PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2362, 1 June 1899, Page 58

PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

PARTY GOVERNMENT AND THE REFERENDUM: A CONTRAST. Some time ago I referred to a Review

article which states that the present tendency is for Parliaments to place power in the hands of Cabinets, each of which is in turn largely under the thumb of one man, I who can work weal or woe at will, though in theory the nation thus controlled is governed by democratic principles. We are now coming to the annual Parliamentary palaver when pages of our papers will be filled with the usual political drivel containing an appreciable percentage of mud-slinging and lie-mongering. Our i politicians, scenting the coming election, are developing an exiiberant verbosity. By-the-bye, do you know what that mad genius Swift said of voluble speakers? " The common fluency of speech in many men and most women is owing to a scarcity of matter and a scarcity of words ; for whoever is master of language, and has a mind full of ideas, will be apt in speaking to hesitate on the choice of "both ; whereas common speakers have only one set of ideas, and one set of words to clothe them ( in, and these are always at the moiith." And -why are they so talkative? Partly because talk is a necessity of Party Government, which makes most politicians humbugs ; and for this we are to blame. We call ourselves democrats, and then thrust on our representatives the responsibility of thinking for us in matters of common interest. These repx'esentatives are fabled to be a sort of selfless collective beings voicing the opinions of those they represent. Are they? Do not most of them make use of the electors to ascend to higher heights? Do not most of them promise anything at the hustings? And if they do, are they not as likely to betray the Rectors in turn when- heads of parties or worldly interest make it worth their while to do so? And I haven't they done so? ] Isn't it about time that we did aAvay with ■ Government' and Opposition giving each I other the lie direct, and playing battledore an.l shuttlecock with the affairs of the counj try? At present the game of politics is | like strife in our law courts, with its Lduality of plaintiff and defendant. Political discussions, instead of being an honest expression of differing opinions, become a ' competition in which two sets of sophi&ts ! refuse to see anything good in their opponents. Oughtn't we to insist that political parasites should be beheaded metaphorically ; that every citizen should have the right to submit projects of law to his fellow citizens independent of Parliament, and that the majority of citizens should have the right of accepting or rejecting projects of law? In other words,- ought -we not to wipe out Party Government and 'substitute the compulsory and the initiative Referendum? If we were to institute this reform, the exaggerated statement of Carlyle, that L the practice of modern parliaments with rej porters sitting among them and millions of ''tools listening, would cease to be quoted, because no longer effective. Under present conditions we ai'e, under the delusion that because a government is representative it is free, and a true reflex of public opinion. It is both to the extent j that we are willing to be governed by laws made by £roxy ; but at the same time it puts rather a low estimate on our intelligence, and on the value we put upon our political rights." At best, Party Government is progress by spasmodic and zigzag rushes, producing an infinite amount of frictioSi and loss of power. ! In obedience to the will of a leader, memj befs of a party cast votes in direct opposi1 tion to their own clear ideas, and show a [ degree of servitude that no worthy man can bear to submit to, and that no leader ought ■ to he so senselessly tyrannical as to impose. I How can earnest men with a true conception of patriotism come to heel in obedience j ! to the whistle of a whip? Yet we know j j men follow the whip every session elsewhere and here. Party Government does not even allow free discussion; for wouldn't, a man be accounted a traitor who criticised as freely as he wished his own party's mea- | sures? Weren't men excluded from Govern- | ment caucuses last session because they . wouldn't come to heel with ready obedience? I Again, when t.hall we resent the stupidity of expelling from office those whose labours are honest and efficient and of substituting others who have no practical knowledge, simply because one party goes out and another comes in? Isn't it absurd? We turn i out good men, offer premiums for lying, j for hiding the truth, and for absolute onesidedness, and call it politics and Government! Witness the speeches of the last month. Some of the speakers must be awful liars if all reported was said ; and, of course, reporters don't lie. They would hear of it quickly enough if they did. A close observer of politics at Home has said that the General Election appoints the Premier who appoints the Cabinet ; and that, though the Cabinet may be directly opposed to the people, the people cannot exercise the right of veto. The Cabinet, however, can dissolve the Parliament appointing it ; it can act, but not be acted upon. This, no doubt, is put in an extreme manner ; but exaggeration is sometimes required to drive a truth home. Another man, an acute parliamentary critic, has declared thai Pai'liaments are fast becoming a mere court of registration for Cabinet me? sures ; and that Party Governj ment differs little from oligarchy, except iin duration. Now, what we want is a Par- j j liament that shall honestly mirror the mind iof the nation. If the unnatural restraints , of paily were removed, the honest opinion ■ of _ the Parliament could be taken on every opinion brought forward ; and the result would be that worthless proposals intended 3 j merely as vote-traps in view of elections j I "would promptly receive their quietus. No • measure would block any other, and our legislation would be a faithful reflex of public opinion. Froudc has no patioace fyilb e«r vrewnt

method of law-making. "May the devil fly away with Party Government," writes he. " You are in the rapids in a two-oared boat, and your idea of managing it is to pull one oar desperately and then the other, or to back water with one while you pull with the other." Is he far out?

Mind, I am not necessarily attacking our present Government more than the Opposition. It is the system which is no part of the British Constitution that I am attacking. Cabinets, the outcome of Party Government, have no legal existence ; but, as you know, were used as a device by William 111. Having answered their purpose, however, they should as the representatives of parties give way to some other form of executive more in conformity with the universal franchise we now enjoy. Now, you have known, for some years past, what I would like to see substituted, and that is the Initiative and the Compulsory Referendum in operation in Switzerland, or a modification to suit local circumstances. If the Cabinet is an unconstitutional body, the effect of which is to stultify responsible government and to render democracy impossible, the Referendum is just as nearly the ideal and constitutional method of making a democracy a possibility.

I have by me while I write a couple of articles taken from a Home paper, and in one t*he Swiss Referendum is referred to in nothing but superlatives, . I haven'± room for the writer's eulogies; but I'll give the points whicli he says are. generally admitted : — ■

1. It (direct legislation) has wiped -out plutocratic rule.

2. It has made it easy for the people to alter then constitution in commune, canton, and State.

* 3. It has simplified .administration. 4-. It has changed public rulers into public servants.

5. It has made the law so pla^i that lawyers are already nearly useless.

6. It has abolished monopolies and reduced taxation

7. It has so prospered the nation that emigration has ceased. ,■>

8. It has made the trade of Switzerland (naturally a poor country), per capita, the greatest on the Continent of Europe. 9. It has made three-fourths of the heads of families landholders.

10. It has purified politics, reformed the press, and made the ballot truly express the will of the people, while extending the knowledge and deepening the intelli^nce ■of the masses to an extent unknown elsewhere. At any rate, whatever may be said against the Referendum, it must be admitted that it does reflect public opinion more accurately than our system ; and that it is tlie best scheme yet devised for the purpose it serves. It Is also admitted, contrary to what was expected of it, -that it has ' sho\»» a conservatism on the part, of the Swiss rather than a tendency to legislate in a radical fashion. Why, then, ' cannot . we give the Referendum a. trial?

I have by me also a little volume called "The Cabinet and Party Politics," which contains some suggestive reading to those interested in civics. Here is a verse from it which is applicable to most of our, what are called, politicians. It is written by Goldsmith : Here lies our good Edmund, whose genius was such, Wo scarcely can praise ■yt or blame it too much; Who, bom for the universe, narrowed his

mind, And to Party gave tip what was meant for man-

Now, I know Uais is hardly a boys' Chat. The food is rather strong. Perhaps ray Chat next week will be more interesting to them.

CORRESPONDENCE,

"One of Your Boys":. Your letter will be published next week. Perhaps more will come of it. Will you kindly send your name?