DISTINCTION BETWEEN PARTY AND GOVERNMENT BY PARTY.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9520, 12 September 1896, Page 4

DISTINCTION BETWEEN PARTY AND GOVERNMENT BY PARTY.

We shall be told by the party leaders that it is impossible to abolish Party Government. And we are prepared to admit that so far as they are concerned, it is probably impossible to get rid of the spirit of party. We arc even prepared to admit that parties must arise in politics so long us human nature is what it is ; but we are not prepared to admit the contention of the advocates of Parly Government that this renders the abolition of government by party impossible. To admit that we cannot gelrid of party is not to admit that we cannot do away with government by party. Partyis one thing ; Parly Government is quite another. This distinction furnishes a complete answer to all the usual arguments advanced by the apologists for Party Government. No one thinks of disputing that parties must arise in politics, as in other spheres of human activity. But the assumption on which Party Government is founded, that men are bv'nature divided into two parties, is as absurd as it is untrun to human nature. Learned historians and grave philosophers have exercised wonderful ingenuity in attempting to show that men are by nature and temperament divisible into two parties. A learned German, in an ingenious speculation, has professed to find the physiological law ruling the stages of human life, the key to the spirit and character of political parties. But this theory of human nature is, like all the arguments in favour of Party Government, devised for the purpose of under-propping a falling system. The assumption is entirely without foundation in fact, as is shown by the consideration that in every country .in which Party Government exists there are'not merely two parties, but many, and they are daily increasing in number. BURKE ON PARTY GOVERNMENT. Of all the defenders or apologists of the patty system the greatest is the illustrious Edmund Burke, whose vindication of party has becomo a classic. In every defence of party, Burkes splendid periods are assigned the foremost place. But I cannot believe that any one who takes the trouble to weigh Burkes words can seriously contend that party, as described by him, and Party Government as it exists, say in New Zealand, are the same thing, or that they in the least degree resemble each other. According to Burke, "Party is a body united for promoting by their joint endeavours, the national interest, upon some particular principle on which they are all agreed." Can it be contended that these words apply to Party Government as it exists in New Zealand? Would it not sound like irony ? I ask any one familiar with Burkes noble works to say which of the following descriptions applies to Party Government as it exists in New Zealand : — " The generous contention for power on such manly and honourable maxims" as Burke so eloquently expounds; or, "That mean and interested struggle for place and emolument " oa which the orator pours such contempt ? I am nob now speaking of individuals, but of the system ; for we know that there are individuals in all parties to whose actions, principles and motives Burkes noble words are fairly applicable. Can it be truly or appropriately said that the dominant party in New Zealand politics at the present moment are " united for promoting the national interest upon some particular principle upon which they are all agreed?" Could this have been said of any of our parties in the past ? Would it not be more correct to say that, instead of being combinations for the promotion of national interests, they have made national interests subservient to their own interests. PARTY DISTINGUISHED FROM FACTION. One of the distinctive marks of a faction, as distinguished from a party, is that instead of seeking to serve the State it seeks to make the State serve it. Who can deny that this is a characteristic of our so-called parties in New Zealand ? Another of the distinctive marks of faction is that it exacts absolute obedience, and attempts to rule with a rod of iron. Can any one who has observed the proceedings of the present House of Representatives deny that this is true of the party now dominant there? We have long been familiar with the expression,-" the Government have made this question a party question;" but I do not think it was before used, or rather abused, as it has been in the present Parliament. Has it not come to mean that the member who dares to allow any consideration of what is right or what is wrong, of what he believes or does not believe, to interfere with allegiance to his party, ceases to be a "Liberal," and is to be ignominiously expelled ? V/ho ever before heard of so ignoble, paltry and contemptible a question as that of the appointnent of the Sergeant-at-Arms being made a party question? What, think ye, would Burke, the illustrious eulogist of party, have said to such a proceeding ? Listen ! " In order," he sayß, "to throw odium on political connection (party), certain politicians suppose it necessarily incident to it that you are blindly to follow the opinions of your party when in direct opposition to your own clear ideas : a degree of servitude that no worthy man could bear the thought of submitting to. Men thinking freely, will, in particular instances, think differently." How any Liberal, who has responded to the crack of the party whip, in the hands of the present leader of the party, can quote, or even read, Burke without a blush it were difficult to understand. It used to be thought that "in politics, especially in Liberal politics, there i 3 no Pope and no father confessor; each man's first duty is to himself, and not to the political organisation with which he happens to be connected. If he sticks to his party when his convictions ■ are at variance with it in a matter which he deems vital, he is like Naaman in the House of Rimmon. His creed has ceased to be a belief—it has become a superstition or a sham."

Turn we again to Burke to see how he acted. If he had a fault it was, we are told, that " He narrowed his mind, And to party gave up what was meant for mankind." And yet, by the irony of fate, it was reserved for Burke, when the French Revolution came, to do more than any other man to bring to disintegration and impotence the very party to which he had given tho labour of his prime. Advocates of party, when they quote Burke, should remember two things—" First, that in his plea for party he assumes the direct object of party combination to be generous, great and liberal causes; and, second, that when the time came, and when he believed that his friends were espousing a wrong and pernicious cause, Burke, like Samson, burst the seven green withes, and broke away from the friendships of a life, and deliberately broke his party in pieces." When a party nas degenerated into a faction and its object is no longer great, generous and liberal causes, when, instead of seeking to serve the State, it seeks to make the State serve it, is there any greater service that a member of that party can render than to break it in pieces as Burke did ? Of course his former associates will taunt him with apostacy ; but he can retort on them, as Burke did, in the words Diogenes used, when he was told that his fellow-citizens of Sinopo had condemned him to banishment—"And I condemn them to live in Sinope." NO PARTIES IN NEW 7 ZEALAND. The truth is, we have.no parties in New Zealand in the sense in which Burke used the term ; and we can scarcely refrain from smiling when we hear a party man talking of tbe principles of his party. What Mr Bryce says of the United States is true of Now Zealand—" Neither party has any principles or any distinctive tenets. . . Both have interests enlisted in their support; but these interests are, in the main, interests of getting or keeping the patronage of the Government." PARTY GOVERNMENT IN NEW ZEALAND. It has passed into an axiom that government by party has been the* making and the saving of England—that to it England owes all its great political reforms. I believe it were much nearer the truth to say that such reforms have been achieved in spite of, rather than by means of, Party Government. But we are not concerned to question the a*xiom, since it will be admitted that parties which are not the embodiments of principles are unworthy of the name. Political parties may even have served a useful purpose in England during the great political revolution, when the great questions

were purely political: while political privileges had to be conquered from the Crown, or popular rights to be protected against nobles. . ■•Party" in the sense in which Burke j uses the word is something anyone can understand ; it calls for no justification, any more than any other form of association for a worthy object. " But Burke says not a word to justify the opinion that parties are essential to the well-being of the State in all circumstances, for that would b_ simply tantamount to saying that no country could be prosperous in which there were not those radical differences of opinion upon political subjects, which alone afford a rational basis for parly organisation. Nearly all the talk we hear in the present day on the subject of party really involves the absurd proposition that unless a country is divided against itself, it cannot stanil. Because parties were once a necessity of the times—the natural expression in Parliament of real and lamentable antagonisms that existed throughout the country, therefore parties must exist for ever ; if we have not real antagonisms to support them we must get up sham ones. The Chinaman in Charles Lainlvs charming apologue set his house' on fire in order to have, indirectly, some roast pork. Our roast pork is the party system, and, in order that we may taste the same again and again, we set the State on fire with all kinds of false and factitious issues." While religious liberty and the claims of the individual conscience were yet unrecognised or unsecured by law, the divisions of Parliamentary array corresponded to natural and enduring divisions of class interest or feeling, and parties shared in the grandeur of the clear distinctiveness of the causes which commanded their allegiance and constituted their cement and bond of union. But the' political revolution is now complete. The social revolution is now in progress, and the problems to be solved are not political, but social. The greater battles of human rights have been won ; our condition is full of grievances and evils, but hardly of wrongs. The questions nowremaining to be settled are, in their nature, such that they are incapable of being dealt with by the party system on party lines. PARTY QUESTIONS. What do we see when some great social subject comes up in Parliament? The leader of the dominant party declares tbe question not to be a party question, and intimates to his obedient followers that they are at liberty to vote each man according to his conscience, without regard to party considerations. Could anything be imagined more humiliating to the followers, or more degrading to our political life ? The appointment of a Sergeant-at-Arms is declared to be a party question, while prohibition, which is a social question of the highest importance to the community, is declared not to be a party question. Principles forsooth ! Could anything be clearer than that there is no such thing as principle in party ? Iv the present Parliament in New Zealand the only question that is really a party question is whether the Ministr}* is to hold office or not. When office is at stake, the leader calls upon his faithful servants to cast aside all other considerations and vote for the Ministry, right or wrong—especially when it is wrong. '.Che greater the wrong the greater the m_.it, from a party point of view, and the surer tho reward. Let the leader of the. dominant party but summon a caucus and threaten to resign, and we shall see a demonstration of what party principle means. Every man pictures to himself his constituency and the possibilities, and straightway votes with his party as he is bidden. A leader who has for followers a large proportion of men who depend upon the honorarium as their principal means of support, can get along without political principles—a threat of resignation is sufficient for his purpose. Payment of members may be necessary, but, if so, it is a necessary evil. PARTY GOVERNMENT INCONSISTENT WITH TRUE DEMOCRACY.

. Under Party Government as it exists in New Zealand the leader of the dominant party is for the time being a despot. Let him but threaten to resign, and the members of his party disregard everything else but the commands of their master. A chamber which simply obeys, and does not discuss, is a servile body: it serves no other purpose but that of a mask for despotism. Well might clear-sighted De Tocqueville declare that each step that modern nations take towards equality brings them nearer to despotism ; it is easier to establish an autocratic government in a community where the conditions of life are equal, than in any other. I am quite prepared to find De Tocqueville's doctrine received with incredulity, or even derision ; for most people seem to imagine now-a-days that democracy aud despotism cannot exist together. There could be no greater mistake. Democratic despotism is just as possible as monarchical despotism, and infir nitely more odious. No lesson is more clearly taught by - history than the tendency of democracy to pass into tyranny and despotism, The. master-mind of Aristotle nob only discerned this tendency, but pictured for all time the process, and his conclusions have been verified over and over again. He says the despot always begins by being a demagogue, and attains his end by gaining the confidence of the crowd, by promising to improve the condition of the poor at the expense of the rich. Have we not seen this programme followed in our own time by Napoleon 111., who commenced by writing "The Abolition of Pauperism." He proclaimed himself the Emperor of the Peasant and the Friend of the Workers; and it was by the vote of the masses he established his power, and fortified himself therein till the last, SUBSERVIENCY OF PARLIAMENT. Nothing' has tended more to cause a feeling of disgust with Party Government in the minds of the people of New Zealand, than the subserviency of. those whom they elected to represent them to the will of one man. This state of things has existed in former Parliaments, but never to such an extent as in the present House. That this should be true of the first Parliament elected on complete universal suffrage is a fact that challenges attention ; it gives j confirmation to the well-established law that the purest democracy is the most apt to pass into despotism. But it also tends to show that Party Government is incompatible I with true democracy. Bub, indeed, our democracy is no true democracy, but a spurious imitation. True democracy means j the rule of the nation for national ends as ! opposed to the rule of the masses or of the classes, or of a party or a single despot for j sectional selfish objects. This spurious ; democracy is as self-seeking in its interests, as unbridled in its rapacity, as narrow in its aims, as degrading in its influence, as the worst and most exclusive caste or despotism. A party such as I have described ceases to represent true democracy and becomes a menace to the best and highest iuterests of the community. True democracy means the supremacy of the nation, and of this no one need have any fear; but we have every reason to fear the rule of mere partisans and wire pullers. A party which, instead,of setting before it national interest- and noble aims, regards only the interests of the party, or of only one section of the people, to the exclusion of others, or seeks to use the power of the State to plunder one class for the supposed benefit of another class, instead of protecting all classes, does not represent true democracy. PARTY GOVERNMENS MEANS PERSONAL GOVERNMENT BY ONE MAN. If it be the case, as its upholders contend, that Parliamentary Government is impossible without party Government, then Parliamentary Government is doomed. For, so far from being an appliance for carrying out the national will, Party Government continnally tends to become, and in New Zealand has become, an appliance for overriding the national will. A single man with a troop of obedient servants can for some time impose his will on the nation just as he might do were he a despotic Rang. And to this complexion has democracy come in New Zealand, under a Ministry and a Parliament that boast of i being the most " Liberal" that any country has ever had! What was in its origin a check upon arbitrary power has become a mere instrument of despotism, and what personal Government was in England in 1640 when Charles I. was King, party Government has become in New Zealand in 1896 ! " Loyalty to the King " is the first principle of monarchy; "loyalty to party "» is the greatest political virtue under the party system; "loyalty to the nation" is the first principle of true democracy, because the sovereignty of the people is its

fundamental dogma ; «' loyalty to party ' is ( incompatible with loyalty to the nation, and, therefore, with true democracy. The party-man owes allegiance t. his party first, and ""party loyalty 7 'is the sum of all his virtues—a" virtue invented to serve the ends of party. WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE AS A SUBSTITUTE? The advocates of any important change in our political system must expect to be confronted with the question, " What do you propose to substitute for the institution you wish to abolish?" And, indeed, the putting of that question seems to be regarded by the upholders of the party system as a complete answer. But we have a right to retort that it is not incumbent upon us to produce some complete 'system ready made to take the place of the discredited system. We are entitled to take up this position—lt is generally admitted that Party Government is a dismal failure ; that in New Zealand it has reduced Parliamentary institutions to a mere sham ; that it is incumbent upon all who are not prepared to admit that Representative Government itself is a failure, to endeavour to find some remedy for the well-nigh fatal malady of the body "politic. Unless we are prepared to admit that the disease is incurable, some other system must be tried. Now, it is quite conceivable that Parliamentary Government is doomed to failure and to disappear as other systems have done. There was a time when Parliaments were unknown and unthought of, and it is in the highest degree improbable that they will prove to be the final form of polity. It is quite conceivable that the growing impatience with parliamentary methods may result in the abolition, not merely of Party Government, but of Parliamentary Government. When we find se true a Liberal as Heir Schafile, whose personal sympathies are entirely with the system of .Parliamentary Government, saying in a recent work, that, in the exclusive predominance of universal suftVage, that system would probably be fatal to his country, we cannot help having misgivings as to the probable outcome of our debased form oi Parliamentary Government in New Zealand. When Parliamentary Government has ceased to be Representative Government, as it certainly has in Now Zealand, it has ceased to serve its purpose ; and it is even conceivable that in such circumstances a nation might conclude, that, if its system of democratic government cannot be mended it must be ended—that a beneficent dictatorship, or even open despotism, is preferable to despotism veiled under the forms of free institutions. Facilts descensus Avemi, Sed revocare gradum, superas-que ad auras evadere, . . . Hoc opus, hie labor est [Smooth the descent and easy is the way, The gates of hell stand open night and day ; But to return and view the cheerful skies, In this the task, and mighty* labour lies.] Not long ago the Right Hon. James Bryce declared that in England there seemed to be "a growing desire to substitute for Parliamentary methods the authority of a man or small group controlled by public opinion, or perhaps by some direct popular vote." The same tendency is discernible in New Zealand. But we should not be justified in concluding that the ills of the body politic ate incurable, until we have removed, the poisonous growth of Party Government. There can be no doubt that the cancer of Party Government has sent its root deep into our Parliamentary system. That root is the Cabinet.

THE CABINET SYSTEM THE ROOT OF THE EVIL. Here we have what has been described as the great modern paradox of the British Constitution—a body that has usurped the most important part of the business of legislation ; a creature that has acquired the power of destroying its creator. The true theory of the Cabinet is, that Ministers are there to carry out the wishes of the elective Chamber. In fact, the position ia reversed, and tho representatives of the people have bsconie.the 'servants 91 this mysterious body. We have become so used to Cabinet Government that we have come to look upon it as essential to representative institutions. So'far from that, it is quite foreign in its nature to Democratic Government. If the,elective principle is to be admitted in its integrity, an Executive Council elected by„ the members of the Legislature must take the place of the Cabinet. The essential difference between the "two systems''is, that in an Elective Executive each member of the Council would be directly responsible to the Legislature, and individually liable to censure or dismissal; whilst under the Cabinet system there is no such thing as individual responsibility of Ministers, and collective responsibility is a mere sham. An office would be entrusted to each Minister only for a term (either for a year or for the term of the Parliament) after which he would have to answer for his conduct, while the Legislature would retain the power of censure or removal. An adverse vote would not result in a Ministerial crisis as at present, and we should no longer be compelled to witness the humiliating spectacle of the representatives of the people voting black white, in obedience to the commands of a party leader, or forced to support him against their convictions, by-a threat of resignation or dissolution,: and consequent risk of losing their seats and pay. We should then have a stable exeoutive free to devote itself to the . faithful discharge of the duties of administration, without, fear about its own existence. Instead of a Cabinet devising measures which it chooses to designate "policy Bills," on which it stakes its existence in order to coerce its party to accept them, even against their convictions, we should have an Executive Council giving effect to the commands of its mastor the... Legislature. Instead of a Government policy, we should see each Minister proposing to the Legislature such measures as he is prepared to recommend on his own responsibility. We should then see the Legislature exercising its proper function of expressing its own will by legislation*instead of merely giving effect to the wishes of. the Cabinet. Instead of a Cabinet chosen exclusively from one side, and an OpSosition whose function it is to thwart the overnment, we should have a Council consisting of the best men in the Parliament; and instead of a man being pitchforked into an office for which he had no qualification or aptitude, not for any fitness but as a reward for party services, we should see the members of the Executive chosen each for the position for which he was best fitted by nature or training. Instead of those disgusting wrangles called " no-confidence debates, Where flails of oratory thresh the floor That yields us chaff and dust and nothing more ; contests that take up a large proportion of the time of Parliament almost every session, and cost the country such huge sums of money, and are really as bootless as the combats ff flies in the air, we should see a healthy rivalry amongst members, each trying to prove his fitness for office, instead of, as at present, seeking to advance himself to office by supporting his party right or wrong. Then of the bribery which is now employed to hold together a following there would be no need, the tenure of office being secured liy law. r I am not [so foolish as to imagine that we can by any means that can be devised exclude evil motives and influences ; they cannot be excluded from any system founded on human nature; but< they would not be an inseparable part of the pob'ty as at present. We should get rid of that most detestable practice expressed in the nrax^raY

"To the Conquerors, the Spoils"— a maxim* a.nd practice with which we are rapidly becoming familiarised—so much so, indeed, that in a short time we should come to regard them as being as much matters of course as the'party system itself. And, as Lecky says, there is one thing worse than corruption, and that is acquiescence in corruption. '

There is another maxim of Party Government that has always seemed to mc to be exceedingly mischievous, and;'; as I am addressing a political society-of women, I desire to take this opportunity of puttin** them on their guard against it. I refer to the wefPkndwn motto of party—

""MEASURES, NOT MEN." A maxim which embodies a, doctrine concei vedfentirely in the interests of the party system. It is the concentrated essence of the poison, of party, and the less the women electors of New Zealand have to do with party the better; indeed, my hope of seeing the end of Party Government rests mainly on the women. Men have become so long

familiarised with thi. maxim that it has came to be regarded its a political axiom ; and yet I venture to submit to you that, so far from being an axiomate truth, it is a most pernicious and daugerous doctrine — indeed, the exact converse. MEN, NOT MEASURES, Is a much safer guide—especially for women. The democracy that takes for its motto, "Measure., not men," is foredoomed to failure. Our only safe is to choose good men, aud to* let them choose the measures. If we act upon the party maxim, the chances are we shall prefer the charlatan to the statesman, the mere slave of a party leader to the liuui of independent mind. My reason for addressing myself specialty to women on this point is that I believo if they adopt as their guide the maxim, " Men, not measures," their healthy instinct, will guide them to choose the best and most trustworthy men; whilst, if they attempt to decide for themselves regarding great social and political reforms they will be very liable to err. But I go even further, and say that neither men nor women can safely act upon the maxim, " Measures, not men." It is impossible to foresee all the important questions that will arise in the course of a Parliament ; and to return men simply because they pledge themselves to any particular measure may be disastrous to the best interests of the nation. Even in the case of such important questions as " Prohibition " or the " Bible in Schools," for example, I would deprecate the election of men pledged to them, regardless of other, and perhaps even more important, matters. To send men to Parliament simply because they pledge themselves, say, to prohibition, regardless of their general fitness in point of character, ability and experience, is little short of a social crime. Even prohibitionists should act upon the reversed maxim, "Not measures, but men ;" but if they cannot do that (and lam afraid we need not expect it) they should at least say—" Men first, measures next." If they do not, they run the risk of having for representatives mere partisans, hypocrites, and time-servers— men

" That palter with us in a double sense ; That keep the word of promise to our ear And break it tooui hope." Men who, in order to secure their election, will utter the shibboleth of some particular party or section, and who in Parliament will become the most subservient of partymen. I am so anxious to impress this point upon you that I must ask to be permitted to read to you an eloquent passage of denunciation of this execrable maxim—or, as Burke describes it—a sort of charm by which some people get loose from every honourable engagement. The Hon. E. J. Phelps, speaking on this subject, said, "It used to be an applauded political maxim, which was expressed in the words, ' Measures, not men.' 1 venture to deny the soundness of this maxim and to propose in its place its con verse, ' Men, not measures.' I think the first need of good government, like the first need of a large business, is the right men to administer it. Right in character, in ability, in patriotism, in disinterestedness.

. . . Batter a hundred times an honest, capable administration of an erroneous policy than a corrupt ant incapable administration of a good one."

Now, I am quite well aware that in answer to the arguments in favour of an Elective Executive we shall be told that it is impossible to get rid of parties. But the argument has no force; for we neither expect nor desire to get rid of parties. No one, so far as lam aware, is so foolish as to imagine that Aye .an, by any change in our policy, get rid of parties. What we seek to get rid of is, not party, but the system of government by party, with all the intriguing, bribery and corruption that are inseparable from it. Members would still form parties for the attainment of particular objects or reforms, whether political, moral or social; they would be free to act each man according to his conscience, instead of being compelled to sacrifice principle and conscience at the dictation of party leaders. Indeed, so far from expecting to sco party abolished, I hope some day to see a strong party formed for the abolition of Party Government, and it is only shallow people, who have given the subject no consideration, tliat would profess to see in this any inconsistency. If we cannot expect to see the time when "None is for a party," it is surely nob too much to hope for a time "When all are for the State." By abolish** ing Party Government we should be getting rid of a system, the very essence of which is that men are compelled to place the interests of party bef- •. the interests of the State. ELECTIVE EXECUTIVE. As all are aware, proposals have come before Parliament several times for the creation of an Elective Executive, and a Bill for that purpose has passed its second reading in the House of Representatives. As was to be expected, the Bill was opposed both by the Government and the leader of the Opposition. This is only what might be expected. To them. Party Government is like a game of cricket in which each side gets its innings at the wicket. I confess I should be inclined to suspect t;he sincerity of any party leader who professed to advocate the abolition of Party Government. It is but natural that gentlemen whose Byes are spent-cither inside of Cabinets or trying to get inside them, should think the party system the best of all possible systems. It is almost, impossible for them to imagine Parliamentary institutions without Party Government, and, as I have already pointed out, they would probably continue to work the new constitution in the old way as far as possible. All the arguments against the proposed change are simply illustrations of the errors caused by assuming that although one thing may be changed, other things depending on it will remain unchanged. The upholders of Party Government t forget that a Ministry would no longer require to resign when in a minority ; that it would simply accept the lesson which a division gave it. It would not, as now, be for a time the master of the House, but would be always the servant of the House ; not dictating a policy to it, but accepting that which was found to be its policy. Hence no measure could be carried unless it obtained the sincere support of the average of the many parties in the House, and was therefore proved to be most likely in accordance with the national will. Until this has been attained there can be no true democracy. And true democracy is true Conservatism. With us, however, the danger is that the mere caprice of a.party, and especially of a Parliamentary faction, will be mistaken for the will of the nation. It is well to trust the people since we have accepted democratic government in its entirety. But who are the people? Is there not a danger of our mistaking the public for the people, the wave for the ocean ?