Government as God's Servant

Government as God's Servant

Earlier I said that the theories of government that I came across in University started with the assumption – even if it is unspoken – that there is no God. That assumption is no more rigorous or academic that the contrary assumption, so I chose to start by assuming the Biblical revelation concerning God as a starting point.

A well known text is Romans 13: 1-6, particularly v4 “For the authority is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing, he is God's servant, an agent of justice to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

Given the Genesis account of mankind's fall and the entry of sin into the world we should not be surprised that these ideals are rarely lived up to. None the less they are still the correct ideals. Not too long after these words were penned the Roman authorities were cruelly persecuting Christians. In our present day many people feel that Western governments have gone soft on brutal crimes and are not bringing “punishment on the wrongdoer”. Even this angst shows that deep down we believe that they should.

Again, criminal justice is only one aspect of government, I will show that this ideal of government - recognising that it should be a servant of God - applies to other aspects as well.

I also expect that the actual form of government may be an independent factor. Also the extent of government interference or assistance in individuals lives may be an another independent factor.

For instance ancient Israel started as a tribal league bound together by their common belief in God. Internally there must have been some tribal and clan “government”. Externally, leadership and a rallying figure for combined military action was their greatest need. Initially this was provided by a “Judge” raised up by God for that emergency. Civil law suits seem to have been heard figures like Deborah and Samuel. Then Israel asked for a king – a big mistake and an insult since it implied they did not want to rely on God appointing military leaders as required, and that they rejected their unique identity as a theocracy. However God granted their request and henceforth their government was by king, later aided by nobles and bureaucrats.

In the West we have over time developed various forms of constitutional democracy. Winston Churchill said in 1947 “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those that have been tried from time to time”

Also both our modern 'welfare state' and the extent of government regulation and intrusion into so many parts of people's daily lives may be unprecedented in history. Whether these are good or bad is a matter of how truly that form of government is being God's servant in the prevailing conditions.

To understand how we can judge past and present government and see where governments can be improved, I want next too look at some of the Biblical case studies of good and bad government, and how they exemplify or go against the moral character of God.

Government by the People

Government by the People

Lincoln’s passion that the populace should have government for the people and by the people resonates throughout Western democracies even if it is expressed in differing terms. However “by the people” is more problematic than it looks.

If we go back to ancient Athens, that fabled birthplace of democracy we begin to see problems. Plato lived through the turbulent days of an oligarchy imposed after the Spartans defeated Athens, then revolution and restoration of democracy. He remained apart from the bloodthirsty oligarchy, who killed off the democratic leaders, even sending death squads after those who fled the country. He saw the injustice of political opponents executed so that their property could be seized. But when democracy was restored he saw that “the people” were scarcely any better.

Plato scornfully noted how easily the demos or people could be swayed by an artful speaker. Particularly one, as he wrote, who promised to “plunder the rich and give to the poor”. However his conclusion, that government should be not “by the people” but by the most able thinkers is exactly what British voters have rejected in their decision to leave the European Union with its burgeoning unelected technocracy.

It is a long time since I studied Plato and Aristotle, but I think it was the latter who made the distinction between “mob rule” and “constitutional democracy”.

If my memory serves me correctly (since Google has let me down!) Aristotle saw the same problem as Plato and said in effect: “If the demos rules unrestrained by law and custom will they not, being in the majority, say 'let us plunder the rich, by God it is just'”. However his solution was to limit what the assembly could vote by overarching rules.

If we look at one element of government: the dispensing of justice this difference is clear. In the Wild West the lynch mob ruled. Then lawmen brought peace and progression to “a fair trial”. Law courts with due process, rules of evidence and the ability of the accused to put their side of the case are are much superior to the lynch mob. Interestingly fair trial was commanded back in the Old Testament, where ideals of justice were repeatedly set out and the danger of lying witnesses and the fickleness of the crowd warned against. However every few generations we seem to have to learn them anew – now we seem to be falling back into the lynch mob mentality with “trial by social media”.

Lord Acton, author of the famous “power corrupts...” quote also said;

“The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”

In recent times this has been borne out in Western democracies by the proliferation of regulations ostensibly aimed at protecting minorities which has led to the tyranny by these minorities over the majority – which simply inflicts the claimed injustice on even more people!

The reservations all these thinkers have had about rule “by the people” can, I think, be summed up by saying: “We are all sinners”. We are all capable of being selfish and greedy, so there is a danger that we will elect those who promise us most. We can go with the crowd and the spirit of the age against what is righteous and just.

I think two things are required to make democracy work:

1. Rule of Law. Where there is a constitution, hundreds of years of judicial precedent on what is right and just and an independent judiciary that can curb the excesses even of an elected president

2. Moral Backbone. Where there are enough people of good conscience to save the nation from the particular evils taking flourishing at that time.

Without these, government by the people is only as good as the worst half of the people, and historically, that is not very good.

Is Democracy Doomed?

Voters and Politicians

Over the years my wife and I have enjoyed cruising in various parts of the world. Particularly before the Global Financial Crisis, the majority of our fellow passengers were from the U.S. Conversations with them gave us varied glimpses of American life and politics. One theme that frequently recurred was disenchantment with politicians - both Democrats and Republicans. The feeling was that they were all in the pockets of major lobby groups, and were not genuinely interested in the welfare of “ordinary” people.

In Australia we are a cynical bunch and have long thought that too – even when it was demonstrably not true! There was a time when a railway locomotive driver – Benedict Chifley – could and did become Prime Minister of Australia. But we still joked “It doesn't matter who you vote for: a politician always gets elected!”

But recent events have shown this to be far more acutely felt now.

In the 'States the recent campaigns for Democrat and Republican nominees for President have shown extraordinary polarisation.

In the Democratic camp look at the polling by Bernie Sanders. No offence intended, but he is so close to Communist in his policies that his large following in “the land of the free” almost beggars belief. But aside from his economic policies – which have proved disastrous in every nation that has tried them – he had a vision. It would not, could not have worked in practice – but it was a vision. It evoked a utopian longing in (some) ordinary people. My feeling is that his success came because if one did not look too closely behind the smoke and mirrors, he was preaching government “for the people”.

Go back eight years. Barack Obama preached “change you can believe in”. Crown sourcing brought in huge funding for his campaign from ordinary people. Again the dream that a government would care about the general populace. I suspect that history will pass harsh judgement on his presidency, but that is not my interest here. What I am looking at is people's desire for government that does the right thing by the nation, and their feeling of betrayal in this regard.

Donald Trump. The social progressives hate him with such violent passion that I begin to think he must be OK. I read his book, and it says all the right (no pun intended) things. However eight years ago I read Obama's books and thought they were good too! So I had better reserve judgement. But whatever you political leanings you must admit he has been a phenomenon.

Again I suspect this tells us something about the man or woman in the street. Those on the Republican side of politics are also disenchanted with established politics. They too feel betrayed. They too feel political elites are feathering their own nests and in the pockets of wealthy industry groups. They may also be reacting against the failure of the socialist leaning Obama administration by looking for a more outspoken champion.

In the latter regard I am thinking of what Hayek wrote. He maintained that it was the failure of the socialist government in Germany that led to the middle classes feeling disenfranchised and turning to Hitler. He also commented that seemed to be a worldwide pattern that when socialist economic systems failed – as they inevitably did – people turned to a right wing strongman “saviour”. Nothing so dramatic in the US – yet. Nothing so radical. But a little failed swing to the left may be producing a preference for a strong, outspoken leader. As an engineer I know the value of safety valves. Better that it goes off than the boilers explodes! Trump as president may be a safety valve: you may not much like him, but maybe you really don't want the sort of leader people might flock to after another socialist incumbency!

In Australia we have just had an unusual election. The (slightly conservative) government just scraped back in, but both it and the opposition (slightly socialist) party were deserted by voters in favour of little splinter parties further to the right and left.

Naturally newspaper columnists have had theories galore as to why this is so. When you cut out the campaign related ones there is a common complaint. Voter alienation.

The perception among voters that both big political parties are living in their own little dream world rather than looking after the people who have to struggle on in the real world.

It seems to me that voters in both America and Australia (possibly many other Western countries too) have recognised the signs of imminent failure of democracy. Harsh words? Compare what is seen to be happening in our countries with these familiar words:

“… And that government of the people, for the people and by the people, shall not perish from the earth.”