The Dominion SATURDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1932. KING DEMOS

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 30, 29 October 1932, Page 10

The Dominion SATURDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1932. KING DEMOS

It is something gained toward the strengthening of the efficiency of our democratic system of government that some of the country s elected representatives are frankly conscious of its present weaknesses. Mr. Burnett, the member for Temuka, has pointed out one of them. During the Budget debate in the House this week, he took occasion to remark that the great danger of all democracies was that men wotilc. follow the line of least resistance and bring pressure to bear on the Government of the day by joining up with unholy alliances to achieve their ends. These faint stirrings of the pol itical conscience are an encouraging sign. The nation’s adversities have induced on the part of the great majority of the public a mood of self-examination, and this was bound to react upon Parliament sooner or later. Even the resentment shown by some members at public criticism of their methods shows that the shafts have gone home. The sheet-anchor of democratic government is public opinion, which can make a Government or destroy it. From this there naturally follows a tendency on the part of the elected to bend their wills to the electors. Bryce in his American Commonwealth sets out three stages in the evolution of public opinion from its “unconscious and passive” into its “conscious and active” condition. In the first, it acquiesces in the will of the ruler whom it has been accustomed to obey. In the second conflicts arise between the ruling person or class, backed by those who are still disposed to obedience on the one hand, and the more independent and progressive spirits on the other; these conflicts are decided by arms. In the third stage the whilom ruler has submitted, and disputes are referred to the sovereign multitude whose will is expressed at certain intervals upon slips of paper deposited in boxes, and carried out by the Ministry or Legislature. “A fourth stage would be reached,” he adds, “if the will of the majority of the citizens were to become ascertainable at all times. In such a condition of things public opinion would not only reign but govern.” In effect we seem already to have reached that stage in New Zealand. There is a disposition, which our Ministers and legislators do not even attempt to conceal, to act as if they were subject at all times to the varying moods of public opinion instead of adhering steadfastly to the terms of the mandate given them when elected. The danger of such a development was foreseen by Bryce when he wrote in 1894. “Such a disposition,” he pointed out, “will be accompanied by a constant oversight of public affairs by the mass of the citizens, and by a sense on their part that they are the true governors, and that their agents, executive and legislative, are their servants.” This development, however, has taken a turn in an undesirable direction, as Mr. Burnett has pointed out. It is the weight of interested combinations, “unholy alliances,” as he describes them, rather than the general current of public opinion, which is apt to evade definition, that tends to move Parliament and Government. Hence the actual business of government in the final analysis appears to the public to consist in balancing and compromising under various pressures exerted by different organisations formed to safeguard their own particular interests. From this it may actually happen that a well-organised, noisy, and persistent minority may impose its will upon the majority. Democratic government from this point of view may be just as harsh and tyrannical as an autocratic regime, and as selfish. Furthermore this constant process of balancing and compromising with outside pressure is responsible for the frequent lack of direction and continuity in policy, and for the tardiness with which democratic Governments function. Indeed it is the major premise in the argument that in occasions of extreme national emergency democracy is incapable of acting with promptness and decision. This has been amply demonstrated in the hesitancy which has marked the methods of democratic Governments throughout the world in dealing with the problems created by the great depression. Mazzini has pointed out that what we call democracy comprises merely fragments of democracy vying with each other in the attainment of selfish ends. “Give,” he says, “the suffrage to a people unfitted for it, governed by hateful reactionary passions, they will sell it, or will make bad use of it; they will introduce instability into every part of the State, they will render impossible those great combined views, those thoughts for the future, which make the life of a nation powerful and progressive.”