Bahá’í World/Volume 7/The Non-Political Nature of the Bahá’í Cause
THE NON-POLITICAL NATURE OF THE BAHÁ’Í CAUSE
BY EMILY M. AXFORD
Read at the second Bahá’í Convention of the Bahá’ís of Australia and New Zealand held in Sydney, April, 1937
THE non-political nature of the Bahá’í Cause and the duties and responsibilities involved is one which requires understanding and delicacy in presentation. It comes as somewhat of a shock to even the older Bahá’ís to realize that participation in party politics, which to many has been in the nature of a religious duty, is altogether undesirable in the present stage of the evolution of the Cause. In the past we have, perhaps, disregarded the subject, and since 1929 when Shoghi Effendi made it a matter for special consideration, many of us were still not ready and willing to study the nature of his instructions and the principles underlying them, but preferred to walk along the accustomed path and use our own judgment in the matter of supporting and working for the political party which seemed to coincide with our own ideas. The time is overdue for us all to carefully examine the position and see how far we are willing to render complete obedience in cooperating with Shoghi Effendi for the promotion of the Cause. This obedience need not be blind, but rather a conscious grateful cooperation when the matter has been clarified by consultation as to its underlying principles. The Cause is nonpolitical in the same sense as it is non-sectarian. It is a religious movement but it pays no allegiance to any existing religion or sect of religion. The word politics has come to be associated with party factions and is seldom used in its true meaning of concern with those measures which are national in character as distinguished from civil or municipal.
The Bahá’í Cause stands aloof from all party factions, but its teachings make for changes in laws and institutions which are the inevitable result of the practical application of Bahá’í Administrative principles. These will come into existence as the new civilization gradually unfolds, and it is only in this broad sense that the Cause has any interest in politics, i.e., what concerns the welfare of the State. We believe, do we not, that ultimately the government shall be "upon His shoulders”? This surely means that the new world order, envisaged by Bahá’u’lláh, will be built upon the principles of oneness and justice which are the foundation teachings of His Cause. This will naturally entail changes in the constitution of governments.
Let us ask ourselves the question, is there
any political party or system of government
in any country today which we can
unhesitatingly support as being
in conformity with
these root principles? Many take the
attitude that half a loaf is better
than none, and
feel justified in supporting any political
party or organization which advocates any
Bahá’í principle. Why continue to support
a system which the Bahá’í state will
supersede, and why concern
ourselves with half measures when
we have that which holds the
key to the whole problem of righteous
government? In "Bahá’í News,” December,
1932, is Shoghi Effendi’s postscript
to a letter to the American N.S.A.
in which he says: "The Bahá’í Faith
as it forges ahead throughout the
western world and particularly in
lands where the political machinery
is corrupt and political passions
and prejudices are
dominant among the masses should
increasingly assert and demonstrate
the fact that it
is non-political in character, that it stands
above party, that it is neither apathetic to
national interests nor opposed to any party
[Page 794]
or faction and that
it seeks through administrative channels
rather than through diplomatic and
political posts to establish beyond
the shadow of a doubt, the capacity, the same
patriotism, the integrity and high
mindedness of its avowed adherents.”
This is the general and vital principle.
Our obvious duty, it seems to me,
is to use our energies in
promoting a more widespread knowledge of
the Bahá’í movements for sectional reforms
to those who do not know of or cannot adopt
the whole Bahá’í program.
In “The Golden Age of the Cause of Bahá’u’lláh,” Shoghi Effendi stresses the point that the time is now ripe to emphasize increasingly the instruction regarding nonparticipation by adherents of the Faith either individually or collectively in any form of activity which might be interpreted as an interference in the political affairs of any particular government.
This instruction raised the important question whether the act of voting in the normal pursuance of the function of citizenship should be considered as participation in political matters. The matter was referred to the Guardian. Reference and instructions have appeared in various numbers of “Bahá’í News” from time to time and especially in 1933, but the very latest appeared again in February this year (1937). It appeared also in the January, 1934, “Bahá’í News” together with other excerpts from the Guardian’s letters, and is as follows: "The friends may vote, if they can do it without identifying themselves with one party or another. To enter the arena of party politics is surely detrimental to the best interests of the Faith and will harm the Cause. It remains for the individuals to so use their right to vote as to keep aloof from party politics and always bear in mind that they are voting on the merits of the individual rather than because he belongs to one party or another. The matter must be made perfectly clear to the individuals, who will be left free to exercise their discretion and judgment.” You will notice this instruction bears date February this year, so until a further instruction is given we may exercise our votes in government elections if we so desire, but the consideration we give to the matter must be on the merits and capacities of the individual candidate. This you will notice is according to the principle underlying all Bahá’í elections.
Now, does this mean that we are free to support publicly by electioneering addresses, canvassing, or any other method any particular candidate, no matter what party he or she belongs to? The answer to this, I think, is emphatic “No,” because it contravenes every principle of Bahá’í election methods. No one should try to persuade another to vote for any one, our own judgment and belief in guidance when we truly seek it are at the root of a correct vote being cast. The next difficulty is, may we support in the same way an independent candidate who is attached to no party? Again I think the answer is "No,” because, although such candidates personally are not in entire sympathy with any party, yet they seek membership in a system of party government with which the Bahá’í teaching is entirely at variance. Another point which the N.S.A. of America has elucidated is that "The instruction not to take part in political elections leaves us free to vote in any election where the various political parties have combined upon one candidate or one ticket.” This I take it refers to a national government such as England and New Zealand had during the war.
Just here I may perhaps be forgiven for bringing to your notice the instruction that messages from the Guardian conveyed by individuals are not to be regarded as authorities. His instructions are issued to us through the N.S.A. which is the only authorized medium.
When the government is formed Shoghi Effendi makes it abundantly clear that it is the duty of Bahá’ís to demonstrate their unqualified loyalty and obedience to whatever is the considered judgment of their respective governments (“Golden Age,” p. 16). This, I take it, means that Bahá’ís do not commit themselves to any policy that could be interpreted as "agin the government,” that they should not assist by word or deed any political candidate of any party, that they should not affiliate with societies or organizations which have for their object the breakdown of the existing government. He goes further than this and says (“Golden
Bahá’ís of New York in observation of the Day of the Covenant, November 26, 1937.
Age,” p. 16), “Let them refrain from associating themselves . . . with the political pursuits of their respective nations . . . the policies of their governments and the schemes and programs of parties and factions. In such controversies they should assign no blame, further no design and identify themselves with no system prejudicial to that world wide fellowship which it is their aim to guard and foster. . . . Let them rise above all particularism and partisanship, etc., which engage the attention of a changing world.”
A word of warning is necessary here for we must not infer that we make ourselves a close corporation, cutting ourselves off from other progressive movements. In February, 1933, in a Teaching Committee report we read: "Bahá’ís should keep in touch with those progressive groups whose principles are in accord with the Bahá’í principles. In each city if one Bahá’í could keep in contact with the people of capacity in each progressive and universal group, numerous doors would be opened for Bahá’í service. Social service agencies and workers are almost always prepared soil for the seeds of the New Life.”
In the December, 1932, number is an article giving 7 summarized points. Some of these I have already dealt with. I will briefly refer to the others.
1. Recognized believers shall not run for any public office as Candidate of any political party, nor take part, directly or indirectly, in the promotion of any party or party platform.
2. Political issues of a partisan character shall not be discussed at Bahá’í meetings.
3. Recognized believers shall abstain from affiliation with movements of a radical and disruptive character, whether avowedly political in nature, or, while non-political in name, advocating social changes that presume partisan political action.
4. Bahá’ís are loyal to the government of their country and will obey the laws of that government. An example of this was afforded by the Bahá’ís of Russia, who submitted unreservedly to grievous interference with their administrative work by the Soviet government.
5. Believers who speak on Bahá’í
platforms shall refrain from making negative
and critical statements about any particular
government or national policy. The great
importance of this instruction can scarcely
[Page 796]
be appreciated by us
who live in free democratic countries,
but contravention of this
can and has led to serious results in some of
the eastern countries. Then the matter of
misrepresentation from outside sources. A
concrete example of the importance of this
issue was afforded by the persecutions of
Bahá’ís in Constantinople, in 1932.
Shoghi Effendi cabled the following appeal to the N.S.A. of America: “Bahá’ís (of) Constantinople and Adana, numbering about forty, imprisoned, charged with subversive motives. (I) urge (you to) induce Turkish Minister (in) Washington (to) make immediate representations to his government (to) release (the) law-abiding followers (of this) non-political Faith. Advise also National Spiritual Assembly (to) cable authorities (at) Angora, and approach State Department.”
The Bahá’í citizens referred to were imprisoned by the Turkish government on the charge that they were members of a movement intended to carry on political intrigue —charges no doubt instituted by Muḥammadan sources. “In less than two months after the N.S.A. published its statement on the non-political character of the Bahá’í Faith, its members were called upon to appeal and intercede on behalf of their suffering brothers in a far-distant land. This instance surely reminds us in a most emphatic manner how essential it is to cast aside all provincial limitations, all traditional values, and assert our devotion to a Cause whose vision includes mankind.” (“Bahá’í News,” February, 1933.)
The last instruction reads: "Every local Spiritual Assembly shall be responsible for the carrying out of these instructions by the believers in their respective communities. Local membership lists shall include only the names of those believers who faithfully preserve the non-political character of the Faith.”
But if a certain person does enter into party politics and labors for the ascension of one party over another, and continues to do it against the appeals and warnings of the Assembly, then the Assembly has the right to refuse him the right to vote in Bahá’í elections. It must be remembered that the quality of sympathetic understanding with which a local spiritual assembly approaches its task of explaining a new instruction makes a vast difference in the response the community will make. The Cause of Bahá’u’lláh has no arbitrary commands—every positive teaching and instruction coming from its spiritual centre carries a divine blessing which makes obedience not blind and meaningless but an act of devoted faith fulfilling our individuality.
In conclusion let me read to you the Guardian’s cablegram which appeared in "Bahá’í News,” May, 1933:
Dear and prized co-workers:
The handling of this delicate and vital problem regarding non-participation by Bahá’ís of East and West in political affairs, calls for the utmost circumspection, tact, patience and vigilance, on the part of those whose function and privilege it is to guard, promote and administer the activities of a worldwide ever-advancing Cause. The misgivings and apprehensions of individual Bahá’ís should be allayed and eventually completely dispelled. Any misconception of the sane and genuine patriotism that animates every Bahá’í heart, if it ever obscures or perplexes the minds of responsible government officials, should be instantly and courageously dissipated. Any deliberate misrepresentation by the enemies of the Cause of God of the aims, the tenets and methods of the administrators of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh should be vigorously faced and its fallacy pitilessly exposed. The Cause to which we belong stands on the threshold of an era of unprecedented expansion. Its problems are many, divers and challenging. Our methods and ways of approach must likewise be characterized by unusual sagacity, consummate skill and wisdom. He will surely never fail us in meeting the needs of a critical hour.
Haifa, Palestine.
March 16, 1933.
To the National Spiritual Assembly.