Irked by the
sudden cracks
in his tottering Universal Credit program, Ian Duncan Smith has finally laid
bare his stubborn resolution to see through his plans "on time" and
"on budget". This, more than ever before, threatens what we know to
be the welfare state with death and damnation. Time to review the capacities of
its potential saviours, including religious ones! With faith-based
organisations (FBOs) having been front-line welfare providers before and during
the current system, it seems that a religious plea to stop cuts may be armed
with the necessary commitment and practical experience. Nevertheless, can their
often ancient, scriptural principles command modern politics and economics?
Even before the
opposing armies take to their firing posts, the mere presence of religious
arguments on the battle-field highlights that the welfare debate, usually
painted from an economic perspective with bright statistics emblazoned here and
there, is in fact a moral issue. Some Christians
referring to equality and shouldering your brethren's burden, though not
appealing to everyone, is a valuable reminder that we are discussing humans
with sentiments; not robots incapable of valuing anything but the economic.
Indeed, the
coalition may also prioritise morality.
Consider, for example, their powerful rhetoric of "skivers" and
"strivers" that seek to promote "self-help" over relying on
others. Through creating such binary opposition, however, the Coalition
mechanically label, categorise, and generalise. This steers the debate away
from viewing people as individuals with unique identities and away from morality.
Obviously, the inevitable disunity caused leads to fewer discussions about our
ethical responsibilities to the vulnerable and more discussions about whether
we can afford to pay for interests that are not our own. Religion, by arousing
society's spiritual side, crucially recalls that the welfare state was
originally a system
generated from our ancestors' social harmony and ethical concerns about the
labour market.
Nonetheless,
would this help sway present critics? The bishops' favouring welfare, for
instance, occasionally gleaned some support,
but their religious arguments were largely received like any old ideology
staggering into political debate: with suspicion or “muted
reaction”.
Suspicion because,
like with other ideologies, we are tempted to refer to former outcomes of
implementing it, such as the recent religious protestations against same-sex
marriages in church and women
bishops. Although the bishops in Lords had been
divided
on these subjects, their religious arguments supporting welfare can still be suspected
of harbouring the same Cultural Conservatism,
which could accordingly influence the formation of the welfare system. Even in
1945, this Cultural Conservatism had been blamed
for some benefits that kept women at home and men in work.
The bishops'
intervention sometimes triggered “muted
reaction” because their arguments counter-productively challenged negative
rhetoric with negative rhetoric, suggesting few clear, positive steps for
moving forward. The state calls some citizens "welfare dependent". Bishops,
in a report
titled "The Lies We Tell Ourselves" by the Baptist Union of Great
Britain et al, call us all "myth" dependent, namely on
"lies" about poverty spread by the government.
Undeniably,
FBOs, with their inspirational principles, played a key
role in Labour's universal benefit system and aid the Coalition's private
welfare efforts. However, it could be argued that the rigid duties to the poor
coupled with FBOs having significantly
more exposure to poverty than most politicians makes their arguments likely
to seem subjective, and hence, unconvincing.
I therefore
suggest that a religious plea for welfare could raise crucial questions about
the grounds on which today's political decisions are made whilst revealing the
frequently hidden ethical dimension of the welfare debate. Yet its capacity to
practically garner support for the existing system appears limited. Undoubtedly,
this post's readings cannot apply to all parts of Christianity or indeed all
religions. It is merely one part of a wider debate about religion's role in
politics.
