(The Nationalist, 14 April 2000)
A few days ago, I collected a computer worth about £1,000 and brought it to a person by car. I was very careful about my driving, making sure to look in the mirror and give clear signals before every turn and, in general, driving like someone on test. I didn’t want to write off £1,000 worth of equipment before it was even delivered. Part-way through the process it occurred to me that I wouldn’t have been half as careful if I’d had two or three people in the car instead. What did that say about my priorities and values? The thought woke me up to re-examine what I had taken for granted. And that sparked off a question about re-examining what we take for granted in social attitudes.
Is it ever possible for a politician in a democracy to say to the people: ‘You are wrong’? Not just, ‘You’re unwise’ or ‘This or that is inadvisable’ but simply ‘You are wrong.’ I’ve a feeling that if he or she did so they would be branded as arrogant, anti-democratic, dictatorial, etc.
For example, is it possible for a politician, without committing electoral suicide, to say to people, either a sectional interest group or the people in general, ‘You are insisting on rights while not accepting the corresponding responsibilities’, or, ‘You expect more of government than government can give,’ or ‘You are being selfish.’
It’s not politically correct for a politician to do that, and political correctness is a powerful force and can be very dogmatic indeed. It is the dogmatic orthodoxy of a secular society. Yet there needs to be a moral basis for politics and for law. This is something which Germany learned out of its bitter experience in the Nazi period when obedience to the prevailing political ideology had left no room for morals.
For example: should the law not punish crimes against the person more severely than those against property? British law, on which Irish law is substantially based, in general works the other way round. What does that say about priorities and values? Is it not like myself and the computer, property above people?
If democracy does not have a moral basis then it becomes the divine right of 51%, and that’s a formula for injustice of every kind. We saw where it led in Northern Ireland.
A few years ago the Labour Party, when in opposition in Britain, went into an election campaign with a substantial lead in opinion polls. They promised to spend more on health and education and said they were prepared to increase taxes to do that. The Tories said they would not increase taxes but would improve health and education by greater efficiencies. The Tories won the election. What is the lesson in that for politicians? Is it that people do not want to be told the truth, such as that if you want better public services you have to pay for them? Is it that money counts about everything in your priorities and mine? Is it that people believe that the sum of individual selfishness will magically add up to the common good?
If a politician cannot speak discomfiting truths without being thrown out of office, then we can expect to have more politicians who will tell us comforting lies. The choice is ours. Our politicians reflect our own real values.