2 - 2000

Morality and Politics

The Financial Shenanigans of Political Parties

Do we need more morality in our politics, or is morylity actually harmfull in politics

by Klaus Baschang

How can a society deal with faulty conduct of politicians? Does it help to apply strict moral standards, or does moralising lead to a dead end in politics? This article calls for a "de-moralisation" of politics.

At the beginning of his 16 years as Federal Chancellor of the German government, Helmut Kohl proclaimed a spiritual and moral turning-point for the Federal Republic. But can this be the job of politics? The Barmen Theological Declaration of 1934 said the State has the task of "providing for justice and peace". That sounds more realistic. What is morality anyway? Since the Enlightenment, ethics has been considered separately from religion. Morality aims to ensure that people get along well together, even people who don’t believe in God. A society which includes those who don’t believe as well as those who do must organise its living together according to common standards and values. This is what morality in politics is supposed to accomplish. At present, however, it is becoming clear that morality which is no longer connected with God begins to claim divinity for itself.

This can be observed during election campaigns. We are no longer hearing about societys problems, but rather about the struggle between good and evil, an all-or-nothing struggle. Like Martin Luther, Dietrich Bonhoeffer made the distinction between "the penultimate" and "the ultimate". Politics belongs to the penultimate - it has to do with earthly, human reality. The ultimate is Gods new world. It is revealed to us by God alone, not by any human being or human policy. It is the hope which provides Christians with standards for their lives, and thus also for their political actions. Bonhoeffers distinction thus gives politics its human character, without turning it over to human arbitrariness. Morality, however, makes politics superhuman and thus inhuman.

Anyone who enters the political arena in order to bring in the morality which is good for everybody is in great danger of making himself or herself into the Messiah revealing the new world. This explains why many politicians cling to their offices for so long, despite all the annoyances they have to put up with in office. The new morality must be imposed at all costs!

Thus the politician with messianic ambitions gradually turns into a monument of himself, without realising it. This does not happen only to the great ones, whose successes are known to everyone but are then obscured by the shadow of their monuments. It happens often enough to the lesser and the small ones, but in their case it is seldom well-known. When the day comes when a great monument self-destructs, the pieces of it damage others as they fall. This is why the reference to God in the oath which politicians take on entering office is so meaningful. It is meant to preserve them from the danger of elevating themselves to the position of messiahs.

How inhuman the morality becomes which is brought directly and undiluted into politics, the nation discovers as a rule when politicians run aground on their own moral premisses. Breaking the law is most certainly not to be tolerated. But criticism in the name of morality quickly becomes merciless. The critics pass themselves off as morally pure beings, and in their zeal forget that they too have faults.

The Christian faith makes a distinction in principle between a person and his or her deeds. Morality does not recognise this distinction. It equates the person with whatever he or she has done. In the culture of politics, however, it makes a great difference whether one says to a politician, "You told a lie," or whether one shouts at him or her, "You are a liar." When this is said to a person, it takes away his or her chance to turn around and prove himself or herself anew. The Christian idea of forgiveness does not play down what is past, but opens a future even to those who have fallen, once they own up to their failings.

Forgiveness goes together with repentance. It must precede the forgiveness, and be followed by an attempt to put things right. Repentance goes deeper than admitting to having made some mistake. Restitution is not buying oneself free from guilt. In the process of confession, repentance, forgiveness and restitution are clearly related to one another. Because our society no longer knows anything about this process, many attempts at restitution only muddle things anew and do not find the way out of the dilemma. It is different when they are connected with visible repentance and with asking for forgiveness.

A word of honour is a moral category. It binds a persons conscience in the highest degree. Nobody should be forced to act against his or her conscience. However, the law stands above all persons, regardless of their personal morality. This can bring about conflict. In times past, people used to get themselves out of such conflicts by reaching for a pistol. Judgment was left to a higher power. Thank God, those days are over. The possible Christian alternative would be to resign voluntarily from all public offices. This would amount to a public announcement that one had overreached ones power. Overextending ones responsibility leads in the long run to doing oneself harm. Thus to give back a public responsibility is a step back in the direction of humanity.

Politics has dallied for too long with moralistic concepts instead of concentrating on justice and peace. The multicultural society is such a concept. If it describes current conditions, it reveals a job for politics: to develop the law in such a way as to promote peace within a nation. Otherwise it belongs to an excessive morality which declares multicultural living to be a desirable ideal and elevates this ideal to a political programme.

Well then, should the sphere in which politics operates be amoral? Does the "de-moralisation of politics" being recommended here mean that justice and peace can be bent into any shape according to the sentiments of the majority of the population? By no means! Our constitution gives us clear guidelines right from the start, with its articles defining the basic law.

In this basic law we have a common foundation which is binding for everyone. This is also the foundation on which the programmes of the political parties can be built. The relationships among the individual provisions of the basic law, and the weight each of them is given in this web of relationships, then determine the differences between the parties programmes. Thus they have no need of moralistic excesses and programmes which express entire philosophies.

A morality without religion is surely not only at risk of excesses. With its lack of commitment, it is also in danger - especially in this age of media - of lowering its niveau, and thus losing its orientational value and its binding power. This is the case with cheap television programmes. It is also the case wherever anyone is allowed to receive such an immense salary that even the interest on it cannot be used up by even the most lavish life-style.

Winning the jackpot in a game of chance is no different. There is always the same harmful effect: discounting of the willingness to work hard and accomplish something. Therefore it is the responsibility of the state to combat this. Though the state cannot itself generate a better morality, it must combat the lowering of morals with determination.

The Christian faith has often been accused of hindering progress and humanity. But what of the morality which has taken its place? If one looks more closely at the conditions in our country, the opposite is shown to be true. Particularly in political situations of dubious morality, the Christian faith can offer strengths and insights which can bring back humanity to the society. So it is not a call for increased morality that we need - this would only make things worse in many ways. What is needed is to remember the productive potentials within the Christian faith. Certainly these must be confidently put forward by Christians themselves.

Thus it is of utmost importance for the political atmosphere that politicians profess their faith, even publicly. This creates confidence in the political leadership. This is capital lying fallow which would be useful politically at this time. It would not prevent Christians from making mistakes in their political work, and thus incurring guilt. Whoever confesses such guilt purifies the atmosphere and allows life to become human again. For this means declaring ones belief that God forgives the guilty, so that we human beings may have life.

For the Christian community this means that they should now stop their moralistic grumbling and begin prayers of intercession. The holder of a political office carries a burden, in our time probably a heavier one than in any previous age. Such a person is particularly deserving of intercession. Prayer circles, and worship in parliamentary sessions, can help such persons, as can political discussion groups in churches. Prayer breakfasts for politicians are another possibility. If we want to combat the danger of moralisation of political life, we have to strengthen the communication of our faith to those carrying political responsibility.

Klaus Baschang was until 1998 a member of the consistory, and the Bishops deputy, in Baden. He is moderator of the EKDs ad hoc Commission on Evangelisation. This article appeared in the magazine Idea Spektrum 14/2000.