WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1919. SOLDIERS IN POLITICS.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 251, 22 October 1919, Page 6

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1919. SOLDIERS IN POLITICS.

The main ohjection to the participation of ex-soldiers in politics as a separate party was well crystallised by the Dunedin delegate to the Wellington conference who said he was anxious that the badge of the Returned Soldiers' Association "should remain the 'badge of honour' and not .become the badge of any particular party." Tbe word honour is used here in a limited sense. It not suggested that polities in general are dishonourable, nor is any reflection cast on the part that the Association would play in politics; what Mr. Colquhoun meant is that the badge is a sign ol honour won in special circumstances, a symbol of a blood brotherhood sealed in sacrifice, and that if this mark of distinction is associated with political activity, which has no special significance, its lustre will be dimmed, and the ties of tho brotherhood weakened. The movement for a separate soldiers' party strikes hard on the massive fact of the difference between the soldier in war and the soldier in peace. In war the army is a corporate body united by the same aims. The unanimous desire for victory directs it alonjj a common path. But after the war the men who won the victory do not and cannot think alike on political matters. There are among them differences of opinion similar to those to be found in any other large body of men united in the first instance by non. political ties. If such a body tries to super-impose on the original purpose oi it* existence active participation in party politics, that purpose is weakened. II the Returned Soldiers' Association were to got'into politics it would be less useful as a body representative of returned soldiers. Fortunately this and other considerations prevailed at tlie conference, which by a substantial majority declared for abstention from party politics, with a proviso of limited action to the extent of submitting questions to candidates and publishing ther- answers. This limited action seems to us legitimate. One of the objects of the Association is to protect and advance the interests of returned soldiers, and the association is entitled to ask Parliament their views on questions affecting its members. The well-known arguments for separate political action were brought forward again, but they do not impress us any more than they did. An Auckland delegate contended that if the members of the Association " were good enough to fight for their country, they were also good enough to have some share in its administration." Of course, but they have a share now, just the same share as anybody else in the community. When he went on to say that " the only way they could have that say was 'by taking part in politics," he ignored this share given to every adult under our democratic franchise. The declaration of another Auckland delegate, that " the time had gone past when the association should go along and ask ministers of the Crown for what they wanted," has a rather unpleasant minatory tone about it. If every section of the community in its relations to the Government is going to follow the gradation of approach set out in " The Gondoliers"— " requests, desires, demands " —the outlook for peaceful progress will not be improver}. The public, which is properly gratefui to the returned soldier, and wishes him well, is inclined to resent certain recent manifestations of this "demand" spirit. It would certainly have less sympathy for returned soldiers, both individually and corporately, if they formed a political party of their own. Sectionalism is one of tlie perils of democracy of to-day, and however fine are the ideals of the promoters of separate political action by the soldiers, their policy is sectional. If carried into effect, this sectionalism would not only be dangerous, but ineffective, for the reason that no political programme that could be devised would unite all members. An Otago delegate, in pointing out that there were men of various shades of opinion in the Association, said there were members -who were capitalists, whereupon a voice asked, 'Where are they!" If the interjection was a joke, nothing need be said, but if it was serious it throws a curious light on the merotality of the interjector. Does he suppose that tlie Association consists, or should consist, entirely of wage-earmSr3? Of course there are capitalists in the Association, just as there are Conservatives, iLiberals, and Socialists. AH these types unite for non-political ends : but they-would be divided on a political programme, and their division would weaken if it did not bring *o nought, the original purpose of their organisation.