"THE ONLY SYSTEM”

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 86, 10 January 1928, Page 10

"THE ONLY SYSTEM”

VISCOUNT GREY ON DEMOCRACY COMBINES STABILITY WITH PROGRESS HAS TWO-PARTY SYSTEM DISAPPEARED? . “When I first took part in public life, democracy in the full sense described, was not yet established; the accomplishment of it was regarded as an end in itself. History had shown that to entrust political, power to any one class, or select classes, and to exclude any other class or classes, led to abuse. It was believed that the establishment of complete democratic Parliamentary, government would stop the abuse; and on this end efforts of reformers were concentrated. “This expectation was well founded; but the hope that democracy would be able to solve all the problems of government was bound to result in disappointment. It was one thing for, Government to avoid being unfair, intolerant, or oppressive; to do nothing that creates grievances; it is quite another for it _ to be able to remove all grievances that are not of its own making. The consequence is that democracy, the value of which was never questioned before, we had it, is now the subject in many quarters of criticism, of questioning, and even of direct attack.”—Viscount Grey Of Falloden. In the inaugural address on 'Democracy” which ho delivered at the Birmingham and. Midland Institute, Viscount Grey of Falloden undertook a reasoned’ defence of the system, and claimed that, with its many and manifest imperfections, is still surpassed in its working any other system yet known to the world. We take the following from the very full report which The Times” gives of the address. Viscount Grey said: . Democracy and Great Men. “One comment frequently made upon democracy of to-day is that it docs not produce great men. The brilliants, gilts of some men now prominent in our public life are admitted; but we ask whether posterity will remember them as we now remember the names of great men of former generations. Will posterity regard them as men of the same dominant pre-eminence that Chatnara, Pitt and Fox, Canning and Peel, Disraeli and Gladstone had in the public life of their times? This is a question which wo cannot answer with certainty. "The ablest men in public life nowadays are engaged in guiding rather than shaping; in gauging correctly currents of public opinion which they have not set in motion, in resisting what is impracticable in becoming the practical instruments of forces that they have not inspired and .which they cannot control. It may be that under modern conditions'this is the most that should ■be demanded of men in-public life.?and may be the best to which statesmanship can attain. "Democracy is founded on the assumption that the people will choose men wisely to conduct their affairs; and we look for statesmanship born of a sense of responsibility in Government and Par-* liament; but it is not in these alone that we should look for statesmanship. ... No amount of statesmanship in the Government and in Parliamnyt can compensate fot the lack of it in trade unions and, in federations of employers. There nre signs that this fact is being noted: there is a tendency to admit, a responsibility on the part of employers and employed that cannot be shared with, and ‘must not be dumped upon, the Government. ....

Not Restricted to Political Channels.

"Modern industrial civilisation is too vital and complcated to be dealt with thorough strictly official bodies. Bemo* cracy is based upon the. assumption that the people have a capacity for self-gov-ernment;' if this capacity is really present there is no reason why it should be restricted to political channels alone; indeed, if the capacity be real, it will certainly manifest itself, in. all departments of human affairs. "Parliamentary and Government- action has .a. great sphere, and one that is of the first importance; there are also limitations that are appropriate to it. A people fit for democracy will learn by experience to recognise both the sphere and its limitations; they wiil keep Parliaments and Governments up to the mark in all that is within the appropriate sphere; they will, in groups or organised bodies, find' means of dealing with matters that aro outside the limitations. . “The next quality required in the people is an abiding sense of the need for order. . . . The law must bo obeyed; if the law is faulty it must bo amended by orderly, tliat is by Parliamentary, methods. An illustration of the strength of popular conviction of the need .for order is that in times of crisis such as war, liberty is by popular consent enrtaine'd; "blit " only on the universally stipulated and accepted condition that this curtailment is temporary.

The Three-Party Svstem. "If democracy is to last, the people who compose it must bo able to adapt it to meet .new problems and changing conditions- • .•Every system of government should have elasticity; should lend itself to being modified, shaped, and developed. It may be claimed on behalf of democracy that it is lees rigid and more plastic than other systems of governments For a long time government was worked on the two-party _ system. Like other things in the Eritich Constitution, the party system ,was not the result .of forethought, foresight, or theory." It was not deliberately adopted; it came as the outcome, of - internal, differences of opinion "People- spoke and wrote frequently of the evils of the party system; it would Mvo been more easy to prove on paper that it would wreck government than to prove that it would work well. But its abuses were kent in chock: its vital force was utilised; preserved in full strength and activity and yet kept within bounds. Finally, while still grumbling at it, we came, to regard the twoparty system as essential to the working of all democracy: so much so that many people record the loss if the twoparty system with dismay, and say that it is absolutely necessary to return to it. and to net rid of the three-party svstem that has taken its place. "I realise the inconvenience of the three-narty, and long for the old simplicity of the two-party system. Tn like manner. I feel the inconvenience and complication which the Einstein theory has caused to simple mtnds like mv own in attempts to understand nstrcnomv But ifr'is of no use to hone to <n>t rul of the Einstein theory and get back to simnler noilans .of t’>° universe, which we hoped we had understood. Nn Return tn the T'"o-Partv Svstem. "So in politics I doubt whether wo shall ever return to the two-party system: the tendencies, the forces flint have brought about the three-party syf* tern are much more likely to go - on-to make, four parties than to reverse their energy and enable ns to revert to two. I am not. however, pessimistic : the practical sense of the people will make n three-party svstem work, in • rP’te of. nil that can.' with'cogency, be said, against are two more dualities the coexihtemee of which is essential to vigorous democracy; one is. enterprise, the

other is caution. Without enterprise there is no push, no drive; without caution there is .not stability and continuity. Progress to be sound must be continuous; that is to say, that ' what is done must join on to what is already established. Both qualities nave been exemplified in recent years. ... "Another quality that has contributed to the practical success of the British people is the innate sense that the end of a struggle is compromise. Inside a democracy there are many conflicts of opinion and of interests: they arise not merely between classes but between sections of the same class; sometimes they arise between different industries in each of which the interests of every class are involved. “It may happen in such conflicts that each side begins by a stout, unyielding statement of its own position; but at the back of it all is the expectation that each side will in the end have to make concessions. It is this that in British constitutional struggles has stood between the country and revolution.' . . . "In so far as education leads to strength and stability of character, to a perception that the opinion of others must be taken into account as well as our own. it does much to support democracy. But the effect which education regarded merely as knowledge may have on national character is less certain. ... It is to the interest both of the individual and of the State that the best should be made of the. best brains. It is, however, possible to overate the effect of knowledge in the working of democracy. "Knowledge' is no doubt a factor, but is not the decisive factor, in influencing conduct. It is a common- though by no means a universal experience to find that men of great knowledge are not the most 'valuable in practical affairs. . . . Knowledge is of the greatest value in preventing wrong decisions, bitt it does not of itself lead to decision add action. We should therefore admit and urge its great value to a democracy; but do not let us expect it to create in a people the character and qualities that make democracy succeed. Education will r.ot save a democracy where the people have not yet acquired, or have ceased to possess, these qualities. ... "We sometimes speak of education as. a process of levelling, up; this is true in a sense, in so ar as education raises all men above the level of those who have no education at all, in this. Sense education may be said to raise the level of mankind upwards. But it is also true that education brings out the natural inequalities of men and women. The more widely higher education is shared the more it will bo apparent that the best brains surpass the average in attainment. Democracy is the system that is best adapted to this inequality; it gives scope to the exceptional without neglecting the average; for it is necessarily on average men and' women that democracy is based. "It is of the essence of democracy that all classes have' their ■ share in it. We have sfot rid of despotism, then of government by aristocracy, .by bringing in the middle class; and finally we have got rid of class government by bringing in every class. The suggestion that every class except what is called tlie proletariat should b>» excluded from government is reactionary, for it would be a return (o class government, and would be stunted by tho limitations and deformed by the abuses that are inseparable from any system of this kind, whatever be the class that, governs. Such systems are driven to rely upon force, and. force is favourable to government by a few; a system that rests upon force inevitably plays into the. hands and becomes the prize of a man, or of a clique who have the aptitude for seizing power. Of all systems of government democracy rests least upon force and most, upon consent. "A true estimate of the merits of democracy is best arrived at by comparing it with all other systems of government that we seen in operation, or of which history tell. A friend who knew Cecil Rhodes well once told me the following story. My friend vms on the veld with Rhodes: tilings were not going well with his plans; the outlook was depressing. "Do you ever do the comparative?’ said Rhodes, and then proceeded to explain. "His own corrective for depression was to reflect that, however badly things went with him, he was better off, with more chances of success', ns a citizen of tho great Empire than if lie had been born in a small Stale. Let ns ‘do the comparative’ when wo feel dissatisfied nboiif democracy, or discontented with its defects. A thoughtful comnarison will no doubt make us observe that rjmost every system of government has some advantages that are peculiar to itself ns well ns disadvantages; but there is none that in such largo measure combines stability with progress, and order with liberlv.”