Christian
radical reflections 51,
August 31, 2005 AD
In their determination to staunch the potential for terrorism among Australian Muslims, Peter Costello has joined the Prime Minister to affirm that Australia must remain a secular society. According to them both our nation's "core values" include the strict separation of religion from politics.
These Parliamentary leaders of the Liberal Party have resorted to the school principal's trick of pretending to identify "that minority" who are spoiling things for the "majority". In this case the "minority" are the extremists, the fanatics, the preachers of hate who are not ruled by the peaceable attitudes represented by Howard and Costello. These peaceable attitudes are held by the "overwhelming majority" of the Muslim community who accept the Howard-Costello view of Australia. By trying to confront the influence of this "minority" by such public statements, both politicians have found it necessary to reiterate their base conviction that Australia must retain its secular character. This is a defining characteristic of our national identity and is not about to change. We might say that for Howard and Costello it is truly a "core value".
Admittedly, something had to be said. In the wake of the London bombings there were reports of deep disaffection and alienation among Islamic youth in Britain, and so the media turned its attention to Muslim youth in Australia. It was to be expected that journalists would report the teaching and views of a Muslim cleric such as Abu Bakr. The item exposing this Muslim cleric's views was played immediately before Kerry O'Brien's 5th August 7.30 Report interview with the Prime Minister. The transcript of the interview indicates that though the Prime Minister had not had opportunity to study the cleric's statement in detail, and to be advised as to how he should frame a response, he was yet ready and willing to draw his line in the sand and insist upon the "core value" of secular politics in Australian life.
The reactions of the PM and the later statements by the Treasurer ("Costello tells firebrand clerics to get out of Australia" The Australian August 23, 2005 p.1) tell us a lot about the problematic impasse we face in Australian political life. The view of Howard and Costello is symptomatic of a widespread uncertainty about politics and for this reason we should tread carefully when their comments appear confused and confusing. They may say that it is not necessary to agree with this view as a pre-condition for citizenship. They may admit that their view of the law is not the law; they may even concede that their idea of a necessary separation of religion from politics is contestable in a philosophical sense. But the problem we face is that they both seem incapable of presenting this issue in a way that promotes just public debate about it. This "secular" affirmation invites debate, but they have presented it merely as an unassailable dogma. And they may be wrong. And if they are wrong on this issue, on something basic to their own political viewpoints, then they may have been trudging down the wrong path and leading us astray as they have done so. So, is this possible? Indeed it is. Political leaders are not infallible. Still at this crucial point in our nation's history they seem comfortable enough with their dogmatic "secular" pronouncement. Whether this will succeed in keeping the lid on public debate at this very difficult and trying time remains to be seen. I suspect their apparent self-confidence derives from having enunciated a view that has majority support around the country and if so they would assume that extended debate is not really necessary. That would be consistent with their political views which indeed are majoritarian. This democracy, they have consistently reiterated throughout their careers, may have faults, but it is one in which the view of the majority prevails. That is the assumption that lies behind their affirmation of "secular" Australia. That also is why they assume their argument is unassailable.
But John Howard and Peter Costello know that they do not represent a majority. They represent a view that the majority view is the view that should prevail. Thus, when they have the parliamentary power to do so, they are busy trying to turn their majoritarianism into a majority consensus. In this sense majoritarianism is out of whack with a political reality in which there is no longer any presumed majority consensus. This view has its roots in post-war Australia when the Liberal Party prevailed as the party of government. The view has gained ground that the Liberal Party held on to government because they were perceived to be the party that promoted the majority view. Under Howard and Costello we have policies that have been designed to demonstrate that once more even though we live at a time when there is no such majority viewpoint.
Still, when a handful of Muslim clerics make statements that are or can be construed as fanatical or extreme, then they present an opportunity to such majoritarian national leaders to suggest that these are people who should not have bothered coming here in the first place. It provides an opportunity for the ideology of Liberal Party majoritarianism to gain increased credibility. And hence these politicians take the opportunity to re-create the impression that they in fact represent the majority, that these "fanatics" are outside the perimeter of Australia's "core values".
Howard and Costello do not have majority support even though they have won enough electoral support for their majoritarianism. And so it seems natural enough for them to use their roles in the Federal Parliament as the base from which to promote this view.
And now we learn that central to these "core (majoritarian) values" is the separation of religion from politics. This is presented as simply another side of the view that there is but one law for life in Australia, the law passed by the country's Parliaments. This view, as Howard and Costello present it, sounds as if it has always been the central "core value" of Australian political life. The way they present it, it has always been an inherent defining part of Australia's heritage. And now the proclamation by Abu Bakr the Muslim cleric that there is but one law for the universe in its entirety, the law of Allah, whether this is accompanied by the imposition of Shari'ah law or not, must be unacceptable within an Australian framework. It was Bakr's affirmation that provoked John Howard to respond as he did on the 7.30 Report. Costello by way of contrast was somewhat more nuanced in his comments. He went into detail and was reported to explicitly identify Shari'ah law and conventional Islamic views about women as incompatible with the "core values" of Australian democracy.
This essay is complex. It has been written to examine the issue further and explain why the debate needs to be extended and opened up in order to clarify the political process we should be developing to promote democratic government in this country. I think the comments of the PM and the Treasurer need to be carefully examined. Their view of the situation needs to be better understood. But this essay is based upon the conviction that a Christian view of politics is incompatible with the Howard-Costello theory of secular politics. Australia needs to understand why their theory, in its dogmatic insistence upon a secular view of Government, is a dead-end.
**** **
The discussion about religion and politics can easily get heated. We all know that. So, it was of intense interest to note John Howard's 4/8/05 replies to Kerry O'Brien. Affirming the supremacy of Australia's "core values" for life in Australia he said: "As to the generality of everybody who lives in this country being required to accept the norms and the values of this country, let me state this, that the notion that you can be subject to two laws is a notion I reject." He then inserted his aside. "As a wholly inadequate member of the Christian religion let me say that I don't regard myself as being subject to two laws."
Presumably we are to believe that this is Howard's genuine bona fide view. But what are we to take from it other than his subjective belief that he is right? It may be a truly complex statement in which the views of John Howard the PM are mixed confusedly with his private and personal views as a Christian. But it is certainly not an articulation of a Christian democratic viewpoint.
From a Christian democratic standpoint, which unashamedly confesses that God has made Jesus Christ, the only mediator between God and humanity, John Howard's view of "one law" seems to verge on saying that the law of Parliament must be accepted, at least in political life, as this ultimate mediating authority. Well the biblical witness the Jesus Christ teaches no such thing. It teaches that all earthly authority should be gratefully received as God's gift to us subject to His Son. Thus no one kind of earthly authority should be appealed to as competent to make all laws. The battle between pope and emperor during the mediaeval period bequeathed to us and our legal system an implicit legal principle of multiple realities - at first, at least, there were - competent to make law in their own sphere under God. Today, throughout much of the "democratic" world and beyond families, churches, universities and many other institutions are granted independent status in law. The state cannot simply pass any laws it wishes to regulate and control these associations.
Ř It is indeed another significant turnaround in Australian Liberal Party ideology that Howard's regime in Canberra is currently demanding the right to legislate changes in the arena of industrial relations. Hitherto IR had been accepted, as the constitution recognises, as a State domain. In terms of federal industrial relations they had been regulated by an Industrial Relations Commission thus keeping Government at arm's length from industry and commerce. That was until the abolition of the IRC. Now the legislation is justify to "fine tune" the Labor market presumably because the Government's managerial task in the economy renders all non-government public spheres subsidiary to the laws passed by Parliament.
Ř We can also refer in this context to the ongoing ideological demand that "compulsory student unionism" be abolished. The Student Unions at the universities are referred as if they are industrial work-place unions. The ongoing polemic has running since Senator Abetz, the special minister of State, Brendan Nelson the education minister and Peter Costello were themselves university students, that is long before their own parliamentary careers. But they fail to recognise that the question is not one of abolition, it is a matter of legally reforming the structure of the university student association to which all students inevitably join when they become members of that complex academic organism we call "university". All students need to be justly and fairly represented in the assocation that is formed to serve all students. Simply because that association was malformed by a student ideology that use trade unionism as its primary model does not mean that it should be treated like a trade union. The university is not a factory, no matter how much Brendan Nelson and his "parliamentary managers" want it to run on commercial and profit-making lines.
So could Howard in his TV interview have been making a statement that was calculate to speak to other un-named players and not just Abu Bakr? Was this, for instance, part of the view he has been putting in the party room to persuade his party colleagues to distance themselves from Family First representatives who won seats in Parliament at the last election? His Coalition and even his Prime Ministership has, after all, had to take notice of their professedly Christian views. Howard's Government received considerable Christian party support at the last election in the form of second preferences enabling them to win a lower house majority and take control, numbers wise, in the Senate. This "second preference" support from Christian parties also involved a Christian view that there is but one law to which we as humans are subject and that is the Law of God Almighty, the One who has given this country to all of us, the One to Whom all Governments and parliaments are ultimately and irrevocably subject. To say, as the PM does, that this "one law" must be accepted as the laws enacted by Parliament, is not to bow to God; it is to do the opposite. It is to flagrantly deny God's supremacy and elevate Parliament to the status of a mere idol.
This is the problem inherent in Howard's confused reply to Bakr. The ambiguities that can be derived from his statement are considerable. Nevertheless, Howard probably received widespread support for his statement, including assent from those who gave his Coalition their Christian second preferences. Why would this be?
For all its apparent simplicity it is statement that is difficult to get into focus. Consider John Howard's rejection of the notion that a person can be subject to two laws. Is that so inconceivable? Was he not sitting in a chair thanks to gravity? Was he not digesting his dinner at the time thanks to physiological laws? Was he not submitting to laws which govern social conduct and good manners? Of course he was. But maybe what he was saying to Kerry O'Brien was the view he felt compelled to articulate in his capacity as the Prime Minister of Australia. Clearly he believes that this is the view that any Prime Minister must accept? It is as if he is saying he could not be Prime Minister without accepting this view, without taking a secular approach which indeed must then make him (in his own words) a "wholly inadequate member of the Christian religion." What he was wanting to say was that in political terms there is one public legal framework in which all citizens can act and to which all citizens are subject. But he didn't say that. When confronted with the comments of a Muslim cleric who openly professes to teach the Koranic view that there is but one law, the law of Allah, John Howard immediately responded in terms that would interpret the comment as a threat to the Australian constitution. Why is that?
John Howard the Christian, subject to the Australian Constitution, must also know that in its constitution this nation exists "by the grace of God". Moreover, the Liberal party via its constitution claims to be "in humble dependence upon Almighty God." In Parliament, this Prime Minister dutifully waits until the Lord's Prayer is said to open Parliament. Could it be then that John Howard, the Christian, might actually be agreeing with the Islamic cleric, at least on one level? A closer examination of what he says reveals that that is certainly not the case, but it is not immediately clear why this is so. The key is the PM's affirmation of a "secular society". Though there is no explicit constitutional demand that he do so, John Howard in response to the Muslim cleric's views, felt impelled to say what he said and declare that in Australia politics must be "secular".
When his comment is read as a statement of the Prime Minister, who is trying to offset the views of a Muslim teacher, or a group of Muslim teachers, further interpretative issues have to arise. As the country's leading elected citizen, he as PM, no doubt feels he is "required to accept the norms and values of this country." This then would give a basis for his statement that the only law that he, as PM accepts, is the law enacted by Parliament. And qua citizen he expects that all citizens are also subject to this one law in the same way. But then what he does not seem to grasp is the implication that his view implicitly invites (if not requires) all citizens to dogmatically, (if not religiously) embrace the "secular" character of Australian politics to which he has had to accommodate himself over his long career in the Federal Parliament. However this latter requirement is not a law that has been enacted by Parliament.
We might then observe that the politics of this country according to the PM can have no place for the religion of John Howard himself. How is it then that Australian politics does have a place for John Howard? Peter Costello another Liberal politician who, on occasion, will refer to his "evangelical Christian background" joins Howard in asserting that Australia is a "secular" country. This is not only descriptive statement; it is proscriptive, a normative rule. To make any sense of it we must interpret it as a statement of what Australia should be. Religion and politics should be kept separate. And so Howard and Costello, keen to promote themselves as politicians who command the respect of sincere Christians, nevertheless insist that a strict line be maintained to uphold what they say are the "core values" of this secular country - religion must be separated from politics.
Religion, after all, is viewed as a basically a private affair. That too is the majority view. And the view of the majority is the view to which Howard and Costello's political ideology is subjected, as the court of final appeal. In this their faith falls victim to their ideology. Consider Costello's recent Melbourne Weekly interview, in which he admits he prefers not to publicly discuss the connection, or rather the disconnection, between his religion and his politics. Religion is to be treated as something on another plane. And yet that raises an enormous problem. What then is the status of this assertion that Australia should be viewed as, and remain, a secular society? Costello seems to come close to suggesting that the distinction is a private one.
Howard, by way of contrast, takes a different approach as we have noted; in his interview with Kerry O'Brien he describes himself as a "thoroughly inadequate member of the Christian religion". He thus actually makes an implicit appeal to those who have voted for him, or for his party, or who have given his party their second preferences, because of his or their Christian values. That is, he makes his appeal to those who voted for his majoritarian ideology who he now would like to claim represent his "overwhelming majority". This is further demonstrated by his admission, his confession, of something that all Christians know - they are but inadequate in themselves and depend upon a power greater than themselves to do the things they are called upon to do. Evangelical supporters of the Liberal Coalition may even find some reassurance in this statement. But in following Howard's sentiment they, like the PM, will avoid the issue that is at stake here. Evangelical sentiment will find it necessary to separate religion and politics, and thus become wilfully blind to how that same sentiment is basic to the resultant secular political viewpoint that separates itself from the clear teaching of Holy Scripture. The profession of Christian faith has been so hollowed out that it can only provide a formal indication of religious background. It is no longer permitted to function as a motivation for political involvement. The secularisation of politics is accepted as an autonomous and religiously neutral process.
******
There are, of course, a batch of problems which many will identify in this attempt by both politicians to insist upon the separation of religion from politics. The reiteration of this "secular" view as a "core value" is made as if both politicians have been espousing it all along. It may have been obvious to themselves, but it is not a view that either of them have consistently maintained in their political pronouncements over the years. They have not explained this view, nor have they openly invited those supporting them to debate their theory about the basic need for a secular political process. Now at a time of considerable perplexity it comes to the surface and one has to wonder whether it is to open up or to close down the public debate that should have happened decades ago.
I think the comments can also be interpreted in terms of the Howard Government's unease about the views of Family First Senators. It is also likely that the ideology of Family First and other Christian political groups have made a significant (popularist) impact upon Coalition discussions and these affirmations of "secular" society, ostensibly directed at the Muslim community, are also a "shot across the bows" of the Coalition's "religious" supporters. It is a call to moderation; it may be a covert warning that religion should be left out of the discussion.
One does not need to have read much sociology to realise that the constitutional view that requires a separation of church from state is not identical with the dogma that religion must play no part in politics. This dogma is an expression of a default religious view, a religious view demanded of all citizens despite the fact that its proponents try to hide its religiosity in order to demand its universal acceptance. John Howard said so himself: "…our common values as Australians transcend any other allegiances or commitments." This is the intellectual seedbed from which the majoritarian plant emerges, and it brings forth a dangerous fruit. Any Muslim cleric, who already finds it difficult to define himself as part of the mythic majority, will know that in the last election the Coalition was returned because of second preference votes of those who refused to separate their religion from their politics. The situation is now set up in a highly precarious way. It too easily looks as if Howard and Costello are happy to receive Christian preferences to maintain their Coalition government, and thus benefit from the impact of (unseparated) religion upon politics. But they seem somewhat less prepared to lecture the leadership of the Hillsong church about the importance of separating religion from politics. And so, Islamic leaders should feel that their religion has been singled out for special non-preferential treatment. The Howard/Costello promotion of "secular" politics masks an inherent duplicity.
This issue will continue to arise in public debate despite the Howard/ Costello warning to citizens who want to form their citizenship in an openly religious way. Their theory, for that is what it is, can never be the last word on the topic. There are many ambiguities and contradictions which are not being adequately addressed and Australia now needs open and generous public debate and discussion like never before. This matter needs comprehensive and systematic consideration in all of its dimensions and ramifications. All citizens, and not just those who identify with the Howard/Costello majoritarian and secularist ambivalence about religion, should be invited to participate.
But why are the current PM, and the aspiring PM, so confident about their view of the separation of religion from politics? They not only say that the separation is necessary; from the way they have affirmed it one would think it had always been a top agenda item of Australia's politics. Now it has become nothing less than a "core value". John Howard's view is that he sees himself as being subject to one law. If so then the separation of religion and politics can not be, for him at least, a religious rule but rather an integral part of the law that has governed his political life. But, as I have noted above, no such parliamentary law has ever been passed in this country to separate religion from political life! Yet, that does not stop him from subjecting himself to such separation as law, the basic law for his political life.
At this point we have to reckon with the fact that Howard's use of language is often imprecise and inexact. He may claim that "the notion that you can be subject to two laws is a notion I reject." What he should have said is that within the Australian federation there is one public legal order, one overarching system to ensure public justice. There is one Federal Government to make and administer the laws that govern the political community in its national and international aspects and there are State and local governments that govern at State and local levels. There is also a constitution which sets out the ground rules for the way these governments relate to each other, for instance setting out the separation of powers between them.
Howard's emphatic assertion that it is not possible in Australia to be subject to two laws needs to be explained. Presumably, Abu Bakr was implying something along these lines. As a Muslim teacher he has to accept that he is subject to two laws, the law of the Koran and the law as laid down by Australian democracy. Thus, he says, he is subject to two laws at the same time. John Howard's rebuttal of this is not without ambiguity. And it is not at all clear why the notion that a person being subject to two laws at the same time is contrary to Howard's notion of a "secular society". After all Australia is a Federation and all citizens know that at any one time they are subject to State and Federal laws. What then is John Howard trying to say?
The sense I have from this is that John Howard was glad to have been asked to respond because it gave him an opportunity to insist, we might say "to lay down the law", that Australia is, and must remain, a secular society. That seems to have been the over-riding point that he wanted to emphasize. Presumably he thought that would effectively iron out any of the ambiguities and contradictions that would inevitably be part of his less than fully uninformed response to the Muslim cleric on the 7.30 Report.
We noted above the problematic use of the word "one law" in the PM's formulation. We have also observed that despite this the PM was sitting in his chair obeying the law of gravity. His body, subject to certain bio-physiological laws was allowing him to breathe and to speak. His argument was framed subject to certain logical laws, even if the content of his argument was somewhat illogical. His words were formed into speech which obeyed, more or less, laws for language and he showed his customary politeness to his interviewer, obeying social laws that require good manners.
But there is more. The interview was initially set up to discuss the Government's proposed industrial relations reforms which also has a part to play in this discussion. We now face a situation in which the Government's proposed industrial reforms are put forward despite the constitutional assumption that industrial relations are a state matter. In other words John Howard has now moved away from the commitment he insisted upon earlier in his parliamentary career when, for him, the preservation of State's rights in their unaltered constitutional form was all important for the ongoing viability of the Commonwealth. He is now proposing reforms which significantly shift responsibility for industrial relations from the States to the Federal sphere. This is to rearrange State powers in a way the constitution does not envisage.
Now to return to Howard's statement about Australian secular society requiring one set of laws. He was replying to the Islamic cleric who was explaining that he has the task in the Mosque of teaching that the universe is subject to the One Law of Allah. Such a statement is not really an engaged response to the cleric at all. It is rather a response to what Howard has decided must be a challenge that is implicit in the cleric's statement; a challenge to the secular character of Australian society.
However, the cleric concerned, and other Muslim leaders, cannot fail to be confused by John Howard's secular politics. After all, he has shown himself, and continues to show himself, as a politician who is willing to break his own stated rules in order to push Australian society down the path that he presently thinks it ought to go. Moreover, he is also saying by his action in introducing industrial relations reforms, despite his insistence upon "one law" for all Australians, that he is willing to circumvent or indirectly change the Constitution if it fulfils his own vision for Australia. How is that to be interpreted as being subject to one law? Quite apart from the IR debate itself, John Howard's contribution to public debate about the matters he raises, simply confuses the issue and the confusion arises because of a total lack of discipline. He says one thing. And then he does another.
Moreover, Howard's statement gives no room at all for political participation on the basis of a peaceable Islamic world-view. There is no invitation to Muslims to make their own distinctive contribution to Australian politics along the lines of aspiring Christian democratic parties.
And Christians who saw the interview might also have become alarmed. After all, the Bible tells us how Peter and John responded to their religious leaders who told them not to teach in the name of Jesus the crucified. They were instructed that such teaching would stir agitation against the Roman authorities who had set their seal to the Sanhedrin's murderous plot to have Jesus put out of the way. The answer of the Apostles was the answer of Jews loyal to the One True God: "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge; but as for us we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:19-20).
But it is not only the Christians who voted for John Howard's Coalition in the last election who should be seeking to work out how he, as a professing Christian, views such Biblical teaching. It would be helpful for the entire country to know.
******
Some might say that I am ascribing too much importance to an issue that needs to be kept very low-key. The line of analysis I am developing raises questions that can only stir up religious contention. Do not Australians prefer to be free of religious wars? But this debate at this time should not be left in the mire of "secular" ambiguity in which Howard and Costello have left it. They may believe their comments have a resonance with the Australian public. They may think they have brought a measure of reassurance in a confused and confusing context. But if that is so the problem that their statements have raised are simply being ignored.
Presumably, in their view, those of us who are not "extremists" or "fanatics" do not need to be told that it is important to keep religion and politics separate. Still, we have good reason to believe that Howard and Costello have applied this principle to themselves; they clearly are not wanting to stand with "fanatics" or "extremists". They want us to believe that they are true defenders of a "secular" politics. They have applied the separation to their own (political) lives. They represent the "moderation" of the majority.
They view the strict separation of religion from politics as a necessary discipline if politics is to avoid becoming "extreme". They thereby claim to have demonstrated this moderation by keeping to a secular path in their political careers. Howard's "moderation" has been repeatedly demonstrated by his ability to modify his stated "core values" when it was politically necessary for him to do so. No extremism there, although as a Christian, he may have thereby exposed himself to the charge that he was violating one of the commandments: "Thou shalt not bear false witness" (as with GST, babies overboard and on other occasions), but now we hear his equally religious profession that he is but "a wholly inadequate member of the Christian religion". This public admission may turn to Howard's favour, but Costello takes another route. The recent Melbourne Weekly interview indicates that he would be prefer not to discuss the dislocation of his (private) faith from his political ideology - unlike Howard the separation of religion and politics is safeguarded by an appeal to his personal right to privacy, a realm free from the public gaze.
So there are significant differences. The problem is that the public reiteration of this dogmatic separation of religion from politics has, in their respective formulations, the character of a sacred principle that relativizes the Christian profession of both. Ironically, it will be their formal allegiance to the Queen and Parliament, "by the grace of God", which by default becomes the standard which all Australians are now presumed to follow their "secular" approach to politics. Such facts can only deepen the residual cynicism that dominates political discussion among Australians. And this cynicism is where the nominal Christianity of Howard and Costello have brought them in their political life. This is root of their secularized political commitment.
The problem is that their view on this matter means that the "extremist" label is ready to be applied to all those who do not believe the majoritarian myth that religious faith has to be contained within a private cordon sanitaire. But if Australian politics has no room for my religious point of departure, of my worldview, then there is no room for me, not only in politics but in Australian society itself. Is that then really the "core value" for life in this country? Really? But I reject the notion. I must. If Australian politics is based on the view that there has to be a separation of religion and politics so as to exclude "fanatics" and "extremists" of whatever religion, then those of whatever religion who have not accepted this theory, even though they are not "fanatics" and "extremists", will have to face up to the fact that they have in principle been excluded - they have not been able to separate what Howard and Costello imperiously demand must be put asunder.
So, how does this problem arise? The attempt by Howard and Costello to separate religion and politics is indicative of their (perhaps inadvertent) sacralizing of the secular. They will receive loud plaudits from those who ardently believe with them that religion has to be kept under control. It now demonstrates something of the spiritual character of one religious faith that has overwhelming control of political life. It is, in fact, an illustration of how Howard and Costello cannot affirm their own commitment to Australia's polite "non-fanatic" approach to political life without setting forth their own religion which excludes citizens who do not share their theory of how religion should relates to politics.
But there is no provision in the Australian Constitution that requires allegiance to this specious theory. And the PM and the aspiring PM should start reformulating their public statements in order to avoid giving the impression that it is unAustralian not to disconnect religion from politics. Their authoritarian demand for majoritarian politics might have a long history. But this view if heeded leads to a secularist allegiance to Parliament as a religious duty that should be required of all citizens. Such religion must be rejected by Christians seeking to promote public justice and just parliamentary representation.
Moreover a Christian democratic contribution to Australian politics should not avoid giving principled support to Australia's Muslim community should they seek to find a form of co-operation amongst themselves by which they could form a united Muslim democratic party. And those Christians who would advocate a biblically-based vision of public justice for this country, should prepare themselves to offer advice should their Muslim neighbours ask how such a party might be set up. It would also be important at this time to learn from Muslim leaders whether and to what degree they feel that their leadership in the Mosque and wider Muslim community has been undermined or compromised by the recent comments.
But the kind of Christian view that I am promoting
here is not the view of John Howard: "…our common values as Australians
transcend any other allegiances or commitments."
Nor is it compatible with Peter Costello's nuanced
view: "This is the way I look at it: Australia is a secular society,
with parliamentary law, part of the Western tradition of individual
rights."
Whilst these views do not aim to undermine the leadership within the Muslim community, it is of concern that these inexact public formulations fail to adequately recognise the views of citizens who dissent from this "secular" view, this secularist theory of government. No doubt Howard and Costello as secularised Christians of protestant background will tell us that mere disagreement with them on this issue does not equate with "fanaticism" and "extremism". But the problem with their inexact rhetoric is that it feeds the secularist intolerance that is already well-established in Australian life, it implies that acceptance of a secularist theory of government is a precondition for active participation in Australia's system of parliamentary, representative Government. There are in fact many theories of the basis for democracy and about the way the laws enacted by Parliament should be viewed. The statements of both may have been made under pressure, but now the PM, and the aspiring PM, have to explain and resolve the ambiguities and contradictions in their own views about politics, about religion and about the relation between them. In particular they have to explain why they are not advocating State absolutism of a kind that goes back to Jean Bodin (1530-1596), a theoretical view that is indeed consonant with their stated views of parliamentary supremacy. Do they not implicitly equate the public legal order with the totality of social life over which the Government has absolute authority?
*******
We should not be blind however to the possibility that Howard and Costello and their ilk need help to extricate themselves from the difficult theoretical bind by which they have bound themselves. If we look at the Liberal Party in historical terms we may better grasp the reasons for their current highly problematic viewpoint. In fact, it may be that they are now working out the ambiguities and contradictions that were part of their party's mindset in the 1960s. Their recent insistence upon the separation of religion from politics coincides with Howard's commitment to "core values" which now we learn must be influenced by the "secular" separation we have been discussing. On the surface the separation has a strong resonance with the problematic distinction between "values" and "facts" that was central to intellectual life in post-war university education. But there are also important differences, an examination of which can help us understand the revolution that has taken place within liberal party ideology and apart from which the contribution of Howard and Costello can not be rightly understood.
Costello has recently opined that university teaching and education generally, particularly the teaching of history in secondary schools, took a sharp turn to "the left" in the 1970s. A socialist viewpoint came to predominate, he says, and he thinks that this has been corrected in latter days by the more balanced approach to education and intellectual life that has emerged under the current Federal Coalition's education policies. This opinion was given for popular consumption on talk-back radio where flamboyant, if not extreme, views proliferate. But nevertheless it shows that this aspiring Prime Minister does try to understand important aspects of the change to intellectual life in this country that has taken place during the time he has been in Parliament, even if we judge that he has failed to grasp some important principles of social and historical analysis.
For instance, the idea that those who were critical of the presumed "objectivity" of science and scholarship were somehow "leftist" is a very superficial view. Not only does it retrospectively distort the historical analysis of public life, it misconceives the personal struggles that are part of any student's attempt to develop a critical view of her or his scientific discipline. Yes, an "objectivist" view of science and public life was strongly espoused by Vice Chancellors and Liberal and conservative politicians in the 1960s as they vainly tried, among other things, to justify Australia's involvement in the Vietnam war. Costello's view of a leftward collectivist trend in Australian public life ignores the prior collectivist dogmatism that was championed by Liberal Party "realists" as they made their contribution to post-war Australian intellectual culture. In many ways this liberal "realism" was experienced as a suffocating denial of human and cultural freedom and it was this, as much as "leftward" idealism which paved the way for the Labor Party to become the default party for a new generation of tertiary educated professionals.
But another just as significant transformation, if not revolution, has taken place in the life of Peter Costello - this has been in the ideology that controls the Liberal Party. In the 1960s it was the Liberal "realism" that demanded that "facts" be keep separate from "values". Not only that. The separation itself was a necessary device of "common sense". If what you had to say was going to be listened to, it had to be objective, it had to be verifiably measurable in some or other way. It had to be grounded in fact.
It is said that Menzies built his electioneering campaigns on such a "realistic" attention to the "facts". He assumed he could rely on 40% of the electorate and thus he gave his attention to making his policies appeal to that 10% who would give him the majority he needed to retain office.
That was back in the 1950s and 1960s and that same fact-oriented approach to political reality gave us the lottery system which determined which young men in any particular year cohort would be required to undergo military training. Fairness was safeguarded by an appeal to a statistical norm. All 365 marbles each have a date on them had the same chance of being picked out of the barrel. Conscientious objection was a possibility but it was evaluated in terms of whether the would-be objector could demonstrate a factual conscientious objection. Facts were to be the standard by which any profession of pacifist values were to be assessed. It was assumed that there was no other way. Judgment in public matters were judgments of common sense based in fact. So, how was the fact of conscientious objection to be demonstrated? One could not simply affirm pacifist values. And certainly one could not just say one believed Australia's Vietnam involvement was unjust. That would not gain you exemption. The law stipulated that to qualify as a conscientious objector the dissenting 20 year old would have to go before a court and swear a conscientious belief that he was not just opposed to this war but to all wars. That was the legal requirement. Conscientious objection was not a fact if the would-be objector was to admit there were circumstances when he would be willing to take life in order to preserve life because the criterion determining the fact of conscientious objection was whether the person could affirm opposition to all wars in all circumstances. That was the legal circumscription. This was a matter of law and law was supposed to be based on publicly verifiable facts. Religion, on the other hand, was viewed as a matter of private subjective values, and could only be accepted as a ground for exemption if these professed values were expressed in a factual willingness to solemnly declare an opposition to all wars. That was the legal route by which a conscientious objector had to go in order to demonstrate a conscientious objection - an opposition to all wars under all circumstances. Anything else was not considered to be a genuine conscientious objection according to the law governing conscientious objectors. That is how the courts worked with conscientious objectors. That is how the law understood conscription. Along with the mentally insane there was one other category of 20 year-old citizens who were exempt from the conscription obligation. These were those who had demonstrated their religious calling by enrolling full-time in a theological college which had the exclusive purpose of training candidates for ministry in the church. This was the law that the Liberal Government enacted and to administered when it was insisting that Australian troops had to be sent to Vietnam in support of US troops.
This previous political attitude, and its concern to establish facts as the only conceivable basis for public life, contrasts markedly with John Howard's commitment to "core values". We recall that these "transcend any other allegiances or commitments". In those post-war years there was still an expectation that the political process, perhaps in some magical way, would confirm the views of the majority of Australians. The facts (a Liberal Party victory at the polls) were read as a confirmation of this hope. But that culture has changed. There is no longer any majority in the former definable White Anglo-Irish Christian sense. And so, rather than appealing to a majority they now make their appeal to those who accept majoritarian "core values". It is a shift of great significance. And in the meantime they have found it necessary to hold their own contribution on course by appealing to the "secular" doctrine of a separation of religion from politics. In the 1950s and 1960s the (predominantly protestant) Liberals retained office with the preferences of the (predominantly Roman Catholic) Democratic Labour Party. Then the appeal was to the "facts" of common sense; now the appeal is to the "core values" of secular society.
At the same time we see the emergence of a theory that at its heart is so contrary to the professed "heritage" of the liberal party that it must make us wonder - this is a theory that democracy is about the rule and supremacy of Parliament over the entire fabric of a nation's life. In this context, the separation of religion from politics is presented as a necessary safeguard for Australia's "core values" which have to transcend any other allegiances or commitments. For Howard and Costello there seems to be no turning back from this secularist path. The question that must be asked of them at this point concerns the status of these core secular values. John Howard and Peter Costello say there is but one law - the secular law enacted by parliament. That is also part of the "core values" that transcend all other allegiances and commitments. But for them there is in fact one other law that defines the entire political process - the law that separates religion from politics. It would seem from what they have said that they believe a secular society is mandatory for Australia. Quite apart from any comparison or contrast with the views espoused by their Labor opponents, this transition to "core value" authoritarianism in Liberal Party ideology is indicative of the fact that Howard and Costello have indeed embraced a secularist world-view and thus they are less able to address the perplexing political problems that arise as a result of their own actions and cry out for a solution. The viewpoint they espouse does not point to any healthy reform in our system of parliamentary democracy. Their secularist failure is symptomatic of the fact that most Australians are disgusted by the political process that these nationally elected leaders endorse. They no longer sense any real representation in the nation's parliaments and it is quite feasible that a majority, if not a substantial majority, simply does not know what to do about it.
This problem however must be addressed if we are to find our way in this increasingly complex global situation. It is problem of authentic political representation. And further posts will have to try to extend this analysis.
|
August 2005 © 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 |