Are we a Democratic Party?
During the holidays I was browsing in a second hand bookshop when I saw for sale two magnificent editions (Folio Society) of new translations of Aristotle’s “Ethics” and Plato’s “Republic”. These are two of my favourite books and fifty dollars later I owned both. Why buy them when I had both books already in my library? I had studied both books in my university study of Greek philosophy, but also in my studies of classical Greek, I had translated both books together with about a dozen others into the best English I was capable of writing. I have always had the dream of one day re-translating them. Hence the purchase.
But I am not ready for the new translation just yet. Instead, as a Parliamentary member of the Christian Democratic Party, I am constantly hearing some people criticise the inclusion of the name “Democratic” in our title because they think people get us confused with the Australian Democrats (although they have no representatives in any Parliament these days) and because in our governance and the announcement of Party statements, we are far from being democratic.
If people could only understand “democracy”, both as an ideal and a practise, we would be a much better political party. The books of Plato and Aristotle are the best place to start this understanding
The Ancient Greek Assembly
The assembly of citizens in ancient Greece was one of the first known forms of Democratic government. Ecclesia means “Greek assembly of a city state.” It was this word the early Christians took over to describe the earliest gatherings of believers – a church. Its origins are from the Homeric Agora meaning “the meeting of people”. The first known assembly was held as early as the reign of Draco in 621 B.C. The assembly was held in Athens on the west side of the Acropolis. This meeting place was said to hold about 6,000 Athenian men, the maximum number that could see and hear clearly. There were stone seats cut into the rock for the main speakers. I have sat in them and dreamed of the scene. Assembly members met about once a week. At each meeting of the assembly certain topics were discussed and voted on. The assembly would also gather in cases of emergency and in cases of trials of law in which the assembly became a jury. Women, children and slaves were not admitted.
Votes were taken by a tally of hands raised. After being tallied the majority decision ruled and was carried. Although it was the first form of Democracy the only people allowed to vote in the assembly were freeborn men. During the reign of Pericles (around 450 B.C.) the assembly was given the sole power to veto or approve any and all matters concerning the Greek state. Since the earliest times, Greek democracies have by no means been immune to the tides of history; they have collapsed from political failure, succumbed to internal division, or been destroyed by foreign invasion. But democracies have also demonstrated remarkable resiliency over time and have shown that, with the commitment and informed dedication of their citizens, they can overcome severe economic hardship, reconcile social and ethnic division, and, when necessary, prevail in time of war.
The Strength of Democracies
It is the very aspects of democracy cited most frequently by its critics that give it resiliency. The processes of debate, dissent, and compromise that some point to as weaknesses are, in fact, democracy’s underlying strength. Certainly, no one has ever-accused democracies of being particularly efficient in their deliberations: Democratic decision-making in a large, complex society can be a messy, gruelling, and time-consuming process. But in the end, a government resting upon the consent of the governed can speak and act with a confidence and authority lacking in a regime whose power is perched uneasily on the narrow ledge of military force or an unelected party apparatus.
A common feature of democracy as currently understood and practiced is competitive elections. Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and some degree of rule of law. Civilian control of the military is often seen as necessary to prevent military dictatorship and interference with political affairs. Majority rule is a major principle of democracy, though many democratic systems do not adhere to this strictly – representative democracy is more common than direct democracy, and minority rights are often protected from what is sometimes called “the tyranny of the majority”. Popular sovereignty is common but not a universal motivation for establishing a democracy.
No universally accepted definition of ‘democracy’ exists, especially with regard to the elements in a society which are required for it. Democratic policies may include political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United Kingdom and Australia, the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty. Democracy has been called the “last form of government” and has spread considerably across the globe. Suffrage has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men), but still remains a controversial issue with regard disputed territories, areas with significant immigration, and countries that exclude certain demographic groups.
The Spiritual Character in a Democracy
In Chapter 8 of “The Republic” Plato writes that Socrates has just explained how an oligarchy can grow into a democracy. (The rule of a few elites to the rule of the many). He then proceeds to describe the nature of a democracy and the character of the “democratic man”: “All men are by nature equal, made all of the same earth by one Workman; and however we deceive ourselves, as dear unto God is the poor peasant as the mighty prince”. But for democracy to really work it requires spiritually liberated individuals, whose souls are beautiful and well ordered. Only a country ordered according to the principles of virtue can claim to have the best system of government. Plato argues that spiritual character is essential for the best democracy, as the country cannot rise higher than the moral level of its citizens.
Liberal democracies are not only founded on considerations of freedom and equality, but also include other elements, such as the rule of law, multiparty systems, periodic elections, and a professional civil service. Today’s Western democracy resembles more a revised version of mixed government, with a degree of moderation and competence, rather than the highly unstable and unchecked Athenian democracy of the fourth and fifth century B.C., in which all governmental policies were directly determined by the often changing moods of the people. However, what still seems to be relevant in Plato’s political philosophy is that he reminds us of the moral and spiritual dimension of political life. He believes that virtue is the lifeblood of any good society.
The Christian Democratic Parties
The Christian Democratic Parties, around the globe, refer to political parties that are part of the Christian Democratic movement and advocate policies based on the introduction of Christian principles to the values of democracy. Christian Democratic parties that may or may not contain the words “Christian Democratic” in their name but many do. One of the earliest formed a century ago was the Christian Democratic Party (Netherlands), a historic Dutch political party which governed Holland for many years. There are many others: Christian Democratic Party (Albania), an Albanian party; our Christian Democratic Party (Australia), an Australian party; the Christian Democratic Party (Bolivia), a Bolivian party; the Christian Democratic Party of Chile, a Chilean party; the Christian Democratic Party of Cuba, a Cuban party; the Christian Democratic Party (Czech), a Czech party; the Christian Democratic Party (Denmark), a Danish party; the Christian Democratic Party (El Salvador), an El Salvador party; The German Christian Democratic Party currently in Government in Germany; the Haitian Christian Democratic Party, a Haitian party; the Christian Democratic Party (Honduras), a Honduran party; the Christian Democratic Party (Panama), a Panamanian party; the Christian Democratic Party (Papua New Guinea), a Papua New Guinean Party; the Christian Democratic Party (Samoa), a Samoan party; the African Christian Democratic Party, a South African party; the Christian Democratic Party (Bophuthatswana), a South African party and many others including places like Vanuatu. Other similar parties with Christian traditions in places such a New Zealand have slightly different names, such as the Christian Heritage Party.
In the light of all of this our Christian Democratic Party is not very democratic.
Some suggestions for making our Party more Democratic.
1. There is widespread dissatisfaction with the direction of CDP and the public statements made by Rev Fred Nile.
During the recent Senate campaign some branches refused to distribute CDP election material on the basis of its content, which they regarded as offensive and racist. We have the written comments of some candidates who would not subscribe to the leader’s public statements. At least one candidate has resigned from the CDP over the issue in protest. Several branches printed their own letterbox leaflets with a list of policy points that were divergent to the leaflets produced by the CDP campaign committee.
One on-going major concern is the issue of the enforced closing of Muslim Schools – as presented in a Press Release by Fred, and the opposition to opening of the Muslim school in Camden. I asked members to give me their views. I was overwhelmed with emails opposing these statements. Many of them came from candidates and branch Presidents. Our leadership fails to acknowledge there is widespread disagreement and angst among CDP members. The point of view of the writers is never listened to or their views published. For a party with the concept “democratic” in its title, this is a disgraceful denial of our principles.
Suggestion: Members should be encouraged to express their views by having them officially accepted for discussion.
2. Our party and leadership are not seen as Christian.
The public in general see us as moralists but not Christian. There are many criticisms, even by Christians, that we are not Christian and do not operate in our public statements as a party of God’s grace. In last month’s Anglican “Southern Cross”, the Hon Bruce Baird, a committed Christian and the leader of the Federal Government’s Parliamentary Christian Fellowship states that he cannot support the Christian Democratic Party. “It is not surprising that Bruce Baird is ‘not a fan’ of the Christian Democrats’ policy that they are taking to the federal election, which seeks to place a moratorium on Muslim immigration. “I thought the literature at the last [State] election was racist and very anti-Muslim,” he says. “I think it is very unfortunate that they have gone down that route. What does it say about Christians?” Pointing to Jesus’ teaching ‘when I was in prison you visited me’, Mr Baird believes that it is those believers who visited asylum seekers in detention, including Muslims, who best represent Christ’s interests.”
Church leaders of all denominations will not support the Fred Nile Group because we are perceived as being far from Christian in our policies and attitudes. We are not seen as promoting the whole Gospel of God, demonstrating a commitment to justice, to the poor, the oppressed, the refugee, the migrant and those who are of different religions and cultures.
Suggestion: The CDP set up regular meetings to which will be invited the social justice committees of all major Christian denominations, seeking to promote all the Christian issues that concern the churches.
3. Whenever members of either parliamentary House talk to me about our party, which is almost every day; it is always in terms of derision, and criticism of the lack of Christian behaviour.
Some of the most severe criticism has come from Christians who attend our weekly prayer fellowship. This criticism of my party coming from respected Christian leaders, including some of the leading churchmen of this State, and also from some of the Christian parliamentarians who attend our Parliamentary Prayer Meeting, hurts me deeply.
Suggestion: The CDP Parliamentary members take positive action to re-enforce their Christian credentials by organising meetings among Parliamentarians with Church leaders on issues of specific concerns for the churches.
4. Our Party is not seen as being democratic.
Our members know their views are not heard. They know it is useless for branches to make policy suggestions. Even when they are forced to be discussed, such as at our last national conference, their ideas are shunted off to some ad hoc committee. They are then never discussed at State Council or even Management Committee. I cannot remember once in the last six years acceptance of any grass root suggestion. We are a dictatorship or at least an oligarchy of party elites. This is not democracy.
The first time our members or braches hear about new policies is when they read some journalists’ slanted comments on some press release that has been issued. Journalists almost universally scrap these press releases unless it is to ridicule them. The journalists complain there are too many of them coming every day, that some are bigoted and unacceptable to the general public, such as the comparison first suggested by Paul Green in comparing Muslims to bird flu, or the banning of head scarves from teenage girls, or the closing of all Muslim schools. I have sat down with journalists and the editor of “The Australian”, Chris. Mitchell, and asked how we can improve our coverage. I could write a brief handbook on media relationship, but I fear it would be a wasted effort.
Suggestion: No policies should be announced in a press release by any Parliamentary representative without prior Party discussion. This would at least pay service to our claim of being democratic.
5. Our Party is not seen as a real political Party, Our official name includes “The Fred Nile Group” which leads to derisive comments by friends and foes alike.
Our party is a group, not a party. A Party should have long-term agendas. A group is no bigger than the name about which we assemble. While we are quick to say that attracts some voters, we never do any research on how many people that turns away. One researcher told me, he believes we lose at least 2% in every election from those who do not agree with Fred Nile but who agree with the concept of a Christian Democratic Party.
Suggestion: Our Party should vote to delete the use of the term, “The Fred Nile Group.”
6. A political party should be organized by people other than their elected representatives.
All political parties except the CDP have a prohibition against their Parliamentarians being Party President or Chairman of their Executives. Politicians are the servants of the Party not their masters. (This is illustrated before the 1963 Federal election by the famous photo of the Labor Leaders Arthur Calwell and Gough Whitlam waiting outside the Party Executive meeting in Canberra for their instructions from the group Menzies dubbed the “36 faceless men”!) Politicians are expected to serve the party not dominate it. Fred Nile will always be our Founder, and will always be our Parliamentary Leader, but should not also be chairman of every other committee and council. The wisdom of all of us is greater than the wisdom of one of us. To enable members and branches to have their views heard, members and branches should be approached annually to take part in a secret ballot for all Executive positions, including that of Chairperson, and for all candidates for Federal or State elections.
Suggestion: During early 2008 a vote be taken among all members and branches for the positions of Party President and Chairman of the CDP Executive, State Management Committee and State Council on the basis that no elected member of Parliament can also be CDP President and Chairperson. We have many suitable men and women, especially among past candidates and branch leaders who could hold these positions but they will not offer themselves for election unless all positions are declared vacant.
A Christian Democratic Party is a wonderful concept. But we have to do more to make sure it is representative of all Christians, that it is truly Democratic representing fairly all of the members and that it is really a political party making a difference to our nation for God and the community. If you would like to add your thoughts on democracy in a political party, please email me at gordon.moyes@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Rev The Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, A.C., M.L.C.
References: Hattersley, A. (1930), A Short History of Democracy; Dunn J. (ed.) (1993), Democracy: The Unfinished Journey: 508 BC to AD 1993; and Lakoff, S. (1996), Democracy: History, Theory, and Practice.
