In an election campaign that has so far been characterised by negativity and by the avoidance of commitment to any principle that might cost votes, the Australian Bishops' advice on voting is welcome. It avoided bagging particular political parties, enunciated broad humane criteria that should guide voters in their decisions, and pointed to issues that Catholic agencies regarded as central in the election.
Those who pondered the letter would find material for calm reflection on what matters. For the Bishops what mattered clearly were human beings and policies based on the kind of familiarity with their lives that comes from personal contact.
After reading the letter I wondered whether there may be room for church leaders to offer a little more guidance. Without attacking political parties, might they also ask more detailed questions about the conduct of the election and of party policies in the light of the principles they enunciated in the letter?
I would personally have liked to see the criteria more deeply grounded in the issues attributed to Catholic agencies owned by the Bishops on behalf of all Catholics, and some questions raised about the fit between the criteria and the policies of the parties on these issues.
The criteria stated by the letter are interesting because they are framed as human rights: the right to adequate food, shelter, to human dignity, to contribute to society and so on. Churches have sometimes been critical of human rights language. But rights need grounding, something that churches have long experience in providing. A little more reflection on the grounding of human rights would have tightened the list of criteria.
The first criterion suggested it is the right of every person to human dignity. But human dignity is not strictly a right, but an endowment. Because human beings are ends in themselves and are precious, they have a unique and inalienable dignity. Their dignity grounds the other rights, which spell out what it means to treat people in a way that respects their human dignity.
This point is important to make in the present election because the rhetoric of both major parties and the media implicitly presents human dignity, not as an inalienable quality of all human beings, but as something that depends on accidents of birth, of race, of nationality or of compliant behaviour. Those who are not of our nationality and do not follow our ways can be treated as objects, not as persons.
The rights which the Bishops offer as the criteria for voters are generally couched in terms of the individual. Catholic reflection on human dignity emphasises the importance of relationships as the context of rights. People's dignity is respected only when cooperative relationships are established in which priority is given to the needs of the poorest and to their participation in the decisions that shape their lives.
Elections are about shaping a society that respects or diminishes human dignity, and this social dimension deserves a stronger emphasis among the criteria that guide our voting.
Within this framework the issues attributed to Catholic agencies are all areas in which human dignity is at stake. They affect the shaping of society and so the ways in which human beings flourish or are reduced. So their importance could be recognised by the Bishops on behalf of all Catholics. Policies dealing with the treatment of asylum seekers, Indigenous people, women, the disabled, families, the aged and the unborn each will have aspects that respect, and aspects that fail to respect, human dignity.
Currently in Australian political life, one expression of human dignity seems particularly under threat: the need for governments to involve people as subjects and not objects of policy. Respect for religious belief is only one of many areas that might deserve attention. The treatment of Indigenous people and of prisoners also raises questions.
Other issues mentioned by the agencies have to do with the solidarity of Australians with human beings in other societies — through refugee policy, overseas aid and so on. Because respect for human dignity must be non-discriminatory, these areas are of concern for all Australians.
Of course, in a short letter not all can be said that needs to be said. What the Bishops' letter does, it does well and with appropriate modesty. A simple and firm grounding in the implications of human dignity might strengthen it further.
Andrew Hamilton is the consulting editor for Eureka Street. He teaches at the United Faculty of Theology in Melbourne.