Democracy and Caucus Dictatorship

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

Democracy and Caucus Dictatorship

Sir,—The issue to-day of your paper contains some comments at Auckland yesterday credited to a Mr. W. A. Boucher, pertaining to “democracy and caucus dictatorship,” in which he is proclaimed to have stated, inter alia: “With Labour Governments in power people have practically no say in the affairs of the country after the elections. It is purely and. simply government by caucus, a particularly bad form o.f dictatorship.” . . ; The large percentage of this country being democratic to the point of where the Governor-General reserves for Royal assent a proposed enactment of our Parliament, it is reasonable to assume that a corresponding percentage of the people will be rather vividly interested to learn from Mr. Boucher at the earliest moment precisely what he means by his references to democracy and caucus dictatorship, therefore he will, probably take immediate advantage of an opportunity to explain by answering from Auckland or other place, two or three simple questions.:— : .' - _ ‘ , (a) Where National, Reform, Liberal, or other Governments are in power, what practical say have the people in the affairs of the’country after the elections/ -(b) From the point of view of democracy and caucus dictatorship, what is the distinction between' Labour government by caucus (a convened meeting of all Parliamentary members of the Government Party), and National,.. Liberal, .or Reform government by Cabinet (a convened meeting of some ten Parliamentary membeirs of the Government party) or by caucus? (c) Is government by Cabinet nearer to the principles of democracy than government by caucus? (d) If the Australian Commonwealth Labour Government in 1916 held - two meeting of all Parliamentary Labour members (a caucus) and resolved at each meeting that the people of Australia decide by bare, majority if a plebiscite whether Australian human life be conscripted for the Great War, and the New Zealand Reform Government in 1915 (with or without caucus) caused to be made an enactment by our Parliament that New Zealand human life be conscripted for the same war without in any way consulting the people or having a mandate from them, which Government was adhering to the principle of democratic rule —Australia or New Zealand? Those questions, Sir, will test the knowledge and enlightment of Mr. Boucher respecting democracy and dictatorship. Should he refrain, it will be only decent to assume that his pronouncements are mere gush and bosh. As Mr. Boucher is now of opinion that the workers have to realise that they had now to 'face altered conditions in the same manner as the primary producers of the country, it may be remarked that. Mr. Boucher was not observed advocating to the i advantage of the workers that they face altered conditions in the same manner as primary producers when prices of primary products’ bounded upward some 40 per cent, in 1915, while wages and conditions of workers remained stationary' at the pre-war level, —I am. etc., W. T. YOUNG. Wellington, December 3.