Christian
radical reflections 43,
October 17, 2004 AD
One difference
about this recent election is the "Christian punditry" added to the
usual post-election analysis. "To God be the glory; great things he has
done!" shouted the headline of one email I received. I will certainly
praise God for his mercy and goodness, but I do not dare share in such
fundamentalist exuberance about this most recent election.
Some analysts
tell us that the result was really down to Labor's failure to adequately pander
to the economic need (more accurately greed) of mortgage-belt voters.
Others riotously claim it was Labor's pre-occupation with moral outrage that
failed to procure the votes. Still others, that Labor did not maintain the basic
moral outrage and others that they tried too hard to highlight the Prime
Minister's pork-barrelling of the electorate with a budget rectitude that took
no risks at all with the nation's finances.
Leunig's Saturday
16th of October cartoon in The Age (which as a tea-shirt
design can be accessed for such purposes from the web) notes that the election
proved that 47% of Australians are still giving immoral endorsement to the
deceitful electoral camouflage under which this Coalition has operated since
coming to power in 1996. If 47% is the number of those whose votes endorsed the
current incumbent of the Prime Ministerial office, that leaves 53% who wanted
the moral ledger to come out of the red and into the black.
For the 47% - the
so-called winners - the exclusive focus of the Coalition upon the PM as an
economic manager got them across the line. For the 53% - the losers - this was
simply another lie and it was the PM's political immorality that meant he had
no right to a 4th term in this high office. His perceived
immoralities are well known and wide ranging:
Ø "babies
overboard" and the calling of this election to pre-empt further
Parliamentary examination of his conduct prior to the 2001 election;
Ø the stalling of the reconciliation process and the PM's petty self-oriented refusal to issue a formal Government apology to the "stolen generations";
Ø the
undermining of the clear desire of Australians to have a new constitution that gives
expression to our distinct national character in this region as a member of the
Commonwealth;
Ø the use of the
Prime Ministerial office to shove aside the Head of State to insist that he was
the appropriate person to open the 2000 Olympics; the "unsportmanslike
conduct" the PM displayed at the medal distribution in the world cup of
Rugby in 2003; the compromising of the office of Prime Minister and Governor
General in the scandal about Revd Hollingsworth's Archepiscopal office prior to
his appointment;
Ø the
Government's inability to speak transparently about the way Australia endorsed
American military adventurism, and in particular with respect to the war in Iraq the endorsement of a
view of war that left aside the disciplines of just war criteria and justified
its pre-emptive war in the "national interest";
Ø the problems created by the PM by self-interested political statements that held the Government and the people of Australia up to ridicule in the region and around the world eg by identifying a powerful American citizen with massive media control as a good example of successful Australian business that will flourish with the FTA; by speculations prejudicial to Australian diplomatic relations in the region given "off the cuff" on talk-back radio; by attacking Australia's intelligence officers; by attacks on the ABC; by the compromised Parliamentary debate on embryonic stem-cell research.
The list is
considerable. There are numerous other items that are added from time to time
that have arisen, some from earlier in Howard's career - and when it is all
taken into account it is a wonder that the Coalition with such a leader could
have ever been returned. It certainly challenges conventional understandings of
the Australian willingness to give a "fair go!" This man certainly
has had more than a fair go at a fair go. He should judge himself to be a very
lucky fellow, perhaps like the Captain of the football team that won a Grand
Final with a 19th undetected player on the field.
So how is it to
be explained in terms that make sense of our citizenship, in terms that do not
deepen our cynicism about principled politics?
Those who
interpret political history as swinging between extremes have a hard time
providing us with helpful insight at this time; to suggest that this represents
a swing further to the right is a description of what they dogmatically expect
has to be and does not help us explain what we now experience.
Such "swings" give mythic historical guidance about what is going on.
And those relying on "good old Aussie common sense" have also
received a smack across the chops. If common sense says that the "good
guys" always come through then we might have to accept that from now on
good will have to conform with whatever election results deliver!
So why didn't
this most recent election bring judgment on the radical moral relativism of the
Howard-led Government? How is it that moral relativism has now been endorsed by
the moral absolutism of a sizeable group of Christian fundamentalists?
These pages in
the coming months lay out two lines of analysis to help ordinary people,
Christians and any others who might want to read it. The two lines are easy
enough to identify. They are the Liberal (Coalition) and Labor. I want to
outline a perspective on the last 30 years that explains the most recent
election result as the consequence of principles operative at least since 1974.
I will focus upon that year's May 14 "double dissolution", which
returned a Whitlam Labor Government with a reduced lower-house majority and a
tentative upper house majority. It brought John Howard into Parliament and I
will draw attention to the "quiet revolution" that was then taking
place within the Liberal Party. Gough Whitlam, the Labor PM, articulated the
view that since the Westminster system assumes a Government and Opposition,
then there is only room for two major political parties in the nation's
parliaments.
The principles
then enunciated by deed and word by "both sides of politics" are
still alive and in this most recent election result find new expression. In
order to face up to our current and future political responsibilities they need
to be subjected to ongoing critical scrutiny. It may require years of work and
further detailed analysis before we have clarified just how far they have
penetrated our political psyché. But a full
investigation is needed not only to show how much they have penetrated our
nation's life; we need to come to a new self-awareness about how much we have
let these principles shape our own citizenship. This is also why political life
and its analysis is never easy. And it is not made easier by leaders of major
parties who make a career for themselves by pandering to populist sentiment. Nor
by ourselves when we ignore our own complicity in the creation of the very
problems we say we want to solve by our new-fangled initiatives.
I begin here by
making an assertion to get the ball rolling. The most recent election result,
delivering an increased majority to the morally compromised Liberal Coalition,
is not best described as a landslide. The election is better understood as the
most recent stage in a process by which Australia pushes itself further into
political quicksand.
Metaphors can
enhance political analysis, but here, whether it is landslide or quicksand, the
question of political principle is more important: can we find a foothold, a
place to stand, from which to promote public justice? If we believe justice to
be a Divinely mandated command for our political life, how are we to explain it
politically and in a way that makes sense to our neighbours? Any Christian
approach to politics and our system of political representation must address
this question. We confess that Jesus Christ came and completed His work, making
it possible for all people, including those in positions of authority, to
rediscover the meaning of citizenship, political life, law-making and
Government. The analysis of the flawed political principles driving this nation
into political quicksand can only be one aspect of Christian political
involvement. But it must be undertaken. An uncritical approach to our political
tradition won't get us out of the bog. Thrashing around singing triumphalistic
hymns will only leave those singing them exhausted and confused as the nation
sinks deeper. The quicksands of injustice are a slough of deep despond. We have
to find a way out if we are to go about our political service with Christian
integrity. And to find a way out we need to better understand how we got in so
deep in the first place.
|
October 2004 © Christian Radical
Reflections, is 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. This personal project
aims to encourage positive Christian citizenship, the development
of policies and political attitudes that better express our love for God and
our neighbour. Your comments are welcome. Email can be sent to bcwearne@ozemail.com.au
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~bcwearne/index.html |