Team Work in Politics

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 64, 9 December 1930, Page 13

Team Work in Politics

Sir, —At the present time it is rather fashionable to criticise “party politics.” especially among those who have no direct personal knowledge of the working of the Parliament, there is a tendency to speak as though Parliament could do its work better if parties did not exist. I should be obliged, therefore, if you would allow me, an executive officer of a political party, to suggest some of the arguments which seem to me to justify the party system. First, it seems clear that combination, ■’ or team work, is as necessary, as valuable, in politics, as in any other sphere of life. An “Independent” is’ abo.ut as much use in politics as on the football field ; in both cases, teamwork is essential. Among the members or a party there is always a certain amount of specialisation. It is obviously impossible for every ..member — or any .member —to make a study of all the hundreds of different questions that arise. An Independent, a “lone wolf,” is therefore in practice obliged : to concentrate his attention upon ' one or two matters,, and either ignore the rest, or, at most, give them only super- . ficial attention in passing. But members of an organised party, working as a team, can give one another a great deal of assistance. Moreover, a party is able to set up research committees of specialists, and to maintain an efficient information department at party headquarters, which can'make available for members a great mass of classified and verified material such as no individual member would have time to obtain for himself. , . But there is more in the question than this. As Mr. Coates has recently reminded us, the working of Parliament for centuries-has been basedion the principle that one team of members shall be responsible for the administration of affairs, While another team is responsible for exercising a constant supervision over all that is done; We set one group of men to administer public affairs, and another group of men to watch them and “keep them up to the mark.” And there is surely much to be said in favour bf this method of safeguarding the country, as far as possible, against slackness and corruption in government. At any rate, no better method has yet been suggested. Then in regard to legislation, the party system justifies itself in its recognitions! the fact that there are at least “two sides to every question.” Whatever view, is ' taken by the Government Party, it becomes the duty of the Opposition to examine it critically and discover every possible objection to it. The Opposition should not—and in practice does not— ; oppose blindly every proposal of the Government. But it is expected to. subject every proposal to critical exammatioti, and oppose it if any substantial defects are discovered. * This is the method we have evolved of guarding against legislation being passed without.its first being subjected to critical examination. The next point is that, under our present systein, the Prime Minister is, in effect, elected by Parliament. That is. to say, he cannot take office or continue in office unless a majority of the members are prepared to support him But “supporting the Prime Minister 1 and his Cabinet” means something more than merely voting “confidence” in him. Ihe Cabinet cannot be held responsible for making ends meet,, for making the Budget balance, unless they have control > of public expenditure. Members cannot be said to a Minister, therefore', unless they are prepared to vote for his financial measures. If they wish to oppose the Government s policy, then their only course is to form a “party” (to put in another man as. Prime Minister and to support his policy m-. stead of that of the existing Governmerit. And it should be noted that this would be the position equally if every member of the House had been elected as an Independent. In such a House there would inevitably be. an im-, mediate division;between those. members, who wanted a certain man and a certain policy, and those who wanted another man with another policy. in a House of “Independents” parties would inevitably be formed within the first week, for no government could be set up at all unless a sufficient number of those “Independent” members decided to support some particular government and its policy. ' _ It is true that in bur present Parliament the handful of Independents are able to avoid definitely' allying themselves with either the Government or the Opposition. But I suggest that this is possibly only because—and only so , long as —the. Independents are so few that they do not count. In other words, they can remain independent only under one condition, namely, that they are so few that their votes do not make any difference, one way or the’ other, to the fate of the Government and its measures. I recognise that on the other side there are one or two valid objections to the party system. But I believe that the . balance of argument is decidedly in favour of this system; and I would ask those of your recent correspondents who have criticised if to give due weight to the considerations I have suggested. I take it that we all want only to find the system which will give the best results, which will best protect the interests of the community. A calm and rational discussion of the problem cannot, then, fail to do good. My own belief is that it will lead to the conclusion that the party system, with all its acknowledged defects, is the best and safest system that can be devised under the conditions of political democracy.—l am, etc., A. E. MANDEB. ■; December 2.