DEMOCRACY OR COMMISSION

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 64, 17 March 1933, Page 6

DEMOCRACY OR COMMISSION

It is air interesting commentary on our system of municipal government that, after two years' experience of local government by commission, Napier does not display marked eagerness for a return to the old system. At. least some of the people ' wish to retain the Commission for another year, and are preparing a. petition to the Government for this purpose. People.are" often dissatisfied with the form of government which they possess, especially -when times are difficult. Then the cry goes up: "We want a Mussolini," and attempts may even be.made to introduce the city-manager method which has found favour in a few places abroad. In most cities-and boroughs a short experience of dictatorship or commission would bring democracy again into favour. ■ Even if they do not exercise, the power freely, electors like to feel, that they can dismiss the rulers who. displease' them or threaten them with / dismissal. But Napier has had the commission and has neither revolted nor shown any inclination to do so.

Of course, the circumstances are exceptional. Napier had to cope with a great disaster. The most competent men in the community had their .hands full with their own affairs. They yvere pleased to have the weight of municipal management taken from them and the restoration of city .services , placed under the control of two highly competent commissioners. The business efficiency of the commissioners accounts in a great measure for the. success of the methods adopted. That explains not i only why Napier's experiment has been successful, but also why there is no frantic rush to apply it1 throughout the Dominion. Other towns cannot be sure that, if they got rid of their elected councils, they would he able to secure capable commissioners. There is the rub. An elected council's efficiency may be "just so-so," but a commissioner with full authority and under no popular control might prove much worse. Benevolent autocracy has a good start towards efficiency. It has not to wait for decisions or compromise or seek to harmonise the conflicting interests which come together in an elected council. Possibly henevoleht autocracy would be a popular form of government today if the supply of capable and benevolent autocrats had been equal to the demand. But the supply was short and the quality fell. There was more autocracy and less benevolence. And if the business is to be muddled the people prefer to do it themselves. When they surrender authority they expect compensation in capacity. Failing assurance of this capacity, the people will always cling to the right to rule themselves, even though that right may be lessened by party government which permits one-man or one-class rule at variance with the wishes of the people and even at variance with the^ ruling party's own professed policy. Even, then the electors can console themselves with the thought that there will be a day of reckoning.