I wrote a few weeks ago about James L’Empereur’s argument that we as gay and lesbian Christians have special spiritual gifts which we need to share with the wider church, but did not elaborate then on quite what they were. One part of that is a greater ability on our part to move beyond simplistic, dualistic ways of looking at the world. The Church draws hard distinctions between male and female, between sex for procreation and total abstinence, between an ordained ministry and a subordinate laity. We know differently: gender is not uniquely determined by biological sex, nor is it fixed and immutable. This is a big topic, which I will be returning to soon (after I have explored some examples from other cultrues and times. There is method here, in my madness). But first, an example of the advantages of moving beyond dualistic thinking from the world of british politics.

For an outside observer, the tragedy of the American political system is that the two party structure , aggravated by the primary system, means that far too often it ends up as a struggle fro dominance between two groups talking past each other, with little potential to find real common ground. It is a purely adversarial system, in which “you win” is equated with “we lose” - and so each side fights for its own patch by seeking to destroy the other. Here in the UK, the Westminster system is not much better: although there is a significant third party and some notable others even smaller, the Liberal Democrats are often dismissed as insignificant just because they have no chance of forming a government. However, with the increasing prospects, even a probability, of a hung parliament, this could soon change - and I presonally welcome the possibility.

The election date has not been been officially declared, but the campaign effectively kicked off last week when the Chancellor of the Exchecquer delivered his annual budget: the statement of government plans for spending and taxataion. Last night Channel 4 television hosted a debate between the Chancellor and the finance spolesmen for the two leading oppopsition parties, George Osborne for the Conservatives, and Vince Cable for the Liberal Democrats. This in itself is new, and a sign of already how things are changing: this election, for the first time, the BBC will be screening live television debates between the party leaders, and all three leading parties will be included. An article in Ekklesia describes clearly how this has shifted the nature of political discussion from an adversarial one to a more constructive search for common ground, in whcih Vince Cable, representing the third party, took on a starring role as mediator. This was just one debate - but if we do indeed find ourselves with a hung parliament, it could be the pattern of things to come for a long time yet: one of the immediate results will be a demand for elctroal reform, reducing the built in bias against smaller parties of the first past the psost, winner takes all structure we have at present.

And if a permanent three party system, with no single one able to dominate, is the result, forcing the aprties to work together in co-operation instead of unalloyed competition, I for one would welcome it.

Here is the key portion of the analysis at Ekklesia:

And many of these people will not have failed to see how the dynamic of debate was changed by the presence of a skilled mediator in the form of Vince Cable.

Some commentators are lamenting that there wasn’t a punch up. The political system, and indeed the commentary that surrounds it, is based on an adversarial model. Even the voting system makes no allowance for those who don’t come first. There are only ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ under first-past-the-post. Those who back a loser have their opinions discarded.

But such an approach is ill-suited to TV debates like the one we saw last night. Neither is it helpful in analysing a three (or more) party system, and certainly with the prospect of a hung Parliament which would rely on coalition, consensus building, cross party work and bargaining.

Brown urged voters a few weeks ago to have a long hard look at the Tories, and then take a second look at Labour. But the electorate are also having a long hard look at the prospect of no overall majority. And the more the polls hang around hung Parliament territory, the more they will consider what this might mean, and who has the character and skills for dealing with such a context.

Last night, Cable came across as having far more authority than the other two candidates. Not just because he seemed to know more about what he was talking about, but because he took on the role of mediator. This may or may not have been a ‘win’ in the conventional sense. But his presence certainly challenged the adversarial system, and publicly showed that there was another way of doing politics - something Lib Dems struggle to do in the House of Commons where their words are, quite literally, shouted down. Both Osbourne and Darling without their parties there beside them, clearly sensed this - as did the studio audience, and no doubt many watching at home.

Some MPs, perhaps also sensing this, immediately started to seek to undermine the authority that Cable carried with him. They, with others, are pursuing the usual line that he can say what he likes, because he will never have to follow through in Government. In short he can’t ever really be a ‘winner’. But in the context of the prospect of a hung Parliament, that argument itself begins to look naive.

The Guardian agrees:

The single most striking thing about the chancellors’ debate, however, was that it was a genuine three-way contest. Parliamentary debates maintain the pretence that we still have only two parties. But that’s not true. We have three — and more. The presence in the debate of the Liberal Democrat Vince Cable changed the dynamic from the old Labour versus Conservative slanging match to something more nuanced, more problem-orientated and more truthful. It was striking too that Mr Cable and Mr Darling banded together more often against Mr Osborne than Mr Cable and Mr Osborne did against Mr Darling. There is a reminder there of something important about British politics generally — that this is not overall a centre-right country. In yesterday’s debate the centre of gravity was on the centre-left. That is an accurate reflection of the country too, even now.

Now, what would make me really happy, would be to see the British parliament forced into this tyoe of three way co-operation permanently - and the Catholic cabal of cardinals also move beyond the “Them and us” mentatlity to a genuine partnership in ministry.

[ad#In- post ]