Andrew Sorokowski's column

Bishops, Voters, and America’s Orange-Haired Revolution: Thoughts for Ukraine

01.12.2016, 09:38
If a supposedly advanced democracy like the United States could not field candidates enjoying broad popular support, could it be done in Ukraine’s corrupt and cynical political culture?

If a supposedly advanced democracy like the United States could not field candidates enjoying broad popular support, could it be done in Ukraine’s corrupt and cynical political culture?

Should the church influence elections? What may, or should, the bishops and the clergy say about them? Should citizens vote in accord with the church’s teachings?

In Ukraine, opinions on these matters differ widely. Although its political and electoral system is very different, the United States’ recent presidential election provides food for thought.

In a surprise result, unabashedly boorish businessman Donald Trump, drawing on widespread discontent with liberal Democratic Party policies and working-class economic stagnation, beat the well-financed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump won despite receiving fewer votes. This is because U.S. elections are not direct. They are decided by the Electoral College, which currently consists of 538 electors drawn from the states and the District of Columbia. In fact, the electoral vote does not take place until mid-December. But as of this writing, it appears that Mr. Trump will receive 306 electoral votes – well over the 270-vote majority required to win -- while Mrs. Clinton will receive 232. But in the popular vote as determined so far (there is some recounting), Mrs. Clinton received about 48.2% of the votes cast (some 64 million votes), while Mr. Trump received 46.5% of votes cast (about 62 million votes). Yet it is significant that there were 232 million eligible voters, of whom only about 58% cast votes for president. In fact, more eligible voters did not vote for president at all (some 42%) than voted for either candidate: only approximately 27% of the eligible voters supported Donald Trump, while only about 28% of the eligible voters chose Hillary Clinton. In other words, neither candidate had the support of anything close to a majority of American voters.

How did religious believers vote? According to exit polls, 58% of Protestants and other non-Catholic Christians supported Donald Trump, with 39% favoring Hillary Clinton. White Evangelicals and “born-again” Christians supported Trump over Clinton by an even greater margin of 81% to 16%. But Jews, members of other religions, and those of no religion overwhelmingly supported Mrs. Clinton. Catholics were close to the middle, with 52% for Trump and 45% for Clinton (“2016 Election Exit Polls,” Washington Post on line, 9 November 2016).  

Were Catholic voters influenced by their church? Catholic clergy are not allowed to advocate any particular party or candidate. They are expected to comment only on the issues, leaving the faithful to vote according to their conscience. But in the U.S., some Catholic bishops have appeared to favor the Republican Party. Some have even been accused of implicitly favoring Donald Trump. The bishops’ emphasis on the issue of abortion has been interpreted (perhaps unfairly) as an attack on Hillary Clinton, who favors it. A pre-election video that made the rounds of the internet featured a Catholic priest arguing that no Catholic may vote for a candidate who advocates abortion. But another video showed a priest pointing out that there is a variety of moral issues, and that a Catholic should vote according to his or her conscience. In any case, it is difficult to say whether American Catholics voted “as Catholics” or not. But there is anecdotal evidence (in op-ed columns and internet discussions, for example) that many Catholics voted not so much for one of the candidates as against the other: “anyone but Trump,” or “anyone but Hillary.”

Why was that? Let us imagine that the U.S. Catholic bishops drew up a list of election issues, prioritizing them by importance: for example, “life” issues such as abortion, war, and capital punishment, followed by socio-cultural issues such as family, sex and marriage, or socio-economic ones such as equal employment opportunity, immigration, housing, and medical care. Each issue would be followed by a summary of the church’s relevant teaching. Let us imagine, further, that parallel columns would briefly list the positions of each political party on those issues. Voters could then compare the platform of each party with Catholic teaching. If this had been done in the recent election, it would have been clear that neither major party platform resembled Catholic social doctrine. Nor would the Green or Libertarian party platforms reflect Catholic positions. In fact, only the marginal American Solidarity Party, which consciously follows Christian Democratic principles such as subsidiarity and distributism, could be said to have deserved a truly Catholic – arguably, a truly Christian – vote. Given that most Americans did not favor either the Democratic or the Republican candidate, and in view of the persistence of at least a residual Christian culture in their country, it is not implausible that with a fair election campaign focused on the issues, a centrist party following broad Christian Democratic principles could have obtained enough votes to prevail.

Could such a party win in Ukraine? A Christian Democratic movement was attempted, and failed. But there is no apparent reason why it could not succeed in the future. What if Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox bishops and clergy instructed their faithful to follow Christian teaching in voting? Of course, that would require an electoral system where political parties and candidates offered detailed platforms, seriously intended to carry them out if elected, and were called to account if they did not. It would require well-informed and responsible episcopates and clergy prepared to discuss major public issues in an intelligent and intelligible manner, without endorsing specific parties or candidates. And it would require voters prepared to consider the issues in the light of Christian conscience, rather than simply voting for attractive candidates with glowing promises of prosperity.

If a supposedly advanced democracy like the United States could not field candidates enjoying broad popular support, could it be done in Ukraine’s corrupt and cynical political culture, where the notion of public service is considered laughable? Probably not. But those willing to work for a future with meaningful elections and representative results must start by imagining it.

Andrew Sorokowski

Recent columns