Conservatism vs. Christian Democracy

The rise and popularity of Christian Democratic parties on Continental Europe since the close of the Second World War shows them to be markedly different to the Conservative political tradition.  Not only are they ideological and ethically driven, unlike the careful and sceptical nature conservatism, but their resurgence and recent successes can be traced to a hardening of principles and deliberate attempts to forge a distinct identity of their own against a backdrop of major parties weakening their stances on either side of parliament and slide closer and closer together into insignificance.  As parties of the centre, their broad ranging support and membership and their socially compassionate and open policies have been confused with ‘catch-all’-ism but their enormous popularity derives more from their uniqueness and relevance than it does from their agenda.

“The sheer existence of these parties, which stand at the intersection of religion and politics but thrive in secular and liberal societies, raised important theoretical questions about the relationship between politicised religion and democracy.  While Christian Democratic parties are unquestionably secular their pre-war predecessors emerged as Confessional parties.”[1]

          Attempts to form religious parties before the 1860s inevitably ended in failure because they lacked the support of the Church.  Removed from religious activity by the hierarchical structure of their faith, Catholics saw religion as belonging to a separate sphere of human existence to the worldly exploits of political workmanship.  Whatever political push and shove the Church decided it needed to exercise, it did so through the “discrete lobbying of ministers on specific concessions to the church.”[2]  The mobilisation of the laity into active groups was plainly avoided by the religious leadership.  However, by the second half of the nineteenth century, religious institutions across Europe saw their powers and influence drained by the Liberal statesmen and climate which hawked the political skies.

          The first wave of Liberal attack was responded to by Church recognition of the many Catholic organisation popular in civil society at the time and as diverse as bible study groups, bachelor associations and devotional societies.  The official recognition of these organisation helped foster a Catholic identify and culture which, it was hoped, would prepare the flock to weather the recent assaults on the faith until the Liberals waned.

          No such relaxation came, however, and with an escalation of Liberal pressure, the Church was forced into an awkward corner.  It would either be forced to compromise its authority to the Liberals or further politically mobilise the laity.  It feared that by doing so its hierarchical structure would be weakened by pressing demands for autonomy on behalf of the lay groups, already in many cases “giving directives to bishops, provoking frequent complaints from the episcopate.”[3]  Instead, a reluctant coalition was formed with conservatives under a ‘religious defence’ ticket.

          The electoral strength of the coalitions surprised all involved but Conservative parties were unwilling to adopt Catholic ideologies permanently, which Catholics activists soon demanded in exchange for continued support.  To the Conservatives, the partnership was only a temporary vote winning strategy devised inorder to turn the Liberal threat into a captive electoral market of Catholic support.  Organised Catholics, however, would no longer accept their marginalisation within politics at the hand of their clergy.

“Conservatism is not a theoretical ideology but a practical attitude which is sceptical of full blown ideological theories.” [4]

          Clerical opposition to the formation of politicised Christian organisation cannot be understated, during inter-war Germany and Austria the Church even willingly participated in the destruction of the Confessional parties.  It has been said that the conflict between Christian Democratic parties, on one side, and the institutionalised Church, on the other, that the existence of a real political alternative to traditional sources of morality has added to the gradual secularisation of Western Europe and the increasing irrelevance of the Church[5] – so much do biblical lessons and parables play a defining role in forming Christian Democratic ideology.

          Reflected through the four guidelines of the Dutch Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) Parties’ ‘Programme for Points of Departure’ (1979), the bibles’ role is not a mere ‘dash of Christian gravy’ but the true standard against which all policies must be measured.  The four pillars of solidarity, stewardship, shared responsibility, and justice embodied within ‘Points of Departure’ are generally representative of Christian Democracy globally.

          The first of these pillars, solidarity, is highlighted clearly through Christian Democratic alliances across the continents within one body, the International, and the commitment of Christian Democratic parties generally to a mood of federalism – such as the European Union or the North American Free Trade Association – and borrows itself to issues of international concern brought under the second point for departure, that of stewardship to the environment.  When the Lord created us, they argue, he appointed us Stewards of Creation, a responsibility Christian Democrats do no lightly over-look.

          The foundation for the third policy guide stems, not only from religious texts, but also from the roots and histories of Christian Democratic parties outlined above.  As Confessional parties united by faith and ethics rather than political of economic concerns, Christian Democratic parties were built from many stones, spanning from the landed right to the agitated workers of the left, and because of this a need for mutual reliance and responsibility was nurtured.  Still today, the Workers and Employees League (the OeAAB) and the Business League (the OeWB) of the Austrian People Party (the OeVP) must reach agreement together for their mutual benefit and are divided over issues such as pensions, property rights and state intervention.

          The principles of shared responsibility also manifests a divide line between Conservative, Liberal, Christian Democratic, and Socialist parties.  It asserts that we exist not as individuals but as members of separate but inter-linked communities, whether they be occupation, address, church or so on these communities carry with them many ranging but equally valid ethics and values.  The concept of shared responsibility is directly contrary to the structured social order of Conservatives and in particular the ‘I-culture’ or ‘me-culture’ of the Liberal manifesto, but more interestingly it differs from socialism with regard to the idea of what the community is.  Christian Democrats say that the state as one community is a false ideology, its enormous size is far too alienating and there exists too many different sections of community to be at one with itself.  Instead, the state is a grand collection of many similar but disparate communities working together in synergy, each with responsibilities to each other for a secure social justice.

          As the final pillar of ‘Points of Departure’, justice under Christian Democracy is one of positive rights.  Freedom brings with it obligations and it is the role of government to create a system under which the interchange of rights and obligations can work effectively.  The clearest example of this meaning of justice put into practice are the obligations which land ownership is associated and the forceful opposition of the Austrian OeVP to property speculation which it sees as anti-social and a means by which the dominant in society may exploit the weak.  The OeVP does not oppose private ownership, infact it praises it as the true meaning of freedom, but emphasises that every members of society is entitled to an equal measure of ‘freedom’.

“In the end what [Christian Democracy] calls for with its vision of the responsible society is nothing liees than a revolution in attitudes, a moral revolution, running right across society at all its levels and all its branches.”[6]

          Christian Democracy as an ideology of the centre, and one not espousing radical social reform but rather a gradual change in opinion and attitudes, can often be mistaken for a centrist brand of Conservatism but there exists three fundamental differences between the two traditions.

          The first, that Christian Democrats are drawn broadly from across social and political lines into a great conglomerate of communities is a defining attribute of the nature of Christian Democracy.  Even the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU), while at times being accused of being fashioned as nothing more than a grand “vote-gathering machine”[7], is still a confederation of local conservatives, business-men and workers.  The presence of such a broad ranger of interest within one party ferments an ideology capable of understanding every facet of political life.

          The second difference between the two paths is that of party structure.  Christian democracy emphasises enormous decentralisation of governmental powers.  A government, the espouse, should never encroach where private activity can do as well, if not better.  However, they are quick to retort that governments should be more than a mere ‘night-watch man’, mutely ensuring that everything is okay.  Governments, they say, should take a pro-active approach to the supply of services and to the assistance of the needy in society – it is too dangerous, they say, to rely on the charity of private individuals alone.

          This attitude towards decentralisation and self-reliance also encourages within Christian Democrats a great fear of becoming a ‘cadre party’, run from the top and alienating its membership and communities, and contrasts with Conservative feature of strong leadership and rule from above.

          The third and final contrasting feature of Christian Democracy to Conservatism is that not only do Christian Democrats emphasise a vibrant social and political agenda based on religious and natural morality and their texts but also that they have benefited across the continent by reinforcing those essential principles while Conservative parties have tended to become more and more indistinct.  “The danger for Christian Democratic parties long in power, especially in coalitions, is that they allow their image to become blurred.”[8]  As a characteristic of Christian Democratic parties, this can be attributed to the recent electoral losses for the German CDU and why the Dutch CDA, since amalgamation and writing ‘Points of Departure’, together with the Austrian OeVP have benefited from a restructuring and sharpening of their images.

A .doc format copy of this document is available at this location.