Government: Democracy and Collaboration

Fr. Chrys Finn asked me to offer some reflections on the theme of "Government: Democracy and Collaboration". I will take the liberty of seeking inspiration in the Bible to talk about realities which, at first glance, originate in extra-Biblical areas.
 

Democracy or "Koinocracy"?
 

At the Commemorative Congress for the 25^th anniversary of the periodical Concilium, in Louvain in September 1990, I took the risk of suggesting that we explore the concept of "koinocracy", instead of democracy in Christian religious parlance. I did so for the following reason:
 

Democracy, a Form of Government
 

Democracy is a concept, a system and a praxis born in Ancient Greece and taken on by various peoples for the government of societies. As a social system and form of government, democracy is based on certain presuppositions and on an ethic that excludes the intrusion of the gods and the dictates of religions. Societies make their own rules and laws based on a maximal participation of the people and of the citizen in the exercise of political power for creating and organising laws. As a concept and praxis, democracy is characterised by complete autonomy vis-à-vis religion. Democracy evolves as a complex system; it is perfectible, in its own logic.
 

It's true that in history, religions, and especially Christianity, have either influenced, or hindered, or favoured the political exercise of democracy. They took sides for or against regimes based on democracy, allying themselves with monarchical governments and structures, with despotic or tyrannical ones. The history of Europe shows us that up until the French Revolution, and even afterwards, the Catholic Church has traditionally supported autocratic monarchies and feudal institutions; consequently, powers with little respect for human liberties were legitimised. And the Church developed an allergy to democratic forms of government. But it would be simplistic and unfair to oppose Christianity and democracy. The tradition of our Order is example enough.
 

"Democratic" Tradition in the Order of Preachers
 

With the well-known texts of the Belgian sociologist Léo Moulin, and with recent studies on legislation in the Order of Preachers, it is generally agreed that Dominicans constitute the most democratic of ancient orders in the Church. In a conference entitled A Democracy in the Middle-Ages: the Order of Preaching Friars, Fr. Pierre Abéberry showed precisely how remarkably original the democratic structure, praxis and spirit that characterised the Order from the start, were among ecclesial institutions. He notes thus that: "this Dominican democracy has been working for eight centuries. It would seem that in the field of politics, it has made an impression on the constitutional charters of certain modern nations." And Léo Moulin to express his admiration of the democratic system of the Order in the following excerpt from his book La Société de demain dans l'Europe d'aujourd'hui:
 

It's hard not to feel admiration before this cathedral of constitutional right that is Dominican legislation (·). We are in the presence here of authentic democracy, where those who are governed are given more power, or more opportunity to express their will, than those who govern (·). There is 2-way motion, a constant going up from the base to the head and passing by all the ranks in-between, then a falling back down from the head to the base. Thus is the simplicity of centralising systems as far away from us as the perils of anarchy.

There's no point in begging the question. We're all convinced, and quite rightly proud, of the fundamentally democratic character of our institutions and style of life. So much so that we feel called to propose it as a model for the whole Church, or even the whole world. Fr. Abéberry concludes his article with a passing reference to Church and European institutions: "Even within a strongly centralised form of Catholicism, Dominican democracy still offers today a possible other model of ecclesial functioning, where participation and co-responsibility are highlighted (·). Who knows? We could become a source of inspiration for a Europe that is seeking itself."
 

There Are Questions·
 

In practise, questions arise about how the Order works today, or about the pertinence of one or the other practise of our institutions. For example: how far can one go in respecting liberties, autonomies and differences? Aren't majorities sometimes tyrannical, don't they practise exclusion? Do minorities always get fair consideration? Doesn't a fundamental equality of persons and rights lead to egalitarianism, to the levelling out of relationships and to carelessness in behaviour? Does co-responsibility really inspire solidarity and collaboration? What do we do when faced with paralysed situations, or institutionalised delays, or manipulative lobbying and pressure groups? What about the use of sanctions that appear to respect personal liberty but are also protectors of institutional integrity and identity? What does formal precept mean today? What are its repercussions? In this age of globalisation, how can we avoid making a General Chapter seem like a parliament cut off from its base, worlds apart from the human and religious situations in the field?
 

Our Institutions' Roots in the Gospel
 

Faced with these questions and with the shortcomings of institutional practises of the Order, we need to launch the surpassing of democracy by going back to the Gospel roots of our common life. Our communities, and the Order in general, isn't the sum of democratic gatherings that follow rules and laws made for human projects of conviviality and of world conquest. The Rule of St. Augustine sets the tone of the exact nature of our institutions when he starts his rule with "First, that you dwell together in unity in the house and be of one mind and one heart in God, remembering that this is the end for which you are collected here." For Dominic, the Vita Apostolica's primary characteristic is koinonia, such as put together by the Apostles, with the strength of the Holy Spirit, after Pentecost: " The whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul·. All who believed were together and had all things in common·." (Acts 2 and 4).
 

The Rule of St. Augustine, the Fundamental Constitutions, the Preambles to the Book of Constitutions, and the Acts of the General Chapters, all constantly remind us of the Gospel roots of our institutions, especially of our form of government. We might have a tendency to forget a certain number of basic truths essential to Dominican existence and growth of koinonia. I'd like to underline just three:
 

The Spirit is Author and Permanent Source of Dominican Koinonia
 

The Fundamental Constitution clearly states that As in the Church of the Apostles, so also among us communion is founded, established and strengthened in the same Spirit (Fund. Const. 3 § 1). Our common life and our Mission, both born of prophetic and apostolic tradition, bear the seal of the Spirit whose first charisma is the charisma of koinonia.
 

Dominican tradition would that every major action taken by a chapter should be preceded by an invocation or by a Mass of the Holy Spirit. This practise should be more common in our elective and deliberative assemblies, so that we don't forget the place and role the Spirit plays in Dominic's project and in the Order's continuous faithfulness to this project. When we break into verbal (physical?) abuse in a Chapter, when our conflicts seem ready to shatter koinonia, why not revive the presence of the Spirit for the community? Or rather, inversely, why not follow the example of the Apostles who never made any decisions without the help and authority of the Spirit? Our Chapters could then dare to use the expression, in all truth and responsibility, as did the Apostolic assembly of Jerusalem: "It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us·." (Acts 15:28).
 

I believe that one of the principal causes of the malfunctioning of our institutions is to be found in the "Spirit deficit" that characterises a number of our assemblies; a lack of vital reference to the necessary presence of the Spirit who alone can lead our deliberations and debates to the whole Truth, in koinonia. Fraternal sharing of possessions, and the exchange of ideas, happen when the Spirit is invoked and welcomed. The practical rules of democratic functioning and government must seek support in this primary reality, the foundation of Authority's service and of Obedience's availability.
 

Koinonia is based on Co-responsibility
 

Two passages from the Old Testament illustrate the fundamental reality of co-responsibility which characterises koinonia: In the well known episode in the Book of Numbers (Nb. 11: 16-17), God gives this order to Moses: "Gather for me seventy of the elders of Israel·. I will take some of the spirit that is on you and put it on them; and they shall bear the burden of the people along with you so that you will not bear it all by yourself." The co-responsibility exercised by Moses and the seventy elders at the head of the people has its source in the sharing of the Spirit, whose unity is signified by the fact that it is taken from the Spirit that is upon the head of Moses. All communicate in the same Spirit, formerly given to Moses; all participate collegially in the government of the people. The episode in which Eldad and Medad receive the same Spirit, even though they remained outside the camp, leads to this splendid prayer of Moses in the cry: "Would that all the people of Yahweh were prophets, and the Yahweh would put his Spirit on them!" (Nb. 11: 26-30).
 

This wish will be taken up again, in echo, by Joel in prophetic form: "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh: your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female slaves, in those days, I will pour out my Spirit." (Jl 3: 1-2)
 

These two passages of the Old Testament illustrate the way in which the People of God is called to govern itself: in a spirit of co-responsibility, i.e. of communion in the same Spirit, Source of all power, of the participation of all in the life and in the growth of the whole, of harmonious sharing of responsibilities. In the New Testament, neither the power of keys (Mt. 16: 19), nor the practice of the Apostles incline to an autocratic concentration of the power of government. Everything, on the contrary, invites to the exercise of co-responsibility at all levels, without hierarchic confiscation of the common Good of the Spirit, poured out on young and old, on women and men, on important people and on servants (cf. Joel).
 

In the Order, our constitutions and capitular practice ceaselessly arouse us to the exercise of this co-responsibility. Very early, each one discovers that he is, by full right, a subject and a fully-fledged member of the entire body, and that "as many, in the diversity of gifts and roles, we form one body" (Rm. 12: 5). But often, in practice, co-responsibility is not understood or exercised in an adequate way, either through lack of sharing of responsibility by those who are officially invested with it, or by the lack of participation on the part of other members of the community or Province.
 

This can be explained in two ways: on the one hand, despite the constitutional barriers placed on the exercise of power, there is sometimes a great temptation to drift towards an authoritarian position and a solitary exercise of power within our institutions. It is imperative that, at the mid-point of the mandate, there should be a true and fraternal check on the government of priors of our houses and Provinces so that necessary correctives can be made and the required amendments can be suggested.
 

On the other hand, chapters and councils can likewise succumb to the temptation to function as closed circles protected by in camera secretiveness. Today, particularly, the necessity of the widest and most regular possible information is felt at all levels of deliberation and decision taking. The indifference and disaffection of the brethren with respect to the Acts and decisions of Provincial and General Chapters comes, in large part, from the deficit of information, which characterises the functioning of our assemblies. Concerning particularly the General Chapter, we are forced to recognise that the great majority of the brothers are scarcely interested in it for the simple reason that they are associated neither in its preparation, nor in the course of its work, and even less in the direction it takes and the decisions arrived at. Many regret that General Chapters concern themselves more with questions of routine than with the true challenges of the hour, and that it is not possible to communicate in advance to all the brethren the major questions to be discussed, so as to encourage the working out of more consensual decisions. It would, perhaps, be profitable for all if, one year in advance, the result of the work of different commissions of the Order on the major questions of Dominican life and mission were communicated to all the brethren for their information, for their suggestions and amendment. On the other hand, in the day of the fax and the Internet, the secretariat and the press committee of the Chapter could publish each week, for the duration of the capitular assembly, news of the Chapter in the form of communiqués addressed to all the brethren. Finally, would it not be possible at the end of the Chapter--without waiting for the publication of the Acts, which few of the brethren subsequently read--to make a clear and succinct résumé of the principle decisions and directions taken by the Chapter, a résumé addressed without delay to all the brethren? It is certain that many difficulties and problems met with in the exercise and practice of co-responsibility are caused by a lack of information and communication between the brethren and those who are involved in government.
 

Concerning, still, the exercise of co-responsibility in the working of capitular assemblies, a particular question, already raised in the past, touches the composition of chapters in houses of formation. There, because of their number, young brothers in formation, who have an active voice, can constitute a majority in decision taking and governing. This can sometimes affect or paralyse the orientations and decisions of the house or even of the Province. An automatic majority is, of course, in the line of democracy, but not always in that of koinonia. The result arrived at by the application of the single rule of democracy (one man, one vote), does not take account of the disparity of experience and of prudential judgement of those voting. Should we, then, have recourse to the House Council as to a senate of wise men? This risks making it a counter-power, against and superior to the instance of the Chapter--and this is not in conformity with the spirit of our laws. The question and the difficulty remain. It is a question, then, of finding a way of working suitable for the Chapter--in this case of the studium and of centres of formation.
 

It must, finally, be noted that the concept of the welfare state, the origin of so much passivity and irresponsibility among citizens, seems sometimes to be transposed into our houses or Provinces. The long years of formation during which father-masters, regents, priors, provincials and other "superiors" have provided for the education and advancement of a brother, do not seem always to have caused and promoted in him a developed sense of his responsibility with respect to the whole. The common good remains a notion without a face, and we willingly rely on "superiors" for its promotion and safekeeping. This creates, at once, a patriarchal and welfare vision of authority and a passive and legalist concept of obedience. This also requires examination and revaluation.
 

Koinonia Open to Collaboration and Solidarity
 

Let us finish these reflections with a brief reference to what is, nevertheless, an important aspect of Dominican koinonia: it involves us in collaboration and solidarity.
 

If we look at the democratic structure of the Order, we risk underlining more than is reasonable the autonomy of persons and entities. Koinonia requires openness, collaboration, solidarity. Openness to the needs of the weakest (it was as inspired by koinonia that the apostles organised the placing in common of goods, and that Paul organised a collection for the benefit of the communities in Palestine): the need for material support, the need for personnel, support or assistance of every kind.
 

The requirement of collaboration between houses or entities, exchanges of brethren, of information, of services. The national or regional structures of collaboration are precious instruments of koinonia, on condition that they work well. Thanks to Inter-Africa, for example, Dominican Africa has consolidated itself and has become, in the space of a quarter of a century, a vibrant and viable reality.
 

Finally, koinonia promotes solidarity in the pursuit of unity of heart and the construction of fraternity: a diversity of persons, cultures, contexts, opinions, commitments, but communion in brotherhood. Perhaps we have to promote this solidarity more today in turning the page on a past which was not free from oppositions, quarrels, rivalries and sometimes of anathema between provinces. It is not necessary to transmit to the young generation this heritage which perpetuates prejudice and destroys solidarity. Openness and collaboration between provinces beyond historical and juridical frontiers should be promoted by all means, beginning in the period of institutional formation.
 

Conclusion
 

What is to be said in conclusion? Democracy or koinocracy? The reply is quite simple: democracy and koinocracy. The two orders must be respected and we must go beyond them (to effect an Aufhebung, the German philosophers would say) in a way that makes us pass perpetually through one regime towards another, that draws its principles and requirements from the Gospel. We must, however, underline that government of the community by itself (koinocracy) is brought about by the tending of all towards one end: apostolic unanimity, communion (koinonia) for mission.

© 1998 Orden de Predicadores Capítulo General, 1998 Site de Internet por Scott Steinkerchner OP   con transducores Marcelo Solorzano y Silvia Bara correo electrónico: steinkerchner@op.org