In Defence of Democracy

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22317, 3 February 1938, Page 10

In Defence of Democracy

In his address at Pukekohe, reported yesterday morning, Professor R. M. Algie, who has resigned his chair to organire the Auckland Provincial Freedom Association, said some very interesting things, one of which was that it is strange to find it being thought necessary, within 100 years of the foundation of the Dominion, to establish such an association. “The “ pioneers,” he said, “ came to New Zealand. “ bringing their religion, philosophy, and con- “ ception of British freedom; and to-day the “country is faced with the necessity of estab-, “ lishing a league to defend that freedom, “ which seems to be rapidly slipping away.” It is not altogether clear what is meant by these words. That the conception of freedom brought by the pioneers has been impaired or lost is certainly not true. .Few people will deny that in many respects it is a broader conception of the individual’s rights that prevails to-day. For example, the walls of class privilege hav been laid low, as they were not a century ago. Belief in such social organisation as will open to all the widest possible opportunity of education and self-development, of economic and physical welfare, and so on, is now undoubtedly deeper and more general than ever before. This is, essentially, a belief in “ freedom.” But without doubt, by a process increasingly rapid, the sort of freedom which is defined in the theory of laissez faire has been deeply encroached upon and governments which would have shrunk from any declaration against the doctrine in principle have busily broken it down in practice. They have always pleaded arguments of expediency for doing so and have often been .urged on to this or that specific act of restriction or control by some particular section of the industrial and commercial group which, as a whole, dislikes “ interference.” The truth is that interference—that is, deliberate control, by the community, of its own working arrangements—was bound to develop; and administrations which might still profess old doctrines were bound to apply new methods, hard to reconcile with them. But this is no comprehensive warrant for policies of State control in every field and regulation and restriction of any and every kind. Laissez faire. as conditions change, may become an impracticable policy, and to depart from it is not necessarily to abandon either faith in freedom or the realities of freedom. But it is just as true that the departure may be injurious. State regulation is no more a golden rule oi a policy of salvation than laiscez faire; and its abuse is an evil singularly mischievous—and singularly tempting No Socialist Government, such a., the present one, is likely to resist it.. On the contrary, it tends to be drawn'eagerly forward, creating fresh and worse troubles by its own regulative remedies of previous ones. The urgent need is for scientific study of problems which are too often dealt with by political improvisers. For this reason it is odd to find Professor Algie appearing to decry the official use of “ experts.” If the association which he

is organising will apply itself to the education of the New Zealand democracy in economic causes and effects it will find that democratic spirit is less in need of rousing than democratic intelligence-.