Justice and Entitlement in the Republic of God
CONFERENCE EXCERPT
by Frank Brennan
Zadok Perspectives Issue No. 62
Spring/Summer 1998/1999

Introduction

Or some thoughts on 'moral purity' and the political process

Frank Brennan
Frank Brennan is a member of the Society of Jesus, Director of Uniya and author of the recent Legislating Liberty: a bill of rights for Australia (UQP, 1998). This is an edited version of his address, "Justice and Entitlement in the Republic of God", given at Zadok's 1998 Biennial Conference

OFTEN AS CHRISTIANS WE talk of 'taking a stand with the people', the oppressed. But what does 'taking a stand with the people' mean? And even if we do take a stand in solidarity what can we do in terms of engagement in the real political processes. And, let's face it, any real challenge about justice or entitlement in society or in the international community is not usually about a simple question of 'the people want this' and therefore we stand with them. It is always much more complex than that and the language of interdependence and solidarity starts to break down.

Let me offer a few reflections emerging from the Wik debate. Here we are talking about the legitimate rights and aspirations of Aboriginal Australians who have long been dispossessed and where should we stand as Christians as we seek a resolution of these questions. During the Wik debate I spent much time in country New South Wales and Queensland and a pastoralist from around Bourke got very angry with me and told me I should go back to my presbytery and say my prayers. "Yes," I said to him", "I being a Jesuit-you would be pleased to know-I do believe in the power of prayer. But I think that Wik is something so complex that it cannot be solved by prayer alone."

In a democracy like Australia, we can take the simple view at the outset that conflicts of this sort are to be resolved by the stakeholders coming to the table-namely Aborigines, pastoralists and mining companies. But if we look at it a little more clinically, we have to admit that any real social conflict is unlikely to be resolved simply by the stakeholders themselves coming to the table. This doesn't occur precisely because there is such a conflict of interests and such an imbalance of power relationships that it is not possible to resolve it simply by the stakeholders coming to the table.

I am one of those who, as a Christian in the social and political processes of a pluralistic democracy, says that there is value in someone or groups who are not stakeholders-that is those who are not Aboriginal, not pastoralists, not miners-playing a role in the political processes and in the public forum trying to find a resolution of the question. In doing so, postulate to myself four questions.

Firstly, in this sort of issue, what do Aboriginal people themselves want? Now, to make it complex in the beginning, anyone who thinks there is one common answer to that is a mug, or has never spoken to more than one Aboriginal person.

But the second question is, of those things that they want, which of those aspirations are morally justified? I am one of those who says that, even though we as people of the gospel have a preferential option for the poor, we do not take the view that the poor are spared original sin and we do not take the view that the poor are those who have the most critical or the only moral insights. Of course, they do have critical moral insights to bring, particularly over against those who are so wedded to mammon or to power within political processes.

The third question is, which of those moral aspirations are politically achievable? This requires not just a trust in dialogue; it requires a knowledge of the political processes and of the politicians who are involved in the process. Now, as someone who was equally abused by both sides of politics in this debate, I feel a very free man. As I said to one church group on this issue, the callousness of the Federal Coalition has been matched only by the hypocrisy of the Labor Party. Just reflect on the federal election campaign: there was no abiding interest among the key political leadership of this country in advancing Aboriginal rights over and above where they have been presently been stated to be. What is politically achievable is far more slight than the rhetoric that will be given out, for example, by the ALP left wing in opposition and therefore questions about what is politically achievable become very vexed.

To: Part 2