‘Every issue should be welcome in our Meetings.’
Body politic: Jessica Metheringham says Friends need to oppose dangerous legislation
‘Our internal system only works if people participate.’
There’s a particular type of comment that I have come to dread. It’s when someone says ‘I’m not political, but…’ and then proceeds to talk about politics in a completely oblivious manner.
There are two different mistakes happening here. One is that ‘politics’ is seen as separate from everyday life. This is simply incorrect: politics is no more just something that happens in parliament than faith is just something that happens on Sunday morning. Politics is essentially communication about organisation. It is how decisions are made – from rubbish collections to cycle lanes to building new houses. Of course defence policy or environmental policy are part of politics, but so are foodbanks, so is the school curriculum. There is no real division between faith and politics because both are ways of interacting with the world. The idea that politics is just ‘what political parties do’ is a misconception.
People try to put issues into boxes. ‘This is a peace issue’ they say, or ‘This is all economics’. In a similar way, the same people announce that some issues meet the criteria for being ‘political’ while other issues don’t. Issues are sorted into boxes, weighed up and divided. It’s a neat, easy way to order the world. But that’s not the way human reality works. Most issues overlap, falling into multiple different categories at the same time. Our world isn’t made up of neat boxes, but Venn diagrams.
It is more accurate to look at the world through a different lens. Think of it like coloured filters: the world through rose-tinted glasses looks different to the same scene viewed in a cold blue light. Peace is a coloured filter. Climate chaos is a filter of a different colour. Economics yet another colour. The same issue can be considered in the light of each of these – or in the light of all of them together. The point is: we don’t need to decide whether an issue has enough peace in it to be put in a ‘peace issue’ box. We can see the different shades of nuance, and looking at the world in this way it is obvious that politics is far wider than legislation and political parties.
So, as Friends, do we have an obligation to get involved in politics, or to stay out of it as much as possible? (If you agree with me that politics is part of everyday life, then it’s going to be impossible to completely avoid it.) Our faith calls for us to take action. Our faith compels us to stand up and make a difference, to speak truth to power. We cannot live on faith alone – to do so results in us turning inwards and forgetting to live our witness. Our faith demands that we are involved in decision-making, both within Quakers and in the wider world.
When it comes to internal decision-making, I’m reminded of how God has no hands but ours. I’m also reminded of the story about the man trapped in the rising flood who sends away the boat and the helicopter because he believes God will rescue him, only to get to heaven and be reprimanded by God for ignoring the rescue efforts sent by God. Yes, the path is revealed to us, the way opens in front of us. But it only opens if we are looking for it and if we put in the effort.
The Quaker method of testing concerns – first through Local and Area Meetings, then Meeting for Sufferings, and sometimes at Yearly Meeting – relies on Friends coming forward with their concerns. It’s how staff working for Britain Yearly Meeting (BYM) know what to prioritise. Friends raising issues and taking concerns to their Meeting is how BYM committees are looped-in to the conversation. Our internal system only works if people participate.
When it comes to putting our faith into action in the world beyond Quakers, then we all do that in different ways. Some of us are Marthas and some are Marys. Provided that you do what you do because it is a truthful and authentic expression of yourself, then your action is valuable. (I feel that the message of Martha and Mary is that doing the washing up in a fit of pique because you really wanted to listen is not OK, but if you genuinely wanted to do the washing up because that was how you wanted to contribute then it’s entirely different. Mary’s choice was better simply because it was honest.) We don’t need to all be marching on protests, and nor do we all need to be praying. Instead, we all need to do whatever we are called to do.
I’m grateful that some people are so concerned about the state of UK democracy and politics that they have formed the Quaker Truth and Integrity Group. It came about as a concern raised by a Local Meeting, then Area Meeting, and then Meeting for Sufferings, and personally I see it as a good and recent example of people using the Quaker structures effectively. I’m also grateful that so many Friends are involved with other organisations outside of Quaker groups. Not everything needs to have the Quaker name on it to include Friends.
I understand when people are reluctant to get involved in something which feels like party politics. Political conversations can easily become tribal, with different groups digging their heels in. Confrontational debate at Westminster makes it hard for people to compromise. This style of decision-making simply doesn’t permit anything but a yes or no answer. And so this is what gets thought of as ‘politics’, when it’s only a narrow slice of what’s possible.
And what about issues that are exceptionally political, such as democracy itself? Last year I worked on the campaign against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (now an Act). It was one of the most underhand pieces of legislation I’ve seen in a long time. This was partly because it gave the secretary of state power to define key legal terms in the future (and so change the law retrospectively without parliamentary scrutiny), partly because it introduced a set of new clauses halfway through the process, and partly because it demanded that difficult judgements on what did or did not cross the line be made on the spot by relatively junior police officers.
Ministers spent a lot of time talking about how this new legislation would just be used against only the protesters causing serious disruption and noise, without ever defining what ‘serious disruption’ meant in the legal context, or how much noise was unacceptable. During later debates the government was forced to admit that buildings on the street having double glazing would be a significant factor in determining the appropriate noise level for a march. It was, to put it mildly, a series of loopholes and over-reactions strung together in an effort to look like they had dissent under control.
This wasn’t the only dangerous piece of legislation that the government forced through under the guise of common sense. The recent Elections Act allows the government to set the priorities for the Electoral Commission. It’s a clear example of a small change having a very significant effect – in this case making it easier for the current government to win future elections.
As a community we need to be concerned about political changes that undermine decision-making in the UK. I’m glad that most people I speak to are alert and concerned. Because politics is part of our everyday lives, changes to the processes have knock-on effects. If a precedent is set that the secretary of state can change the definition of ‘serious disruption’ without parliamentary scrutiny, then what impact will that have on our legal system? We are heading down a dangerous path, and if people ignore the threat because they don’t consider themselves political, it gets even darker.
I want to leave with a specific, depressing thought about the danger of rejecting political discussions. Things that are part of our very existence can be deemed ‘political’. If you are a refugee, say, or trans, then your existence is considered political. It is despicable to consider the ordinary characteristics of fellow humans as being a separate category from general existence. That is precisely what people are doing when they deem some issues ‘political’ and other issues ‘everyday’, without any overlap.
Every issue should be welcome in Quaker Meetings. Friends should be able to talk about politics, both the personal and the legislative. We will not all agree, because disagreements are part of being a community. What is important is that we keep on talking.
Jessica, a former parliamentary engagement officer for BYM.
