Political questions⤒🔗

In this chapter we want to give a more detailed interpretation of the task of the government. We now turn to political issues. What are the responsibilities of government? The question regarding the task of the government is not a simple exercise of "filling in the blanks." There are many issues of a varied nature that involve the government. These issues affect people’s coexistence, lack of safety on the streets, macroeconomic development, concerns in sectors such as agriculture and health care, problems with infrastructure and mobility. Citizens and institutions are constantly sounding appeals to the government. The government seems to be the giant vacuum cleaner of society: what people leave behind, the government has to clean up. But the government cannot undertake everything and should not want to do everything. That is why it needs to have a clear vision of its actual task.

The question of the task or duty of the government is a normative question. What should the government do in a society and what should it refrain from? There are very different answers to this question. These are related to divergent political and ideological positions. In a parliamentary democracy, the different visions of the government’s task are discussed and lead to different outcomes. We will be looking at some examples of this. Naturally, this chapter is about a Christian political approach. In the previous chapter we have already dealt with the biblical starting point. The task that the Bible entrusts to governments is to do justice in righteousness, to fight evil in society, to lead a population, and in and through it all to bring honour to God. How does this focus on public justice take shape?

Views of justice←⤒🔗

We distinguish different dimensions or branches in the role of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. All of this is according to the principle of the separation of powers (trias politica). According to this principle, legislation, administration and judiciary are separate circuits, with separate tasks, each of which must function properly and independently of each other. The legislative branch exercises government jointly with parliament. The executive branch implements laws and is in the hands of the government as such. The judicial branch administers justice in the event of a violation of the law and does so independently, without political influence. The government has a legislative power and thus creates law within society. It also supervises the implementation of laws and measures and has a law enforcement role in this regard.

However, this only says something about the formal functioning of the rule of law. Of course, justice also carries a material content. This is what the political debate is about and the government has its own responsibility in this too. What exactly are the motives and objectives of the legislator? What developments in society should the legislator respond to? What are undesirable behaviours of citizens and what is beneficial for everyone? What is the purpose of creating laws and enforcing them? What is government’s purpose? We must conclude that it is not possible to discuss the task of government in a substantive manner without involving political objectives. Politics is not a neutral entity, so thinking about the government’s task is not neutral either. Different political movements have different ideals, views and values.

Let me give some examples of this. In liberal circles, society has often been presented as a community of common interests. The designation "BV Nederland" (~the Netherlands, Inc.) betrays this interest-oriented view of society, where the world is divided into the private interests of individuals and a general interest of everyone. The government functions as the guardian of that public interest. With a view to maintaining order and safety, mutual interactions (social and material infrastructure) and joint activities (labour, trade, education), the government creates and enforces the rules of law. In the name of this public interest, private interests sometimes may need to be infringed upon. The only agency that can do that is the government. In this representation, the law has a function with a view to regulating the relationship between private and public interest. It should be clear that this representation is rather materialistic and therefore one-sided.

However, the pendulum could also swing completely the other way. While the liberal view is concerned with the private interest, the socialist view focuses strongly on ideas about the general interest. The government is given a strong role in shaping society. It has the task of redistributing goods and resources (facilities, rights, finances) within the community. The government is thereby given the authority to determine the collective interest by means of legislation and regulations and to enforce it as a public achievement within society. The derailment of this unrestrained view of the government’s task has now become abundantly clear, especially in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

These liberal and socialist representations of society as a community of interests have been countered with a conservative reaction. It points out that society is not just a community of interests. It is the task of the government to bring order to society and to protect traditional norms and values. The repertoire of laws and penalties is needed to keep people in line, to contain crime and, above all, to teach society to bear responsibility for itself. This conservative reaction rightly demands attention for rights and values, in addition to interests. Society can indeed be characterized as a community where interests, rights and values are shared. But the government is given a very minimal task by conservatives.¹

The view of what the government should be doing remains determined by the formal tools or instruments that the government has. But the government’s task is not only to provide discipline and order. Within its own responsibility, government also attempts to give direction and guidance to the development of society. Principled thinking and speaking about what the government should and should not do is necessary.

The design of the government’s task←⤒🔗

In the first place, government action is concerned with the realization of the norms of public justice. But what does this mean? Which legal principles should apply? In answering this question, we need to focus more clearly on the government’s task. In the publications of the ChristenUnie, not much attention has been paid to date in regard to the question of the nature and meaning of legal norms. It is striking, however, that legal norms occur in all legal systems, which are also included in the biblical concept of justice. That which makes a right into a right is not separate from the will of God. Justice is also the basis for confidence in the actions of the government and for confidence in social interactions. Just legislation is a gift and an opportunity to restore relationships, at least in an outward sense. That is why it is important that the law is really binding and that legal certainty prevails in a society. It is also fair that any sentence or judgment is in accordance with the crime committed (the so-called principle of proportionality). When agreements or contracts have been concluded, the principle of good faith requires that we adhere to them. Finally, there is a principle of fairness and proportionality when it comes to distribution issues among those who are entitled to receive justice.

These general legal principles of legal certainty, proportionality, good faith and fair proportionality can also be found in the Bible as general legal principles. Justice is not to be tampered with, but must be dependable (legal certainty). In the legislation for Israel, there were laws for compensation for damages done (proportionality). The fact that agreements and promises had to be kept serves as the basis for covenant thinking (loyalty) and is also demanded in social interaction: “Let your yes be yes...” (James 5:12). And that everyone should get his own and that the strongest shoulders ought to bear the heaviest burdens is already clear from the social legislation of the Bible (just and proportionate distribution). Yet the Bible does not stop at these general principles of law, but wants to give them a deeper meaning each time. It is ultimately about man seeking God and serving him. The law is an instrument for restoring relationships and maintaining a certain order in mutual relations. But even deeper than demanding justice is the reach for the love of God. God is not interested in mere outward behaviour, but in the hearts of men. For the coexistence of people, it holds true that the love of God and the trust in God’s Word also make the law into something different. In the Bible itself it can already be observed that legal norms acquire a deeper meaning in their realization. A few examples may make this clear:

1. Legal certainty. Justice is to be applied and enforced. But the greatest right must not become the highest injustice. When the jurisprudence of politics and society leads to people becoming victims of the rich or the powerful, then something is seriously wrong. Legal certainty should not have a formal, but a substantive content. Legal certainty means that the creation and the creatures of God are protected under the law.
    
2. Proportionality. The Bible knows the principle of retaliation. In this too, justice must be served. However, this right can be merciless and blind to circumstances. Retribution and reparation may be the “just pay” for someone’s guilt or negligence, but the Bible also knows how joyful pardon, mitigation, and ultimately redemption can be.
    
3. Good faith. Breaches of contract and fidelity are not just the unilateral termination of an arrangement, but also undermine loyalty between people. That is why the Bible takes it so seriously. The lack of loyalty needs to be made right again. This keeps society healthy and makes interpersonal relationships strong.
    
4. Fair and proportionate distribution. Here, too, the starting point is not the formal distribution of goods and services, but the material meaning: Is no one lacking anything? Does everyone receive his just portion? With his talents and with his own responsibilities and relationships, man ultimately needs to serve God.

Law and justice thus take on a deeper meaning in man’s service to God. The realization of general legal norms should be aimed at this. The government has the task of promoting this. It can only do this when it does not merely take general legal norms as the starting point for its commitment to public justice, but provides them with a motive and a goal. Based on a Christian point of view, the motivation needs to be to seek the honour of one another. The goal should be to bind society together for the service of God. Only on the basis of this motivation and objective can a constitutional status be promoted where a deeper meaning is attributed to law and justice. The government has a specific task in this regard. It assesses social and societal conditions and then determines through law what is just and righteous. We can also speak here of the principle of social justice as a guiding principle in the fulfillment of the government’s task. This principle carries a central function in the structure and development of society.

Ultimately, we see four biblical criteria that should function in the formation of law, according to Christian insight:

1. The government is a "shield for the weak," and watches over the law and thus over the integrity of man and creation. Government measures and laws must not create or perpetuate injustice for people, plants and animals and in society as a whole.
    
2. The government is the guarantor of a fair administration of justice, where forgiveness is possible in addition to retaliation and where, in addition to banishment from society, the possibility of a return to society is also present. A fair administration of justice cannot be influenced by any interest.
    
3. The government is dependable and truthful in fulfilling its obligations and commitments. Its integrity is evidenced by a proper use of government authority. The government itself sets an example of good faith and loyalty.
    
4. The government applies the principle of social justice in the formation of laws, with a view to the organisation, development and flourishing of people and society.

Core tasks of government←⤒🔗

Society has been referred to above as a community of rights, interests and values. Society is a diverse whole and the government has different attitudes towards such a society. It exercises controls and sets limits, but it also gives room for people’s own initiatives. It enforces laws and regulations, but also communicates about shared values. The government not only acts with coercion towards society, but also recognizes that there are responsibilities that citizens need to fulfill on their own. This is in line with the view of society that takes "distinct responsibilities" into account. The government is not alone and should not want to do everything by itself. It not only uses force when needed, but it also negotiates with society and has an authoritative message ("management by speech"). Because a society has different layers, the task of the government is also multifaceted.

In this context I would like to point out three dimensions of government action: a) issuing and enforcing rules and laws; b) setting frameworks for the perception of one’s own responsibilities; and c) giving direction to society as a whole. These three dimensions fit well with the characterization of society as a community of rights, interests and values. Rules and laws are necessary in a society such as a legal community to indicate exactly what is and what is not allowed. Setting frameworks for the perception of personal responsibility in the public space meets needs and interests. It is necessary to indicate direction in order to indicate which values society and the legal order should seek support from. In all of these dimensions, the government can refer to its law-making and law-enforcing task, but to a decreasing extent will it rely on a set of mandatory instruments.

To conclude this section, I will distill the core tasks of the government from the foregoing. I will also be drawing on what has been said about this in the publications of Rouvoet, Schutte, Veling, Verbrugh and Klink.

1. For the benefit of society as a legal community:

1. Providing protection to civilians
2. Combating and resisting violence and injustice in society
3. Upholding the rule of law and the constitution
4. Enforcing rules that promote the coexistence of people and communities
5. Developing such structures that other relationships can come into their own

2. For the benefit of society as a community of interests:

1. Guaranteeing material conditions within which citizens (in their relationships) can fulfill their responsibility
2. Where necessary, taking over tasks from other social groups
3. Combating physical, social and economic deprivation (disease, poverty, exploitation)
4. Protecting the natural environment (milieu, plants, animals), also with a view to the future (sustainable development)
5. Regulating and examining social activities that could cause damage to third parties; harmonizing conflicting legitimate interests

3. For the benefit of society as a community of values:

1. Upholding and promoting values and norms that have a binding and guiding meaning for society (including the free proclamation of the Word of God)
2. To maintain and promote traditions, language and cultural expressions that express the identity of the Dutch people.

A comparison with other Christian views←⤒🔗

I would now like to compare the above with views that have developed in the Reformed political and Christian-democratic traditions. There is also a good reason for doing so. Both the SGP and the CDA² also point to the notion of "public justice" as the characterization of their vision of the government’s task. This terminological affinity already shows something of a common approach. However, there are also differences between the views mentioned. It is important to determine exactly where the similarities and differences lie. I will try to do this by representing some key publications of both SGP and CDA about the government.

The view of the SGP←⤒🔗

In 1993 the study centre of the SGP published the report Dienstbaar tot Gerechtigheid. [Servants in righteousness]. In it the SGP outlines its perspective on the nature and scope of the task of the government. This report was partly inspired by the publications that had appeared on this subject at the time from both the CDA and the RPF. There was an apparent need to conduct a study into the nature of the task and duties of the government. It resulted in a report that clearly reflects the view of the SGP.

In the formulations of this report, the distinction with the view described above is not great. Biblical reflection yields the same result with regard to the origin, the nature and the task of government. Regarding the origin, the government is honoured as an institution of God. It took shape in the world after the Fall. It is not denied that “authority, the stewardship of creation, and leadership were already present before the Fall.” Nevertheless,

care should be taken with stating that a government task was already present here…. It can be said, however, that in the task that Adam and Eve were given in paradise, elements of the task of government were already evident.

But all this changed after the Fall:

However, the fall into sin has given this task a very specific, in other words, its characteristic content. Government then becomes a necessity, put in place because of sin and its consequences. The government’s task is therefore characterized by the monopolistic power of the sword in order to counter sin and to restrain it. The Fall creates disharmony among men and between men and creation. The government protects its subjects from the public consequences of that disharmony by punishing evil.

In this light, “seeking to do what is right and just” is the “fundamental starting point for the task of government,” the “central concept” for government action. “It will become evident that the promotion of God’s honour by serving public justice, according to God’s commandments, as an indication of the government task reflects this task in its entirety...” This justice is connected with the biblical norms for it:

Justice is, as it were, a positive expression of righteousness as an underlying standard. Justice is elaborated most succinctly in what is called justice according to the biblical standard in the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are a summary of God’s will. The Bible is the source and standard for all legislation on earth. Such legislation is therefore derived from Divine law.

This is then explained in such a way that the government has a negative (restraining injustice) and a positive (establishing justice) task. It not only needs to prevent evil, but also needs to enable conditions for society to flourish. We may conclude that this description from the report of the SGP on the origin, nature and task of the government does not differ from the vision set out above.

On two points, however, the difference with the SGP appears to be far-reaching. In the first place, it concerns the consequences of the government’s task in the area of religion. It is precisely in this regard that the SGP demands strong action from the government. There can be no tolerance of other religions, since according to the SGP the government has to commit itself to a true religion. In practice, this position amounts to a restriction of the religious freedoms of people of other faiths. In a Christian political perspective and in that of Christian democracy, such freedoms should be guaranteed by the constitutional state. In the SGP view, the government exercises a certain coercion in spiritual matters. It is difficult to see how this spiritual task of the government relates to the advocated public justice as being the core function of the government. In any case, "public justice for different denominations" appears not to be guaranteed in this view.

Secondly, it concerns the consequences of appealing to the Bible. The SGP repeatedly takes a stand against the violation of the Ten Commandments in public life. This reveals that, in the SGP’s view, the government is not only the guardian of the legal order, but with its authority and power it should also seek to enforce a common morality. This overestimates the role of government. The government should not act as an extension of the church. The individual responsibility of the citizens and the various relationships in society should also be recognised. I have argued³ that this view of government is rooted in an undifferentiated social framework, in which the state and the church form the backbone of society as a whole and where there is hardly any political life in which citizens participate. The SGP itself believes that these views reflect the core of its “theocratic ideal."

The view of the CDA←⤒🔗

The CDA has given its view on government and its task in society in a voluminous report from 1990: Publieke gerechtigheid [Public Justice]. This report attempts to combine the Protestant and Roman Catholic traditions of thought in the area of state and society. This has led to a renewed evaluation of all kinds of biblical, legal and philosophical notions, in order to formulate a government vision for the CDA. In line with its Program of Basic Principles, public justice is regarded here as the "identity-determining principle" of "state governments." But how does the CDA see the role of government? In the considerations of the biblical data, differences with the Reformed view emerge. The government’s task is limited to its core legal function: to punish evil and to reward what is good. That is the assignment of the “powers placed in the world by God.” The role of these governments with regard to the original purpose of creation is not clarified, nor is there a further elucidation on the relationship with the rule of Christ. The government appears here as an independent earthly power and not as an institution with a divine calling. The notion of the government as "God’s servant" is missing.

This then leads to the fact that the principle of public justice is not tied directly to the biblical idea of justice, of which the Ten Commandments are the core. The report rightly notes that the state cannot bring about spiritual or moral justice with its limited scope, but this form of justice is then no longer regarded as a horizon (or objective). Public justice thus becomes something independent and it becomes detached from the deeper layers of the biblical idea of justice. Yet it is recognized that public justice needs to have direction: that a "targeted interpretation" of this principle is needed for "political practice." While the SGP and ChristenUnie intend to use biblical principles for this, the CDA uses a number of key concepts, such as shared responsibility, public justice, solidarity and stewardship. In this way a "Christian-democratic philosophy"—the result of a shared search by believers for the meaning of the revealed Word—functions as an orientation for the application of the public principle of justice in ordinary legislation. It is regrettable in view of any joint action by the Christian parties that the CDA, which claims to base itself on the Bible, is shifting to its own philosophy in this regard instead of allowing the Bible to speak for itself. Moreover, the general terminology in which this philosophy is contained is much less powerful and demanding than the concrete and normative directions of the Bible.

This lack of delineation means that the political conviction of the CDA, which should give direction to the principle of public justice, remains rather vague. This principle takes on a rather judicial interpretation. This involves setting up a legal order in which legitimate interests are harmonized and in which the responsibilities of people and social relationships are respected and guaranteed. I have already stated earlier that such a view of government remains shallow and that it fits the high calling of the government to present to society a deeper motive and a greater purpose. In a Christian view of government it is very fitting that the government points out that people do not live for prosperity or comfort, but points to higher goals and destinies. The government can also indicate that it wants to organize a public legal order in such a way that people are able to honour God. Public justice then not only has a role to establish order, but also an inspiring function. As long as the CDA philosophy wants to interpret the public principle of justice in its own terms, there remains a fairly striking difference with a Christian politics that is more radical in its biblical orientation.

Limits to the authority of government←⤒🔗

In conclusion something needs to be said about the limits of government authority. In the three Christian political parties this is generally understood in the same way. In the background, the idea of "sovereignty within one’s own sphere" plays a major role for both the ChristenUnie and the CDA. This idea—set forth earlier in chapter 4—points to the various indivisible responsibilities to be fulfilled before God. The various spheres of authority are intertwined, but it is not the intention that one authority should dominate the other authority or vice versa. There is also appreciation in the SGP circle for this thinking in terms of "sovereignty within one’s own sphere." It helps to “take into account the diversity of the relationships of life.” As such it also helps to distinguish between state and non-state relationships and thus identify the government’s own domain. Although the SGP has reservations about the relationship between church and state, the idea of a limited government that adheres to its own public task is commonly understood.

The exercise of government authority in a highly developed and differentiated society has naturally become rather complex. In such a society, the government cannot limit itself to establishing and preserving order, law and security. On this point, too, the Christian parties agree. A secondary task has been added to the primary task of government: meeting the public needs of society as a whole and distributing goods and services with a view to the development of that society. In addition to classic fundamental rights, social fundamental rights have been introduced, through which the people are able to ensure access to social services, proper education, and a good system of health care. The tasks of the government have expanded in the twentieth century and have also been laid down in the constitution. Proper policies are needed with regard to families, cultural minorities, labour relations, poverty issues, care facilities, the development of deprived neighbourhoods, and so on. Due to its legislative role, the government is more and more involved in shaping society. The constitutional state can no longer convey the image of the classical-liberal "guardian state," but needs to display the image of the social state that is based on justice and righteousness. The Christian parties share this understanding. The SGP publication speaks of a "social dimension" of government action. Both the CDA and the ChristenUnie speak in their own way about the importance of Christian-social politics. The SGP hardly ever uses this term, but shows in its performance that it also wants to take a stand for the vulnerable in society.