Recognizing the volatile mixture of religion and politics…
I recently read that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair felt the need to keep his religion quiet while in office because of his fear of being seen as a ‘nutter’ by a largely secular electorate. Leaving aside the question of whether or not Blair’s politics would have moved him into this category on their own, I found it fascinating that Blair felt like a public avowal of his beliefs would be political suicide.
So what kind of ‘nutty’ behaviour did Blair’s faith produce that would potentially alienate voters? In the article we discover that Blair carried a Bible with him in his travels and sometimes read it. He also asked his staff to make arrangements for him to attend church on Sundays. In addition to all this Blair apparently felt that his Christian faith informed his character and made him more effective in his role as a leader.
Articles like this that remind me that religion occupies a very unusual place within contemporary society. It has somehow become normal to think that religion, if it is entertained at all, cannot influence public behaviour (especially if you happen to be a leader). I recognize that leading a nation introduces unique challenges and I can already hear the inevitable “But have you seen George Bush!!” response that ideas like this often provoke. I am less interested in the politics here and more interested in the public expectation that faith ought to be radically privatized. This, in my view, renders religion functionally irrelevant.
Let me be clear: I am not trying to make a case for a Christian takeover of the political sphere in Britain, Canada or anywhere else. I am fascinated by the way in which religion is talked about in this particular case because I think it is indicative of a certain view of religion that radically different from anything that has preceded it.
I am certainly aware of the dangers of an overconfident understanding of the will of God combined with political power. Yet I continue to find it odd that within the span of a few centuries we have arrived at the point where even the notion of a leader allowing religious beliefs to influence his/her public behaviour is seen as an unusual and even dangerous. I suppose the alternative is to have leaders that privately affirm things that they are willing to deny when it comes to actual decision making.
The article aptly concludes with the comments of a former opposition leader who suspects that Blair would not have been given three terms in office if, “[The public had] known the extent to which ethical values would overshadow pragmatism.” That is clearly the last thing we would ever want, a leader who leads based on ethical principles originating from (in this case) his deeply held beliefs on the proper goal of politics and governance. Nutty indeed.
