Jan van
der Mooren
Studentno
20080810
Philosophy
September 15, 2012
Democracy and religion, Erasmus Intensive
Program, July 2 – July 14, 2012,
Dr. P. Loobuyck,
Table of contents
Section
|
page
|
1. Introduction
|
3
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
9
|
|
between church and state
|
12
|
|
|
17
|
18
|
This year on the 12th of April in the Dutch television
programme De Vijfde Dag[1] there was talk of the Dutch
Reformed political party SGP having a wish list they wanted to exchange for
their support of the governing minority cabinet, by voting in parliament in
favour of the latter’s additional austerity measures.
C. Dekker, chairman of the SGP in Middelburg
took a camera crew along
to a local mosque
under construction. He explained that he felt that culturally and historically
speaking only church towers belong to the Dutch landscape. According to him, Van der Staaij[2] would have to demand a maximum
height of minarets in the negotiations, a previous law proposal of the SGP, at
the time not supported by the current cabinet party
VVD.
Two others who had their say were a shopkeeper
from Bergen op Zoom, who did not want shops
to open more often than the current single Sunday each month, and a nursing home physician who wanted to restrain ongoing
liberalization of euthanasia legislation.
C. Dekker elucidated: ‘As Christians we must
show that we are not interested in power or exploiting our position, but in
promoting the Word of God in our society and the well-being of the society as a
whole, for the honour of God’.
In the same program Bart Jan Spruyt[3] expressed his doubts about the employability of wish lists: “Van der
Staaij understands that these kinds of demands, which fall under the head of
ethics and religion, only make sense when your party is on (the way up)an
upswing and in society things are kind and great for it. This is not the case”.[4]
Due to the premature fall of the cabinet we
were not able to find out whether or not such an exchange could have been
realized. But does evidence exist in recent Dutch parliamentary history, of SGP
parliament members supporting policy of a cabinet to get elements of their political
bill being inspired by their reformed belief to be accomplished? The answer to this question is that I found only
one suspicious event during the last two years. On May 21, 2011 the Volkskrant[5] wrote:
“The VVD[6] has taken
away her signature from under a law proposal which she had submitted earlier
together with D66[7] to
no longer criminalize blasphemy. […] D66 is convinced that the VVD wants to
satisfy the SGP in order to trade support for the coalition in the Senate. […] [On
television] Gerrit
Holdijk of the SGP acknowledged that if the cabinet postpones or disarranges
these kinds of proposals it can count on the support of the SGP, ‘although not
without cause or reason’.”[8]
All in all it remains obscure whether or not such
a trade took place. At the same time exchanging or not isn’t the main point of my
interest even though it is the final outcome of the
question I’d like to discuss here. This question concerns the underlaying
motivation of the SGP. In discussions and parliamentary debates, its
representatives may use common accepted arguments, but what do they really
want? Which lines of action are guiding, them which measures would they like to
implement if they only had the opportunity? Are they wolves in sheep’s clothing?
And if so, is their contribution to the parliamentary debate a violation of the
principle of separation of church and state?
In order to operationalize my question I will
only focus on two particular cases. The first is the one of maximum heights of
minarets as described above, the second is one we haven’t seen before: on November
15, 2011 the Lower House of the Dutch Parliament passed a draft law in order to
forbid public registrars to refuse marrying homosexual couples, since in the
Netherlands homosexual marriage is a legally protected right. The Algemeen Dagblad quoted a comment of Van
der Staaij, saying: “Sad. With the majority of the Lower
House apparently neither the Jewish, nor the Christian tradition are in safe
hands” [9]
One week earlier the city council of The Hague dismissed a registrar who was an
SGP member for refusing to marry homosexual couples.[10]
To begin with, in the second section of this
essay I will briefly characterize the SGP, especially in relation to the cases mentioned
above. It is necessary to examine the principle of separation of church and
state, thus I will do so in the third section. I will give a short description
of the development of the relation between church and state in Dutch history up
to the present. Also in this section I intend to describe what is meant when
one talks about the separation
of church and state in the Netherlands. This last question is
important because of what follows in the fourth section.
In section four I’m planning to give an
impression of the separation of church and state in the United States of America (USA) and to discuss
points of John Rawls’ article on public reason[11] which are relevant to this essay. I will do the
latter emphatically in the context of the for this purpose given description of
the situation regarding church and state in the USA. From there finally I hope
to be able to connect the outcomes of my inquiry thus far with the topic of my
research question in a separate column, accessible to read and understand by
the average philosophy graduate student. In this column I will formulate my
answer to the research question of this essay. The column, although readable as
a standalone text, ought to be read as the conclusion from the preliminary
research and I am planning to support it using briefly summarized answers to
the sub questions as treated in the sections of this essay.
That having been said, I formulate my research question as follows:
Do SGP politicians in
the Dutch Parliament – considering the main insights from The Idea of Public Reason Revisited of John Rawls – act contrary to the principle of separation between church and state when in the parliamentary debate they bring in points of view which are
inspired by and based on their reformed belief?
In order to be able
to give more concrete content to my research I chose two
political points of view of the SGP, defended by them in the parliamentary
debate[12], namely 1.) that minarets of mosques should
have a maximum height and 2.) that public registrars are allowed to refuse to
marry homosexual couples.
In this section I will mainly proceed from two sources of the SGP itself
as to give a brief picture of their underlying principles and I’ll explain why
I think that these principles cohere with their two points of view of my
choice. From there I will be able to specify what I mean with the verb ‘to act’
in my research question, asking whether or not the SGP acts contrary to the
principle of separation between church and state.
For a start the European Court of Human Rights gave an adequate introductory
description of the SGP, which I gratefully accept:
“The SGP is an association under Dutch
law [n]amed
the Reformed Protestant
Party (Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij), hereinafter “SGP” as per its
acronym in Dutch), it functions as a political party.”[13]
“The SGP was founded in 1918 and
has, since 1922, consistently held one to three seats in the Lower House (Tweede
Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament. The SGP is a confessional political party
firmly rooted in historical Dutch Reformed Protestantism.”[14]
The SGP derives her principles from what she calls ‘the infallible Word
of God’, namely the Bible, consisting of the Old- and the New Testament. Besides the Christian bible, the party also
draws from the “Three Forms of Unity”[15]. Her adherence to these three forms
is particularly interesting in relation to the two points of view of her
representatives discussed in this essay because of article 36 from the Belgic
Confession.[16]
The Parliamentary Documentation Center of the University of Leiden explains why
this article is important to the SGP. It concerns the task of the overheid.[17] In 1905
the General Synod of Reformed Churches removed the following words from this
article: “to avert and extirpate all idolatry and false religion, in order to
overthrow the realm of the Antichrist[18]”. The overheid would tolerate the Catholic
church by omitting this clause, which was beyond the pale for the founders of
the SGP.[19]
The SGP strives for a governing of the Dutch people based on the Guidelines God has revealed in the Holy Scripture. One of the ends of the SGP is to reach greater acknowledgement for the principles of the Word of God concerning politics. The overheid is a servant of God, subject to His word and law by which she will be judged. She has to organize society according to the revealed iWord of God. Legislation and administration have to further the preaching of the Gospel and to prevent it from being hinderedThe Church of Christ does not coincide with any union and has to be protected under its own law. Consequently propaganda of lack of faith, false religions and anti-Christian ideologies ought to be excluded from public life. To the overheid all God’s creatures are equal. This does not exclude recognition of differences in geaardheid [20], gifts, talents and calling in society. The overheid must protect the individual and the by God instituted bond of marriage. The overheid governs by the grace of God, so it does not borrow its power from the people. It does however perform its duty under the cooperation of the people, so the overheid ought to promote an organic suffrage, taking into account the family as the cell of society.[21]
The SGP strives for a governing of the Dutch people based on the Guidelines God has revealed in the Holy Scripture. One of the ends of the SGP is to reach greater acknowledgement for the principles of the Word of God concerning politics. The overheid is a servant of God, subject to His word and law by which she will be judged. She has to organize society according to the revealed iWord of God. Legislation and administration have to further the preaching of the Gospel and to prevent it from being hinderedThe Church of Christ does not coincide with any union and has to be protected under its own law. Consequently propaganda of lack of faith, false religions and anti-Christian ideologies ought to be excluded from public life. To the overheid all God’s creatures are equal. This does not exclude recognition of differences in geaardheid [20], gifts, talents and calling in society. The overheid must protect the individual and the by God instituted bond of marriage. The overheid governs by the grace of God, so it does not borrow its power from the people. It does however perform its duty under the cooperation of the people, so the overheid ought to promote an organic suffrage, taking into account the family as the cell of society.[21]
In their 2012
election program[22] the SGP
sees marriage as a lifelong alliance between man and woman, eventually blessed
with children, set and meant by God as the basis of the family, important in
the order of creation, according to which marriage between individuals of the
same gender cannot be what is meant to be.[23] A distorted image of what
a family is, is conveyed when the overheid
perceives every way of living together of adults as a family, for example when
children grow up with two parents of the same gender. Thus ‘homo marriage’ must
no longer be possible and public registrars have full right to refuse to marry
homosexual couples.[24]
The SGP doesn’t
want to lump together all Muslims, although she warns to be cautious. We must
prevent Islamic fundamentalism to grow in Netherlands society. Building of
mosques and minarets must be restrained.[25]
The SGP sees
two forces threatening our democratic constitutional state.[26] First there is lack of
faith:
The
Christian-historical thinking firstly clashes with the doctrines of seculars,
who deform the classical concept of the relationship between church and state
to a separation of belief and society. As if this assumption should be neutral.
Neutrality doesn’t exist. Nobody has a neutral levensbeschouwing, [27]everybody has a view on the
human race and society. The so called choices based on a neutral levensbeschouwing are choices based on a
secular belief. That’s why one cannot enter into the public sphere without
bringing along one’s belief and the concepts based on it.[28]
The problem the
SGP focuses our attention on here is even more complex than it seems at first
glance. Unfortunately there is no opportunity to elaborate on this due to the
limited length of this paper, but the problem in question is related to, or
even entangled with, the Dutch practice of political parties. Indeed our
Parliament, Provincial States and County Councils are representative assemblies
of which all members are chosen by the people, but at the same time the members
we can vote for are mostly listed. It is possible to candidate for a seat in
one of the assemblies as an independent, but practice shows that this is seldom
done, especially when the national Parliament is involved. So candidates are
listed as members of political parties and once they are chosen they represent
their voters in the respective assembly as a member of this or that specific
political party. Hence every political party has its own doctrines expressing
its ideology, comprehensive doctrines (cf. infra) are present in the
composition of the parliament itself[29].
Regarding the point
of lack of faith it is also important to tell that the SGP notes that seculars
react against religions out of concern of them
violating the separation between church and state, often promoted by fear for the Islam – a “just” fear,
according to the election program 2012 of the SGP. The following paragraph addresses
what has been described as the second force we’ve got to resist: “The values of
the Christian beliefs collide with the doctrine and horrific practices of
radical Islam”. Furthermore the Islam is “alien in the Netherlands and Western
culture and not seldom it is hostile towards Christians and Jews with hostility”.
“An increasing visibility of Islam in the public sphere in the Netherlands
fills us with concern.” [30]
What I am about to write now lacks hard evidence, but
in my opinion it is clearly visible that there is coherence between the
“Programme of principles” and the “Election programme” of the SGP on the one
hand and two of their political points of view, defended by them in the
parliamentary debate on the other hand. Namely 1.) that minarets of mosques
should have a maximum height and 2.) that public
registrars are allowed to refuse to marry homosexual couples.
1.) Regarding the minarets. No
names of specific religions are mentioned when there is speech of idolatry and
false religion. The latter ones as well as anti-christian ideologies should be repulsed
from the public sphere. There is only one God and one political powerful holy
book and society should be organized in accordance with it. At one time it was
said that SGP does not want to lump together all Muslims. Several times she
warns against fundamentalist and radical Islam. Fear for Islam is seen as “just”.
Islam is related to intolerance towards Christians and Jews. The Christian (with article) values
collide with radical and horrific Islam. I think do see here a claim for the
“not institutional Christian church” of being unique, while at the same time
Islam is alien in Western culture and mostly to be feared.
Conclusion: when
an SGP council politician asserts that churches do and minarets do
not belong in the countryside of the Netherlands, my presumption appears to be
founded that this is a religious – more specifically speaking a ‘reformed
church’ – point of view expressed in a common, generally accepted way of
speaking.
2.) Regarding refusing
public registrars. The SGP takes differences in geaardheid[31]
into account without specifying what it means. The overheid must protect marriage between man and woman; it is instituted
by God. Marriage between two individuals of the same gender cannot have been
meant. Children who grow up with two parents of the same gender get a twisted view
of family life.
Conclusion: it is a hardly hidden religious –
again: ‘reformed church’ – point of view when giving a reaction to an
obvious majority in the Lower House in favour of forbidding public registrars
to refuse marrying homosexual couples SGP leader Van der Staaij asserts in the
Lower House that it is sad that with the majority of the Lower House apparently neither
the Jewish, nor the Christian tradition are in safe hands.
From here I can specify that
with the verb ‘to act’ in my research question I mean first of all – in
the parliamentary debate – expressing reformed church points of view in a
common generally accepted way of speaking, and secondly – in the parliamentary
debate – expressing points of view in semi- or full reformed church way of
speaking. Both possibilities function in the debate in order to get ideas
turned into policy.
To be capable of answering the
question whether or not the SGP acts contrary to the principle of separation of
church and state, a description of what this principle means is required. It
originated in the region which would later develop in
the Republic Of The Seven United Provinces Of The Netherlands during the
80-years-war (1568-1648) against Spain. Since this is not a historical essay I
will only mention some issues and events in what follows, without describing
them. The purpose of these descriptions is to show that the relation between
church and state in the Netherlands is a dynamic process. A principle of
separation has grown which never became a dogma. When public officials,
politicians or citizens refer to the principle of separation between church and
state they do in fact refer to history until the very moment of referring
rather than to a legal accomplished fact.
Within the Netherlands the
development of relations was complex. First there was the struggle for power
between the provinces and the central government (the States-General).
National theological synods
were assembled, but every time there were provinces refusing to follow, totally
or partly, the national decisions.
Besides that there was the
pluralistic development of the religions. There were Baptists, Biblical
inspired humanistic regents, during one period – mostly puritan – English
refugees who later moved on to the USA, Jewish refugees from Spain and Portugal
and from1648 also from Germany and Poland. There were orthodox Calvinists,
Lutherans and inside the denominations occurring fierce disputes disturbing peace
and agreement. In short, there was no concentration of power and no significant
majority of one single Christian denomination. Amongst all these religious groups the
Reformed Church became the only one officially acknowledged and therefore
privileged, but also controlled by the state(s). One third of the population
was and remained Catholic. “The authorities were soon enough willing to tolerate
it this way, whether or not being paid for it. The privileged church got
annoyed; her theocratic ideal had yet to learn to digest tolerance.”[32]
After the war against Spain
(1648) until 1848 (except for the 13 years of French occupation cf. infra) one
reformed church remained that was privileged by the state and all the others
were tolerated. The authorities financed inter alia restorations of church buildings
and the construction of new ones. On the other hand they had ongoing say in for
example appointments of clergymen and even in “for whom and in which sequence a
preacher had to pray; for Orange, the States-General or one’s own provincial
states”[33] In 1651 the States-General
ordinated the Reformed religion had to be maintained in every province.[34]
“Around the year 1700 inside
almost every group of believers schisms arose or at least contrapositions. In
the privileged church the authorities tried to [appoint lecturers at
universities and preachers in local communities] depending on which regent
families were in charge at the city hall at that
moment.”[35]
Sometimes theological struggles ended up in disciplinary procedures accompanied
by fierce agitation causing publications. The authorities often intervened with
a prohibition of publication.[36] Still in 1773 “all the
provinces together financed […] a new rhyming of the Psalms to be used in the
‘public’ church”[37].
During the occupation of the
Republic of the Seven United Netherlands by French troops, “the new ‘Batavian
Republic’ decided to separate church and state (1796). All inhabitants […]
obtained civil rights. From then on every church had to exist by contribution from
their members[38]”. King Louis Napoleon “redistributed
buildings and goods amongst the church denominations, [so] the ideal of
separation was replaced by control and centralization[39]”.
After the French had left,
King Willem I and his government took control over the churches which were
dependent on government money. “It was a studious attempt to turn churches into
models of quietude and tolerance for the whole people[40]”. Consequently, in 1836,
when there was a segregation within the reformed church, “the government prohibited
their gatherings, had them disturbed, punished with fees, custody and housing
of soldiers[41]”.
But the government had to give up its stubbornness. In fact this was the end of
the license of the state to forbid gatherings of more than twenty people,
preceding the later constitutional freedom of gathering.[42]
With the initiation of the new
Constitution in 1848 churches for the most part were released from supervision
of the state. In 1857 the so-called school struggle commenced when a school law
was submitted in the parliament. It intended to make “the state school more
neutral, but permitted founding of special (religious or non-religious) schools
without interference f the state”[43]. The struggle lasted
until 1917:
The ‘pacification’of 1917 – namely the
passage of Article 23 establishing complete state funding for previously ‘private’
schools with a religious identity while safeguarding such schools’ freedom to
determine their educational content – was the result of long
efforts on the part of orthodox Protestants and Roman Catholics to keep the
state at a distance from a realm, education, that did not in the first instance
belong to it, but to parents.[44]
A period of approximately fifty years after the new Constitution of 1848 was
mainly one of institutional disentanglement.[45] In the first place this
disentanglement was seen as a gaining of more freedom of the churches pertaining
to the overheid, but in the same
movement the overheid became more
independent of its duties pertaining to the churches, for instance privileges were
abolished and salaries of clergymen didn’t have to be paid anymore.
After the Second World War the welfare system was constructed. The overheid got involved in activities that
hitherto had been for a big part the scope of religious and non-religious
institutes and individuals, like education, healthcare and later on also media.
Consequently the overheid and what
had turned out to be their partners in these domains had to deliberate how to
accommodate and divide miscellaneous matters.
Talking about separation between church and state, it is required to delineate
both briefly.
The image of the ‘state’ (overheid)
has always been one of the classical democratic constitutional state, which
defines the formal frames for public decision making. This overheid is the focus and center of justice and policy. Due to social
processes like internationalization, privatization and increasing pluralism
this image is no longer appropriate. Norms are being brought about in
deliberations on a number of levels between overheid
and society. Likewise ‘church’ is no longer what it used to be. For example the
‘law on church associations’ from 1853 contained a list of church associations.
Religion and church were well-arranged and transparent to the overheid. In 1988 this law was
abolished. The overheid did no longer
pay attention for a while to the content of traditional nor extraordinary or
new beliefs. This lack of interest on behalf of the overheid changed, and nowadays it concerns public order. To
illustrate this new kind of interest: the verdict of the Court in ‘s-Gravenhage
in the case of the position and rights of women within the SGP, refers to the
possibility of a precedence for other ‘parties’ to discriminate women on
religious grounds. It states that the State can play a directing role in this.[46] Of course radicalization
of religious beliefs in relation to eventual violence and even terrorism, and matters
concerning social cohesion or unity in society as well, are within the reach of
the attention of the overheid now.
An effect of this new kind of attention and interest of the overheid for religion is its
“disposition of directing and restriction […] Freedom of religion becomes
therewith a complex business, which goes past to simply letting free of
individual religious convictions and giving room to the execution of rituals.[47]
There is no legal separation between church and state or with a more
contemporary expression between religion and overheid on how far interference of the overheid can and may go, but also to what extent secular or
religious motives can or may play a role in politics is not determined.
My conclusion of this little inquiry on the relationship between church and
state in the Netherlands up until now is, that they were and still are, although
in a different way, entangled. ‘Church’ should henceforward be understood as
‘religion’ and ‘state’ or ‘overheid’
does have a different position, most strikingly is that it can no longer be
seen as an isolated institute overseeing and governing everything that goes on
in society. Due to these significant changes it is no longer appropriate to analyze,
interpret, philosophize about or to judge phenomenons in the Netherlands in
terms of ‘separation of church and state’. The separation itself has no other
meaning than that there are no institutional and/or financial connections
whatsoever anymore. What then can be said in positive terms about the actual
separation between church and state in the Netherlands? First of all it is not established
in the Dutch Constitution nor in any other law or amendment. It is a principle
resulting from three Constitutional articles[48]:
Article 1 and 3 concerning the principle of equality:
All
persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances.
Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race or
sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.
All
Dutch nationals shall be equally eligible for appointment to public service.
Article
6 concerning freedom of religion:
Everyone shall have the right to profess freely his religion or belief,
either individually or in community with others, without prejudice to his
responsibility under the law.
Rules concerning the exercise of this right other than in buildings and
enclosed places may be laid down by Act of Parliament for protection of health,
in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorders.
Article 9 concerning freedom of gathering
The right to assembly and
demonstration shall be recognised, without prejudice to the responsibility of
everyone under the law.
Rules to protect health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorders may be laid down by Act of Parliament.
Rules to protect health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorders may be laid down by Act of Parliament.
And furthermore: the overheid and religions both have freedom
of establishment. In jurisdiction the principle of separation of church and
state hardly plays a role.
Rawls’ The
Idea of Public Reason Revisited can be (and maybe should be) read in the
light of the actual existence and historically grown Constitutional and legal reality
of the United States of America (USA).
The First Amendment, added to the
Constitution in 1791 as one of ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights,
opens with the declaration that “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.[49]
This First Amendment was meant to “explicitly
guarantee both full religious freedom and the separation of church and state”[50].
There was and still is a pressing necessity to have this properly arranged in
the USA:
We are a nation of many
religious faiths, and many of us work for a government in some capacity.
Is there any way that religion, and the religiousness of people, can be
separated from government and the role of people in government? Can religion
and government co-exist without crossing over each others' boundaries? What are
those boundaries? What exactly is the separation of church and state?[51]
But […] the adoption of the First
Amendment did not settle the matter. While unequivocally affirming liberty of
conscience as a fundamental private right, it pronounced ambiguously on the
separation of church and state and the relationship between religion and
society. […] [T]o what extent could religious ideas and observances figure in
the conduct of civic life?[52]
This last question has been slumbering ever since and periodically it wakes
from its sleep when in society opposite interpretations of the First Amendment
collide. Thus a series of causes occur and jurisprudence on the subject is
developing to this day. In 1971 the ‘Lemon Test’ was established by the Court.
It is comprised of three cumulative criteria:
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal
or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion;
finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement
with religion.[53]
“This three-pronged test has been used in many cases since it was first
promulgated. Though the Lemon Test is not infallible, it has largely stood the
test of time and is still in use today.”[54]
Whether or not the First Amendment and the jurisprudence thus established
the “wall of separation between church and state”, the well known metaphor from
Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists[55] characterizes the
background of Rawls’ Idea of public
Reason.
I cannot escape the impression that Rawls is deploying this ‘wall’, because
maintaining it seems to be impossible or maybe even contradictory in a constitutional
democratic society where “citizens exercise ultimate
political power as a collective body”[56] and in the meantime those
citizens have “many
religious faiths, and many of [them] work for a government in some capacity”[57]
In the USA a
variety of public functions are open for election, for example (variable from
state to state and from county to county) those of sheriffs, mayors, school
board members, attorney generals, comptrollers and judges. Some figures do speak
of 500.000 chosen public officials. Beside
Constitutional and legal separation between church and state this is another
significant difference with the Netherlands, where we only vote for candidates
on the level of legislative authorities; representatives in the Lower House, representatives
in the Provincial States (and indirectly via the Provincial States the representatives
in the Senate) and at last municipal councils.[58] So, in the USA entanglement
of secular or religious comprehensive doctrines with – on the one hand - not
only on the level of law makers, but also on the levels of the administration
or the executives and on the level of the judiciary and – on the other hand - drafting,
formulating and passing of laws, executing ordinations, regulations, laws and
amendments and the administration of justice, is experienced as a serious
threat.
When a state must keep itself substantively far from religion being a
democracy in the mean time, with citizens who can be believers of secular or
religious comprehensive doctrines having the opportunity both to candidate
themselves for public (state) functions on the levels of legislation, execution
and administration of justice as well as to vote for candidates for these public
functions, how then to achieve an enduring functioning of the state free from
recognizable influence of comprehensive doctrines?
Rawls does not speak in terms of ‘church and state’. In my opinion instead
of ‘church’ he uses the term ‘comprehensive doctrines’ and he emphasizes that
he understands both secular (non-religious) and religious doctrines by it.[59] He also speaks of
“reasonable comprehensive doctrines, religious, philosophical and moral”.[60] However, when he
discusses ‘the state’, he does so in terms of its “discourses”, summarizing
those discourses with the term “the public political forum”[61]. And here we meet Rawls’
deployment, his organization of ‘Jefferson’s wall’. He proposes a special ‘language’,
which he calls “public reason”. The public political forum has to be sterile from
which expression of whatever doctrine and civilians have to help the public
political forum keeping it this way by getting acquainted of what candidates
for whom they are to vote mean when they express themselves in the for them one
and only available and permitted language; public reason:
In a representative democracy citizens vote for representatives – chief
executives. legislators, and the like – and not for particular laws[62]
But how can citizens who are not government officials realize the ideal of
public reason?
[I]deally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes,
supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity[63] they would think it most
reasonable to enact?[64]
These are the two components of what Rawls calls “the ideal of public
reason”. Acting this way citizens do not seduce “judges in their decisions and
especially the judges of the supreme court; government officials, especially
chief executives and legislators; and candidates for public office and their
campaign managers, especially in their public oratory, party platforms and
political statements”[65] yet to use another reasoning
than public reason. The purpose of this all seems to be preventing
comprehensive doctrines to be expressed in laws, execution of laws and Court of
justice. Neither religious nor non-religious citizens can and may expect doctrinal
reasons from the state.
In American jurisprudence there is the ‘Lemon Test’ (cf. supra) to judge afterwards,
amongst others, political behavior of ‘members’ of the public political forum
whether he or she did violate the separation of church and state or not. Rawls
hands American society an instrument to aid them beforehand deploying this
separation which during two hundred years ‘Bill of Rights history’ turned out
to be a stern objective.
In the first section Rawls designs the structure of the normative idea
(idea and ideal) of public reason which applies to the entire state apparatus.
In the second section he expands on the content, which is the third element of
the structure of the idea of public reason “given by a family of reasonable
political conceptions of justice”.[66] The content can differ
but “the limiting features are equal and free citizens as well as the criterion
of reciprocity.” [67]
“Three main features characterize these conceptions. Here I summarize them as
following: a list of basic rights, liberties and opportunities accompanied by
priority to those rights and means for citizens to make effective use of their
freedoms. There is a lot more to say about the ‘building’ Rawls establishes but
that is beyond the scope of this essay. In any case he indicates a framework for
political deliberation. One element though is important to mention. Rawls makes
a distinction between political values and other ones like religious, secular
and philosophical values. In the public political forum only political are
allowed to discuss.[68] In my words this is because
in this stadium on the route of values they are already involved in the process
of legislation and the risk of transforming comprehensive doctrines directly
into laws would be to big; non political values could pass the red line. Rawls
provides the reader with a few examples which I will not depict here.[69] Nevertheless the
underlying motivation or the basis of political values can be (and will be)
found in comprehensive doctrines.
In the third section it becomes clear that what is depicted thus far is the
clear and distinct framework Rawls has to offer. From this point he asks:
How it is possible – or is it - for
those of faith, as well as the nonreligious (secular), to endorse a
constitutional regime even when their comprehensive doctrines may not prosper
under it, and indeed may decline?[70]
Whether citizens for whom this question is relevant like it or not, the
situation in the USA is how it is and Rawls’ framework – entirely, not only elements
of it which fit someone well – is a way to deal with it, not to endorse it. Not
just for the sake of stability; that alone is not enough and certainly not as
long as this stability exists on the basis of wrong reasons. The only good
reason for everybody is therefore “a firm allegiance to a democratic society’s
political […] ideals and values”.[71]
And moreover
[w]e must each give up forever the hope of changing the constitution so as
to establish our religion’s hegemony […] To retain such hopes and aims would be
inconsistent with the idea of equal basic liberties for all free and equal
citizens.[72]
In section four finally follows Rawls’ vision on how secular and religious
doctrines can be introduced into the public political discussion in a
democracy. In his answer to this question he first distinguishes between the
public political discussion and background culture. In background culture
citizens can put forward secular and religious doctrines and discus them
without any restriction, while in the public political discussion this is only
possible to a certain extent, namely until the ‘proviso’ is met. The proviso is
an injunction, an ‘until here and no further’, although it is not rigid and it
is not regulable in advance. Where it is to be met, is depending on “the nature
of the public political culture and calls for a good sense of understanding”[73].
Hence it is likely this can differ from democracy to democracy and it could pan
out differently in the Netherlands where there is no constitutional determined
and juridical developed separation of state and church like in the USA. In ‘the
wide view of public political culture’ citizens have knowledge of the real
motives, the more profound (non)religious roots of each other’s reasonable
political conceptions. These are the “vital basis” of the respective doctrines,
“giving them enduring strength and vigour”.[74] But the proviso has to be
accepted and respected in the end. For Rawls the comprehensive doctrines in
this stadium of a “well ordered constitutional democratic society”[75]
function for citizens involved in the political discussions to be put at stake
in order to demonstrate that these very comprehensive doctrines do not conflict
with constitutional values but on the contrary – when understood correctly –
support and endorse them. Without comprehensive doctrines there is no self
supported underpinning of the constitutional democratic regime by the people.
It comes down to rephrasing the comprehensive doctrines on the level of
legislation, governing and Court of justice. However, when citizens do not have
reasons they are committed to, reasons they live and have lived, from which
they endorse and support the regime, reasons too from which they feel
represented by the regime; as long as this is not the case stability is
threatened. Complete and thorough consent with the regime is required and due
to the fact that citizens give insight in each other’s comprehensive doctrines
and how these doctrines endorse “constitutional essentials and matters of basic
justice” these citizens can – in spite of their potentially opposing or even
conflicting comprehensive doctrines yet “exercise ultimate political power as a
collective body”[76].
Does the Dutch
Reformed Protestant political party SGP exceed the bounds of separation between
church and state when its representatives attempt to realize religious
ends using generally accepted or mere religious arguments in the parliamentary
debate and to be more precise by trying to realize religious ends as such?
In his The Idea of Public Reason Revisited John Rawls discusses this problem
where he calls the ‘bounds’ the ‘proviso’,
and in his terms religious ends can be based largely on ‘sources of not only
religious but also secular non-political motives’ which he calls ‘comprehensive
doctrines’ so let’s see if Rawls can cast light on the matter.
The SGP
reasons that neutral debating doesn’t exist. One cannot enter into the public
sphere without bringing along one’s belief and the conceptions based on it. Conversely
Rawls is very keen on repulsing comprehensive doctrines from the public
political forum.
Using the
term ‘public sphere’ the SGP refers to the Dutch historically developed
practice of negotiation, formally between church and state and contemporarily
between religions, secular philosophies and the state. When a Dutch citizen
appeals on the separation between church and state then he doesn’t refer to an
accomplished legal fact but to good practice.
In the USA,
where Rawls was writing, Jefferson’s ideal of a ‘wall of separation between
church and state’ is supplemented over the years by jurisprudence on the
subject. As if meant allegorically Rawls writes about an ‘ideal of public
reason’. The public political forum has to be sterile from any expression of
whatever doctrine.
Officially
in the Netherlands comprehensive doctrines exclusively reach the legislative
power because citizens – different from the USA – cannot vote for candidates
for the other two powers. This seems easier to oversee but that is not the case
due to party politics. Citizens choose candidates for Parliament who are listed
as members of political parties and once they are chosen they represent their
voters as members of that political party, having its own doctrines expressing
its ideology, so comprehensive doctrines are present in the composition of the
parliament itself.
On the contrary
Rawls calls all three political powers the ‘public political forum’
distinguishing it from public sphere. Within the limiting values ‘equality and
freedom of all citizens and deliberative reciprocity’ the proviso can permeate deeply
into the parliamentary debate but of course has to be respected in the end. Legislation
itself has to be performed in terms of public reason. However, thus a wide
range is provided for (adherers of) comprehensive doctrines. Due to the fact
that citizens give insight in each other’s comprehensive doctrines in
deliberation as well as how these doctrines endorse ‘constitutional essentials
and matters of basic justice’ these citizens can – in spite of their opposing comprehensive
doctrines yet ‘exercise ultimate political power as a collective body’.
In the
Netherlands the principle of separation between church and state actually
refers to an accomplished fact of institutional separation. There are no bounds of legal separation between
church and state which can be exceeded. Well, the SGP does strive for realization
of religious ends using religious and common arguments but they are doing so in
the traditional political practice of the Netherlands. So in the end the SGP does in Rome as the Romans do.
There is
one fly in the ointment though. The SGP does violate a principle if you define
democracy the way Rawls does: ‘the execution of ultimate political power by the
people as a collective body’. The SGP on the contrary states that ‘ultimate
power does not emanate from the people but from God’. If the SGP means this
literally then, in the light of Rawls’ idea of public reason, it disqualifies
itself as a democratic party.
Authors
De Jong, Otto, Geschiedenis
der kerk, Nijkerk: Uitgeverij G.F. Callenbach bv, 1987, eleventh,
improved edition (first edition 1942), 411 p.
Habermas, Jürgen, Between Naturalism and Religion,
translated by Jeremy Gaines,
Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006, 344 p, chapter 5 (original edition: Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion,
Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2005).
Kennedy, James and Valenta,
Markha, “Religious pluralism and the
Dutch state: reflections
on the future of article 23”, in: Van de Donk, W.B.H.J. - Jonkers, A.P. -. Kronjee, G.J – Plum, R.J.J.M. (eds.), Geloven in de publieke ruimte. Verkenningen
van een dubbele transformatie, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006,
p. 337–345.
Rawls, John, “The Idea of
Public Reason Revisited”, The university of
Chicago Law Review
64 (1997) 3, p. 765-787.
Van Bijsterveld, Sophie, “scheiding van kerk en staat:
een klassieke norm in een moderne
tijd”, ”, in: Van de Donk, W.B.H.J.
- Jonkers, A.P. -. Kronjee, G.J – Plum, R.J.J.M. (eds.), Geloven in de publieke ruimte. Verkenningen van een dubbele
transformatie, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006, p. 227-251.
Internet documents
Algemeen
Dagblad , “Kamer steunt motie
weigerambtenaren”,
http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1012/Nederland/article/detail/3034848/2011/11/15/Kamer-steunt-motie-weigerambtenaren.dhtml, (accessed August 1, 2012).
Algemeen
Dagblad, “Haagse weigerambtenaar (SGP) zet
strijd voort”,
http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1040/Den-Haag/article/detail/3035121/2011/11/15/Haagse-weigerambtenaar-SGP-zet-strijd-voort.dhtml (accessed August 1, 2012).
Heyrman, Christine Leigh. “The
Separation of Church and State from the American
Revolution to the Early Republic.” Divining
America, TeacherServe©. National Humanities Center, http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/sepchust.htm (accessed august 16, 2012).
De
Volkskrant , “VVD steunt voorstel
godslastering niet langer: D66 ziet geste aan SGP”,
http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2824/Politiek/article/detail/2435405/2011/05/21/VVD-steunt-voorstel-godslastering-niet-langer-D66-ziet-geste-aan-SGP.dhtml, (accessed August 1, 2012).
Nederlandse
Grondwet,
http://www.denederlandsegrondwet.nl/9353000/1/j9vvihlf299q0sr/vih9dp4hyqv1, (accessed August 16, 2012).
Parlement
& Politiek,
Staatkundig-Gereformeerde Partij (SGP),
http://www.parlement.com/9291000/modulesf/g4xjflqu, (accessed August 5, 2012).
Rijksuniversiteit
Groningen. Politieke partijen,
Algemene Vergadering van de Staatkundig
Gereformeerde Partij - Budding, D.J, Ds., voorzitter - De Boer, A,
secretaris, “Program van Beginselen”, http://www.rug.nl/dnpp/politiekePartijen/sgp/beginselProgrammas/prog00.pdf , (accessed on August 06, 2012).
SGP, “Program van Beginselen”,
http://www.rug.nl/dnpp/politiekePartijen/sgp/beginselProgrammas/prog00.pdf , (accessed August 2, 2012).
SGP
nieuws, SGP – Kolijn, W, algemeen
voorzitter, “Daad bij het Woord. De SGP stáát
ervoor, http://www.sgpnieuws.sgp.nl/Home/Standpunten/Verk_Programma, p10,11 (accessed August 6, 2012).
SGPnieuws, “Tien speerpunten van de SGP”,
http://www.sgpnieuws.sgp.nl/Banners/10_speerpunten, (accessed August 16, 2012).
Walenta, Craig,
“Constitutional Topic: The Constitution and Religion”, U.S. Constitution,
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html (accessed august 16, 2012)
Television program
Knevel, Andries, SGP
wensen in ruil voor politieke steun, NL2 De Vijfde Dag: 19 april 2012,
18 min.
Other sources
European Court of Human
Rights, Third section. Decision.
Application no58369/10.
Staatkundig Gereformeerde
Partij against the Netherlands. Sitting on 10 july 2012 as a chamber composed of
Josep Casadevall, President, e.a.,
p.1.
[2] Kees van der Staaij is member of
the Lower House (Tweede Kamer) of the Netherlands Parliament from May
19, 1998 and political leader of the SGP from March 27, 2010.
[3] Bart Jan Spruyt is a historian who
at the moment the present television program was broadcasted worked as a
columnist for the weekly magazine Elzevier.
In the latter case Spruyt said: “Van der
Staaij begrijpt dat dit soort eisen die vooral op ethisch en religieus vlak
liggen pas zin hebben wanneer je als partij in de lift zit en maatschappelijk
de wind mee hebt. Daar
is geen sprake van.”
[6] A Dutch liberal political party.
[7] Another Dutch liberal political
party.
[8] ANP/Redactie, “VVD steunt voorstel godslastering niet langer:
D66 ziet geste aan SGP”, De Volkskrant
May 21, 2011, http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2824/Politiek/article/detail/2435405/2011/05/21/VVD-steunt-voorstel-godslastering-niet-langer-D66-ziet-geste-aan-SGP.dhtml
(accessed August 1, 2012). “De
VVD heeft haar handtekening weggehaald onder een wetsvoorstel dat zij eerder
samen met D66 had ingediend om godslastering niet meer strafbaar te stellen.
[…] D66 is ervan overtuigd dat de liberalen hiermee de gunst van de SGP willen
verwerven in ruil voor steun aan de coalitie in de Eerste Kamer. […]
Gerrit Holdijk van de SGP erkende [op televisie] dat als het kabinet dit type
voorstellen uitstelt of ongedaan maakt, het op de steun van de SGP kan rekenen,
'maar niet klakkeloos.'
[9] Redactie Algemeen Dagblad, “Kamer steunt motie
weigerambtenaren”, Algemeen
Dagblad November 15, 2011, http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1012/Nederland/article/detail/3034848/2011/11/15/Kamer-steunt-motie-weigerambtenaren.dhtml
(accessed August 1, 2012). The original Dutch quote of Van der
Staaij: 'Triest. Bij een Kamermeerderheid is kennelijk noch de joodse, noch de
christelijke traditie in veilige handen'.
[10] Redactie Algemeen Dagblad, “Haagse weigerambtenaar (SGP) zet strijd
voort”, Algemeen Dagblad November 15, 2011, http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1040/Den-Haag/article/detail/3035121/2011/11/15/Haagse-weigerambtenaar-SGP-zet-strijd-voort.dhtml (accessed August
1, 2012)
[11] Rawls,
John, “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”, The university of Chicago Law Review 64 (1997) 3, p. 765-787.
[14] Ibid. p. 2.
[15] Loc. cit., where in a footnote is added: “The
“Three Forms of Unity” were adopted as statements of doctrine by the Synod of
Dordrecht in 1618-19. The Belgic Confession was originally written in 1561 and
summarises the Reformed Protestant faith in terms of the teachings of the
reformer John Calvin (1509-1564). The Heidelberg Catechism, which dates from
1563, is a Reformed Protestant catechism in question-and-answer form. The
Canons of Dort (or Dordrecht) are a five-point statement of dogma laid down by
the Synod itself in response to Arminian, or Remonstrant, teaching which is
dismissed as heretical. All three remain to this day reference documents of
churches of the Dutch Reformed tradition, in the Netherlands and elsewhere
(e.g. in Germany, North America, South Africa).”
[16] The SGP Program van Beginselen (Program of Principles), article 1, written
in the year 2000, states that the party does stand firm on this article 36 of
the Belgic Contession. On the internet site of the SGP there is a link to the
Program van Beginselen, but the link does not work. I was able to trace the
program on the internet, directly on the site of the Rijks Universiteit
Groningen and on the site of the same university, but via The Parliamentary
Documentation Center of the University of Leiden. The link is: http://www.rug.nl/dnpp/politiekePartijen/sgp/beginselProgrammas/prog00.pdf (accessed August 2,
2012)
[17] There is no equivalent for this Dutch
notion in English. Since it has an authentic meaning, differing from the
meaning of words like ‘the state’, ‘the government’ and ‘politics’ for which
Dutch language has its own words, I will use the original Dutch notion
‘overheid’. Here and now I define it shortly according to an online dictionary
as ‘the state as an organization’, http://www.woorden.org/woord/overheid (accessed August 5, 2012).
[18] 'om te weren en uit te
roeien alle afgoderij en valsen godsdienst, om het rijk des antichrists te
gronde te werpen'.
[19] Parlement & Politiek,
Staatkundig-Gereformeerde Partij (SGP), http://www.parlement.com/9291000/modulesf/g4xjflqu,
(accessed August 5, 2012)
[20] This is the notion used in the original text,
but it is not clear – even in Dutch – what is meant by it. It can refer to
character, to nature and eventually also to sexual orientation.
De Boer, A, secretaris, “Program van Beginselen”, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Politieke partijen, http://www.rug.nl/dnpp/politiekePartijen/sgp/beginselProgrammas/prog00.pdf (accessed August 06, 2012). This is a translated and excerpted rendering of the
articles 1,2,3,4,6 and 8 (a selection out of 32). One remark on the translation: ‘power’ in ‘the overheid does not borrow its ‘power’
from the people is a translation of the Dutch word ‘gezag’ which can also be
translated as ‘authority’. In the context though ‘power seems to be more
approptiate.
[22] SGP – Kolijn, W, algemeen voorzitter, “Daad bij het Woord. De SGP
stáát ervoor!” SGP nieuws, http://www.sgpnieuws.sgp.nl/Home/Standpunten/Verk_Programma,
p. 10,11, (accessed August 6, 2012).
[23] Ibid. p. 10.
[24] Loc. cit.
[27] Dutch untranslatable notion,
meaning something like: ‘body of beliefs or principles belonging to an
individual or group, providing existential and coherent thoughts, feelings,
experiences and the like concerning the meaning of life’
[28] SGPnieuws,
“Tien speerpunten van de SGP”, http://www.sgpnieuws.sgp.nl/Banners/10_speerpunten, (accessed August 16, 2012).
I translated for better and for worse: “Versus
ongeloof het christelijk-historische denken botst allereerst op het denken van
doctrinaire seculieren, die de klassieke opvatting over de verhouding van kerk
en staat vervormen tot een scheiding van geloof en samenleving. Alsof deze
opstelling neutraal is. Neutraliteit bestaat niet. Niemand heeft een neutrale
levensbeschouwing, iedereen heeft een bepaalde visie op mens en samenleving. De
zogenaamde keuzes op basis van een neutrale levensbeschouwing zijn keuzes op
basis van een seculier geloof. Daarom kun je je niet in de publieke ruimte
begeven zonder je geloof, levensovertuiging en de daarop gebaseerde opvattingen
mee te nemen”.
[29] Not to mention other phenomenons:
our prime minister who is not (directly) chosen as such but who is a political
party member; political party member majors appointed by the queen; the same
goes for judges of the Raad van Staten, our Court for State cases and last but
not least non chosen party member ministers of the cabinet.
[30] Ibid. p. 5.
[31] cf. p. 6, (footnote 20).
[32] De Jong, Otto, Geschiedenis der kerk,
Nijkerk: Uitgeverij G.F. Callenbach bv, 1987, eleventh, improved edition (first
edition 1942), p.225.
[33] De Jong, Geschiedenis der kerk,
p. 265.
[34] Ibid., p. 268.
[37] Ibid., p. 272.
[38] Ibid., p. 315.
[39] Ibid., p. 315, 316.
[40] Ibid., p. 316.
[41] Ibid., p. 218.
[42] Article 9 of the Netherlands
Constitution is one of the three on which the principle of separation of church
and state is founded. Cf. also p. 12 of this paper.
[43] De Jong, Geschiedenis der Kerk, p.
324.
[44] Kennedy, James and Valenta,
Markha, “Religious pluralism and the Dutch
state: reflections on the future of article 23”, in: Van de Donk,
W.B.H.J. - Jonkers, A.P. -. Kronjee,
G.J – Plum, R.J.J.M. (eds.), Geloven in
de publieke ruimte. Verkenningen van een dubbele transformatie, Amsterdam:
Amsterdam University Press, 2006, p. 337–345.
[45] Van Bijsterveld, Sophie, “Scheiding van kerk
en staat: een klassieke norm in een moderne tijd”, ”, in: Van de Donk, W.B.H.J.
- Jonkers, A.P. -. Kronjee, G.J – Plum, R.J.J.M. (eds.), Geloven in de publieke ruimte. Verkenningen van een dubbele
transformatie, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006, p. 227-251. Remark: In what
follows about separation between church and state I render, but do not cite her
text as far as it is relevant for this essay.
[46] Rechtbank ‘s-Gravenhage, uitspraak 7 september 2005, as cited by Van Bijsterveld,
Scheiding van kerk en staat: een
klassieke norm in een moderne tijd.
[47] Van Bijsterveld, Scheiding van
kerk en staat: een klassieke norm in een moderne tijd, p. 244.
Original Dutch text: “Een neiging tot sturing
en beperking komt dan mogelijk ook in beeld. Vrijheid van godsdienst wordt
daarmee een complexe aangelegenheid, die aan het beeld van het eenvoudig
vrijlaten van individuele religieuze overtuigingen en het bieden van ruimte
voor het uitvoeren van rituelen voorbij gaat.”
[48] Nederlandse Grondwet, http://www.denederlandsegrondwet.nl/9353000/1/j9vvihlf299q0sr/vih9dp4hyqv1,
(accessed August 16, 2012).
[49] Heyrman, Christine Leigh. “The
Separation of Church and State from the American Revolution to the Early
Republic.” Divining America,
TeacherServe©. National Humanities Center, http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/sepchust.htm (accessed August 16, 2012).
[50] Ibid.
[51] Walenta, Craig,
“Constitutional Topic: The Constitution and Religion”, U.S. Constitution, http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html (accessed August 16, 2012).
[52] Heyrman,
The Separation of Church and State from
the American Revolution to the Early Republic.
Heyrman
also writes: “Today those questions loom large in the United States, as
controversies rage over prayer and the teaching of evolution in the public
schools, the posting of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, and the launching
of “faith-based initiatives” by the executive branch”.
[54] Ibid.
[55] Heyrman, The
Separation of Church and State from the American Revolution to the Early
Republic.
Interesting
is to note what Heyrman writes about this letter: “[I]n 1998, an FBI laboratory
analysis revealed what Jefferson had omitted from his first draft in the course
of composing his final draft. Those now-recovered deletions have convinced some scholars that
Jefferson’s main motive in writing to the Danbury Baptists was to outfox his
Federalist political opponents, who charged him with being “a howling atheist,”
rather than to articulate his intellectual convictions about the separation of
church and state”, and also what she memorizes on the discussions related to
the matter and its implications for the controversy among scholars, jurists,
and politicians regarding the impregnability of this ‘wall’.
[57] Cited above: Walenta, Constitutional Topic: The Constitution and
Religion.
[58] Also our representatives in the European Parliament, but in
this context I leave the European context out of consideration. Another remark:
there is one exception: in one occasion we do vote for non-legislative
officials, namely the members of the Waterschappen,
who are entrusted with water management.
[60] Ibid. p. 766.
[61] Ibid. p. 767.
[62] Ibid. p. 769.
[63] On the criterion of reciprocity Rawls writes on
page 770: it “requires that when (…) terms are proposed as the most reasonable
terms of fair cooperation, those proposing them must also think it at least reasonable
for others to accept them, as free and equal citizens, and not as dominated or
manipulated, or under the pressure of an inferior political or social
position”.
[66] Loc. cit.
[67] Ibid. p. 774. See also footnote 63.
[68] Ibid. p. 776, 777.
Rawls
writes: “The political values of public reason are distinct from other values
in that they are realized in and characterize political institutions. this does
not mean that analogous values cannot characterize other social forms. The
values of effectiveness and efficiency may characterize the social organization
of teams and clubs, as well as the political institutions of the basic
structure of society. But a value is properly political only when the social
form is itself political: when it is realized, say, in parts of the basic
structure and its political and social institutions.”
[69] Ibid. p. 778, 779, 780.
[70] Ibid. p. 781.
[72] Ibid. p. 782.
[73] Ibid. p. 784.
[74] Ibid. p. 785.
[75] Ibid. p. 765.
[76] Ibid. p. 770.
