Dictating to democracy - rule by religion?

The divine right of kings was embedded in religion. Charles Stuart believed he had no peer and need answer to no one. According to him and his adherents, his power came directly from the deity, albeit not even God could remove him from the throne.

Democratic rule was supposed to end this nonsense. According to theory, heads of state owe a duty to the people and take their place not as of right, nor as of divine right, but through tacit agreement by the people. Until we decide to change it, constitutional monarchy remains. But, should we determine against kings, queens and princes, they will go and the people will decide who is head of state.

Whether this is by direct voting or some other method, the principle remains. The monarch or president answers to the people. So with the other part/s of the executive - prime minister or premier and ministers are voted in to power by the people and answer to the people, not god. As well, the legislature is wholly elected, not chosen by any divinity. The people are sovereign.

This sovereignty is wholly secular. Neither God nor the Church is involved. Indeed, the Australian Constitution rules out religion as a part of government or as having any role in or support by it. Section 116 says no law may be passed by the federal parliament to establish any religion. Nor may the federal parliament make laws imposing religious observance or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test is required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

At state level, religion has, or should have, no role to play in dictating to or ruling members of Parliament. Yet the principle that the people rule themselves through elected representatives, and that government is a secular system, appears to be under increasing challenge by organised religion.

Most recently, Archbishop George Pell has hit the airwaves with a “warning” that members of the New South Wales Parliament face “consequences” in their religious lives if they support a bill to expand stem cell research in the state.

He is reported as saying that Catholic members of Parliament “would need to think seriously about taking Holy Communion, the sacrament central to Catholic life, if they voted for therapeutic cloning” (Alexandra Smith and Linda Morris, “Catholic MPs to defy Pell over bill” Sydney Morning Herald, June 6, 2007).

This raises questions as to what the people can and should expect of their elected representatives. It also raises questions about the role of the church.

What if the head Imam were to announce that unless Muslim members of Parliament voted in a particular way, they would be banned from prayer in NSW mosques? Or if the Chief Rabbi told Jewish members of Parliament that registering their vote one way rather than another would bring the wrath of Jehovah upon their heads and they would be banished from synagogue rituals?

NSW voters should be able to be confident that the executive and the legislature are not governed nor threatened by religious precepts, principles or dictates. Does the involvement of religious threat or persuasion provide any room for application of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW)?

The ICAC Act was passed to promote the integrity and accountability of public administration, by establishing an independent body, ICAC, to:

• investigate, expose and prevent corruption involving or affecting public authorities and public officials; and
• to educate public authorities, public officials and members of the public about corruption and its detrimental effects on public administration and on the community.

The Act defines corrupt conduct as “any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority …”

“Corrupt conduct” is “any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority” and which could involve (but is not limited to) any of the following matters: official misconduct (including breach of trust), bribery, blackmail or any attempt at them.

Bribery involves the offer or giving of something valuable to persuade a person to help or do something for the person doing or attempting to do the bribing. A general definition of blackmail is that it is “the act of putting pressure on a person or a group to do something they do not want to do, for example by making threats or by making them feel guilty”: Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary.

If religious heads offered members of Parliament religious benefits for voting “yes” or “no” to legislation asserted to contradict the principles of the particular faith, would that be bribery under the Act? If they threatened to deny religious absolution or other religious trappings should a member vote one way rather than another, or abstain from voting, would that qualify as blackmail within the Act’s meaning?

It does not matter that the religious head is not a “public official” according to the Act. What does matter is that public officials are being threatened or bribed in relation to their voting intentions or habits.

A “public official” under the Act is “an individual having public official functions or acting in a public official capacity”. It includes the governor, a government minister, and a member of the Legislative Council or of the Legislative Assembly. Official functions of members of Parliament and government ministers include the duty and responsibility to vote for parliamentary bills.

It is not necessary that members are actually affected by any threats or any attempts at bribery - whether religious or not. The making of the threats or any offer of a bribe is sufficient.

Whether or not the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act has any role in current debates, surely church - of whatever denomination - and state should remain separate. The public has a right to be confident that elected members are voting for or against legislation freely, without threat or hindrance, benefit or banishment. If religion becomes a ruling feature of any member of Parliament’s conduct, we run the risk of promoting sectarianism where confidence and trust, unrelated to personal faith, are or should be the key.

Members of Parliament, like all members of the community, are entitled to their religious beliefs - or a lack of them. Adherents of religion and religious heads are entitled to their own beliefs, just as unbelievers and heads of humanist bodies are entitled to theirs.

Democratic government and the sovereignty of the people are, however, at risk where religion steps into the parliamentary arena - or seeks to do so. In deciding upon the basis for Australia as a democracy, those involved in the federation debates were diligent in seeking to ensure that religious diktat did not govern law making.

The wisdom of the 19th century developed out of knowledge and experience. The unhappy history of religion, monarchy and government was not to be repeated in the new Australian state. This past wisdom should be adhered to and reinforced in the 21st century present.