Why Participation in Politics Should be Valued.

by Mike Preston

In the last edition of Incite, Charles Grover, Michael Ondaatje, Michael van Maanen and Stephen Barton, provided a somewhat cynical overview of Guild politics. In this Reply, Political Science Honours Student and Guild Councillor, Mike Preston springs to the Guild's defence.

If a person works, even if a person devotes a small portion of their life to charitable work, we are inclined to praise that person.

If intentions are worthy (toward a common good), if sacrifices are made in good faith, at personal expense (be it time, resources or opportunity), then it would seem that a person has done good, and is praiseworthy.

If, however, a person dedicates their life to political works, even a small part of their life, it seems that the inclination is more towards scorn or derision. This maxim applies equally to all levels of political participation; from federal parliament to our own local, garden variety Guild council.

So, why the difference? What is it about political participation that produces a reaction so at odds with that evoked by charitable participation? I believe that although there are differences, they do not warrant the sorts of attitudes towards politics we see in the media, or for that matter on campus.

There are a number of things that make involvement in charitable work a good thing, which can be divided into two broad categories. These two categories could be labelled external and internal goods.

External goods are those which have a value regardless of the character of the person doing them. In terms of charity, this is reflected in two ways. Firstly, charities do work for the common good, aiming to contribute in some way to the welfare of the broader community. They won't necessarily always succeed in this; after all, nothing is perfect. Regardless, charities are institutions designed to bring about common good ends. Secondly, charity is about helping the vulnerable. Charity just doesn't apply where its beneficiaries are perfectly capable of advancing or protecting their own interests.

Internal goods reflect the goodwill of the person doing the charitable work, rather than any particular impact it has on the community. So people who work not out of self-interest, but rather out of a concern for others are worthy of some praise, even given disagreement about the values for which they work. A second part of the idea of internal goods is that the charitable person, in working towards these unselfish goals, sacrifices something of their own for the common good. This sacrifice doesn't have to material (although it often is), it can be things as simple (and as valuable) as time or opportunity. A person who makes personal sacrifices for what they think is right shows a genuine, rather than merely convenient, concern for the good of others.

I have argued for what I hope are two relatively uncontroversial justifications for considering charitable involvement to be praiseworthy. The question now is, in what ways does political participation meet or miss these criteria? Can these ideas of internal and external goods be applied to political institutions (like the Guild) and the people who make them work?

How might involvement in the Guild constitute work towards a common good, for the welfare of the broader community? The answer can be found via a straightforward examination of the sort of services and activities that couldn't exist without the Guild. Many functions of the Guild are plainly designed to work for the benefit of students, things like education advocacy and the representation of students to the university, government and broader community. There is no logic of internal benefit for the Guild in the provision of these services; they are justified purely on the basis of the achievement of common goods.

So the Guild, a political institution, satisfies this first criterion for moral worth - it does contribute to a common good through at least some of its services. I would argue, however, that even the more inward looking activities the Guild helps provide contribute to a vision of a common good- that of the university as a community, rather than a mere site of information transaction. Sure, not all activities will appeal to all people, and to the extent that any student is excluded from the university community the Guild has work to do in reforming and improving itself and the work it does. But when it gets down to it, the more activities the better, in bringing together people on campus, both in having a good time and in the pursuit of non-academic learning, every student having something to teach the other.