The Dominion. SATURDAY, MAY 16, 1936. MODERN GOVERNMENT

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 196, 16 May 1936, Page 10

The Dominion. SATURDAY, MAY 16, 1936. MODERN GOVERNMENT

Since modern government went into the show business,, people have had their attention so much distracted by what it is doing for them, what it should be doing for them, and what it promises to do for them, that they have lost sight of the principles, upon which the functions of government are founded. Political parties attain powet, or lose it, according to their success or failure in the coinpetition with, their rivals for the box-office results of propaganda and display posters. No modern political party would have the slightest hope of winning an election on purely moral grounds or its attachment to fundamental principles. For this development the materialism of the age, which has exalted the game of grab, is largely responsible, and since this spirit has infected a majority of people in all classes, no particular political party is free from it. In the words of a popular ditty of the early period of jazz, “everybody’s doing it.” Political parties, have found that it is an easier and more payable proposition to say yes to demands for favours than to refuse them on the grounds of principle. To adopt the latter course would be to court defeat. “Far too many public men of to-day look upon themselves as something in the nature of almoners,” observes Sir Ernest Benn, dealing with this aspect of politics in a timely and, outspoken protest, Modern Government, “as a busybodv in other men s matters (Geoige Allen and Unwin Ltd.: London). “Nine out of ten election addresses, he says, “can be summarised in a single sentence: ‘What is it you want. Vote for me and I will give it to you.” Most of us should agree with the author’s dictum that democracy was conceived in order that everv man might make his full contribution to the welfare of the State, and if we reflect how democracy in government has degenerated thiough its adventure into the show business we should also agi ee that instead of being a source of spiritual inspiration and encouragement, the democratic State has become a materialistic pawnshop. The granting of universal franchise was a moral gesture. It conferred upon the individual the right to safeguard and. fortify the principles of liberty and justice which, as a free-horn citizen, he was. entitled to enjoy, and in the benefits of which he was entitled to participate. Lut it did not entitle him to something for nothing, or to use his immense political power, when its utility was realised and its potentiality, organised, to force government to abandon its attachment to high piinciple and descend to the level of a caterer or a showman. Democratic government has made it possible for men to be put in conti ol of mi.lions of public money who themselves have never had the management of more than a few hundreds at the most. fl hat is a tremendous responsibility, and on the face of it one beyond the capacity of the average politician in a modern democracy to discharge with strict and i.m partial regard for principle in statecraft. “Few things are easier/’ says Sir Ernest Benn, than to achieve election to a county council and proceed to dabble in high finance. It is extremely gratifying to the self-esteem of the respectable little man, who has never earned more than a few hundreds a year, to find himself in a position where he can spend a hundred thousand pounds at a time. If only that excellent person would give the country which he aspires to serve the benefit of his own successful experience in managing his own income, half the public waste of to-day would be automatically avoided.” His aim is that the spirit of individual enterprise and indepeifdence should be so stimulated that the citizen will see more clearly than is possible to-day that to accept any form of public assistance is to become a pauper. “Thus,” he asserts,, “all the degrading modern notions of ‘rights’ will give way to the higher conception, of ‘responsibilities.’ Something for nothing will disappear as political policy, and the game of grab, which is destroying our economic foundations, will go out of fashion.” In the meantime, the. game is so strongly established as a political sport that not only do political parties vie with each other as popular patrons, but individuals and groups Line up in the queues. fl hose who want favours for nothing and those who are compelled by the Government in power to pay for those favours and want something as a set-off,, all join in the chorus of “Give!” That is not self-government;, it is simply a scramble —individualism in its worst, and most pernicious form, because it resolves itself into a general raid on the public purse without any thought whatever as to its effect upon the public interest. “If,” says Sir Ernest Benn, “the wage-earner were to realise, when he takes his £3 or £4 in wages, that another £7 or £8 is taken out of the product of the industry in order that he may be governed, he would evince a deeper and a different interest in government.” Much of the unsatisfactoriness of modern government arises from the acceptance of the idea that people’s troubles are caused by circumstances beyond their control. Hence, it is argued, it is toe business of Government to act as a fairy godmother and wave them away with a wand. But if we think deeply about it, and go far enough back into the origins of our troubles, we should see that peoples troubles are entirely of their own making. If it were true that.poverty is the result of capitalism, then logically it should be impossible for any poor person to escape from his condition by his own efforts and become a prosperous citizen. But we know that many do. Ihe Great Depression was due to the insensate vindictiveness of those who framed the Treaty of Versailles, but they were no better than those, whom they represented. Vindictiveness was in the air. From this spirit, was born economic nationalism, which crushed the freedom of international trade, and clotted the arteries of commerce. Hence the fall in prices. Hence the efforts of Governments to bolster up the situation by attempts to create an artificial economy. During the war and for some years after, prices soared, and there was an agitation to force them down. Now they are down there is an agitation to force them up. Whenever trouble comes there is a rush to the Government. Political parties having convinced the electors that they can satisfy the desires of all the citizens, every trade and industry, and all and sundry, are practically invited to come along and he served. “The whole implication of modern governmental pretensions,” says Sir Ernest Benn, “is therefore to make the citizen a dependant upon, and not a supportei of, the State.” How true this is of New Zealand, as of most modern democracies, we leave our readers to consider.. It is not easy to see how the progress of this degenerate tendency in modern democratic government is to be checked. Obviously, the impulse must come from the people, because no political party, as political parties are nowadays, would risk the. possible consequences of making a stand for the purification and invigoration of political ethics. The creation of such an impulse must follow from a growing awareness of the threat to democracy’s existence of the influence of materialism, and an acknowledgment of the need for a corrective. Whether the present adult generation could supply it is rather a doubtful question. The more deeply the problem is probed the more the truth becomes apparent that the groundwork of the ethics of citizenship must be laid in the schools and colleges of the nation. Our education system reflects the materialism of the age. Religious teaching has been banned, and ethical teaching is of a perfunctory kind Certificates and diplomas are awarded without reference to character. Their market value, therefore, is purely commercial. Human nature, in fact, has become so thoroughly materialised that movements founded by earnest people, and based on moral or ethical ideals, wither and the from lack of support.