Wisdom and the IR debate
Reading Andrew Cameron's New College lectures on ‘church and state’, and reflecting on the current controversy about the Industrial Relations reforms, it occurs to me that a great deal of political activity and debate is really a search for what the Bible might call ‘wisdom’—that is, not so much deciding some matter of moral right and wrong, but determining what practical course of action will yield the most successful outcome. To take a fictitious example, are the provisions contained within the Alfalfa Industry Reform Bill on balance likely to improve the lot of Alfalfa growers and the community in general, or not?
This is why people—Christians included—end up on different sides of these sorts of debates. All might agree that we should help the Alfalfa industry, while not unfairly disadvantaging the Mung Bean Growers or disenfranchising the Federated Association of Organic Farmers, but what mix of laws will achieve all this in the most successful way? That's the hard-to-answer question, because it involves looking into the future and trying to forecast the likely effects of certain actions. The next step is even trickier: weighing effects against each other. If it's impossible to help the Alfalfa Growers without hurting the Mung Bean Growers at least in part, how much Mung Bean pain is acceptable for how much Alfalfa gain? What sort of calculus does one use for this sort of equation?
In other words, the ethic is largely utilitarian, with all the problems and uncertainties that utilitarianism brings. However, that's not to say that Christians won't have something to contribute to the discussion. We can throw in our two cents worth about how we see the likely effects and trade-offs as well as anyone. In fact, we can do better than that—because we bring to the analysis a God-given framework of beliefs about what constitutes ‘benefit’ and ‘success’.
The current IR debate is really the latest round in the long-running tussle between Capital and Labour, with the Capital side trying in this instance to move the slider a few notches in its direction. At one end is the unfettered laissez-faire dog-eat-dog market, in which the worker has no rights and protections and is exploited by the rich and powerful. At this end, you get a big and growing economic pie, but not many people get to eat it, and it is made on the crushed bones of the workers. At the other end of the slider, you have a completely regulated and controlled economy, in which everything is divided up equally. At this end, the law ensures everyone gets the same piece of pie ... but it's a very small pie.
The argument about the position of the slider has largely been settled in the last 25 years. Nearly everybody agrees that it needs to be somewhere in the middle. Prosperous societies need enough flexibility and free-market activity for the pie to keep growing, so that more people can eat. But there also need to be checks and balances in place to protect workers from exploitation.
The Government?s position is that, on balance, we'll get a better result by moving the slider a few notches towards the free market end from where it is now. Opponents of the legislation disagree. They think the balance is right where it is, or perhaps even want it moved a notch or two the other way.
A sense of perspective comes in handy at this point. We are witnessing a centrist Government and a centrist Opposition—both of whom are in favour of a lightly regulated market economy—arguing about whether the slider should be positioned at 5.5 or 4.5 (if 0 is a Soviet steel mill and 10 is a Dickensian boot-blacking factory). This is not how the two sides portray their positions, of course. They spin it to their own advantage—so the Government says that the slider has been down at 3, and all they want to do is take it to a more balanced 4 or 5; and the Opposition and Unions say that the Government is trying to move the slider from 5 to 8, in a desire take us all back to the blacking factory.
Christians need to be wise as serpents in picking our way through this, and deciding how we will contribute to the debate. Following some of Andrew Cameron's suggestions (in his second lecture), here are three tips for contributing to the debate:
1. We need to get the facts straight, as best as we can. Public debate these days tends to be conducted via sound-bites and TV ads. We need to be aware of the spin, from both sides, and do our best to get accurate, detailed information. This can be time consuming and difficult, but it's no less essential for all that. Having read most of the 67-page detailed statement by the Government of its IR plans, and some detailed critiques of those plans, I feel I am only just starting to get a handle on the very complex questions involved. Given this, the moral certainty of some Christian leaders surprises me, especially those that came out swinging well before the details were even released. We can be as prophetic and passionate as we want, but it needs to be well-informed comment, not firing from the hip based on a tabloid understanding of the issues.
2. We should be wary of making every debate into an issue of absolute right and wrong; of moral righteousness. It seems to me that the IR debate is not in that category, rather, it's a discussion about fiddling the economic levers to get the machine to run more efficiently, whether the fiddling will work, and importantly whether the costs involved are worth paying. It's an important discussion, because it will effect people's lives. But we need to recognize that we're basically having a wisdom-discussion about likely effects and consequences. Now, if there is a fundamental injustice involved in the framing of the laws, then that would be a matter of righteousness and moral outrage. But having read the detailed description of the law (if not the 687-page Bill itself!), I have yet to find any fundamental injustice.
3. We should bring God's truth to bear where possible. God abhors a dishonest scale; he favours justice and impartiality; he provides money and prosperity as good gifts, but they are not absolute goods to be pursued at the expense of loving relationships. These sorts of principles, which are crafted into the fabric of the creation and express God's good will for his creation, need to shape our community's discussion of what constitutes a ‘good effect’. It is in this connection that concerns about the impact of the legislation on relationships and family life have rightly been expressed.