This year has been marked by growing introspection concerning our culture. It has been encouraged by the accession to power of President Trump. His combative approach to governance, contempt for losers and promotion of graceless winners, and disregard for institutional process that limit his power have made us ask what aspects of Australian culture mirror him.
These questions are coincidentally raised by a nest of coming dates: the little-known International Day of Multilateralism and Diplomacy for Peace on April 24, the public holiday for Anzac Day on April 25, and the triennial Federal Election on May 3. And to these recurrent dates we might add a one-off: the death of Pope Francis.
When taken together they point to two opposed ways of viewing culture and society. One is conflictual, the other cooperative; one individualist the other communitarian; one realist and the other idealistic; one combative and the other eirenical; one celebrating warriors, the other peacemakers, one focusing on danger, the other on possibility. In style, one view is passionate and the other articulate; one seeks to polarise and the other to find common ground; one wants to win at all costs, the other will be satisfied with a draw.
These two ways of seeing and acting in the world are often a matter of temperament and are balanced by acceptance of aspects of the other approach. When the conflictual view is decisive and systematic, however, it can be destructive.
The Day of Multilateralism and Diplomacy for Peace clearly endorses the emphasis on cooperation and the avoidance of conflict. It emphasises cooperation between nations in averting conflict, and resolving disputes peacefully. When self-interest reigns, governments resist any curb on their power. That leads inevitably to resentment and conflict. Diplomacy and recognition of the authority of international bodies to adjudicate disputes are essential for the making and keeping of peace.
In Australia, Anzac Day has at different times endorsed each of these two views. In its origins it expressed the sorrow of war, the loss of those who died, and the diminished lives of those who survived and were marked by it. It was then extended and diverted to emphasise the courage and patriotism of those who fought, the nobility of their cause and the glamour of war. In the celebration of Anzac Day in recent years different groups of people have highlighted the nobility or the futility of war, its individual glory or communal loss.
The Federal Election campaign has allowed politicians and prospective voters to try out both the conflictual and the peaceable approach to public life. An interesting, and to my mind heartening, feature of the campaign has been the relative lack of support for policies based on social conflict. This is despite the widespread anger at the economic pressures faced by so many Australians and the increase of hostile demonstrations. The cost of this approach, of course, is that proposals for necessary change in which there will be winners and losers are avoided. Its gain has been to discredit policies designed to foment the resentment and prejudice that dominate exchanges on social media.
In this context, of course, Pope Francis was a passionate advocate for mutual respect and negotiation.
At the heart of the division between the conflictual and the eirenical view of public life lie different understandings of the value of human life and of what it means for human beings to flourish. These differences are manifest in the conduct of President Trump and his Government.
In opposition to the assumptions that underlie legal systems and institutions, the United States administration measures human beings by their economic success, racial origin and political leanings. Persons are not born with a dignity that comes with being human but earn it through competition with others for economic success, and can lose it by accidents of birth, behaviour, political associations and misfortune. Law does not reflect universal human values but the wish of the rulers, who represent those who have been economically successful and so have shown themselves to best represent the people. In an ideal society the law will serve the interests of the leader and his allies and will be directed against his opponents, against minority ethic and social groups who have failed to achieve, and against intellectuals who have been freeloaders.
This view will see elections as a conflict between parties in which the good of the nation is identified with winning the contest. Election campaigns will build on and intensify resentment and hostility between social groups in the nation, so serving the good of the Party and its supporters.
Relationships between nations, too, will be governed by relative power and not by international convention. In war only the lives of soldiers on the winning side will be prized. It will see diplomacy as an instrument for securing the national interest in any resolution of conflict. It will not seek a resolution that benefits both sides. Nor will it consider the human costs of the resolution. It is a unilateral expression of relative power and of national self-interest. Events like Anzac Day will celebrate war and glorify the soldiers who fought in it. It will school the nation to carry arms in coming conflicts. It will neither grieve for soldiers on the opposed side nor focus on the civilians on both sides whose lives were devastated by the loss of relatives and of their hopes.
The eirenical view, represented in the attitudes and behaviour of Pope Francis, is built on the conviction that each human being is precious, and that if they are to to flourish, human beings must depend on one another.
In a good society governments will look to the common good that respects the dignity of each person and the common good. This view gives priority to cooperation. Conflicts should be resolved within a legal system that is independent of the executive and of national governments. Governance must respect the good and the agency of all, especially the most vulnerable. In considering war, elections and diplomacy from this perspective, we should focus on persons – those affected by war, those most disadvantaged in society, and those discriminated against.
.png)
I believe that the future of a livable world depends on our choosing the peaceful view of society. I also recognise the plausibility of the argument that this is a utopian view, and that conflict is built into our DNA. That may be true. But it is also imperative that families, groups and nations the institutions learn to favour peace and deal with challenges in ways that respect the human dignity of all human beings. On that depends the future of an increasingly threatened world.