Introduction: A Time for Change
David Porter

Politics: Blessing and Bane?
Norman Porter

< Past Issues Archive

POLITICS: BLESSING AND BANE?
Despite often appearing in practive to be bane, politics is in principle a blessing.

The question - Politics: blessing and bane? - evokes mixed feelings: it poses a challenging question worthy of deliberation, but I'm not overconfident that my deliberations will be worthy of it. It is the kind of question that makes me look askance, that raises the suspicion that there is a due to finding the answer, a political due maybe but more likely a theological due. If the question had been Politics: blessing or bane? perhaps I would not have had the same sense of suspicion or consternation. But the question asks blessing and bane?

While this wording does not preclude the possibility of answering that politics is entirely a blessing or entirely a bane, it does seem to load the issue in such a way as to suggest that it is not entirely one or the other but a bit of both. And if it is a bit of both, are we talking equal or disproportionate bits? How are we to work this out? Maybe, as I say, there is some due which once discovered reveals all. Well, if there is I'm pretty sure I haven't located it. So in the absence of any magic due which would enable me to deliver a definitive and utterly compelling response to the question before us, I'd like to suggest two possible ways of fashioning an answer.

These are ways which try to make sense of the question in relation to the peculiar politics of Northern Ireland, but do so by employing different interpretations of the concepts of the kingdom of God and of the nature and purpose of politics. As I hope to show, such different interpretations of these concepts yield somewhat different appraisals of the requirements of politics in Northern Ireland and put different emphases on the senses in which politics may be a blessing and a bane. This doesn't mean that they hold nothing in common. And to reinforce this point I'd like to start with a preliminary statement of the relationship between politics and the kingdom of God that both positions, I think, would sign up to, and which opens a path for an exploration of their differences.

Preliminaries
A preliminary clarification of the relationship between politics and the kingdom of God which reflects the rationale of ECONI might be expressed like this: the kingdom of God commands our ultimate allegiance and it is in the light of the priorities and perspectives it opens up that the claims of political ideologies, movements and parties are to be judged.

What is of the essence here is refusing to allow the demands of the kingdom to be trimmed in such a way that they are easily accommodated to the interests of any parochial political position. Or, more sharply, what must be opposed is any attempt to identify the kingdom of God with any particular political cause.

the kingdom of God commands our ultimate allegiance and it is in the light of the priorities and perspectives it opens up that the claims of political ideologies, movements and parties are to be judged

An appreciation of the ultimacy of the kingdom of God, of its pointing to a mode of existence which is 'not yet' and so forth, helps to place the contingent political aspirations of this group or that group in some kind of perspective. But this appreciation in itself still leaves a lot unsettled.

To return to our question, it perhaps permits us to say that a politics which collapses the distinction between the kingdom of God and a particular political movement, that assumes that the cause of God can be conveniently domesticated to underwrite some local political cause, is more likely to be a bane than a blessing. But it doesn't permit us to say much more than this. In particular, it leaves open such questions as the following: Does a preoccupation with the kingdom of God properly make us indifferent to politics of any kind? Or does such a preoccupation impel us to certain kinds of political action? And if it does what kinds of political thought and action are warranted? Or, put another way, what is it legitimate to expect of politics without losing sight of the ultimate claims of the kingdom of God?

the slogan For God and Ulster ranks, I'd suggest, as one of the most unfortunate to have been adopted by Protestants and unionists and has had fateful consequences in this part of the world

I would suggest that the sort of answer we give to our central question Politics: blessing and bane? depends on the kind of packaging of these factors which we're prepared to buy. let me quickly sketch two different kinds and try to persuade you to buy the second.

A Minimalist Package
Minimalists see politics serving limited purposes. They think that even at its best politics exists only for the sake of something else; a something which isn't political in kind.

Limited Politics
Put crudely, its rationale goes as follows. The fact that we have politics, that we have to structure our life in society, that we require governments and so on, is a testimony to our human frailties. Therefore, politics as such is not part of the human good. Theologically expressed, politics here appears as a product of original sin and the future of human perfection we anticipate is decidedly apolitical in kind. To those who are squeamish about the mention of original sin, a similar point can be expressed by simply saying that we need politics to curb the worst effects of human selfishness and competitiveness. Either way, politics appears as necessary only to compensate for the weaknesses of human nature. Accordingly, on this view, politics can be expected only to achieve limited purposes.

To repeat, politics exists for the sake of something else. What is this something else, what are the restricted purposes politics is meant to fulfill? Let us take two answers. Common to both is the idea that is implicit in the rationale of politics I've just given: the main purpose of politics is to create a peaceful and orderly society in which we're protected from the worst excesses of human nature. Why is this such a good thing?

One view is that it is a good thing because it enables us to concentrate on what matters most - preparing for our eternal destiny, attending to our spiritual duties, preaching the gospel, or whatever. On another view, it is a good thing because it leaves us free to pursue our individual inclinations, to satisfy our desires by living a life of relatively unhindered consumption, and so forth.

It is typical of this second view, and quite compatible with the first, to add that a peaceful and orderly society properly conduces to the benefit of individuals when it is accompanied by the state's recognition and protection of individuals' rights.

The big point is that however we choose to express what matters to us, on the terms of this minimalist view politics has value only because of the external goods it provides; it is useful or necessary, not for its own sake, but for the sake of things that are essentially apolitical.

Politics and the Kingdom of God Bane and Mixed Blessing
Given a minimalist view of politics, then, I think we are likely to draw one of two possible conclusions regarding the relationship between politics and the kingdom of God, and, by implication, one of two possible conclusions on the question of whether politics is in principle a blessing or a bane.

One is a thoroughly apolitical conclusion which regards politics utterly as a bane. The argument of this apolitical minimalism might go like this. Since what truly matters to humans is apolitical in nature and since politics is mired by original sin (or some secular equivalent) we should simply accept that politics is unavoidably a bane. Politics is best left to those who are deluded enough to chase impossible dreams or corrupt enough to covet the trappings of power.

However, for those of us who are not so deluded or so corrupt it is more profitable to devote our lives to what really counts. And, from a Christian viewpoint, what really counts is the kingdom of God and the imperatives it places on our lives. To seek first the kingdom of God here requires us to eschew the shady world of political power and its false temptations. For a preoccupation with the concerns of the kingdom of God does properly make us indifferent to politics, especially since politics is of no ultimate consequence.

Another possible conclusion doesn't go quite this far in writing off the importance of politics to matters pertaining to the kingdom of God. I'll call this qualified political minimalism.

It views politics certainly as a bane but also as a means of delivering blessings of sorts - it thinks of politics as in principle a mixed blessing. Politics is a bane for the type of reasons mentioned in the apolitical conclusion: it is a sign of our fallenness, it is perpetually open to corruption and eventually, with the full realisation of the kingdom of God, we'll be well rid of it.

does a preoccupation with the kingdom of God make us indifferent to politics of any kind? or does such a preoccupation impel us to certain kinds of political action?

The better sorts give us peace and order and perhaps also respect our individual rights, including our right to worship according to the dictates of our consciences. And these are blessings inasmuch as they provide conditions which enable us to attend to those things that matter most - worshipping God or preaching the gospel, say, or attending to the various needs of our family and friends, or whatever.

In terms of this kind of conclusion it isn't sufficient to say that concern for the kingdom of God makes us indifferent to politics. Politics may not rate very highly among the things that we value, but as soon as we concede that politics of a certain sort can yield benefits or blessings then to turn our backs on it almost amounts to a failure of duty.

This is a duty to do all that we can to enhance the development of the kingdom of God. If certain political conditions are inimical to such development then it is up to us to stand against them.

to think of politics as at best a kind of necessary evil, or at least as a distraction from the more important matters of life, means that political advocacy or involvement is undertaken in a spirit of sacrifice that too easily becomes begrudging

Politics of Northern Ireland
How do these minimalist considerations translate into the politics of Northern Ireland?

On apolitical minimalist terms the answer is easy: by offering individuals deliverance from, rather than society a possible transformation of, these politics.

On the terms of what I'm awkwardly calling qualified political minimalism the answer is more complex. There are perhaps three parts to it.

First there is probably a lament about the fact that much of what passes for political practice in Northern Ireland reveals more of the bane of politics than it does its blessing.

There is disagreement with the For God and Ulster merchants and the spirit of intransigence they foster. There is probably a degree of consternation with how slowly the peace-process is progressing, with how fear and loathing stand as obstacles to consolidating a situation that remains inherently fragile. If peace and order and the rights of individuals are the blessings politics is designed to deliver, it is regrettable that political practice in Northern Ireland makes them uncertain achievements.

Secondly, for those who take seriously the notion that politics is capable of yielding these kinds of blessings, there is probably an impetus to see political practice in Northern Ireland changed.

The changes advocated might include recommendation of a Bill of Rights to secure the entitlements of individuals. Beyond that, the call for change is likely to include encouraging unionists to be prepared to take bigger risks for the sake of peace, and those holding weapons to consider handing them up for the sake of peace and of lasting order.

Opinions probably differ here, however, on the sort of concessions that unionists, say, should be willing to give in the absence of compliance from the IRA.

Thirdly, in addition to these particular issues there is an overriding vision of the future of Northern Ireland.

In this vision Northern Ireland is seen as a place where everyone is accorded equal rights and entitlements and where respect of government and the law is reinforced and maintained. At the end of the day, it is argued, this is all that matters politically, since this is all that is needed from politics to allow us to attend to the more important issues of life unhindered by political unrest and violent upheaval.

I have two problems with all of this. First I think the minimalist package provides insufficient incentives for political engagement.

To think of politics as at best a kind of necessary evil, or at least as a distraction from the more important matters of life, means that political advocacy or involvement is undertaken in a spirit of sacrifice that too easily becomes begrudging. And there is always the temptation to rationalise that someone else is better equipped or situated to make that sacrifice.

Secondly, and more radically, I can't buy this package. Although in some of its forms this minimalist package is not utterly lacking in virtue, I think it sells us short in our understanding of politics, the kingdom of God and the requirements of Northern Ireland.

To appreciate why I say this I need to introduce an alternative package which I find much more attractive.

A Maximalist Package
Advocates of this package think that politics serves larger purposes, that it creates internal goods, that an apolitical vision of human perfection entails a warped or impoverished conception of the human condition.

Expansive Politics
Once more, put very crudely, its rationale might run along the following lines.

Yes, there is more to life than politics and politics may indeed be useful in creating the conditions under which we can enjoy life. Peace and order are good things, as are having individuals' rights protected and having the space and liberty to attend to contemplative or devotional concerns.

Nonetheless, to suppose that politics exists only for the sake of such things, to reduce it to a purely instrumental role and to think of it merely as a compensation for human defects, is to make a terrible mistake. It is to overlook the fact that politics is part of the human good; that there are benefits to human beings that are intrinsic to politics; that a decent notion of human flourishing accords a crucial place to politics.

We may obtain a firmer grip on what is being claimed here by attending to a possible maximalist rendering of the purposes of politics.

Generally stated, the chief purpose of politics is to create, protect and sustain a way of life worth having. Such a way of life is characterised, among other things, by certain sorts of political, legal and socio-economic institutions and practices. And the achievement of these may be thought of as the realisation of particular purposes which derive from the chief purpose.

the chief purpose of politics is to create, protect and sustain a way of life worth having

It is maintained by an active citizenry whose words and deeds are integral to the institutions and practices that define the polity's way of life.

Such a way of life grants a particularly important role to political institutions. It does so (i) by encouraging forms of political activity which are open to all citizens, (ii) by having on centre-stage public representatives who have real power to implement policies beneficial to society and who are subject to usual forms of democratic accountability, and (iii) by thus safeguarding a public space which is defined by inclusiveness and dialogue.

A political way of life worth having also permits the proliferation in civil society of all institutions and practices that express the diversity of individuals, associations and groups - except those entailing a victimisation of others - and so makes central the toleration of difference.

At a legal level, a way of life worth having is constituted by legal and security institutions that (i) are open to applicants of sufficient merit, whatever their background, and (ii) are widely recognised as impartial and therefore acceptable to all sections of society.

It is also one that institutionalises legislation guaranteeing the protection of the rights of individuals and groups against discrimination, preferably through a Bill of Rights.

At a socio-economic level, a way of life worth having is distinguished by the presence of institutions geared to providing conditions conducive to the flourishing of all members of society; that is, institutions that are not left to the mercy of market forces alone but are based upon acceptable principles of justice.

This is a way of life that is also defined by structures suited to permit space and scope for the mix of individual, group, company and government initiatives and investments, especially in areas of acute deprivation, which are crucial to a thriving economy.

It is characterised, finally, by the development of specific policies in such areas as health, education, employment, social benefits, and so on, which are designed (i) to ensure that no persons or groups are systematically discriminated against or forced, through unfortunate circumstances, to fall below certain acceptable standards of living, and (ii) to provide for all persons fair access to, and a share of society's resources and opportunities.

a political way of life worth having permits the proliferation in civil society of all institutions and practices that express the diversity of individuals, associations and groups and so makes central the toleration of difference

Now, to think of politics being designed to achieve purposes such as these is to admit that it properly plays a much larger role in human affairs than the minimalist package is capable of allowing.

Politics and the Kingdom of God - Blessing
How does this strong notion of politics relate to the kingdom of God? Three points are worth emphasizing by way of an answer.

First, I would argue that it is entailed in the basic rationale of the concept of the kingdom of God.

What I mean is something like this. The rationale of the concept of the kingdom consists of at least these claims: that God's rule extends over the whole of life; that in recognising this rule humans are opened up to new liberating and fulfilling expressions of their humanness; and that the full realisation of the kingdom lies in the future as does the complete realisation of our humanness.

Now, accepting these claims commits us, I think, to acknowledging that God's rule must therefore include the realm of politics, not bypass or sideline it; that human liberation and fulfillment touches us as social and political beings who live in communities; and that part of our hope of the future includes anticipating a more complete expression of what we are as social and political beings, of what it means to share our lives with others in community.

In short, I'm saying that not to recognise politics as constitutive of human good is both to misunderstand what it means to be human and to fly in the face of the very logic of the concept of the kingdom of God.

This first point is reinforced by a second. The concerns integral to my presentation of a maximalist view of politics - for the creation of institutions with which people may identify, for practices of social and political inclusion, and for legal and social justice - fit with the sort of concerns that are expressed in the name of the kingdom of God, or its equivalent, in much of the writings of the Old Testament prophets and in the gospels. In a sense I'm trying to give contemporary social and political form to these biblical concerns.

An unavoidable conclusion of this line of argument is that politics is in principle a blessing. It is a blessing because it has the capacity to enrich our humanness as well as our understanding of what God requires of us.

There are goals of human life which can be achieved through politics and politics alone. To create a just and democratic society is not a one-off achievement, but something that we must strive to sustain through ongoing political activity. And because this creation is never complete, because it is always only an approximation, the tasks of politics are literally endless.

To tackle these tasks, in whatever ways we can, is not in my opinion an optional extra. It is, rather, part of our vocation as human beings.

Politics of Northern Ireland
To say that politics is in principle a blessing is not to say that it is never a bane in practice. And in turning to consider the implications of what I'm calling a maximalist package for the politics of Northern Ireland it is perhaps the bane of political practice that is most striking.

That is to say, the achievement of anything approaching what I described as a way of life worth having seems a very long way from the preoccupations of Northern Ireland's politicians. And, with a few notable exceptions, they have succeeded, in my judgement, in turning politics into one of the most baneful art forms imaginable.

However, before I become carried away with too many negative thoughts, let me fill out a few of the positive implications of a maximalist view for Northern Irish politics.

On a positive note, what maximalism as I've presented it offers is a political, legal and socio-economic way of life that serves as a vision of the sort of society Northern Ireland could become. This is a vision that is intended to be equally acceptable to those of any persuasion - unionist, nationalist or neither.

what counts most in the search for durable peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland is an unswerving commitment to build a just and democratic society capable of commanding the allegiance of all citizens

Common ground would be discovered by citizens devoted to making Northern Ireland work; new forms of citizen attachment and identity might appear alongside traditional ones. New divisions would also undoubtedly surface, but at least they wouldn't necessarily cut along predictable sectarian lines.

Of course, what is being called for here is a shift of political priorities away from a politics of constitutional stand-off towards a politics that privileges democracy and justice. What I'm saying is that what counts most in the search for durable peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland is an unswerving commitment to build a just and democratic society capable of commanding the allegiance of all citizens.

It is in terms of this commitment that the recommendations and interests of the British and Irish governments should be judged, as should those notions of unionism and nationalism which effectively make democracy and justice optional extras.

Moreover, by this commitment, especially that bit of it which refers to democracy, I mean much more than a simple head-count which shows that the majority of people in the North wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. I mean forms of government and practice which give power back to the people who live here and that are inclusive not just of various political parties but also of community voices. And I mean emphatically a form of political engagement in which the practice of dialogue is central.

it is a duty of unionists to try to recognise in a way they have not done before that a Northern Ireland whose integrity is respected has to be one in which nationalists have a sense of belonging

In the absence of this, there is little hope of effecting any shift of political priorities, since nationalist alienation from the Northern state will remain intact. In this case I think it is a duty of unionists to try to recognise in a way they have not done before that a Northern Ireland whose integrity is respected has to be one in which nationalists have a sense of belonging.

Conclusion
Much more needs to be said about all of this and a good deal else. But to conclude I'd simply reaffirm two points:

First, politics is in principle a blessing even if in practice it may appear a bane.

Secondly, by buying what I've called a maximalist package we can detect new possibilities for the politics of Northern Ireland -possibilities which I think carry responsibilities that are too serious for any of us legitimately to dodge.

Born in Northern Ireland, Norman Porter emigrated to Australia in 1970 returning in 1994.A member of the Ulster Unionist Party he is currently writing a book on theology and politics. He holds a doctorate in Politics from Oxford University.