IN SERIOUS VEIN

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 73, Issue 6306, 18 November 1946, Page 5

IN SERIOUS VEIN

CHRISTIANS AND THE ELECTIONS ON CASTING ONE’S VOTE To cast a vote is a tremendous thing in view of its potentiality. There has gone down into history the experience of a man, who in. after years looked back with sorrow upon the day, on which, exercising his right, he had tragically misused his vote. That man was Saul of Tarsus; and the circumstance, the death of the first Christian martyr Stephen, a man of faith Mid real courage. To have so thrown his weight against the cause which in his then-blindness he opposed, but was in a better day to wholeheartedly embrace, often in after-days brought sorrow to the heart of the great missionary-statesman, Paul.

Having regard to the 'possible results of an election, and the tremendous issues sometimes involved, it is no wonder that some at least, approach the polling booth weighed down with a sense of personal responsibility. As to the future, there must also to be accepted a measure of accountability. In the vote is inherent the fulfilment, or contrariwise, the frustration, of certain possibilities in the sphere of government, in the days ahead.

The following article of interest, entitled “Christians and the Election,” appears in the most recent issue of “The Church and the Community.” It is w-ritten by the Hon. W. E. Barnard, formerly a Speaker of the House of Representatives:— How should the Christian citizen who is not wedded to Government or Opposition record his vote on 27th November, General Election day? In very few cases will there be more than two candidates Labour and Nationalist. Any dissatisfaction with the party system will make no difference. The choice will be limited in general to one out of two politicians. What factors then should be taken into account by the Christian voter? Should he vote for the man, or should the programme of the candidate decide the matter?

No one should vote for a person whom he fairly regards as unfitted to represent the people in Parliament. There is a duty resting on political executives to see to it that their respective candidates are reasonably qualified to serve as national representatives. A “yes-man” may be convenient for a party leader, but a place in Parliament does call for some personal worth and something more than just average intelligence.

Should the citizen accept the party at face value? No. Window-dressing is not confined to retail shops. The elector should assess the immediate programme in the light of the general trend of party policy and of the principles which inspire it. If the trend is right, the voter will not boggle over one or two odd items of which he does not approve. , But what of the trend? There are bound to be items in a political programme which for a Christian are vital. The keeping of a Government in office, or the displacing of it by an opposition, is of much less importance than the right approach to great issues which involve the true freedom of the individual, the winning of social justice, and the development of a common outlook and purpose in the community. All these challenge vital aspects of Christian thought and practice, and should serve as a touchstone for the voter who puts his Christian faith and principles before his party affiliation or self-interest.

The Christian who aspires to enter Parliament is faced with something of a dilemma. He may fully approve the declared t policy of the party, but scarcely foresees that all sorts of decisions have to be made by the party as they arise; often without any relation to the election programme. Political bodies share the common human failing or sin of institutionalism. Sooner or later the preservation of the party (especially as Government) becomes the paramount aim. When the Labour party was in opposition the late Mr Jas. McCombs was permitted to express his anti-liquor convictions although these were not shared officially by the party. My own activities in support of planned immigration were never barred, although once or twice frowned or.—the Government being then, as now, opposed in general to immigration. But these tolerances are not likely to be extended to issues of more direct concern to the party, especially when it functions as Government. The intending M.P. must, therefore, take into account emergent situations in which he will have no choice but to yield unless he is prepared to run the risk of being driven into the political wilderness.

But there is a deeper reason for dissatisfaction with the party system. Parliament is not a place where earnest men strive to get at the truth of ’things and make lawjs for the good of the people as a whole. The main object is to justify one’s policy and party, and to show that there is nothing wholesome or just in the opposition’s objection or counterproposals, but father ignorance, selfishness, hypocrisy, and so on. Good fun maybe for the mentally indolent listener; fine stuff for the convinced partisan; but perplexing or distressing to the more realist Christian. The result is that the party system tends to divide the community, to set class against class, to reflect the interest of competing pressure groups. Is New Zealand ever animated by a common purpose except under the duress of war? Our disorder—reflected in Parliament —is due to the want of true community spirit. We lack any real philisophy of common life. The spiritual basis upon which personal freedom and social cohesion depend is wanting. We tend to a growing belief that man can live by bread alone (i.e., plenty of spard cash, increasing holidays, fewer hours of work, more social security, etc.). Or we recklessly live on the spiritual reserves of the past. Paganism and selfishness. As D. M. Holcroft comments in his recent book: “New Zealand to-day is revealing in its widespread evasions and hypocrisies the supremacy of self-interest.” These considerations may seem of little help in the existing situation, but they are far from negligible even in this election year. The Christian elector must take the political parties as they are and do his best in a given situation. On the whole, a certain cool detachment is necessary, and a resolve not to be swayed by the shouting and the tumult of a few hectic

electioneering weeks. An increasing number of people feel the need of a way out of the present dilemma. Some even believe that the Christian faith, applied to social and not merely co individual life, would provide the solution. When sufficient Christians are convinced of this, and are prepared to stake everything on that conviction, the present frustrations wlhich arise; out of the traditional methods and institutions of democracy are likely co disappear. This would be certain :’f Christian people really believed—in the words of John Mac Murra y—that “a Christianity which was true to its own essence would undoubtedly be adequate to the salvation of the world in our time .... the Christian Church can, if it will, create the new democratic order.”

One thing only need be added in commenting upon the last utterance. To create a new “democratic order” is not the primary purpose of the Gospel; but as history clearly shows, it has always had that effect. Communities become finer, ,and sweeter when the Truth, as it isF in Christ, wins its way into the lives of men and women. Rightly viewed, it affects even the casting of a vote.