During the presentation of the recent budget and the ensuing debate some journalists made a big deal out of the fact that a Liberal Government, incurring a mountainous debt by pumping billions of dollars into the economy was a radical departure from the “Party’s ideological” base. It got me thinking about the limitations on a nation, community or individual who can only respond to an opportunity or a crisis by strict adherence to a particular set of ideas and views of the world, at the exclusion of anything new or different.
This musing brought me to think about my father. He had been raised on a dairy farm and had been the beneficiary of generations of farming wisdom and knowledge, much of which he practised. However, he was also guided by another value, which was; “A particular idea or method, developed in a different era, subject to different climatic conditions and economic constraints, may not be the most efficient or beneficial approach in the present or the future and may not contribute to us becoming the best farmers that we could be.” This value led him to constantly learn by reading farming magazines, listening to the “Country Hour” on radio, asking questions and listening to the answers. Consequently, he was often experimenting with new things, even pioneering new methods and of course becoming a better farmer.
The question is, if his approach to farming was not based on a body of traditional ideas, what, if anything was his ideology? I am sure that he would not have articulated it like this, but I think he was not driven so much by an ideology but by two core values. Connection and Compassion.” There is no doubt he had a strong connection to the land, a love for his animals, compassion for his family and kindness and generosity toward his neighbours. This compassion and connection served as his moral and professional compass. His decisions, his farm management and his role and character as a man, a husband, a father and a friend were based on these values and expressed through his humility, his honesty and his diligence.
When I consider the question of whether or not a stubborn loyalty to a particular set of ideas has the potential to limit the freedom of decision makers to respond creatively and effectively to a crisis or a present social issue, I find myself answering in the affirmative. In a democratic nation a worker should not be forced to choose between a Political Party that is reputed to understand their circumstances and another Party that does not; nor should an employer be forced to choose between a party that is reputed to favour business and one who does not. The same is true of pensioners, our first peoples, migrants, youth and women. We may prefer one Party’s policies over another, but we should have confidence that the leadership either Party will give will not be solely based on an ideology, but function out of the values of connection, compassion and justice. We should know that in a crisis these values will provide them with the courage and flexibility to respond in a way that a fierce commitment to their ideology may not. We should be certain that each party is not simply comprised of men and women who ‘toe the party line,’ but are, as much as is humanly possible, connected to their community, compassionate toward every need and support policies which are just and fair.
I suggest that the combative approach to politics, based on who is the most connected to the needs of a section of the community, and who responds with the most compassion and who values justice more highly than the other no longer serves us well. On the other hand, the energetic debate around policy must of course continue. There is always more than one pathway to a destination and individuals will prefer one ahead of the others, and that is why civilised debate, is still a very important aspect of democratic government. What should stop is the bitter claiming and counter claiming that the moral and political compass of one Party benefits some section of the community and not others. It may seem a little cynical but it seems to me that the rubbish talk heard every day on Question Time in Parliament, is not driven by the values of connection, compassion and justice but by the desire to justify their ideological position and improve their chances of winning the next election.
I salute every man and woman who becomes a local politician. I believe that they are by and large driven by the values they hold. They work hard and we should be thankful that they are willing to serve their communities as they do. My concern is that the ideals with which they enter the political arena, are frequently blunted by their party’s commitment to a set of ideological beliefs and ideas that no longer serve us well and therefore limit Government’s ability to respond to needs and crisis in the most creative, just and compassionate way.
As a Christian Pastor I have often lamented over the same issue in the governance of religious organisations. The unassailable position and power given to tradition, theology and dogma, becomes the narcotic that effectively dulls the vigour and excitement of faith in Christ, and like most narcotics such slavish engagement with it becomes addictive. The constant battle that must be fought and won is to always choose to be influenced more by what Jesus taught about humility, love, forgiveness and hope than dogma and traditions, no matter how important to our history they may have appeared to be.
God Bless
Graeme