Christian
radical reflections 53,
September 21, 2005 AD
The Prime Minister and Treasurer recently indicated that Australia had
to remain a secular society. Members of the Government and the Opposition have
not really commented on these assertions. We are still waiting for the debate.
Are we to assume that most Federal Parliamentarians believe that the strict
separation of religion from politics is one of our nation's "core
values"?
If so, when was this view decided? Howard and Costello give the
impression that this has been decided already; to disagree is to stand outside
the "mainstream", to place oneself outside the political arena. But
when was this decided and under what circumstances? It is certainly not
something that can be found in the Federal Constitution. For something so
crucial its details need to be out in the open. But we suspect this is one of
those times when politicians are trying to close down political debate rather
than opening it up.
The comments were initially raised in connection with statements made
by an Islamic cleric about adherence to the law of Allah. They only appear to
be the result of serious reflection. In fact they function as strategic
statements designed as much to stifle public debate as to imply that these
issues are being taken care of.
But the issue does not go away and we need to see Government welcome
public debate about the contribution of religion to our Commonwealth, about the
religious character of public life and the role of Government to do justice.
How are we to justly respect the various religious visions that contribute to
political life in our country?
You have to wonder why, after almost 10 years as Prime Minister, with
repeated political U-turns, Mr Howard has not yet seen the necessity for
opening up political debate about the way this country is Governed. In the
debate over the Constitution, for instance, Mr Howard insisted that he
determine the terms of reference. As a result the possible outcomes that were
presented and upon which we had to vote were unacceptable to most people. Thus
he got his desired outcome and there have been no changes. This manifests his
political weakness.
As PM John Howard not only assumes he is the chief debater for his
side, he also has to be in control of
the ground rules. Thus the "other side" is simply the negative of his
own position. This is an approach that cannot promote genuine public debate. In
public debate there are always more than two sides and each side will view the
ground rules in their own way. The ground rules are not neutral. Howard only
welcomes debate when he can determine the two prevailing sides. That is his
political weakness. It is a weakness that has become deeply rooted in
Australia's political psyché.
That is also evidence for the political immaturity of the Liberal Party
of Australia. It reveals a serious weakness in its view of Government
particularly after 1974. Presumably to promote authentic public debate about
the role of Government, at this, or any other time, would be a sign of a
Government's weakness. It would open up the entire system to critical review
and this presumably should not be allowed because it would reflect poorly upon
the present incumbents of the Treasury benches.
So why doesn't the Parliamentary Opposition begin a project to renew
public debate? Are they so stymied by John Howard's political acumen that they
can't conceive of political debate which actually invites the scores of
competent and alienated citizens to engage in a civil reconsideration of our
political system? What's the matter with them? Are they scared of embracing a
system of proportional representation that would mean building alliances with
smaller parties?
Genuine political debate is Australia is suffocated and it needs to be
resuscitated. The Prime Minister continues on his merry way and every day he seems
to prevail with the assumption that Australia's national security is tied to
his way of seeing things, to his way of inserting Australian influence
internationally and regionally.
But not only does he and his Government give inadequate attention to elaborating
the political philosophy that drives their political contribution. A strong
case can be made that Mr Howard continues to use his office in ways that stifle
the debates that need to be promoted.
Only last week we heard him complain that Mr Beazley had used the word
"quagmire" to describe the military situation in Iraq. What does he
want? An Opposition Leader who forgoes his own bona fide assessment and
simply "talks up" Australian military involvement in Iraq? How could
it be that Mr Beazley was giving comfort to terrorists by using the word
"quagmire"? It defies explanation, but that is the kind of
"point scoring" that seems to "win". Well, that kind of
non-debate does not prepare the country for the kind of serious discussion that
it is going to need long after John Howard leaves the political scene.
Mr Beazley needs to re-assess his mode of replying to the "point
scoring" of the PM. The PM, quite frankly, should be forced to explain how
his brilliance in scoring points is actually compatible with the national
interest.
Why do we in this country put up with this? Is it that we are scared of
genuine political debate and argument?
Look at how the Government smirked and the Labor Opposition ducked for
cover when Mark Latham's diaries were published. Part of the frenzy was that
Latham allowed his own aide memoire to be published - that John
Howard was leading this country down a neo-colonialist path! What was so
damning about that? John Howard has referred to Rupert Murdoch as a good
Australian businessman even though Murdoch renounced his Australian citizenship
to become a powerful American. Why should Mark Latham be viewed as somehow
mentally unstable because he puts into words what most Australians can derive
from their daily diet of news? I dare to say that most Australians will now see
our relationship with the USA as one of compliant dependence. Whether
Australians understand the implications of 2002 National Security Strategy of
the Bush administration is another matter. But rather than duck for cover, the
Opposition should have at least pointed out that it is not clear how this
American policy is actually in Australia's national interest. It has just been
assumed carte blanche that it is. Once again genuine public debate is
avoided.
By construing the diary entry in this way, Latham, the media, the ABC
and the "two sides of politics" all accept that politics to be
politics must allow points to be scored. And for points to be scored there
needs to be only two sides. Whether this frenzy over a former leader's vitriol
helps the Labor Opposition remains to be seen, but there is as yet is little
evidence to suggest that renewed public debate has been promoted by this event.
It is authentic political debate that this country needs at this time.
The Liberal Party and the Labor Party, the two major electoral machines which
paternalistically dominate our political landscape, show no signs of wanting
such debate. Then they might lose control. Then they might lose their elite
status in "politics". Instead, they want us to believe that politics
is about their leaders scoring points, as if we, the citizenry, can just sit
back and mark their score cards like debating judges do in an inter-school
debating contest.
From a Christian democratic standpoint, we are again reminded of the
deep and serious problems we face with our system of parliamentary democracy.
The biblical witness is that Jesus Christ has redeemed the entirety of our
lives, and this means that we are called to learn how to engage in public
discussion about our stewardship, about our citizenship, about how we form our
families, about how we should form our systems of education, about how we
should care for the fragile environment, about how we should organise our
workplaces, about how we should care for our elderly, those who are unwell, the
disabled, the fearful, the alien and the oppressed. Christian as citizens and
as elected representatives in the nation's parliaments claim that Jesus Christ
is the King of all areas of our life. All of these areas need to be cultivated
with our thankful obedience. God did not give us our citizenship to remain mute
and passive in the face of injustice; He calls us to make manifest Christ's
rule by promoting political deeds that uphold justice. Thus we require a Christian
public philosophy which deals comprehensively with politics, and by which we
can add insight to principle in all policy areas.
We need clarity about the calling of government in a complex, highly
differentiated, multi-cultural, religiously pluralistic civic sphere. We have
responsibilities at local and state levels of government. We are citizens in a
national and federal commonwealth. . We belong to the region and how we form
our citizenship has an impact across the globe. As Government takes up its God-given
calling to administer public justice we do not seek special favours because of
our faith in Jesus Christ. Instead, from out of our Christian faith we call on
Government to do justice to all, to ensure due respect is given to each of the
many responsibilities we are called upon to fulfil. And in Australia, as much
as anywhere else, Christians need to work with each other to form political
alliances which "seek justice, love kindness and walk humbly" with
the King of Kings, the Good Shepherd, whose patience prods us to new works
worthy of our repentance.
|
September 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 |