12th February, 2010

NICK JENSEN

As we once more approach the federal election, we should first stand back and reflect on how our political system is communicated and what kind of concepts shape our understanding. There is certainly none more important than our spectrum of the ‘right’ and ‘left’ of politics, but is this framework as helpful as the weight put on it suggests it is.

PICTURE: Andrew Beierle (www.sxc.hu) "If we truly want to see a more just, moral and compassionate society, then we need to go beyond terms like ‘left’ and ‘right’ and be ready to bring an influence to bear."

Our concept of there being a ‘right’ and a ‘left’ side of politics seems to have originated from France in 1789. In an attempt to define parliament after the most recent revolution, the revolutionaries ended up on the left of the chamber while those on the right side wanted to continue to govern based on the more traditional values of the time. From this beginning the church was naturally seen as being on the ‘right’ side, due to much of the pre-revolutionary French establishment being under the strong influence of the Catholic Church.

These terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ are now used hundreds of times each day in newspapers and political discussions around Australia. The terms are so popular that they appear to provide the foundational framework for how citizens view and judge those in the public sphere.  This concept, however, has serious problems, especially to the Christian constituency.

The first obvious problem is that issues often prescribed ‘left’ or ‘right’ can vary greatly between countries and cultures. When the more conservative Republican US government called for support for the war in Iraq, it was the left-of-centre British Labor government that responded most positively, while the more right-wing German government condemned it on moral grounds. Quite simply there are few issues that all left-wing or right-wing parties around the world would fully agree upon, and therefore the definition will always be dependent on the individual cultures and societies.

A second flaw would be that the values of ‘left’ and ‘right’ are fluid rather than static. What is progressive one day can be seen as conservative the next, depending on its timing and context in history. Take the example of internet filtering. It is the ‘right’ leaning Coalition, as well as the far ‘left’ Greens who are against this so-called ‘censorship’, while the traditionally ‘left’ of centre Labor Government are the ones who are implementing it. The truth is that if one tried to create a list of values that were considered progressive or conservative, it could easily be ripped up as inconsistent in the next generation of politics, or even during the next electoral cycle.

The third difficulty with the terms is that this simplification of politics can have detrimental effects on healthy debate and democracy. The way it is used in the public arena seems to assume that every issue can be placed somewhere upon this spectrum, everything from nuclear power to capital works. This encourages the use of simple slogans and concepts (particularly in the media) when communicating important and multi-faceted public policy. This means a dichotomy is created in which a full response to an issue is often unattainable.

Take some of the problems in Aboriginal communities as an example. Many of those on the left will often blame the various problems of alcoholism, child abuse and societal breakdown on the poor health statistics, a lower rate of literacy, racism, and the disempowerment created by ‘white’ Australia. Those on the Right will usually focus more on the moral responsibility of Aboriginal people and the solution being an increase in social order. It is clear that both sides of the debate are necessary for an ultimate solution, but instead these ideologies are used as political pawns calling for only a part of the solution. We see this also in discussions surrounding family, homelessness, abortion, poverty, childcare and unemployment. A combination of social welfare and serious moral responsibility is required, but instead what is seen is one side or the other: all or nothing, the fence at the top of the cliff or the ambulance waiting at the bottom.

Many Christians I know have great difficulty simple due to the fact that there are issues on both the left and right of politics that they agree and disagree with, and therefore do not know where they sit on this simplified spectrum. With the rise of modern problems with complex moral questions surrounding every one of them, perhaps what we need is a new language, a new ethical framework, new political identities.  Former Australian Institute Director and recent federal Green candidate Clive Hamilton surprisingly came out with this comment a few years ago: “the future of the progressive politics may indeed come from within the church” (Religion Report, 2006). He claimed that those within the church had a past history of not being as influenced by many of the modern trappings of consumerism, and that the root of the issues that Christians were concerned about came from a desire for strong and healthy relationships, as well as issues of the soul rather than more worldly frameworks such as the economy, personal choice, or the environment.

Perhaps Christians do have a unique position with which to comment from, and may even have the potential to strongly contribute to a new vision of politics that avoids power struggling dichotomies of politics and helps to bring a faith perspective forward in order to address some of the more subtle perplexities of modern Australia. If we truly want to see a more just, moral and compassionate society, then we need to go beyond terms like ‘left’ and ‘right’ and be ready to bring an influence to bear.

Nick Jensen is the Australian Capital Territory territory director for the Australian Christian Lobby.

FOR MORE SIGHT-SEEING, click here...