Our system of government in Australia is technically a constitutional monarchy, that operates through a parliamentary democracy. However, it is typically referred to as a liberal democracy, in that one of the central guiding ideals is that of the importance of human freedom, and this freedom is to be defended by the government. While many might hold that the foundations of this type of government can be found in Enlightenment thought, as expressed in the work of thinkers such as John Locke, properly understood it is really the inheritance of the ancient Greek philosophy and the Christian moral tradition.

 

The idea of liberal democracy cannot be one of pure liberty, where the individual simply does as they want without limits (this would be anarchy), rather it is one of ‘ordered liberty’. Freedom only makes sense as directed towards the good, a freedom ‘for’ not a freedom ‘from’. This ancient understanding is where we get the idea of the ‘liberal arts’ tradition. It involves the freedom to pursue truth, as the ‘great souled man’.

The modern understanding of ‘freedom’ we find in the Enlightenment is one that has been detached from the ideal of the attainment of the good. The focus shifted to freedom ‘from’ rather than a freedom ‘for’. This shift was not so much a problem when Christianity provided the standard of public morality for the society, but with the loss of the influence of Christianity on our culture we are seeing the darker side to the understanding of freedom which rejects any limits.

We must urgently return to the ancient understanding of liberalism and the true nature of human freedom. At the heart of this freedom is what Catholic social teaching refers to as the ‘common good’. Our contemporary liberal democracy has its roots in this understanding, particularly those critical ideals of separation of powers through an independent judiciary and a system of checks and balances between the branches government.

These structures seek to preserve ordered liberty which allows for the pursuit of the human good.

At the heart of liberal democracy there is respect for and tolerance of opposing views which is necessary for the kind of robust debate through which the truth might be sought and known. The pursuit of truth requires freedom, and robust debate is a mark of a healthy democracy.

Liberal democracy is to be understood in this way, and its ideals cannot be taken as a given. There will always be threats that could weaken the freedoms upon which it is based.

One ever-present threat is that of ideology which rejects the pursuit of truth and instead seeks to impose a subjective order on society. When ideology comes to dominate a society authentic freedom soon is no longer possible. We have seen extreme historic examples of this is Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany and Mao’s China. Truth is rejected for a lie and worst kinds of barbarism are considered morally legitimate.

This total oppression of ideology usual starts in the form of unreasonable and unjustified limits placed on freedom of speech. Once a state begins the journey down this road there is very little that can stop it. In a state which no longer recognises the existence of objective truth and order, freedom is replaced by totalitarian control.

We have experienced over the past decade that, in the name of protecting people with particular ‘attributes’, anti-discrimination legislation is placing increasing legal restrictions on the public expression of alternative views.

Legislation now allows those who feel ‘offended’ because of particular attributes they might hold to take legal action against transgressors. Laws are being expanded to move from speech which incites hatred to speech which “is likely to incite”. This very subjective category can become increasingly vague and subject to loose interpretation. The aggrieved party can easily claim offense when the other party has no intention of creating offense. The onus quickly falls on the accused party to prove that they intended no harm. It is clear that the weight of the law is with the aggrieved party.

The legal threshold for what constitutes vilification has been significantly lowered. Anyone found guilty of presenting views which do not unconditionally affirm these attributes can be subject to prosecution and even jailing.

New laws being proposed in various jurisdictions, including the so-called Commonwealth ‘Misinformation/Disinformation’ legislation, present a real threat to the preservation of basic freedoms in our Australian democracy. It marks a change from protection of minorities from vilification and hatred to the imposition of an ideology which must be embraced and affirmed by all.

This ideology of the ‘woke’ also increasingly threatens our basic freedom of religion.

In Australia at present there is a growing tension between the introduction of increasingly demanding anti-discrimination legislation and the legitimate right of religions, especially Christianity, to hold an alternative position.

A religion should be free not only to hold views on certain matters related to the nature of the human person and the meaning and purpose of human sexuality, but also to teach these beliefs within institutions established by the religion and express these views in the public forum in the interest of promoting public debate.

During the French Revolution, thinkers like Rousseau claimed that all rights come from the State. This was an expression of radical atheism. The State denied the existence of a higher law or objective truth in the reality of God, and instead made of itself the pagan god.

A religious believer, on the other hand, recognises that all rights come from God’s moral law. A person of faith, just like the ancient Greek philosophers, believes that there is an objective order to nature. The believer understands that this order was created by God.

Pope Benedict proposed the idea of a ‘positive secularism’. Its role was not to impose ‘religious doctrine’ on society but respected the religious freedom of its citizens, allowing them the freedom to pursue the truth. The proper understanding of this ‘secularism’ is not a separation from God, but a freedom to know God. It involves providing the conditions whereby the individual can come to know the truth in freedom. In his encyclical, Deus caritas est, Pope Benedict stated,

The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions. For her part, the Church, as the social expression of Christian faith, has a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community which the State must recognize. The two spheres are distinct, yet always interrelated” (Deus caritas est, 28).

The Church asks governments to respect the right of believers to live by their personal convictions.

In the 1965 declaration on religious freedom, Dignitatis humanae, the position of the Church was expressed in these words,

The religious acts whereby men, in private and in public and out of a sense of personal conviction, direct their lives to God transcend by their very nature the order of terrestrial and temporal affairs. Government therefore ought indeed to take account of the religious life of the citizenry and show it favour, since the function of government is to make provision for the common welfare. However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious.

Pope Benedict further argued that religious freedom is good not only for the individual but also for the common good. Thus, in his encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, he said, “without the acknowledgment of his spiritual being, without openness to the transcendent, the human person withdraws within himself, fails to find answers to the heart’s deepest questions about life’s meaning, fails to appropriate lasting ethical values and principles, and fails even to experience authentic freedom and to build a just society.” The capacity to “transcend one’s own materiality and to seek truth,” he urged, “must be acknowledged as a universal good, indispensable for the building of a society directed to human fulfillment.”

To protect liberal democracy we must return to this ancient idea of liberty. We need to ensure that freedom of religion is respected and, indeed, encouraged by a ‘positive secularism’. Such mode of government is never a rejection of the divine, a freedom ‘from’, but always must involve a fundamental openness and orientation to the truth, a freedom ‘for’.