Evening Post. TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1925. UNITY OR CHAOS?

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 121, 26 May 1925, Page 6

Evening Post. TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1925. UNITY OR CHAOS?

On the -ith August, 1915—the first anniversary of the Empire's entry into the Great War—the mind of the country was relieved of a great anxiety by the announcement that Mr. Massey's Reform Government was to become a National Cabinet by a Reform-Liberal Coalition for the purposes of the War. From the standpoint of popular sentiment and patriotic self-sacrifice that first year of the War was one of the most honourable in the history of New Zealand. But those who recall the embarrassments under which the War administration had been carried on by a party Cabinet, the fierceness of the party feuds, arid the complete antagonism of the process both to the needs 'of the nation and to the unprecedented sense of unity- with which it was inspired, must surely' agree that from the political standpoint that same glorious year was one of the most humiliating in our history. The remaining years of the War were free of this baneful influence. The politicians closed their ranks, as the people had already closed theirs, in the presence of a common enemy, and a united nation saw the War through under a National Government.

When the War was over and tho terms of peace had- been settled a,t Versailles, the end for which the Coalition was formed had been attained. There was a widespread feeling in the country that the unsettled problems of the peace and the .mischief-makers who were concerned to aggravate the prevailing unrest for their own sinister ends provided a common enemy of sufficient importance to justify ftie transformation of the War Coalition into a Peace Coalition. The Liberals thought otherwise, and at the General Election which followed a severe penalty was exacted, less perhaps owing to the substance of their decision than to the precipitation with which it was carried out. A part of the penalty was the defeat of the honoured leader of the Liberal Party, and it has never held up its head since. We have recalled the circumstances and the consequences both of the decision which brought the National Government into being and of that which broke up, because the politicians are once more confronted with the responsibility of making a third decision which is comparable with, at any rate, the second of the other two in importance and raises analogous issues. Now, as in 1915, public opinion favours union, and now, as then, the politicians declare such a thing to be impossible. They were converted in 1915, but in the absence ot such a tremendous emergency as the World War public opinion may not be strong enough to convert them now. The circumstances of 1919 present a much closer parallel. Everybody can now see that the Liberals failed not only in tactics but m statesmanship on that occasion. Will not the failure of the -Reform Party be far more unpardonable if, with the experience of the last five years and a half to guide them, they blunder in a similar manner? At present neither party has committed itself officially but representative men on both sides have advocated' union, and reports from all parts of the country indicate that in so doing they speak for a very large body of opinion. The contrast between the enthusiasm with which the Liberals broke up the Coalition in 1919 and the favour with which they are now regarding the proposal of an even closer union is not disguised—it is rather.emphasised—by their official silence. A declaration of war would be a simple matter, but it is not so easy to sue for peace, especially when the other side has only a temporary leader. We trust that the first task of the Eeform leader to be appointed to-morrow will be to open negotiations with the Liberals with a view to united action, and that for this purpose he will receive every encouragement from the Caucus, or at the very least a free hand.

For the Reform Party or its leader to determine to carry on under the conditions of the last few years would be to reject the counsel of their late leader, to reverse the policy for which they declared just' after the last General Election, and to intimate to the country that they can manage a General Election and a Parliament better without Mr. Miissey than they-could under his lead. What else would an attempt of the Keform Party to cany on alone amount to? At the last Genera] Election Mr. Massey got so small a majority that the two sessions which followed strained his immense powers to their utmost limit. Does the party expecf. to get a belief majority now that he lias gone,' or to elect, a leader to-morrow who will make a better use o[ a majority of three or four than ha was aisle to doi Both suggefiljiouß ar.s plainly, ■ab-

surd. To the impartial outsider it seems perfectly clear that the Reformers, standing alone, are bound to lose heavily at the coming election ; that the Liberals cannot possibly get a majority; but that in combination they would be irresistible and could give the country the strong and stable Government that it needs. It is time that the artificial differences which keep the parties apart and the personal ambitions and rivalries which they have served to cloak were swept away, and that the two parties, or the better elements of both, were united on a broad national basis. The essentials of success appear to be_ that it must be a permanent union, and not * a mere coalition ; that it must have a definite and clear-cut policy as the basis of union ; and_ that, instead of both parties waiting in the hopes of making better terms after another dip in the election lucky-bag, they should come together with as little delay as possible and face the electors on this common platform.