. . . I pin my hopes to quiet processes and small circles Photo: Robin–24/flickr CC
Quaker political engagement
There is increasing awareness of the need for greater Quaker political engagement. One question raised at Yearly Meeting Gathering was whether this could best be achieved outside or within the structures of Britain Yearly Meeting (BYM). Janet Quilley con
Background Britain Yearly Meeting (BYM) first appointed a parliamentary liaison secretary in the 1980s and, at that time, an assistant or intern was also appointed. An informal support group developed into a Public Affairs Group, which was laid down in 2008, leaving Quaker Peace & Social Witness (QPSW) Central Committee directly responsible for governance. There are several aspects to the work: engaging with politicians and decision-makers; communicating Friends’ views; raising issues of concern; supporting local political activity among Friends and Meetings; and providing briefing papers on particular topics. We are now identifying the need for a stronger Quaker voice on the political scene: how does the emerging, urgent debate on sustainability relate to our Quaker values of justice, equality and fairness both nationally and in the wider world? The theme of our Yearly Meeting Gathering, the Swarthmore Lecture and many small meetings, have given impetus to our search for effective political involvement. In BYM we have begun to see this as the need for ‘advocacy’; does this describe adequately what we want from our political involvement?
Past experience
We have made public statements, such as our historic Peace Testimony and other statements issued by the Yearly Meeting at times of war; we have spoken out about slavery; more recently, we have issued statements about poverty (1987) and sustainability (2009). We have visited influential people, speaking Truth to Power: Mary Fisher preached to the Great Turk and Joseph Sturge led a Quaker delegation to talk to the Czar, trying to avert the Crimean War. We have demonstrated, stood in silent vigil, or boycotted, highlighting the evils of war or injustice, from Aldermaston, Greenham and Iraq to apartheid and illegal Israeli West Bank settlements.
Individually, we have engaged in many ways, sometimes standing for parliament or local councils. Sometimes we have been led to direct action and civil disobedience. Conscientious objection to military service has always been a major issue for Friends. In the 1980s Meeting for Sufferings challenged the law by withholding tax payments for several employees with a conscientious objection to the use of tax revenue for military purposes, just as in the seventeenth century it supported Friends suffering for conscience’s sake. We have a clear tradition of bearing public witness to what we believe.
We have also recognised that it is sometimes best to work quietly behind the scenes, trying to convince decision-makers that another way is not only more just or more moral, but also potentially effective. Those in power must not be seen to lose face; they must be shown the possibility of changing course, while not admitting any mistake.
…I pin my hopes to quiet processes and small circles, in which vital and transforming events take place.
Rufus Jones, 1937, Quaker faith & practice 24.56
Quakers have used this approach in many ways: working with diplomats and politicians, hosting off-the-record meetings and discussions, undertaking research on wide-ranging topics from women prisoners and child soldiers to nuclear energy and environmental concerns. Our Quaker United Nations Offices in New York and Geneva and Quaker Council for European Affairs (QCEA) in Brussels have done much of this work. Friends have had Quaker representatives in different countries and have appointed small teams to work in particular conflict or post-war situations.
Advocacy plus!
Currently we in BYM recognise the value of developing advocacy in our engagement with politics. This has been very effective in the work undertaken by our recording clerk and our parliamentary liaison secretary concerning equal treatment for same sex and opposite sex couples who wish to marry. Advocacy is defined in the dictionary as ‘verbal support or argument for a cause…’ Developing our parliamentary work as advocacy means focusing on issues that concern us, where we see the need to press for a particular outcome, in line with our Quaker values. There is certainly plenty of scope for this – trying to improve conditions in prisons, working for asylum seekers, addressing inequalities in the benefits system, in housing provision and so on. Our developing concern on sustainability must certainly be included in this list.
Is this enough? Sometimes it is right to seek to widen the view of MPs and decision-makers, without promoting a particular view. In Northern Ireland in the 1990s, Westminster MPs benefited from being introduced to a range of opinions in the community; it was not Friends’ role to promote one perspective. This might well be appropriate in Britain, to promote understanding between different groups or between the police and the local community, or to enable politicians and decision-makers to understand different views on educational and social issues. This approach requires time to build relationships with individual politicians; it is more than simply lobbying and is different from focused advocacy aiming for a specific change.
Public statements
It is unwise to over-emphasise the need for public statements when crises occur or when major political decisions disturb us. We are able to make public statements in times of emergency and must abide by our agreed and tested guidelines when speaking for Friends in Britain. The machinery is not too sluggish to work properly: QPSW responded very promptly concerning the bombing of Libya. Our political engagement should not focus simply on reacting to events. We make more impact if our public statements are grounded in proven and informed Quaker involvement in the issues and if we have already established productive and respected relationships with decision-makers and politicians, so they recognise the benefit for them of listening to our views and hearing about our practical involvement. The best base for such relationship building with Westminster and in the organs of government is within the structures of Britain Yearly Meeting – and that base already exists in the established post of our parliamentary liaison secretary! If we are convinced that this work is important and should be developed further, we must address that when we look again at the priorities in our Framework for Action.
The time is now!
These different ways of working are all valid expressions of our Quaker witness. We are not all called to the same action, but we can all uphold work carried out under religious concern, particularly if we know that it has been adopted corporately by our Meeting, locally or nationally. It is important that any political engagement we undertake as Quakers be properly tested through our Quaker processes. It also follows that, if we really recognise a need to increase our Quaker political engagement, we must give adequate resources to that work. Have we reached a stage where parliamentary liaison should be given higher priority? Should that work focus on advocacy? Or do we have a wider vision? How can that work best be supported? One thing, I believe, is clear: the time is now, for more Quaker political engagement, soundly based, within our BYM structures.
