Q&A: Christian Democracy - FDP interviews Christian philosopher, Dr Bruce Wearne
Longtime FDP contributor, Bruce Wearne, agreed to be interviewed for the Fiji Daily Post in 2014 on the meaning and significance of doing politics in the "Christian democratic" way. Dr Wearne hails from Point Lonsdale, Australia, but has a keen interest in Asia-Pacific regional politics:
1. What does ‘Christian democracy’ mean to you?
This is a good question. Maybe I need to begin by explaining how I came to be an advocate for a ‘Christian democratic’ politics.
2. OK, how did you become a “Christian democrat”?
Yes, it was in 1971 at Monash University where I was a leader of a Christian student club. That was also when I was called up to do National Service. The Australian Government had joined the US in fighting in Vietnam against the North Vietnamese army and the Viet Cong.A lottery was held to see who would have to join the army. Since I was at “uni”, my call up was deferred but I did not know what I should do. I was Evangelical Union vice-president when my marble came out of the barrel – meaning I would have to go into the army and maybe fight in Vietnam. But I was in charge of organizing bible study groups. These were usually organized as faculty groups, but I decided we needed to have a “God and Government” cell group. It was in that group that I first became aware of what we might call a ‘Christian democratic’ perspective. For the first time I began to reflect upon what my responsibilities were to the government. Keep in mind, at this stage I was not yet 21, so I wasn’t yet a voter at that time. (The voting age was later reduced to 18 as it now is in Fiji). Actually by organizing this group it prepared me like nothing else did for taking on full citizenship.
3. So what went on in this group?
One of the members of the group invited Dr Ted Fackerell, a mathematics lecturer, to join. Ted had found that the Christian philosophy of a Dutchman with a strange name – Dooyeweerd – was very helpful to him in his work in physics and particularly the study of black holes. Ted in fact became a relatively well-known expert contributor to what emerged as ‘black hole theory’. But having seen the relevance of that Christian philosophy to his own work, he also saw its relevance to all sorts of other things as well, including the study of society, and the study of government and politics. To cut a long story short, Ted introduced a ‘Christian democratic’ view of government to the group and the cell-group became known as the Christian Radical Club.
4. Radicals! Wow, what did this Christian Radical Club do?
Well, yes, to be honest, one of the first things that happened was we got into trouble! That was mainly with fellow Christians. “Radical” was usually a no-no word among Christians and churches. But non-Christian students seemed to be interested in our idea that you could have a Christian political club, let alone one that wanted to be known as “radical”. That might have been a bit pretentious on our part looking back, but by “radical” we meant that we wanted to be Christian to the roots of what we did and said, and that our policies were like branches or fruit. You see, a Christian democratic perspective should be the fruit of a Christian way of life. It’s all there in what Jesus declared about Himself, and us, in John’s gospel chapter 15: “I am the vine, you are the branches, bear fruit from sticking with me”
5. Interesting Bruce, your group wanted to be total, holistic Christians - so what about the opposition you encountered from others, especially your fellow Christians?
There were some in the parent body, the Evangelical Union, who saw us breaking away, but really none of us had resigned from the EU - we had only started a new club. And our constitution had encouraged all our members to join another Christian club as well. You could say we were trying to be ecumenical. But there were those who were angry that we would and could connect Christianity and politics. For them religion and politics were in different water-tight compartments. And there were those Christians who rejected our interpretation of a ‘Christian democratic’ because we believed we had to start from what the bible teaches. We start there. We don’t stay there. Our task can’t be to try to pretend to live in the time of Jesus. They wanted to interpret the bible from what they thought democracy should be so that the Christian way of life would become merely one expression of democracy. Some use the word “radical” like that. Our approach was to put it around the other way.
6. Yes, so what was the outcome and what did you learn from this?
Well, it wasn’t always easy. There were some pretty nasty un-Christian arguments and battles! Still, we learned that if we were to promote a ‘Christian democratic’ politics we had to find a way to be open and discuss our political approach with other Christians who disagreed with us - as well as with non-Christians too. I’d have to say that that was one of the major things we learned. If we wanted those involved in politics, those with Labor or Liberal, Progressive or Conservative, views and platforms to take us seriously we had to be open to learn from them as well, even though we persisted in “doing politics” as part of a Christian “way of life”.
7. So it was humbling. You were then students, but being involved in politics is not just being involved in ‘student politics’.
You are absolutely right. We realized that to be Christian students we could not simply study politics and leave it at that; we studied politics in order to “do” politics. We became active and even participated as a group in the Vietnam moratorium march of June of that year. You can see what this was like from a youtube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thm03IUiJ6U
We hadn’t actually worked out a policy about this at that stage. But we believed we should be involved. There were some who were advocating violent protests and we decided we would be there handing out coffee to demonstrators and police. It was quite a day for most of us; the manager of the Imperial Hotel allowed us to use his kitchen and we passed the trays of coffee out the window into the back alley way right next to where the march finished.
This formative experience convinced me that a ‘Christian democratic’ perspective had a distinctive and positive contribution to make. As we then put it: we were neither socialist nor capitalist, neither progressive nor conservative, neither libertarian nor traditionalist nor reactionary nor anarchist, but instead radically Christian. True peace, we said, is not just the cessation of war but a gift from God with political responsibilities attached.
8. Amen to that – but what about politics in the wider society?
Again, you’re asking questions that are no so easy to answer. Sometimes it has been hard to work out just what has happened, what has gone right, and what has gone wrong. Let me say this: Christian democracy is a political perspective. It is not just a name. You don’t arrive at radically Christian policies simply by starting a group and giving yourself the name “Christian radical” or “Christian democrat” alone – as we have here in Australia with a particular NSW politician who is more of a nationalist. And while I respect his right to his party and their idiosyncratic viewpoint, what I believe is that Christian democracy is part of a Christian way of life. It is not only about “looking” at government, public life and citizenship, but it is a way of “doing” politics that all Christians should embrace.
9. Yes, we see that around the world ‘Christian democracies’ and ‘Christian democrats’ vary (as do other political ideologies and positions), but what is their common base – can you sum that up for us, please?
Gladly. Christian democracy involves a political orientation, a perspective, a way of looking at government, public life and citizenship. As Christian democrats we engage with politics because we are called as followers of Jesus to humbly promote justice (at stated magnificently in Micah 6:8). But it is not only a way of “looking”, as I have said, but a way of “doing” politics.
It means getting into the difficult business of government, local government, regional government, national government. Even organizing a small group is by no means easy and the problems of organizing a political group that wants to get involved in politics should not be under-estimated.
Christian democracy means being an active participant in contributing to the way my country is governed. It means taking up my share of responsibility, before God, for ensuring that citizens, families, marriages, churches, institutions, organisations, relationships are given their due respect. That’s in my country, in my region, across the entire globe. I can’t do that on my own. I need my Christian sisters and brothers to be also doing this to have a political impact.
It’s not just engaging in argument - but that may be necessary at times. Not everyone has the gift of the gab, but then not everyone is able to stand in the middle of a cross-roads and direct traffic, let alone be a politician or the speaker in Parliament. A Christian democratic orientation is an approach to political life that respects the fact that all citizens are together jointly responsible for political life, for government, for the region, for the globe. It means being willing to listen to and learn from the political views of others, of wrestling together to ensure just policies for all.
There’s political work to be done. God has indeed given us enormous resources to do this important work and as His image-bearers we are accountable for how we use all the gifts He showers upon us.
10. You have “Liked" the Facebook/CDN-Pacific page. Why? What good do you think CDN could do for Pacific peoples and specifically Fiji at this time?
The CDN Facebook page is the statement of an intention. I share the intention expressed in the various statements that now fill the page. I welcome being part of the conversation that CDN – Pacific provokes. Fiji is now headed toward a September election. This will also be an important event for the entire region, Australia included. A Christian democratic approach is not just about holding elections. It is not just about presenting an acceptable appearance to other countries. It is about being a genuinely open society in which citizens are able to freely make their conscientious contribution. This cannot be done if all one is trying to do is to appear Christian by saying the right things and perhaps adding a few references to God and love of neighbour. Those who advocate a Christian democratic approach to politics in Fiji will not have an easy task. They will have to demonstrate an openness to all their political opponents, particularly those who see military power as the basis of a just society. This will mean developing what I would call self-critical solidarity.
11. You better explain that.
Well it means being critical of policies which we, as Christians, have promoted and defended and which have led to injustice and a denial of the rights of fellow citizens. If we are to be involved in political life it means we are willing to take responsibility for the injustices and the unjust policies that we have inherited. It may mean policies that can be changed by new and better policies. But it might also mean looking carefully at the taken-for-granted rules that are currently accepted as the basis for political life and deciding that they need to be changed. Fiji’s got political problems that surely need to be fixed. And a Christian democratic approach needs to contribute to that political reform process.
12. Can you be a bit more specific?
For instance there is a lot of discussion around the Pacific about Fiji’s “coup culture”. Actually, I think that “coup culture” is not going to be overcome without the region – that is all the Pacific nations – having a good hard look at ourselves and identifying practices, policies and perspectives that in one way or another contribute to, or at least tolerate, “coup culture”. This is also a world-wide issue. We may talk of “coup culture” as if it is only a problem for Fiji and Fiji’s system of government. Yes it is Fiji’s problem but it is not just Fiji’s problem. And it is not going to go away just because elections are held. It is not going to go away just because the military want Fiji to be welcomed back into the Pacific Forum or the Commonwealth and so they behave themselves by keeping out of politics. The place of the military in the country’s constitution needs to be discussed, and that is going to continue to be difficult in Fiji. But such a question raises issues about the kind of regional security framework that the nations of the region will not only have to think about; they will need to get serious about bringing it into being. A Christian democratic political perspective, may be neither nationalist nor socialist, but it is still going to have to grapple with this.
13. You seem to be suggesting that “coup culture” has something to do with a misunderstanding of regional and global security?
Exactly. I wonder about the degree to which Fiji’s “coup culture” relates to an undeveloped sense of ourselves as people of the South West Pacific. Of course “coup culture” in Fiji has much to do with Fiji’s own internal political problems. Professor Brij Lal has written an important analysis of these problems and how they have arisen and why they are still around. And of course it has to do with the way Fijians have come to view politics and government. I think that Fijians Christians have a lot to reflect upon here. But are there also external, regional causes of Fiji’s coup culture? Could it have something to do with poorly formulated security policies for the region and the wider international arena? Could it have something to do with the training of military officers across the region? Could it have something to do with the pragmatism and the opportunism among the legal fraternity? Could it be that the Christian churches have also neglected to take up their prophetic role with boldness and have failed to challenge the “might is right” thinking that leads to militarism? Indeed something serious has been lost because of Fiji’s “coup culture”. And it is not only Fijians who are the ones promoting “coup culture”. Fijians are not the only losers. We all are. There is no doubt that Fiji does have an historical role to be a leader among Pacific island peoples. But since 1987 it seems that somehow Fiji, and with it the region as well, has “taken its eye off the ball.”
14. Can you explain that a little more? For instance, how can a Christian democratic perspective help Fiji retain regional respect?
I guess this is a matter for careful historical research by Fijian and regional scholars. Christian democratic politics must welcome this kind of critical historical research looking carefully at the ways in which the Pacific island nations have coped with independence within the security umbrella that has been devised for the region since the end of World War II. I’m exploring this myself.
Regionally we have witnessed significant political and other developments since 1945. Fiji’s coups have taken place in the context of those developments; its own independence in 1970 was most important for the region as a whole. Keep in mind that the Vietnam war came to an end in 1975, and at the end of that year Indonesia invaded and took over East Timor. Throughout the 1980s, the governments of the Soviet Union and the US continued to negotiate deals about nuclear weapon production. Then in 1984 Australia and New Zealand came to a parting of the ways over ANZUS, the security treaty for the SWP region that had been in place since 1951. The US and Australia Governments insisted that ANZUS required New Zealand to take US nuclear-armed vessels into its ports. New Zealand refused and it seemed that ANZUS had come to an end. In 1985 French Government sponsored terrorists sank the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour. In 1989 the Berlin Wall came down. Meanwhile Fiji experienced two coups in 1987, the second abrogated the constitution and declared Fiji a republic. In regional terms, the coups of 1987 sent a signal that the Fiji military was intent upon asserting Fiji’s independence. The military’s unilateral actions have effectively set the Fiji Government apart from the community of Pacific island nations ever since. The coups have confirmed Fiji’s status as a controversial and unreliable player in an international sense. The interesting aspect of this is the ongoing regional respect for the Fijian people themselves. There is a disconnect between the civil government and its military arm and this confuses the relationship of Fiji in the international regional community as much as in the wider world.
I’m not a Fijian but I think Fiji has a vital leadership role to play in the region. It is going to need some wise Fijian input for us as a region to figure out how to strengthen healthy political inter-dependence across the region. Supporters of Christian democratic politics in their efforts to promote public justice for all will discover they also have resources to boldly form the institutions of government. Numerically the region may be small when compared with other regions, but we have an opportunity to make a vital contribution to the world from where we are here in the South West Pacific. Christian democratic politics should certainly support the young people who want to help build a just future the region.
15. How can a Christian democratic perspective contribute to a political settlement in which the military retains its place as an arm of government subject to civilian oversight?
That is perhaps one of the major questions that has to be worked on and resolved. I think that a Christian democratic perspective can help by also maintaining a sensitive understanding in regional terms. We’re not going to advance the region’s interests if militarism takes off in other island nations of the South Pacific. So I would say that it might be helpful and healing for a Fijian Christian democratic contribution to try to develop a positive view of regional inter-dependence. Certainly there’s going to have to be a lot of debate about this issue in Fiji both before the next election and in the next few years. But we should also keep in mind that we do in fact live in a South Pacific nuclear free zone. That is no small thing in this world.
There are two other things that those advocating a Christian democratic perspective might study – the first is to look carefully at what is called “just war theory”. A study of this Christian tradition would help to clarify important aspects of a government’s task, namely to ensure security and protection for all the people subject to its rule. Christians themselves need a better understanding of the lawful (and unlawful) use of force by governments. The other thing is what is said to be the oldest principle of international law: agreements must be kept (pacta sunt servanda). Now when there is agreement between governments to work together on security issues this must imply that militaries are subject to civilian oversight. A new and effective regional security for the South West Pacific nations is not going to emerge if one of parties to the agreement are themselves subject to their own military.
Since 2006, Fiji’s interim government has repeatedly said to Australia and New Zealand “Leave us alone. We are sovereign and independent. We can work out our own problems. Butt out.” But at the same time it has happily taken money and resources from these neighbouring governments and the governments and people of Australia and New Zealand have not begrudged Fiji such assistance. Note also that the assistance of these governments has been necessary as Fijians in these countries have been enrolled for the September vote. We live in an inter-dependent world and that means that governments need to co-operate with each other to enable their own work to continue. But the idea that a government is “sovereign” is often confused when it is used suggest that as government is self-sufficient. No government is self-sufficient in the sense of coming into existence and continuing as an effective regime all on its own. Any government is actually self-insufficient. And so, “coup culture” might be said to cause senior military officers to act in ways that deny that a military is there as a servant of the government. But such acts also cause “coup culture”. If they have become “too big for their boots” they haven’t done so on their own.
A Christian democratic political perspective will also have to come to an understanding of the place the military and the police should have in the government and politics of a country. But that requires careful policy-making and it also requires us to do the necessary research. As I have said already, there are a lot of things that remain to be done.
[TO BE CONTINUED]
