The Dominion. SATURDAY, AUGUST 20, 1938. “HUMAN DOOR-MATS”

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 278, 20 August 1938, Page 10

The Dominion. SATURDAY, AUGUST 20, 1938. “HUMAN DOOR-MATS”

A recent visitor to Wellington, discussing the relationships of Government and the people, remarked that we seemed to be in danger of becoming a race of “human door-mats.” Criticism of Government, either local or general, he said, was the life-blood of democracy. If it was not exercised freely, fully, and effectively by the citizens, those in authority would trample all over them. There were times when protests had to be made, but it was not enough simply to register a protest. The protest must be rammed home. It was only in this way that those in authority could be made to feel the force of public opinion. These observations induce some serious reflections. It may be recalled that a member of the New Education Fellowship when a delegation of that body visited this country, remarked of his impressions of the Dominion that the people were “too docile.” Now we are told that we are becoming a race of “human door-mats.” Both descriptions convey similar implications. Are they applicable? Let us see.' The other day the Wellington Beautifying Society protested against the action of the City Council in permitting the installation of public benches carrying coloured advertisements. The protest was justified, and correlated to the society’s campaign against unsightly hoardings. But it was not rammed home. The benches are still there, and there is no indication that the council has any intention of removing them. The protest expired as soon as it was made. Take another illustration —the action of the Controller of Commercial Broadcasting in launching an offensive fliatribe against his critics in a Sunday evening address over the air. Here was a case for the strongest possible protest by the public, a protest of the kind that would have compelled the Government to recognise the justification for it, the force of it, and to act accordingly. It was. an unwarrantable abuse of his position and authority by a responsible public official. Protests were made, but with what result? The official is told that he is to carry on without any conditions or restrictions. What does this imply? It can only mean that those in authority have no respect for public opinion. What would have happened had a similar incident occurred in England? There would have been such a public outcry that the British Government would not have dared to do what Mr. Savage, with a complete disregard of his responsibility to the public as head of the Government, has dared to do. . That he has, to use an appropriate colloquialism, “got away with it,” is a result for which the passiveness of our public opinion must be held accountable.

There is a tendency on the part of people to regard a general election as the only occasion on which they can mark their approval or disapproval of the actions of their Government. Such an attitude is bad for the Government, and for the country. No Government relishes criticism, but under a democratic system it must not only expect it, but be prepared also to respect it. The sovereign power lies with the people, and it is the opinion of the people that shapes the country’s political destiny, and controls, or should control, the actions of those elected by them to administer their affairs. Constant vigilance, active criticism, and effective protests are therefore imperative to ensure that public opinion is respected, and that the actions of Government are properly aligned with it. A Government which does not respect public opinion very soon gets into the habit of treating it with contempt, and the people themselves as “human door-mats.”