Which hand? Photo: ArtToday
Choices and consequences
Looking at the dilemmas in public work
We are confronted daily by choices. Some are pleasant and others are of doubtful validity. All have lasting consequences. It is one thing to make decisions for ourselves. It is quite another when other people are involved. When Grigor McClelland (9 July) had to decide whether to accept an honour, he had to consider not only his Quaker attitude but also the contribution his colleagues had made to this honour. The moral compass can swing wildly at times!
Then Ian Flintoff’s call for Quakers to be active in parliament or in local politics is timely (18 June). Again, there are choices to be made that can bring about dilemmas.
In the latter part of the 1970s I found myself as branch secretary of my union, Nalgo. It was a time of real political agitation due to government economic and financial difficulties. The unions were in militant mood and I was very much caught up in this. In trying to see both sides I found myself isolated and decided that I could no longer remain as branch secretary in such a hostile situation. Like Ian, I was a local councillor on two occasions. Again, choices have to be made. As a member of the party, loyalty is expected. To take a contrary position to the party line can be a very lonely experience. I am sure Frank Field can testify to this.
Party whips, in parliament and local government, have played a very strong role in enforcing obedience to a party line where the majority decision must be accepted. To dissent can be very uncomfortable. Since the advent of the coalition government the influential role of the whips has been curtailed.
Quakers have in the past made a significant contribution to the House of Commons, but the direct influence is missing today. Yet never was the time more right for men or women of faith to be engaged as a representative of the people and yet be aware of the dilemmas that can arise. For those Quakers who see faith and action as indivisible there are other ways to engage. Single issue politics, whether on peace, human rights, developing countries or poverty can be attractive, but there again dilemmas can arise when courses of action are taken with which one does not agree.
It seems so often that the Quaker is in a ‘Catch 22’ situation: to go along with the part in all its vicissitudes knowing it is through the party that one has been elected; or maybe to strike out independently, yet knowing that without direct influence meaningful change and transformation is very limited.
Some ten years ago Ian Flintoff reflected on choice (‘Fruit gum choice’ 28 July 2000). He discussed the variety of superficial choices we make, but questioned whether the ones’ we make are the best ones we can muster. Our core beliefs and attitudes determine our choices.
In 1972 a Yearly Meeting Minute stated: ‘A political awareness has been growing among us in recent years. This yearly meeting has seen it taking form as a fresh testimony. We have once again been bidden to seek first the kingdom, but now a social, economic and political, as well as a spiritual kingdom. We have been reminded of the revolutionary nature of the message of Jesus and the radical social action of early Friends. Without such action now, our Religious Society will become a religious irrelevance.’
The minute is still relevant forty years on!
