The Dominion. THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1911. THE BLIGHT OF PAROCHIALISM.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1208, 17 August 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1911. THE BLIGHT OF PAROCHIALISM.

The characteristic parochialism of the Pafriamentary system of this country—due mainly to the vicious .idea of making the allocation of public works expenditure a function of the Executive—has lately received an illustration through the light in which the electorate readjustments have been generally viewed. The one question in every case, for members and for the public, has been: How does it affect the chance of Jones, M.P.,, or Robinson, M.PJ The- member of Parliament is far too much a local delegate. Members arc hot all of that extreme type to which belong Messrs; Fie,ld, Craigie, Brown, and Smith,' but petty local considerations enter into the calculation of a majority of them. The position would be enormously improved if two reforms could be effected. One—the non-political expenditure of money for public works —is an item in the platform of the Reform party;,the second is the establishment of, larger electorates. The second of these changes would involve the introduction of a means to secure proportional representation. AYe have from time to time given some attention to the prominence which this question has been assuming in France, where tho "blight of parochialism," as it has been called by M. Pelletan, is working havoc in tho government of the Republic. The latest English files bring' us some very interesting particulars of the development of the movement towards electoral reform in France in the first days of the new Caillaux Ministry., The Monis Ministry was practically pledged to reform, and it is, generally admitted 'iat the present system is untenable. The new Premier is a supporter of the scrutin de liste —election on a basis of largo constituencies; each with several representatives—as against the present system of scrutin d'nrrondUscmcnt, or system of small single electorates. His colleagues, however, are about equally divided. In unfolding,his policy on June 30 last, he was very vague, being definite only upon the impossibility of continuing the present system. The question was the main subject of debate during the ensuing week and a temporary finality was reached by the carrying of a motion in the Chamber that each Department (at present,there are several electorates in each Department, or, as we might say here, sub-provincial district) should be a single constituency, with the proviso that no new constituency should elect more than seven Deputies. The need for reform in New Zealand—whether reform in the system of public works expenditure or abolition of the system of single-mem-ber constituencies or both—with the object of extirpating the blight of parochialism upon which the Executive's unwholesome despotism fattens and grows, is urgent enough, but it is not nearly so urgent as it is in France. Yet no intelligent New Zealandcr will fail to recognise the likenesses between the position in New Zealand and the position in France as it is described hy the able correspondent in Paris of tho New York Post:

In tho present system the Deputy has becomo something very like a feudal tyrant in his conslit icncy. That is, he is elected solely and entirely by his own little district, and ho sees to it that no favours of Government go to anyono who does not. vote for him. Now one voter in eleven, has sonw job from Government. Every able-bodied citizen, from twenty to forty, has to do periods of military sorvico in barracks, and only Government can arrange, then;, to suit the con. venicuco of n man's life or business. There are tax-lists to l>o revised, ami little villages that give a wrong majority can bo refused n bridge or new road or public office building—and so on. Besides, theio is tho wide sphere of "influence" for tho favoured against the recalcitrant. At present, all this torrent of Government runs down to the citizen through iic channel of his single Deputy.

There are differences in detail between the situation here described and tho situation in New Zealand— differences that arc .iQcpunted far by tho different magnitudes of the two

countries. New Zealand is small enough to enable Ministers to give a personal supervision to the business of penalising hostile persons, districts and newspapers. In _ both cases the result of a bad administrative and electoral system is the same —the degradation of the public conscience and the wasting of the public's money.. And in both cases the crying need is'the same—the reform of the electoral system and the protection of Parliament, of the, individual member, and of the Ministry from the temptation to profit from the evil of cultivating local and individual greed and dishonesty. There is a further point of resemblance which one would expect to follow. In New Zealand the "roads and bridges" member is fiercely opposed to any reform that is likely to rob him of one of his best means of fighting for his seat. Under a non-political system of public works expenditure, even unaccompanied by electoral reform, the Fields and Ciuigies and Browns and Smiths would be swept away. So too, in France, the opposition to electoral reform comes, to quote the New York Post's correspondent, from "those who hold to elections as they are— and to keeping what they have." The proposed reform is death to the "parish-pump" Deputy. In France it is regarded as certain that the reform will come soon* It is certain to come soon in New Zealand and with it will come the growth of a proper national spirit to replace the petty parochialism which dwarfs our public men and degrades our public life.