What is the politician’s first duty?
There's been a bit of a hullabaloo in Sydney recently. Our State parliament was debating an issue relating to medical ethics, and the Catholic Archbishop, Cardinal George Pell, suggested that politicians who claim to be ‘good catholics’ possibly ought to vote on the issue in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic church.
One of the interesting things that emerged in the ensuing media fray was the attitude of some politicians that they would not let their faith influence their vote.
Californian Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed this approach recently. He said,
I always said that you should not have your religion interfere with government policies or with the policies of the people ... I am a Catholic and a very dedicated Catholic, but that does not interfere with my decision-making because I know that stem-cell research, the way we are doing it in California ... is the right way to go and will save, very quickly down the line, lives and cure a lot of these illnesses.
A faith that does not give rise to actions and “does not interfere with decision-making” seems a bit worrying at a personal level (James 2:14ff). I guess Arnie was meaning to separate his decision-making as Governor from his personal decisions. (Is that possible?)
But this raises an interesting question: just what is a politician's obligation? Is it to do what he or she believes is in the best interests of the society being governed? Or is the politician's responsibility to reflect the views of his constituents (even if those views are dangerously misinformed and poorly thought through)?
I'm sure most people would like to think that it is the former, rather than the latter. In fact, I suspect the oath of office for most politicians probably talks about ‘governing for the common good’, or something along those lines.
But if they are meant to decide what is right for the common good, rather than what is popular, surely their faith (Christian, Muslim, atheist or other) is an important and appropriate influence. After all, we are not necessarily well-placed to assess what is likely to be for the common good in the long-term. As Tony Payne has argued,
As a means of working out what to do, pure pragmatism (simply doing what works) is ultimately disastrous, not only because it is unreliable in the short-term (due to the fallen nature of the world and other people and ourselves), but even more significantly because we can’t chart whether it will work long-term or have other side-effects ...
This is why the Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Whatever we work out for ourselves must start with a profound humility regarding our position, and a certain pessimism about what we can ultimately achieve. Only God sees the whole, and therefore only God rightly understands what must be done with the particulars. For to truly understand particulars and how they relate to each other, and how they ‘work’, you must not only view the whole in all its variety, but view it in time—you must see where things are headed, what their purpose is. All this is only possible for God, and therefore only possible because of revelation. Revelation must have a key role in telling us what to do, because simply following what seems at the time to ‘work’ (that is, pure pragmatism) in the end may not work at all ...
Perhaps Christians should be writing to their local representatives and urging them to govern by principle and not by pragmatics, and to seek to source their deep principles in the fundamental principle of ‘fearing the Lord’. That sounds not only like wise advice for them, but a good evangelistic opportunity.