The Dominion SATURDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1923. THE WAY TO POLITICAL STABILITY

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 57, 1 December 1923, Page 6

The Dominion SATURDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1923. THE WAY TO POLITICAL STABILITY

Most people who have thoughtfully considered the question probably will agree that in British countries standards of Parliamentary government are not on the whole improving. British countries are far from being singular in this respect, but as a group they are, or should be, exceptionally well placed to develop the best possibilities of representative rule. It is correspondingly a matter for inquiry that the expectations of increasing Parliamentary efficiency which might reasonably be formed in the circumstances, are not being realised. Some observations lately made by an Australian commentator on tho recent deterioration of both Federal and State Parliaments in the Commonwealth might be applied with slight qualifications to the Parliament of almost any self-governing country of the Empire. “What Ministry, either in the Federal or State arena,” tho writer in question asks, “could review the proceedings of any recent Parliamentary session with pride or satisfaction 1 Certainly, popular commendation would be given sparingly, while unpleasant individuals who take pleasure in ‘speaking their minds’ might find a good many unflattering things to say.” This state of affairs is not confined to Australia. Parliaments throughout the Empire have lost in varying degree something of their former capacity to inspire popular respect and approval. There is a visiole change for the worse from this standpoint as compared with a past well within the memory of members of the present generation. In all, or nearly all, British Parliaments, Ministers are less under the control of the body of elected representatives of the people than they were not many years ago. At the same time there is a widespread if not general tendency to scamp important work, to tinker hastily and ineffectively with complex questions demanding leisurely concentration, and generally to deal with public affairs rather from a standpoint of immediate expediency man with foresight and considered judgment. In our own country and others, the volume of legislation tends to increase. The quality of legislation has fallen away. There is certainly no such effective scrutiny and criticism of the administrative activities of Governments as there was in former years. The Australian writer we have quoted finds an important part of the explanation of these changes in the new division and relationship of prrties that has recently arisen.

Unquestionably (ho remarks) the tendency to waste weeks of valuable time in the discussion of trivialities has been fostered by the splitting or political parties. After every election new parties, oi’ new sections of parties seem almost to spring out of the ground. Naturally, this leads to intrigue and manoeuvring, which are the deadly enemies of practical work. It was always difficult, he continues, even before the advent of the Official Labour Party, to induce Parliament to settle down to work, But; in earlier days flexibility was possible because the party in Opposition, if its actions commended themselves to the people, could always hope strengthen its position through the defection of dissatisfied Ministerialists. Not only did. this help to preserve equilibrium in public affairs, but it brought Parliament into closer personal touch with the people, and served to keep the Ministry of the day fully aliva to its responsibilities. The coming of the Labour Party, with its rigid constitution, altered all this. No dissident Ministerialist would to-day be so rash, .'m to vote with Labour on a vital issue. The party lino is too sharply drawn to permit of an intermingling of forces, and the consequence of tho enforced rigidity is to restrict the influence of Parliament and to deaden its activities.

These observations touch the heart of a problem which is raised more or less definitely not only in Australia, but in this country, Great. Britain, and other parts otf the Empire. We have moved away from conditions in which in most British Parliaments power was exercised alternately by two main parties, opposed in working practice, but fundamentally agreed.

It is perhaps only now being realised how well this system worked, and how much has been lost with its passing. It was a system which favoured in an eminent degree an effective control by Parliament of the Government of the day in regard both to legislation and administration. At the same time, it provided almost automatically for the overthrow and replacement of a Government which had lapsed from standards of efficient service.

To-day we have here and in other Empire countries a much more complex division of parties and groups which yields much less satisfactory results. While it arises in part from narrow sectionalism accentuated by personal ambitions, jealousies, and animosities, the more or less pronounced tendency of non-Labour elements to split into groups is perhaps inspired to some extent by a desire to re-establish the former measure of Parliamentary control over Governments. Obviously, however, the extension of group polities fails completely to servo this purpose. Groups which are agreed on broad principles of polity and at variance only in matters of detail are weakened and not strengthened by separate action. Experience has already fully demonstrated that Parliamentary working efficiency is lowered with each extension of group politics. An artificial division of moderate political opinion over minor issues leads inevitably to confusion, and throws the machinery of representative government out of gear. In these circumstances, extreme Labour naturally finds opportunities of expansion it could not otherwise enjoy.

Here and in other parts of the Empire the first step towards an effective readjustment of the machinery of Parliamentary government must be a reunion of moderate political elements. There is no other route to political stability and an improvement of Parliamentary standards.