The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1927. SOUTH AFRICA'S FLAG.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 121, 25 May 1927, Page 6

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1927. SOUTH AFRICA'S FLAG.

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrong that need* resistance For the future in the distance,, And the good that we can do.

The second reading of the Flag Bill iu the South African Assembly indicates that the long struggle over this most unfortunate measure is now rapidly approaching a climax. It is nearly two years since Dr. Malan, Minister of the Interior and Leader of the Nationalist party, introduced a Nationality Bill which included provision for a special national flag for South Africa. Now every party in the Union has accepted the idea of a national flag, but there has never been any unanimity about its design or character. The Government, therefore, decided to postpone the Bill pending discussions and negotiations between the party leaders. The outcome has been a compromise embodied in the Bill now before the House. But in the meantime Dr. Malan's proposal has aroused a controversy almost as bitter and vehement as any yet recorded in South African history.

The Nationalists at the outset proposed a flag consisting simply of "an arrangement of four bars of colour to represent the four provinces,', and, of course, omitting altogether any siga of connection or association with Britain and the Empire. This flag, it may be observed, was not the "vierkleur," for, as the "Round Table" has pointed out, there are several European flags which resemble far more closely the old Boer standard. But the South African party could not possibly agree to the complete exclusion of the Union Jack, and the Labour party, which includes a large number of .the loyal British, was to some extent bound .by its compact with the Nationalists. .At length it was suggested that "the Unioh Jack should be retained as the symbolic Commonwealth flag, to be flown on official occasions where South Africa's relationship to the Commonwealth was involved." It ie this compromise which forms the basis of the Bill now before the South African Parliament. The new flag is the Cross of St. George on a green ground.

Needless to say, Dr. Malan's proposal in its present form is meeting with very vigorous opposition. Of course, there is something to be said for a nationalist flag for every country.. But so long as. South Africa is part and parcel of the Empire, any attempt to avoid formal recognition of its relationship to Britain must at once suggest the possibility of secession. -General Hertzog and his followers have frequently declared that they have no intention of advocating , secession, but why then drop the Union Jack? Dr. Malati's answer is that in South Africa the Union Jack stands for. ♦♦conquest." The most that the South African party and the loyalists will concede is "a flag which combines the Union Jack with the old Republican flags," and to this the Leader of the Opposition stands pledged.

But even Sir Thomas Smart's compromise is open to serious objection, on the ground that it could not represent a basis of unity for British loyalists and Nationalists at once. The new National flag would appeal to only one section of the British Commonwealth, anil it would symbolise only one short episode instead of many continuous centuries of history. The Nationalists assert that they do not desire to perpetuate * racial differences. But if they are willing to bury the past, why resurrect the old Republican symbols under a thin disguise? At the same time, it cannot be denied that the Union Jack conveys very different meanings to the two sections of the South African people. To the British it means "a great and glorious past,' , to the Boer-Nationalists the memory of humiliation and suffering. The one fact that emerges clearly from this tangle of arguments and rejoinders is the intensely strong feeling aroused among the loyalists by the Nationalist proposals; and it is now generally agreed that the wisest course for the Government to take would be to defer the whole question for an indefinite time to come. ELECTORAL CHANGES. On the whole, New Zealand may be well satisfied with its system of electoral distribution. There is a periodical readjustment of boundaries on a population basis, with the result that—leaving out of account the countryquota, which the Commissioners arc bound by law to retain—electorates are kept of aii equal size, and a vote has the same value everywhere. The disadvantage of this system is that it makes frequent changes in the shape of electorates. A district loses u piece here and a piece there, or may disappear altogether; communities may find themselves thrown in with others with whom they have little geographically or politically in opinion; and the growth of a political tradition is impaired. On the other hand, the country is spared such anomalies of unequal voting power as .ire to be found in some other lands. There re-distribution is not automatic, but depends upon the will of the party in power, and »uch inequalities may exist as were to be found over a long period in Britain, when one electorate might have 20,000 voters and another 10,000, or even f>ooo. The new changes proposed here follow the trend of the past generation. Political power, -which is based on population, used to lie in.the South Island. It is now in the North Island, and the North Island again gains a seat at the expense of the South. The European representation in Parliament will now be forty-seven for the North Island and twenty-nine for the South Island, a disparity which shows up vividly the change in population distribution. The North has no occasion or desire to exult over this state of affairs. As we have repeatedly contended, the South Island is not developing as it should, and this is a concern of the whole nation. No sensible man wishes to see a lop-sided national development. The fact that of the two electorates which disappear one is represented by a Minister and the other by a member of the Reform party, is interesting proof of the political impartiality of the Commissioners.