Where Are The leaders? (IV)

J.W. Deenick. Trowel & Sword. October 1963

IS NATURALISATION COMPROMISE?

Preamble: In this final instalment of “Where Are The Leaders” Rev. Deenick considers the issues of citizenship, naturalisation and of course, politics. While the nature of the debate seems somewhat mundane by today’s standards, immigration and citizenship in recent times has again become a hot political football albeit for very different reasons. It’s a pity that Bill is no longer with us to give his take on what is again a hotly debated topic.

Question: A final quotation from the question sent in by a N.S.W. brother (see the issues of May, June and August): One of the points in which our spiritual leaders failed to give leadership has been the issue of naturalisation. By being in such a hurry to naturalise as Australian and New Zealand citizens they have confused our people. It seems as if we have given up all hope that we will ever influence the political life of these nations. We should have refused unitedly and as one man to consider naturalisation under a political system as now on operation in Australia and New Zealand.

Answer: This issue of naturalisation is apparently a point of paramount interest and concern to our N.S.W. reader. He feels that by naturalisation without further protest many of us have betrayed the principles of Christian political action to which we professed adherence when still in the Netherlands. In Australia and New Zealand there are but two political parties, both unacceptable for the Reformed Christian, and the system of election according to districts makes it impossible for any other political movement even to come to the fore.

There I disagree with my brother correspondent.

Not that I am defending my own position. I have to own up that I am not a naturalised citizen of Australia or New Zealand yet. I am one of these slow coaches who never came round to it. I apologise. But leaving that for what it is, I can honestly say that it was not on an issue of principles that I hesitated to naturalise. And as far as the principles of Christian political action are concerned, I do not believe that they could ever be a valid objection to naturalisation. On the contrary I believe that they should rather stimulate in that direction.

I will explain why. I believe that if anyone of us is sincerely concerned about the present political condition in these countries, he must shoulder his part of the responsibility in the undertaking of the necessary reconditioning. But he cannot do so without being naturalised. I know that our N.S.W. reader argues that because of the two party system we are as powerless after naturalisation as we were before. This, it seems to me, is not correct.

The two party system – and in general the system of district representation – has advantages and disadvantages and it could well be right that the disadvantages preponderate. But it is certainly not correct to think that they make a new political initiative or a third party impossible. The liberals in England never thought so, and so far the communists in Australia never gave up. And our N.S.W. reader cannot have forgotten that in Europa, in the Netherlands for instance, Christian political action came first to life under the district-system and that the Christian political parties of those days functioned quite effectively under that system. The first right wing governments – among others that under the leadership of Dr. A. Kuyper as prime minister, came to rule the country under the district system. In the Netherlands the proportionate system was not introduced until 1916.

I am not qualified to speak in matters of politics, but this I know that there are a good number of democratic countries where the system of district representation in parliament is practiced and I do not know of any objections on the ground of principle against it. As far as I remember the proportionate system was preferred in the Netherlands at the time on practical grounds. But I leave it to the political experts to decide which of the two systems ought to be favoured for the Australian and New Zealand circumstances. What is important in the present discussion, however, is that in my opinion the district system offers every opportunity for a new, a Christian initiative in political expression.

It has been argued that any such initiative would die in its very birth and that Australian and New Zealand protestants are not very likely ever to let themselves convince that biblical principles demand a wholly new approach to the nation’s political problems. I am not so sure that this is correct. When Groen van Prinsterer started his attack on liberalism in the Dutch parliament practically nobody but he himself was convinced that he was right. And not one single political movement of any importance started otherwise than small. One single man firmly convinced that he is right and prepared to live and to die for his conviction has more than once changed the whole destiny of a nation. Our problem today is that we desire hasty results and miracle trees.

Moreover it seems to me, that there is considerable dissatisfaction in protestant circles with present trends in both political parties and I am sure that already a single political initiative from positive Christian quarters would begin to exercise a certain influence on the dominant parties be it only because of their fear to lose any votes.

In an excellent article in the October 1961 issue of this paper correspondent C. de Bakker of Brisbane advised the readers how to vote in the latest general elections in Australia. This Reformed leader (apologies to Mr. de Bakker) sounded a clear trumpet when concluding that neither the liberal nor the labour party offered a reliable representation in parliament.This advice was that only when a positive Christian candidate offered himself for election – be he liberal or labour – readers could consider to give him their confidence.

When however Mr. de Bakker writes: “There is no Christian political party in Australia and there will not be one for a very long time to come, if there ever be one”, I would say: that depends on him and me. If we together take the initiative there could be one tomorrow. And if our N.S.W. reader and I myself would naturalise before the next elections we would command at least three votes to begin with.

I do not mean this entirely as a joke. I cannot quite see why we should not encourage positive protestant Christians to stand for office in the county, the state or the nation on a Christian political platform, be it as an independent or as a party candidate. Many Australians and New Zealanders stand for office as independents. And a beginning could be made in districts where there is a militant protestant Christian section of the population.

I am aware of the vagueness of the terms that I have used. What exactly is a positive Christian or protestant Christian political platform? I fear that I would “land” in hot political waters if I tried to specify what precisely I mean with Christian political principles. Still, I believe that it ought to be possible to formulate what are the demands of this moment and the more distant aims of Christian political thinking for the Australian and New Zealand situation. If we believe the kingship of Jesus Christ we ought to be able to formulate what we believe that the Lord Jesus as King demands from these nations in the sphere of government and social relationship.

So far my answer to the N.S.W. question. It may have provoked other questions. So such the better.

J.W. DEENICK

We look forward to receiving feedback about any of our posts. We also encourage you to share our posts with family, friends and acquaintances; in fact anyone you think may appreciate and/or benefit from the knowledge and wisdom handed down to us from the past.   To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com