SAVING THE WORLD —BY DEMOCRACY

Auckland Star, Volume LXXII, Issue 169, 19 July 1941, Page 11

SAVING THE WORLD —BY DEMOCRACY

JN these days when wars are I capable of erratum so much misery (or so many of the citizens of a belligerent country there are only two things for which a free people can be brought to contemplate the possibility of fighting to defend their native land and to preserve their way of life. And before the people arm themselves to defend their native land, they naturally want ,j know whether in that very arming they are abandoning their way of life. It is a question that considerably agitated us in England— about two rears ago. Conscription for military service was being passed through Parliament and there were those who argued that, we were surrendering to Nazi ideals in the act of preparing to resist Nazi arms. They were not very many even ilien, and everv month of the war has .-.eon them get fewer— just as pacifists and conscientious objectors have got fewer. By school-book definitions democracy certainly disappears in wartime. One of the basic tenets of democracy is that constraints on the personal freedom of the individual shall he kept at the very lowest. But in England to-day. the personal freedom of individuals is restrained in innumerable ways. Many Restrictions Men are conscripted lor the armed forces without distinction between rich and poor, married and single. Conscription is on the verge of being extended to women for munitions work and possibly for the uniformed auxiliary services. Even for the man or woman who remains a civilian there are new restrictions every week. The civilian is told how much he may eat, where he may travel and where not. He is liable to have his property requisitioned. Soldiers, civilians and children are billeted upon him. And so on down a long and lengthening list. Another principle of democracy is that laws shall be made after "full debate by the elected Legislature. This, too, is gone in wartime Britain. The Government has power to issue decrees on almost every conceivable subject, and the House of Commons, already four years old when the war began, has prolonged its own life "for the duration." By agreement between the parties even by-elections are not contested. Democracy is based on the fundamental liberties of citizens. But freedom of the Press is invaded by censorship and suppression of newspapers. Even the habeas corpus act —the basic guarantee that no one shall be imprisoned save after conviction under due process of law— has been found to be of no application to those who are detained under suspicion of sympathy with the enemy. ' On the economic side the basic principle of democracy is that the State should aim at the enrichmenr 6f the people. In Britain to-day the Government is anxiously looking for methods still further reducing the consumption of the people.

?nH d ®. r ? l ocracy . fi 9 ht a total war ritin#. ii! rema '[ l a democracy? citing the experience of England «f i^ r >! r- wor,d know " as editor , The . Economist" (London), answers in this condensed article: res. Provided the people maintain their right of criticism "

By Geoffrey Crowther

these d u.l\ 0 « C 'tl' y is <- to be j ud Sed by the " Grcat Britain has eased to be a democracy since Seo1939. But if you put that

theory to the average Englishman he would laugh at you. He would tell you that your tests do not go to the root of the matter. He would tell you that England has come closer to the ideal of Government of the people, by the people, for the people, than ever before. Two Tests of Democracy I suggest that there are two tests of democracy in total war. The first is that the powers of dictatorship must be in the hands of a government that sincerely considers itself a trustee of liberties, ready to hand them back when the emergency has passed. The second is that the free people, while handing over its liberties. must retain one—the freedom to criticise. Those are the two vital tests and the present state of affairs in Great Britain passes both of them

Guarantee of both of these tests is the continued existence of the House of Commons. Parliament has virtually lost its legislative power. Only a small part of the mass of war- }' nie l e Sislation passed through the Houses of Parliament and what little has followed that route has been hurried through at the Government s behest. But the House of Commons has nevertheless grown in

stature. It has overthrown a Gov-ernment-not. be it noted, for anv excess of dictatorial action, but enough Ulse il; <li<ln't dictate The strength of Parliament lies to-day in the question of the hour. J hree times a week The -Ministers, trom the Prime Minister uown. appear in person and submit menise ves to cross-examination. The original questions are printed in advance and the Minister has an yPPortumty tu prepare his replv But, the reply once given, the field is open tor impromptu "supplementaries, which the Minister must answer with what wit and prudence he can command.

This is a very severe test of Undemocratic sincerity of anv man in

public office. It has proved a very effective check upon actions of the Government ; n the execution of its enormous powers. On manv occasions since the war beqar, the Government has been compelled to withdraw from the position it lias already occupied because of the barrage of unanswerable questions slung at it in the House of Commons.

This has happened to proposals for the setting up of emergency courts: it has happened to the Government's policy in regard to treatment of aliens, to its air raids shelter poliev and in a host of other matters.

By law the Home Secretarv can imprison any British citizen for no more cause than his desire to do so. The Minister of Labour has power to order anyone to do any work at any place for any wage he chooses. Any one of a number of Ministers may requisition any property. But these powers are not and could not be abused, because the Minister knows he must answer for his actions to a very jealous House of Commons.

As editor of a journal that is frequently very critical of the Government 1 can personally testify that there has been not the

slightest attempt at anv lime since the outbreak of the war to suppress or abridge the right of criticism.

Not only are expressions <«!' opinion not deleted by the I'ensor. they are not oven submitted to him.' That is true even i: the opinion is contrary to the war effort. There are papers being published in Great Britain to-day ' that advocate the immediate conclusion of peace.

You may criticise the Government's policy: you may criticise ihe nation's policy. It is only when you begin to impede the execution of that policy, incite others to impede it inactively assist, the enemy that your freedom is abridged.

This surely is tHe vital distinction. It is vital for the future of democracy. for. so lbng as a people retains its right to criticise and make its criticisms felt, it can resume the active practice of all its liberties whenever it sees tit.

The right to criticise is vital, too. for the prosecution of total war. For a democratic people will only follow those in whom it has complete confidence. The power to criticise and lo answer criticism adds up to llie only method whereby a people and its government can keep in close, constant touch and daily renew their mutual confidence. Indeed, in the long run not only can a democracv fight a total war. but only a democraey can hope to win.

The chief lesson that British experience can teach would therefore scorn to be this: The forms of democracy, the formal structure of chocks and balances, can safely be put in trust for the duration of tlie emergency, provided the spirit of democracy is preserved through the right of criticism. No Reason To Fear So long as these conditions are met there is no reason to fear either lor the effectiveness of democracy in total war or for the future of democracy itself. It may be. as Lord Baldwin once declared, lhat the defect of democracy is that it is alwavs two years late starting in a race as distasteful as that .>1 war. But it was shown in the la ft war. as it is being shown again in this. that, once started, there is nothing a dictatorship can do that a democracy cannot—and there are many things that a democracy can do that a dictatorship cannot.

It has been observed in one British city after another that support for the war is always stronger on the day after a blitz. Neutral observers report the opposite from Hamburg. Mannheim and Berlin. It is not that British bombs are heavier

or British shelters deeper. It is simply that the British citizen knows that it is his war—his war in principle, his war in detail.

He knows that he can call it off if he wants to. He knows that his Government is compelled by force of criticism to L. p itself attuned to his opinions. ITo is no longer verv certain that the world will be made

safe for democracy: but he does know that he is making the world safe by democracy.