Caroline Daniel    

1,997 words

14 February 1997

New Statesman

Among those trying to influence the outcome of the general election, religious groups are surprisingly active. It's a sign of the times

A great row is brewing. Or rather, a great row is being anticipated. Its object is the forthcoming publication, scheduled for 7 April, of the report of the Inquiry into Unemployment and the Future of Work by the ecumenical Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland. Already members can be heard frequently on radio and television, two months ahead of publication, defending the inquiry's purpose and, of course, the timing of the report: (almost certainly) slap-bang in the middle of a general election campaign.

The claim of the Church to be involved in politics could scarcely be put more directly. And this is not the only claim: it is hard to recall a British general election that has attracted so much direct involvement by religious interests. For in contrast to the continent, where Christian Democracy has been a constant presence in postwar politics and governments, religion has in the same period been a background, informal, distanced presence in British political life. A combination of pre-millennial anxiety, Tony Blair's open espousal of Christianity and the growth of single-issue activism seems to have changed that.

The Church of England, perhaps still sensitised to the humiliations repeatedly heaped on it throughout the eighties by Margaret Thatcher and her senior ministers, is reluctant to acknowledge any shift in approach. Jim Thompson, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, says: "I do not think the Church has changed its stance at all. We have always talked about values. But it seems that people are now looking for something that they feel has been lost. For many years I felt we were clowns, trying to stand for something that did not have a chance because of secularisation. History will show that this is a time of deep spiritual turbulence, yet people are trying to find political solutions on the surface."

Andrew Purkis, senior adviser to the Archbishop of Canterbury, has also detected a renewed interest in values: "Neither party seems to have a clear ideological programme any more, yet politicians are aware of the deep anxiety generated by events such as Dunblane. There are concerns that civil society is getting weaker, yet there is a lack of confidence about how to address these concerns. This combination creates important opportunities for the Church and religious leaders to step in."

These churchmen don't only lack confidence in the ability of political parties to come up with value-added solutions. As the Bishop of Edinburgh, Richard Holloway, says: "There are groups who are not being represented in this election. It has always been the role of the Churches to be the voice of the voiceless."

The radical priest Kenneth Leech couches it in clearly political terms: "It is less that the official Church has moved further to the left, and more that governments and the opposition have moved further to the right, so the Church looks more radical. On some issues it has become the effective opposition."

It was this perceived lack of emphasis on the needs of the poor that prompted the inquiry into unemployment to be set up in 1995, chaired by the retiring Bishop of Liverpool, David Sheppard. Andrew Britton, the inquiry's executive secretary, says: "There is a feeling that none of the political parties are really pressing for action to deal with unemployment and it is the role of the Church to do so. A few years ago it was thought that the Church was in retreat, but now you get a sense that it is a source of radical ideas."

While some Church leaders may feel that Tony Blair is politically too cautious, most welcome the fact that he has been open about his faith. He has certainly made religion respectable again in left politics.

Yet Church leaders are understandably leery of being branded pinko vicars or political naifs. Should they be dealing with such policy specifics as the unemployment report is likely to recommend, or should they stick to the broader frame of society's moral goals? Attempts to grapple with policy detail are, after all, easily recast as "partisanship", as happened in the reaction to The Common Good and Catholic Social Teaching, published last year. This is the most comprehensive religious guidance so far on how to vote, and has sold more than 50,000 copies.

Nicholas Coote, the assistant general secretary of the Catholic Bishops' Conference, says: "In previous elections the bishops have published a list of issues Catholics should be concerned about. This time they decided to do something broader, and remind Catholics of the tradition of social teaching."

The document stepped beyond religious instruction. "The Church would be failing in its moral courage if its social teaching were allowed to remain at the level of broad generalities in order to avoid controversy," the bishops declared, as they came out in support of a minimum wage and ventured a robust defence of the trade unions.

Conservative ministers such as Kenneth Clarke and Ann Widdecombe, a convert to Catholicism, were soon heading to news studios to denounce such apostasy (both economic and religious).

There were crumbs of comfort there for free-marketeers. "The most influential bit of retouching was to add in extracts from papal encyclicals that stress the merits of the free market and are critical of the welfare state," admits Coote. But such concessions hardly amount to a big plug for another Tory government. Indeed, some Conservative Christians have been stung into an unusually aggressive response.

In January the Conservative Christian Fellowship launched a poster campaign with the slogan "New Labour, Christian Values in Danger". It depicts a vicar with a red tear, and implies that Labour might introduce euthanasia, allow homosexual marriage, scrap religious education and introduce abortion to Northern Ireland. "It is a terrible risk, but recent voting behaviour of Labour MPs in all these areas shows that all are possible," the poster claims. About 5,000 posters have been produced and sent to CCF members for them to stick up in their local churches.

This initiative was inspired by advice from the Christian Coalition in the US, and marks a departure for the Fellowship from tea and prayers. Tim Montgomerie, the CCF's 26-year-old director, is unrepentant: he resents Conservatives being depicted as greedy and selfish, and is keen to emphasise the moral roots of Conservatism. "The Bible speaks clearly about abortion and homosexuality. We must focus on these fundamentals before looking at wider issues. We believe that if we follow the pattern of America more and more Christians will support the Conservatives, as the anti-family, pro-abortion character of Labour is exposed."

It is highly unlikely that Britain will go the way of the US, where Christianity is far more culturally entrenched among a morally conservative population. But it doesn't stop groups such as the CCF and anti-abortion campaigners adopting the tactics and approaches that have brought success there.

Last week a new single-issue political party, the Pro-life Alliance Party, was launched here. It intends to field more than 50 candidates at the next election, not in the hope of winning seats so much as gaining valuable publicity (including the right to a party political broadcast) and the chance to put aspiring MPs on the spot when they are most vulnerable.

The opposite approach to this single-issue preoccupation is being adopted by the Evangelical Alliance, which speaks for a million Christians from all parties. It has prepared "doorstep debate" election briefings for its members, intended to act as a tool for confused Christians. These set out the key positions of the political parties on subjects from constitutional reform to criminal justice to housing, sprinkled with biblical perspectives. There are no briefings, however, on abortion or family values.

The Alliance feels it is returning to its early 19th-century roots, reclaiming a voice on social, not just moral matters, and an emphasis on public, not just private faith. Martyn Eden, the Alliance's public affairs director, says: "The Church is starting to say that if faith is not expressed practically, what good is it? We need to demonstrate we are of use."

A similar need for wider social engagement is driving the involvement of the Muslim community in this election. It has provided a focus for serious questions about how to relate Islam to the British political system, and how to push Muslim concerns higher up the political agenda.

The community is divided. One school of thought holds that the whole concept of democracy is alien to Islam. There can be no differentiation between church and state, and Muslims should not legitimise politics by participating. Massoud Shadjareh, a spokesman for the Muslim parliament, says: "Ever since we came to this country we have been voting Labour out of habit. But we feel that little good has come from us voting. We don't believe that our salvation will come from having a Mohammed instead of a John in the House of Commons."

The parliament plans to send a questionnaire to all election candidates, seeking their views on Muslim concerns. If candidates fail to respond the Muslim parliament "will tell Muslims to ignore them", says Shadjareh. He personally believes that Muslims should boycott the election and unite instead behind a campaigning group devoted entirely to Muslim concerns.

Other groups are more pragmatic. Iqbal Sacranie, joint convener of the UK Action Committee on Islamic Affairs, agrees that the current political parties do not represent Muslim concerns, but feels that "we need to fully participate in political structures and Muslims should exercise their right to vote."

His organisation will send out a document this month to the party leaders, MPs and Muslim organisations across the country. It sets out a Muslim agenda. "Central to this is the need for political representation for Muslims. We are marginalised by the mainstream political parties," says Sacranie. He is keen to emphasise that Muslim values can contribute to the "betterment of society at large", and have an appeal beyond the community.

Muslim voters can expect yet more guidance in March from Zaki Badawi, chairman of the Imams and Mosques Council, and an adviser to Prince Charles. He draws inspiration from the Jewish community, which is more politically sophisticated in its organisation than the Muslims. Badawi was provoked into writing his own document after reading a report in a local paper last year about some Muslim groups advising their followers not to vote. "I felt I should advise the community about its religious duty to vote. I want to urge Muslims to play a full part in the political process, as well as putting forward a vision for the community as a whole."