Can We Heal Our Divisive Politics?
Commentary by Pete Haug
Of all men the most negligent is he that disputeth idly and seeketh to advance himself over his brother … Let deeds, not words, be your adorning. — Baha’u’llah
It’s been nearly two weeks and the last shoe hasn’t dropped. Not all political skirmishes are decided. Georgia’s senatorial runoff remains, vitriol still flows and counting continues, with one Congressional race headed for a recount.
Also being tallied are 2022 election expenditures, estimated to exceed $16.7 billion, “the most expensive midterm in U.S. history.” Of that, five Senate races accounted for “nearly $1.3 billion.”
Might that money have been better spent on schools and hospitals, health care for the indigent and infrastructures to support public transport and crumbling highways?
Flawed though it be, it’s among the best.
In our zero-sum political system, winners take all. It pays to invest in politicians who further our own interests, often at the expense of others. Ironically, our system of governance is among the world’s finest. For a couple of centuries it’s set the gold standard for emerging democracies worldwide. And that’s what’s scary.
We can, we must, do better. The beauty of our system is that most adults can vote. Exceptions exist, some legitimate, some not. Race-based obstacles to voting, such as gerrymandering and other restrictions, disenfranchise voters. But far too many voters simply neglect to exercise their constitutional right. It’s been barely a century since women — half our population — attained national voting rights. My parents witnessed that event. That’s only two generations ago.
Since then, after a slow beginning, women have risen, first gradually, then more rapidly, to ever-higher political positions. With that rise, increasing numbers of women from a variety of minorities have taken their places in halls of political deliberation.
Signs of progress are clear, but is it enough? Male or female, political bickering and jockeying for position continue. Yet, differences of opinion are not only legitimate. They’re essential for reaching balanced, just outcomes. So, how can we ensure that deliberations, embracing all viewpoints, converge on decisions equitable for all? And how do we do it without falling into a “them-versus-us” trap?
A way forward
In the 19th century, Baha’u’llah introduced consultation. His son ‘Abdu’l-Baha called it a guard “against ill-feeling or discord,” which are detrimental to reaching amicable decisions: “The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.” He wrote that members of Baha’i deliberative bodies “must take counsel together in such wise that no occasion for ill-feeling or discord may arise. This can be attained when every member expresseth with absolute freedom his own opinion and setteth forth his argument. Should anyone oppose, he must on no account feel hurt for not until matters are fully discussed can the right way be revealed.”
When that “spark of truth” shines, members vote on a decision. “If after discussion, a decision be carried unanimously well and good; but if, the Lord forbid, differences of opinion should arise, a majority of voices must prevail.” Among prerequisites for such deliberations are “absolute love and harmony among the members” of the deliberative body.
How likely, in our zero-sum age of one-upmanship, is such a thing to happen? Turns out, very likely, though currently on a miniscule scale.
Since ‘Abdu’l-Baha wrote those words in the early 1900s, a system of amicable collective decision-making has spread across the globe. On every continent, from remote indigenous grassroots areas to teeming metropolises and nation-states, a global system of governance has arisen, using the principles explained above.
For example, in Baha’i elections every voter, guided only by prayer and her or his conscience, casts a ballot for those best qualified to serve. Electioneering doesn’t exist. Even discussing candidates is forbidden because it can involve gossip and backbiting. Voting rests solely on individuals voting their consciences. Those elected are well known and highly respected.
In small communities, hand-counting ballots isn’t a problem. Where needed, electronic voting assures that only eligible names appear. At all levels — local, national, and global — governing bodies number nine. Those bodies oversee Baha’i communities within their respective jurisdictions. The Baha’i Faith’s international governing body, the Universal House of Justice in Haifa, Israel, is elected by members of national governing institutions worldwide.
How widespread is this?
Numbers are hard to come by, but Wikipedia reports, “on the basis of information received from Bahá’í communities across the world, and on reputable external sources,” the current estimate for the number of Bahá’ís worldwide is “about eight million,” and Bahá’is reside in “well over 100,000 localities.”
In a world harboring eight billion, this is a mere drop, but it’s a unified drop. This system works with marvelous impact throughout the world. Generations of Baha’is are offering it as a model for those choosing to experiment. Speaking personally, I’ve found it a worthwhile choice over the past six decades.
