Now, when leadership tensions are reaching a climax within the Australian Labor Party, and when many ALP members are thinking of returning to the leadership of Kevin Rudd, I'd like to reflect on the impact of a politician's religious convictions on their political service. (A few hours after this was posted, Rudd in fact returned to office as Prime Minister.)
When a politician is also a person of faith, there are a variety of approaches they take to the relationship between their faith and their religious practice.
The most common approach is for the politician to declare a strict separation between her/his life as a politician and her/his life as a person of faith. (The classic example of this was John F. Kennedy who spoke, during his presidential campaign in 1960, about his own strict separation between his life as a politician and his life as a worshipping/practicing Catholic, including an undertaking to resign from office if a conflict of interest ever arose between his religious faith and his political duties.) We see this approach in politicians of both centre-left and centre-right orientations in all countries. In many ways, this is the "default setting" for a politician who is also a person of faith. It's the easiest way to handle being both a politician and a person of faith, whatever the politician's religious convictions or political persuasion.
Other possibilities also have been seen
- Particularly for politicians who combine a right-of-centre political persuasion and a conservative religious outlook, there is the option of functioning like any other secular politician, only with the extravagant use of pious rhetoric on occasion (at least when in similarly pious company). This is very popular among many politicians in the United States.
- Another option (seen in politicians of a variety of persuasions) is to limit the impact of one's faith on one's politics to the advocacy of conservative policies on issues relating to marriage, sex, and bioethics.
Occasionally we see a person of faith who is also a practicising politician, and for whom politics is a calling, a sacred vocation, just like the vocation of a priest, monk, nun, pastor, rabbi, or imam. And in many ways these politicians treat their political calling with the same reverence as the ordained treat their pastoral calling. Some studied theology before going into politics. Some served as clergy before becoming politicians (including many high profile African-American pastor-politicians). I know one individual who became a priest after leaving politics.
Generally, these politicians are found in centre-left parties, but are usually not party "insiders". They frequently have a troubled relationship with the movers-and-shakers found within their parties' establishments.
- Their combination of high intelligence, high integrity, and (at times) low levels of modesty often make them uncomfortable colleagues. (The low levels of modesty are often a result of the sense of vocation. Believing that one is "called" by the Sacred for one's task can often lead to arrogance if one is not careful.)
- As well, openly being a person of faith within a centre-left party with a pluralist-secular ethos leads to other difficulties.
In my adult life, I've been aware of four politicians of this sort who, across the English-speaking world, reached the heights of being the leader of a national government: Jimmy Carter in the United States, the late David Lange in New Zealand, Tony Blair in the United Kingdom, and Kevin Rudd in Australia.
Each of these individuals had their flaws: Rudd's temper - as well as his tendency to micromanage - was an obvious case in point, as was Lange's ego. (And Rudd's personal flaws were given a wide airing in various political post-mortems following the election.)
All of these leaders had a real problem with knowing whom to trust. While Carter was particularly known for his naivete, each of the four tended to trust people who (it could be argued) took advantage of their trust.
- In some cases, the misplaced trust was bad for their career. Rudd trusted the ALP factional and trade union powerbrokers in 2010.
- In other cases, the misplaced trust led to disastrous policies. Blair trusted George W. Bush before the Iraq War.
This usefulness of some Niebuhrian scepticism toward political movers-and-shakers would have been particularly useful in two situations when these leaders made decisions that were seemingly inexplicable in terms of the values either of ecumenical Christianity or of social democratic politics: Tony Blair's decision to participate in George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq a decade ago, and Kevin Rudd's decision to send asylum seekers to Papua New Guinea, rather than resettling them in Australia, after resuming the Prime Ministership. Both men made highly flawed decisions in these cases (in my opinion), decisions that may have been radically different if either Blair or Rudd had reflected on their policy options with a more Niebuhrian quality of scepticism toward the motives of those advocating these policies.