the
"other side". It has also been ten years in which John Howard's view
of political argument has dominated and stifled political debate in this
country.
Recently, after the draft new anti-terrorism laws
were leaked, the Prime Minister complained that these proposed changes had
already been endorsed by a COAG (Council of Australian Governments) meeting. He then added: "I
would remind you that the States are all from the Labor side of politics."
Hence, he was telling the country once again, that politics is about choosing
an argument between two sides, except when, as in this case of emergency, it is
necessary to go along with the government because "the two sides"
have given their official approval to the Government's "side". The
Government's side of the argument is accepted by both political parties so that
should be the end of all argument. It must be right. Argument about that may be
possible but it is not going to be entertained as a serious political argument.
Politics has seemingly got beyond arguing about that.
But it might be asked, is not politics about
parliamentary democracy, about having elections, about maintaining commitments
to election promises, about endorsing party candidates, and forming and
re-forming the rules and conventions that apply in our parliamentary system?
Some citizens, like the former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, claim
that the current Government has departed from basic political conventions that
are enshrined, or at least implied, in our constitution. We will look again at Mr Fraser's recent argument in our next post.
For the moment we can say that when it is all
boiled down it comes down to this: in Australia today politics has become what
we, the people of Australia argue about concerning this country. It is about
how we, as a country go through certain processes in order to resolve those
arguments and then to accept that one side or the other has prevailed.
Generally we view elections as the means of deciding which of the "two
sides" should prevail. We argue about how we are to be governed, about
what laws we need so that we can run our country effectively.
But we argue with the underlying assumption that
politics is about our "two-sided" arguments and the ways we have
devised of resolving them. Politics therefore usually begins and ends with
elected representatives arguing about the way they use the power of their
office to shape and rule public life according to what they said they were
standing for when we had to vote. Politics is assumed to be about how we rule
ourselves and the principles we say are necessary to ensure that we rule
ourselves effectively.
Even when "third parties" emerge we can
see how that are inevitably drawn into the "two sides" fixation that
dominates our politics. The claim by the Australian Democrats that they were
the party that would "keep the bastards honest" has relevance in so
far as it presented itself as a moral alternative to the "two dominant sides".
Part Two
Now why have I gone down this
path and discussed this matter at such length? Well, before we can identify the
basis for a Christian alternative to politics, we have to face up to the character
of politics in this country. We have to answer question of whether this way of
doing politics in this country is, in fact, the right way to see and do
politics. Is argument the beginning and end of politics? And the answer is not
as simple as it seems. It is not simply a matter of making a judgment "yes"
or "no" - what will then have to follow is a comprehensive
elaboration of politics, of political life, of the responsibilities of
Government and citizens, and of non-government institutions and organisations
in the political sphere. And it will have to come to some comprehensive
explanation of the rightful place of public argument through all of our social
life.
As much as Australians
generally act as if this politics is just a matter of argument, and as much as
arguments are also a necessary part of our political lives, nevertheless we must
ask whether Christian politics should begin and end with arguments. Of course we
confess that Christian politics, like the rest of the Christian life does not
begin and end with our arguments. It begins and ends with our worship
of Him who is the beginning and the end of the entirety of our lives.
But there is a question that those
who take the Bible seriously will have to address. The Prophets continually
remind us that God Himself has an argument with the nations of the earth about
the injustice that is perpetuated. Clearly God's Word is against injustice.
God's Word is an argument against injustice. Now the question that lies before
us and the question that we are going to try to address in this series concerns
the way in which we, as Christian citizens, understand that
"argument" and how we respond to Jesus Christ's claim that He has
been given "all authority" in heaven and on earth. When He sent His disciples to "go into
all the world" to win all nations, He did not exclude their citizenship
from their going. It is thus a question of how we are to understand our
citizenship amongst the nations and peoples of the earth, how we are to enter
into the political life around us, for which we are held responsible before
God's throne.
There is no doubt about it.
Christian politics is a form of service by which we show that we love and care
for our neighbours. And Christians of every age have entered into this as a
solemn calling. What Christian have not been so good at is understanding how their
political responsibility and their political arguments have been made possible when
God's judgment on sin was placed on the Crucified One. The doing of justice, as
an integral part of our restored life in Christ, can only begin and end with a
humble confession "We are unworthy servants; we have only done our
duty". Christian politics begins and ends with a confession of humility as
we worship the "King of kings and Lord of lords."
If we know the Bible we know
that Jesus accepted that people have political responsibilities and that
people belong in certain political offices. It is in those offices that
they are called by God to serve Him. Consider the question (the argument if you
will) about paying taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-22). Jesus' answer clearly
indicated that law-abiding tax-paying is what is to be rendered to a ruler. It
is not only the ruler who has an office, but also the citizen. But as much as a
Christian citizen is called to pay tribute to a ruler, our worship is for God
alone. Caesar does not deserve the worship of our lives, even if he is God's
servant to do justice to us and to all those who live with his political realm.
Consider what Jesus said to Pilate - He did not deny Pilate's political office
(John 19:11). Such people who have political responsibility are always
subject to God. And when a government or political party forms policy and political
debate as if there can only be "two sides" we should look carefully
and note the nationalist idolatry that stands behind this arbitrary requirement.
There is no way that Jesus encouraged us to view politics merely as a matter of
"winning" or "winning an argument" as if we should aim for
a politics of "winners" and "losers". Arguments to explain
why we, as Christian citizens, view things as we do, may be necessary but in politics
we should be open and encourage all citizens, whatever their religious or
non-religious motivation, to explain the basis upon which they would base their
citizenship. However our policies eventually help to shape laws and reform the legal
processes to ensure justice among us, we need to understand that since politics
is always God's business subject to His demands for doing justice, that in our
citizenship we do not ascribe rights to ourselves that we are not prepared to
accord to all of our neighbours. Only when all citizens are fairly and justly
treated in law will we have a basis upon which to be proud of our public debate
and political argument
Great and
wonderful are Thy deeds, O Lord God the Almighty! Just and true are Thy ways, O
King of all ages! Who shall not fear and glorify thy name, O lord? For Thou
alone art holy. All nations shall come and worship Thee, for Thy judgments have
been revealed" (Rev 15:3-4).
|
October 2005 © Hope Instead of Instability, is a series written by Bruce C Wearne (PhD), 29 Lawrence Rd., Point Lonsdale Vic 3225 AUSTRALIA, 61-3-5258-3913. Each edition may be photocopied or retransmitted in its entirety but not otherwise published, reprinted or transmitted without permission. The aim of the series is to promote a renewal in principled pluralist thinking about Australian and South West Pacific politics from a Christian standpoint. Email responses are welcome and can be sent to bcwearne@ozemail.com.au http://members.ozemail.com.au/~bcwearne/index.html |