Hey Ho the Hustings

A reflection by Tim Duffy from our current magazine on the upcoming election

• Posted on Apr 25, 2007

Here we go again! The third election to the Scottish Parliament and all the hopefuls are setting out their stalls. The big parties remind me of those adverts: ‘Why not consolidate all your individual debts with us in one single payment?’ The only drawback is that you have to buy into the whole package. Smaller parties based around single issues may have a strong appeal, but the likelihood of achieving real power is remote; and the big parties are thus able to sidestep contentious issues. Politics is the art of compromise in a fallen world; nobler views tend to end up as idolatry.

Fortunately, as Kenyon Wright reminded the Scottish Constitutional Convention during the devolution debate, politics is far too important to be left to politicians.

How then do we as Christians with a living tradition of social teaching approach this brief brouhaha? First, we remember that our kingdom is not of this world: the election is not the last judgement. Second, we still have a duty to enter into the process, albeit not simply on the world’s terms. The world is currently awash with information about the election – newspapers, websites, television discussion.

All manner of organisations are producing lists of questions for candidates, based on their focus of interest. It is not much use having a list of questions for candidates if we have not considered the issues seriously ourselves. Just because there is a general election in the offing, we should not feel galvanised into a flurry of action before sliding back into the usual torpor of indifference.

Ideally we should not be considering the questions for the first time in the run up to an election. They should be a part of our continuing response in faith to the world around us. Our response should not be simply an amalgam of what we’ve heard on the TV discussions or read in the newspapers; but rather an outworking of our life in a spirituality which is profoundly practical. Before any list of questions then, I want to suggest a framework for approaching issues based on key principles of social teaching:

1. How does the policy affect human dignity? Is it life enhancing or merely an attempt to get round a social problem? This applies not only to the traditional pro life issues, but also to healthcare in general, care of the elderly, education, criminal justice and so on.

2. Is the policy aimed towards the common good or does it only affect a part of society, even if that part is a large majority? A useful general question here is: At whose expense is this policy to be carried out, and can it be justified. In other words who are the likely losers?

3. Does the policy spread power and encourage participation, or is it restrictive and centralising? To a certain extent, politics is about delegating and entrusting our political power to representatives. It is not given up or abdicated. Those who exercise this mandated power remain accountable. Elections campaigns are a good time to ask the question ‘Why haven’t they done…?’ as much as looking at future proposals.

This should allow you to get an initial sense of whether the policy is properly rooted.

Watch out for the introduction of the big words that usually mean politicians are avoiding reality: democracy, freedom, choice, enterprise, prosperity and of course social justice and peace. Are they part of a coherent vision, or merely being scattered about for effect? Remember too that even the best ingredients can be ruined by a lousy cook.

For Christians, a touchstone for any policy is its effect on the poor. The way a society deals with the poor is the measure of its humanity. A society like ours with a fifth of its citizens effectively living in poverty (more frighteningly that includes a quarter of all children) obviously has a long way to go. Impoverishment of course takes many forms. Whether it is the lack of good work, or illness or disability; whether it is the lack of an education centred on personal development and social responsibility; whether it is an attitude to others of hostility or indifference; all these can be part of a social debt that breeds alienation. What you have failed to do to the most deprived, says Christ, you have failed to do to me.

And in the midst of much hot air for and against independence, it is worth remembering that no country, not even the most powerful, is independent. We are all interdependent. The globalised world is not merely there for consumption and exploitation. It is primarily a forceful reminder of our mutual responsibility and stewardship. In its headlong and greedy pursuit, consumer society pretends not to notice that its consumption is just that, a wasting disease.

Even if we do not get to an election meeting, it is a good opportunity to reassess our own priorities, to vote out of conviction rather than propaganda, and to carry the witness of our faith into the arena of secular politics.

“the Church's Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends — as is its proper function — to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good. The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic's duty to be morally coherent, found within one's conscience, which is one and indivisible” Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, quoted in Compendium, n571.

^ top of page ^