The purpose of what follows is not in support of either YES or NO. It aims to look first at the topic of this Referendum; and to put the issues in the context of a Christian social understanding. I have no party or group affiliation. The context of Catholic Social Teaching is something which can be and is shared with fellow Christians and with people who do not profess any faith. There is no intention here to inhibit people’s own choices or to suggest that they should not discuss and campaign for whatever viewpoint they hold without force or disrespect
The Issue:
We have
to live responsibly in the society we are a part of, albeit in accordance with
our faith. We live, we are told, not in an Empire, but in a democracy. In words
attributed to Sir Winston Churchill (perhaps inspired by his 14 years’
experience as MP for Dundee): ‘It has been said that democracy is
the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried’.
What is
at once the essence and drawback of democracy is that it is quantitative rather
than qualitative. This is noted by Aristotle (no less ruefully than Churchill) more
than two thousand years ago. Where Plato’s Republic is characterised by a
patrician elitism of the wise, Aristotle points out that, like it or not,
equality is not gauged by wisdom or worthiness:
‘But one factor of freedom is to rule and be
ruled in turn; for democratic justice is to have equality according to number,
not worth, and if this is justice, the multitude must be sovereign and whatever
seems best to the majority this must be final and this must be justice, for
they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share.’ (Politics.6.2
,1317b2–7).
This
means that for election and decision making, you have to deliver the numbers;
and any collective that can deliver a numerical majority gains access to the
levers of power. That is the nature of representative
democracy. We mandate our power to be exercised through our representatives
by arithmetical majority.
A
referendum reverts to another form of democracy – direct democracy - in which each person who is an elector has an
individual vote. It is still a numbers game, but not only do the collectives
and representatives no longer matter; their agendas conflict with the prospect
of a truly personal choice on a single issue unmixed with compromise or trade
off.
Disappointingly,
the Referendum campaign has in fact been dominated by party has- beens,
wannabes and hacks, many of whom seem more concerned for personal and party
interest. Then there are the self-appointed
journalistic ‘experts’, ‘business leaders’ and - God help us – ‘celebrities’
who really have no business sticking their noses in; and at best have no more
than the one vote which every elector will have. The Referendum is
not a matter for party politics or the vested interests of business or
celebrity culture; but rather should mobilise the whole of Scottish civic
society, every registered elector, to making individual, critically informed
decisions on the single question at issue.
This point was wonderfully
illustrated in a letter to the Herald
from Duncan Graham:
‘I am just a wee baldy man who lives in
Scotland. I cannot act, sing, dance or cook. I have never been in the jungle,
or won a medal for running or jumping. I am now too old to kick a ball and have
never slept with a Premier League footballer. What I can do, however, is make
up my own mind whether I want to live in an independent country...’ (Herald, Tuesday 7 January 2014)
Making
an informed decision is in some degree dependent on access to reliable
information. There has been an imbalance in the coverage of the Referendum in
an overwhelmingly one sided and frequently dishonest mainstream media highlighted
in Dr John Robertson’s report; which was the sidelined by mainstream media.
This is compounded by the general ignorance of London based journalists
(including Scots), which means national journalism is rarely informed, current
or interesting in its reporting.
There are 37 national or daily
newspapers in Scotland. Just 5 of them are owned in Scotland; none of the 37
(except the Sunday Herald) has shown
any support for independence. I have
found the best option is to disregard the mainstream media news and discussion
of the referendum. This leaves time for all sorts of useful activity including
critical survey of sites on the internet; and it does not exacerbate high blood
pressure. Quite frankly, if it took two years and endless media digression before
every important political decision, nothing would ever get done.
The Object of the Referendum Campaign:
One area of shared concern is the
issue at the heart of the Referendum: sovereignty and self-determination. According to the opening words of the UN
Charter: ‘The Purposes of the United Nations are… To develop friendly
relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and
self-determination of peoples’ (Chapter 1, 1-2). According to the UN Declaration
of Human Rights:
Each of these terms is argued over and
discussed in international law. These rights however are also unconditional:
which means that all discussion of whether we can afford it, whether the EU
will permit it, or what effects it might or might not have on international
relations and security for example is irrelevant at this stage.
Rights are unconditional but they
only exist in the context of obligations. This is well described by the French
thinker and activist Simone Weil:
‘The notion of
obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to
the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the
obligation to which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing
not from the individual who possesses it, but from others who consider
themselves as being under a certain obligation towards him. Recognition of an
obligation makes it effectual. An obligation which goes unrecognized by anybody
loses none of the full force of its existence. A right which goes unrecognized
by anybody is not worth very much’ (The
Need for Roots, 3).
For the Christian, however, a more
immediate answer might be the words of the psalmist: ‘the earth is the Lord’s
and all the fullness thereof’ (Psalm 24:1). Even an atheist could equally well
argue that the earth belongs to no individual or group. Indeed, in contrast to
the Powers of this world, Jesus explicitly says ‘My kingdom is not of this world’ (John 18:36). This underlies the
irony of his statement about ‘rendering to Caesar’ when questioned by
functionaries of the Jewish collaborators with the Roman Empire, who were
‘trying to entrap him’ (Matt 22:15-22). Caesar, like all emperors, has nothing ultimately
worth having.
In the last analysis it is a
question of power – what we do or can do. It links with identity - who I am or
can be; and resources – what I have or have access to; but it is rooted in
power. The crucial element in the
referendum is power and where it should reside. It was a good Catholic, Lord
Acton, who identified the continuum of power – ‘Power tends to
corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always
bad men.’ This is not a very reassuring start.
Matthew’s gospel gives an
interesting insight into Jesus’ attitude to power as transmitted through the
early apostolic tradition: ‘You know that the rulers in this world lord it over
their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But
among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be
your servant’ (Matt 20:25-26). The Greek word for servant –‘diakonos’ – is quite different from
slave and carries the connotation of those through whom God carries out his
administration on earth; such as, for example, magistrates (Romans 13:4), in
the sense that we still refer to a public servant.
This translates into the question
of sovereignty, which can be summed up as follows:
‘The subject
of political authority is the people considered in its entirety as those who
have sovereignty. In various forms, this people transfers the exercise of
sovereignty to those whom it freely elects as its representatives, but it
preserves the prerogative to assert this sovereignty in evaluating the work of
those charged with governing and also in replacing them when they do not fulfil
their functions satisfactorily. Although this right is operative in every State
and in every kind of political regime, a democratic form of government, due to
its procedures for verification, allows and guarantees its fullest application.
The mere consent of the people is not, however, sufficient for considering
“just” the ways in which political authority is exercised.’
Compendium of
the Social Doctrine of the Church, 395
It is also worth remembering that there are differing notions of
sovereignty. Indeed a landmark legal decision, MacCormick v Lord Advocate of 1953, stated that ‘the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament
is a distinctively English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish
constitutional law.’ For Scots, sovereignty resides with the people (hence Mary
Queen of Scots, not Scotland).
It’s probably also worth distinguishing the difference between the
nation and the state. The nation is the community of people united by cultural,
ethnic, linguistic and historical ties. It need not be geographically bound,
often in fact thriving through its expatriates.
The state is the area of territory living under a unified form of
government, which is usually elected by its taxpayers. It is also shorthand for
the forms of authority and administration fiscally supported by the electorate.
The Referendum, despite a great deal of sentimental blather about
belonging and national identity, is largely a matter of the functioning of the
government of Scotland and its ultimate responsibility. Those entitled to make
the decision will be the registered electors of Scotland, whatever their
national origins.
It is important to avoid confusing
the instrument of the Referendum, or indeed the mechanism of government, with
its purpose. It is essentially about the state and is managerial. The state’s officials – whether politicians or public
servants - are our employees, paid for out of our taxes. Their opinions, in a
matter of direct democracy, carry no more weight than the single vote that
they, like us, will have. Again, in the words of Lord Acton, ‘There is no worse heresy than that the
office sanctifies the holder of it’. He added in a postscript a valuable
guide which serves us equally today: ‘Put
conscience above both system and success.’
The
question remains, however, whether Scottish civic society is sufficiently
aware, sufficiently engaged and empowered – and sufficiently compassionate to
be able to manage independence. Yes or No is therefore not simply a question of
political expediency but a matter of moral, cultural and spiritual maturity.
The
Referendum and Catholic Social Teaching:
My remit
is to give a spiritual perspective and I suppose I could say: just go and pray
about it. I’m very happy to say that - without the ‘just’, however, since our
spiritual response always precedes our theological response. And a theological
response is not the province of experts only, but necessarily of all of us.
I come from a tradition of Catholic Social
Theology within which I have tried to locate the Referendum. The tradition is formed in the Jewish awareness that God’s chosen
people are those who live by the words of the prophet Micah: ‘the Lord
has told you what is good, and this is what he requires of you: to do what is
right, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God’: (Micah, 6:8). The
message of the risen Christ through the New Testament is that the Kingdom or
sovereignty of God is within us (Luke 17:21), beyond the vicissitudes of
ordinary experience. And this awareness is sustained and developed by Spirit
filled communities living out the interdependence between God and our
neighbour.
Within that tradition, there is first of all a
need to identify clearly what the issue is. That is the Referendum question. Next
it is useful to triangulate that issue around a Christian understanding of the
main areas of social life: cultural, economic and political, dealing
respectively with matters of identity, resources and power.
Each of
these areas can be seen as having a guiding theological principle, which does
not of itself give an answer. Rather, it allows us to gain a point of reference
to assess the situation with a view to taking action. This is the basis of what
is called the See-Judge-Act method of Catholic social action.
The
principle of Dignity turns on the fact that we are created in the image of God.
There is something of the divine uniquely in each of us: a transcendent source
of human dignity and worth, without which rights and obligations are merely
provisional. The sense of collective identity is what we call culture, the creative
expression of human capabilities. Failure to acknowledge this is ‘dumbing
down’; an ignorance of our culture which ultimately turns us away from God.
We
believe that God created the world and its resources for all. This belief
resides in the principle of the Common Good: not for just some, not just for
particular countries, not even for the majority of humanity, but for everyone,
particularly the poor and vulnerable. A prevalent climate of selfishness about
the Referendum – ‘What’s in it for me?’ – is predictable but disappointing. The
passages in Acts about holding things in common (ie 2:44 and 4:32) are less of
an ideological statement and more of a realisation of mutual responsibility and
fellowship.
The
argument is also made that insofar as independence would entail Scotland separating
from the rest of the UK, this would be an act of selfishness. (In fact Scottish votes almost never make any
difference to the outcome of UK elections). More fundamentally,
this argument confuses the boundaries of compassion with the boundaries of
governments; as if our responsibility for our neighbour was constrained by the
country they lived in.
The guiding principle of power for
Catholic Social Teaching goes under the name of Subsidiarity. This means that,
at its simplest, the
best level of government is the smallest, lowest or least centralised competent
authority compatible with effective fulfilment of its functions. Political
decisions should be devolved to the lowest appropriate local level wherever
possible, in preference to centralised authority. As an analogy, imagine a set
of screwdrivers: you have to use the right size and shape of tool to do the job
properly. If the tool is too large, it damages the object; if it is too small,
it damages itself.
The Compendium
of the Social Doctrine of the Church lays out the inter-relation of social
organisations:
‘The political community is
established to be of service to civil society, from which it originates. The
Church has contributed to the distinction between the political community and
civil society above all by her vision of humanity, understood as an autonomous,
relational being who is open to the Transcendent… The Church's commitment on
behalf of social pluralism aims at bringing about a more fitting attainment of
the common good and democracy itself, according to the principles of
solidarity, subsidiarity and justice.’ (Compendium,
417)
The
Referendum question is: ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’ Of course
no country in the modern world is independent; the best we can hope for
is the recognition of our interdependence and political structures which
encourage cooperation rather than antagonism. What is certain is that Scotland
has long had its own cultural institutions, its own legal system, its churches
(note the plural); no less than its traditions in medicine and philosophy,
science and technology. It also has its
own vehicles of language, as well as music and the visual arts. The reality too is that particularly since
Scotland regained its own parliament in 1999 many of the functions of state are
in fact managed independently and in a manner different to Westminster policies
in eg, education, transport, health and the environment.
The context of subsidiarity
was well defined by St John Paul II, in his first encyclical Redemptor Hominis:
‘The essential
sense of the State, as a political community, consists in that the society and
people composing it are master and sovereign of their own destiny. This sense
remains unrealised if, instead of the exercise of power with the moral
participation of the society or people, what we see is the imposition of power
by a certain group upon all the other members of the society’ (n 17).
In modern secular political
thought, ideas of imposed power are encompassed under the notion of cultural
hegemony, in which the imposed economic and political ideologies of the
dominant ruling elite are projected as being normative for all; when in fact
they only benefit those who control wealth and power. Cultural hegemony is thus
a form of totalitarianism.
The
American journalist Bob Herbert, writing in the New York Times in May 2006, gave a useful definition of
totalitarianism:
‘Hallmarks of totalitarian regimes have always included
excessive reliance on secrecy, the deliberate stoking of fear in the general
population, a preference for military rather than diplomatic solutions in
foreign policy, the promotion of blind patriotism, the denial of human rights,
the curtailment of the rule of law, hostility to a free press and the
systematic invasion of the privacy of ordinary people.’
An effective preventive to a totalitarian society
is a participatory democracy. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of
the Church makes the
point in sections 190-91 that there are two ways in which totalitarianism can
happen and flourish. The corruption of selfish interests or is one factor. The
withdrawal and abstention of those who feel disempowered and that therefore participation
and voting are pointless are the other factor. This exemplifies the maxim that
for evil to triumph all that is necessary is that good people do nothing. A low
turnout in the Referendum, whatever the result, will diminish the authority of
the process.
Democracy
is a numbers game - a lottery even. But like a lottery, you have to take part
if you want to gain anything; and unlike a lottery, the odds are much, much
better. The Referendum touches upon a fundamental principle of democracy, the
right to decide who is ultimately responsible for our representative democracy,
and therefore voting is imperative.
The
Referendum and Faith:
As people of faith we are not merely indulging in amateur political
science when we consider the Referendum; we are looking at something which
impacts on the way we are enabled in (or prevented from) living out that faith.
According to the theologian Paul Tillich, faith is a part of our growth and
development as a whole person by an act of total commitment, freely chosen, to
what we decide to make our ultimate concern.
It is not superstition, wilful irrationality or capriciousness. Rather
it is an affirmation of the transcendent nature of ultimate reality.
‘There is a risk if what was considered as a
matter of ultimate concern proves to be a matter of preliminary and transitory
concern—as, for example, the nation… The reaction of despair in people who have
experienced the breakdown of their national claims is an irrefutable proof of
the idolatrous character of their national concern. In the long run this is the
inescapable result of an ultimate concern, the subject matter of which is not
ultimate.’ (Tillich, The Dynamics of
Faith, 1957, 17).
These intermediate, less than ultimate concerns have been usefully seen
by the contemporary theologian Walter Wink as ‘Powers’: things ranging from
distractions to major evils that divert us from our proper ultimate concern. As
Wink points out:
‘these Powers can and must be redeemed. But
focus on their redemption will lead to utopian disillusionment unless we
recognize that their transformation takes place within the limits of the fall.’
(The Powers that Be, 32)
Our capacity to identify as ultimate those things which are only
preliminary or transitory is the root sin of idolatry. It is connected,
however, with the important balancing mechanism which Christianity introduces
to prevent us from granting ultimacy to things which are not ultimate: the
fall, or original sin. Original sin seems to be (and is often portrayed as) a
purely negative and unhelpful doctrine. Yet, as G K Chesterton, in his usual
paradoxical style, reminds us in the closing pages of Orthodoxy:
‘Christianity
preaches an obviously unattractive idea, such as original sin; but when we wait
for its results, they are pathos and brotherhood, and a thunder of laughter and
pity; for only with original sin we can at once pity the beggar and distrust
the king.’ (Orthodoxy, chap 9).
As Christians, we
know that our Kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36) and that we have here
no abiding city (Hebrews 13:14). This is not to promote quietism or turning
away from the world; but rather to point out the limitations of a purely
secular approach. Some of the implications have been hinted at by the Jesuit
scientist and mystic, Teilhard de Chardin:
‘The resources at our disposal today, the powers that we have
released, could not possibly be absorbed by the narrow system of individual or
national units which the architects of the human earth have hitherto used…. The
age of nations has passed. Now, unless we wish to perish we must shake
off our old prejudices and build the earth… The more scientifically I regard
the world, the less can I see any possible biological future for it except the
active consciousness of its unity.’ (Human
Energy, 37)
Implications of the Referendum:
Nevertheless the
Referendum should not be seen as irrelevant, since the result -whatever it is -
will have consequences for our faith. Writing
recently in the Sunday Herald, Neil
Ascherson recalled a different approach to independence:
‘In the dark years before the Velvet
Revolution in Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel used to say: “We don’t need to wait
for it. Let’s start living in truth now – right now. Let’s live ‘as if’.” And
the Polish workers, before there was Solidarity, said: “Let’s create spaces –
authentic spaces in which a real Poland exists, in which we talk openly, wait
for no permission, design our own future.”’
Ascherson concludes: ‘Never mind what happens on referendum day.
We should be saying: “Wake up, we are independent already, now, today. And from
today we shall start to act as if we were citizens of an independent country.”’
Albert Camus, who
was involved with the French resistance to the Nazis, makes a similar observation
on the difference between political independence and human freedom:
‘We
shall be sure that freedom is not a gift received from a State or a leader, but
a possession to be won every day by the effort of each and the union of all.’
(Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, p 97).
Pope Francis has
laid out some straightforward guidelines in his recent exhortation Evangelii Gaudium:
‘[I]t
is time to devise a means for building consensus and agreement while seeking
the goal of a just, responsive and inclusive society. The principal author, the
historic subject of this process, is the people as a whole and their culture,
and not a single class, minority, group or elite. We do not need plans drawn up
by a few for the few, or an enlightened or outspoken minority which claims to
speak for everyone. It is about agreeing to live together, a social and
cultural pact.’ (n 239).
Working out such
a pact, however, requires more than merely falling in with existing agendas. In
1998, the US Bishops Conference published A
Pastoral Reflection on Lay Discipleship for Justice in a New Millennium, which contains
criteria applicable to the Referendum:
‘We
cannot be indifferent or cynical about the obligations of citizenship. Our political choices should not reflect
simply our own interests, partisan
preferences or ideological agendas, but should be shaped by the
principles of our faith and commitment to justice, especially to the weak and
vulnerable.’
Conclusion:
To
summarise then: Catholic Social Teaching does not of itself warrant either a
YES or a NO vote. That is not its purpose. The Referendum is an exercise of one
of the means of democracy practised in the UK. In contrast to the
representative democracy which empowers elected representatives to make
decisions on behalf of the electorate, the Referendum is an exercise in direct
democracy in which each elector’s vote is sovereign, irrespective of the views
or policies of any other group or individual.
The
matter at issue is not taxation, pensions, Trident, Europe or anything else.
These are for the party manifestos at a general election. Similarly, judgements
based on personalities are not only irrelevant but misguided. The matter at
issue is the precondition of all of these: where the elected seat of government
that makes all of these decisions should reside.
While
the responsibility for each person’s decision is absolute, it should be
informed. Catholic Social Teaching provides principles of discernment, rooted
in Christian faith and the Catholic tradition, which serve as guidelines beyond
ideology and party politics in the process of reaching a decision. These
principles may be stated briefly. The decision I make should:
-
Uphold the universal dignity of the human
person created in God’s image.
-
Augment the mutual
social benefit that is the Common Good, not just for the people of Scotland, or
of the UK, but ultimately of the whole human family.
-
Be in accordance with
the principle of subsidiarity which aims to empower people in a way which
delivers the most effective government at the lowest practicable level.
The
history of the Christian churches suggests that Lord Acton’s strictures on
power apply to them too. It has never gone well when churches have aligned themselves
too closely with an established political order: ‘You can’t depend on anyone,
not even a great leader’ (Psalm 146:3, Contemporary English Version). The bible contains a sustained critique of power, summed up in each
testament by women - Hannah in the Old (1Sam 2:1ff) and of course Mary in her Magnificat:
‘He has brought down the mighty from their thrones and
exalted the lowly’ (Luke 1:52).
St Paul,
addressing the community at the centre of imperial power was unequivocal about
our responsibility: ‘Do not be conformed to this world but be
transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the
will of God - what is good and acceptable and perfect’ (Romans 12:2). And the first letter to
Timothy says that ‘The ultimate aim of our way of life is love
that issues from a pure heart, good conscience and a sincere faith’ (1Tim1:5). If people vote honestly out of those
criteria, discerned through the tradition of Catholic Social Teaching, they
will be exercising true independence regardless of whether they vote YES or NO.
Tim
Duffy
August
2014