I was recently trying to explain to a friend of mine some of the basic principles upon which I base my philosophy of government. I was amazed to read a verse this morning (which I don’t remember reading before) that seems to explain one of these principle very well.
“If you see in a province the oppression of the poor and the violation of justice and righteousness, do not be amazed at the matter, for the high official is watched by a higher, and there are yet higher ones over them” (Eccl 5:8).
Solomon connects the oppression of the poor and the violation of justice and righteousness with multi-layered bureaucracy that places power further and further from the people. It has been observed throughout history that power has the tendency to corrupt those who have it. Lord Acton wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” His conclusion is that the extent of the power is proportionate to the corruption.
How do we construct a government that reduces the probability of this tendency playing out? By allowing as much power as possible to be held by as many as possible as close to the people as possible. All I’m really talking about here is an emphasis on local government. This gives ownership, responsibility, and accountability to the people and those who lead them. It means that leaders are leading in their own communities so they have a vested interest. The well being of their lives, and that of their family and friends is directly affected by their leadership. And they are directly accountable to the people they are leading.
I would not argue, thought, that there is no need for centralized government and I acknowledge that there are certain matters that are best dealt with at that level. Some believe that an emphasis on local government with more leaders than less is inefficient. I have two responses to this argument. First, I believe local government is much more effective in preventing the oppression of the poor and the violation of justice and righteousness, which is more important than whatever efficiency may be in mind. Second, I would argue that the efficiency of a centralized government is an illusion. The further government gets from the people that it is supposed to be serving, the more resources are required to maintain it.
I am intrigued by a new book by James Davison Hunter called To Change the Word: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World. I just read a summary of the book and an interview with Hunter in Christianity Today (May 2010). He argues that the common evangelical goal of changing the world or transforming the culture is not really the goal of the church. Furthermore, even if it were, the current strategy of the church to do so will not work because it is built on a misunderstanding of how culture works.
Instead of culture being derived from ideas and culture only (the common views), it is also built upon "elites, networks, technology, and new institutions." Hunter argues that the church depends too heavily upon politics in its current attempt to influence the world. Instead, the strategy of the church for cultural engagement is what Hunter calls "faithful presence." The goals of this engagement is to make disciples and serve the common good.
