The Hubris Of Conscience Votes

Periodically, the strength of public debate requires governments to legislate on divisive social issues. Often, calls to allow a “conscience vote” ensue. Added to that issue which is never quite laid to rest, abortion, and the more recent euthanasia, we now have same sex marriage.

These are salient examples because the naysayers generally come from a religious standpoint. Some are open about their motivations. Some attempt to hide them with flimsy denials, such as “It’s not about religion; I believe life begins at conception and every life is precious” or “I believe marriage is for a man and a woman to raise a family”.

The latter really do believe these statements, however their arguments are clouds. Such positions almost always derive from religious beliefs.

It’s usually social issues with religious dimensions which lead to conscience votes, because the religious elements divide both major parties. The United States is the only Protestant, Western nation which is not strongly secular and religious motivations are explicit in political debate. In Australia, we tend to keep religion out of mainstream politics, however it’s religion and its conservatism which principally drives parliamentary opposition to legalisation of abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage and other “unholy” acts. It’s a pity the true motivations of the demurring MPs are not more honestly discussed.

In a secular polity, it is not the role of the state ie. the parliament, the executive and thejudiciary, to decide on issues of purely social philosophy. The state should not decide when an independent life exists or the nature of marriage any more than it should debate post-structuralism (although I’d watch Order In The House if Barnaby Joyce or Bob Katter had a go at the latter).

In an open society, the morality and allowability of abortion and euthanasia or the nature and meaning of marriage are matters for the citizens to decide via public debate. Politicians are installed to enact the wishes of the citizens they serve, not impose their own philosophical positions on the rest of us, under the guise of “moral leadership” via “conscience” votes.

This does not mean that each politician should always vote in line with the wishes of the majority of their constituency. If a position on a certain issue derives from a philosophical or political principle on which their party was elected, they should vote accordingly and explain why.

For example, suppose a politician is elected on a platform of true Liberalism. A fundamental tenet of Liberal political philosophy is the non-interference of the state in purely social issues or ones of personal morality, from which derives secularism.

It then follows that for a Liberal, the only role of the state in euthanasia is to ensure the death is genuinely voluntary, assisted or otherwise. That is because someone’s body and life are their personal property and they may do with them as they please, provided they are of sound mind and do not cause others undue distress.

Likewise, for a Liberal, given lack of evidence for societal harm, the only role of the state in marriage is as an interpreter and enforcer of contracts. It is up to individuals deemed capable of informed consent (in this case, adults) to decide on the nature of the contract, provided said contract is demonstrably absent of duress.

Consequently, any Liberal politician should vote in favour of these proposals on the basis of the philosophy on which they sought election. If they were against these proposals, then they should have run as a conservative.

Politicians who do not have clear political positions on a particular issue, perhaps because they were elected as independents or members of an interest group eg. Shooters should canvas the wishes of their constituency and vote accordingly.

Where all three elements of the state can add value and show leadership is in raising and perhaps helping to solve inconsistencies in the beliefs of the general public, particularly where such beliefs are contradicted by evidence.

Thus, in the case of same sex marriage, the state does have a role to play in gathering, interpreting and disseminating research into claims that the practice will harm society, especially children. If there is no evidence supporting such claims, then a liberal state should recede from citizens’ lives to a purely administrative function.

For politicians in an open, democratic society to believe they are in parliament to exercise their “conscience” is an egregious vanity.

You were not elected to exercise your personal conscience; rather to enact the wishes of your constituents, consistent with the underlying principles which your party espouses. If your views happen to match your constituency, lucky you. If they don’t, either follow your constituency’s instructions, or resign.

Suppose a political party’s supporters are split, say 60/40 on a particular social issue. If a position on this issue does not derive naturally from the party’s underlying principles, then perhaps it could arrange for its parliamentary members who do not agree with the proposal to be among the 40% voting against it. But that is as much of their personal “morality” as politicians should be allowed to exercise in government.