Evening Post. SATURDAY, JUNE 1, 1935. SAFETY IN DEMOCRACY

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 128, 1 June 1935, Page 8

Evening Post. SATURDAY, JUNE 1, 1935. SAFETY IN DEMOCRACY

In 'his interesting studies of Parliamentary speech published under the title "Westminster Voices" Mr. James Johnston wrote of Mr. Stanley Baldwin as "A Miniature Lincoln." He admitted all of Mr. Baldwin's faults: a very indifferent voice, which local accent has not helped to improve, some vowels distinctly suspect, a juvenile self-consciousness which often makes him scamper through his speeches, a habit of reading from a typed script and not reading well. Yet, in spite of this rather overwhelming catalogue of imperfections Mr. Johnston placed Mr. Baldwin in the first class of Parliamentary speakers,

simply because the title to be regarded as worthy of special honour cannot be denied to one who by his words can touch the minds of men to finer issues and can draw simple and beautiful pictures which people love to keep in their memories.

Mr. Baldwin, he stated, had the credit of having delivered one of the most memorable of recent Parliamentary speeches, "the famous Peace in our Time speech."

The House was fascinated by its best passages, not stirred to passion, or excited in any of its baser feelings, but compelled to listen silently as it would listen to an extremely good storyteller, one whose story was enthralling and who told it as if its pathos and beautywere part of himself.

The speech in which Mr. Baldwin last week replied to Herr Hitler and explained the Government's air defence policy may not rank with the oration here so highly lauded; but, if we may judge it upon the cabled summary it should maintain and even enhance the reputation which the Lord President of the Council has won by his gift for dealing with practical issues and touching them with idealism and humanity. The air defence speech was an admirable blend of hard facts and high ideals, of statesmanlike strength, and human feeling, of the caution of the responsible national leader and the sincerity of a peacemaker. One may estimate its convincing quality by the report that, though Labour officially opposed the Air Defence Vote, many members wished to abstain from voting or to support the Government. The speech is memorable chiefly for the contribution it made to the pacification of Europe and Britain's establishment of a secure position with friendliness to her neighbours. But if analysed it is seen to possess an importance apart from these general aspects which have had most public attention. It presented, in candid and yet uncritical terms, one of the greatest problems of Europe in the present day—the growth of autocracy (or dictatorship) over a great part of the Continent which seventeen years ago was "made safe for democracy." Even now this autocracy is an obstacle to peace and disarmament and it may yet increase the danger of war. The position was frankly summed up by Mr. Baldwin in two passages wherein he contrasted the position of the v ßritish democratic State with the States which had rid themselves of both democratic impediments and safeguards. It Is inconceivable, he said, that the democratic Government of this country would ever use its strength, even if it had ten times the strength it has today, in a war of aggression. Then, contrasting the position of a democratic country, such as Britain, with that of the authoritarian State, of which there were three in Europe, he said: If the authoritarian State wishes swiftly and in a large measure to increase its national defence it can do it in absolute secrecy. One of the greatest causes of apprehension and fear is the ignorance of the world as to what is going on behind some of the screens. Ignorance begets rumour. Further reference to the same point was made by Mr. Baldwin on May 27. Herr Hitler's advent to power, he said, had changed the whole situation. England knew immediately and the world knew tomorrow if England built a single aeroplane or enlisted half a dozen soldiers, but a dictator could veil his country's preparations. The difference between the authoritarian State and the democratic State is to be seen also in foreign policy and the methods of diplomacy. The necessary and common result Of a revolution, whether a great or a less great revolution, whether a more or less peaceful one or a bloody one, said Mr. Baldwin in the House of Commons on November 27, is that you get a dictator or somebody in the position of a dictator in power, and it is notoriously more difficult to get contact with a dictator than it is with a democratic Government. The events of last year afford convincing proof of the far-reaching dis-

turbance —far beyond the German borders —of the German dictatorship ; a disturbance due in the main to fear of what the dictatorship might mean. Of course this difference between autocracy and democracy is no new phenomenon. It was familiar to pre-War Europe where the menace of militant absolute monarchies was ever recurring. Peace was expected to end all that, as it ended the monarchies, and to usher in a new era of freedom, open diplomacy, and democratic rule. For a time the promise of fulfilment held; but the uprising of absolute rule in a new form now threatens to thrust democracy back even further than the stage it had reached in 1914. Eighteen months ago a writer in the "Round Table" could make the gloomy'summary: Democracy is in retreat and is giving place, not to restored dynastic autocracies, but to . dictatorships by parties, which are based on class-con-sciousness, racialism, or some other mass emotion, and are utterly ruthless and regardless of (individual rights and justice in enforcing their absolute domination. If this process continued unchecked it was only a question of time till armament edmpetitioi and economic obstruction led to war. We have space here to refer, and that but briefly, to only two of several arresting points in this reaction. Firstly, it has opened a gulf which may be wider than that between autocracy and democracy in pre-War years. Before the War even the free democracies tacitly accepted the necessity for secret diplomacy, and thus diminished the disadvantage which they suffered when confronted with autocracies which had never admitted public interest in foreign policy. Now the leaders of the authoritarian Slates have returned to a position in which they are unhampered by the necessity for any more public discussion than they deem wise or advantageous. By complete, control of the Press and strict limitation of freedom of speech they are indeed more strongly entrenched than the old monarchies. Only in the free democracies is the post-War desire for open diplomacy still strong. Secondly we have the striking paradox that the strength of democracy for peace is attributable in no small measure to characteristics which are generally held to be the great weaknesses of the democratic form of government. A democracy does not always think clearly and consistently, decide quickly, or act swiftly. It is always slow, sometimes dull, and often undecided. These are pronounced drawbacks when domestic, and particularly economic, reforms are desired. But they are salvation itself when they compel the hesitation and greater consideration which will often prevent war. Fifteen years ago one of the closest observers of democracy, Lord Bryce, discerned the peril which its deficiencies created for it. Economic issues, he wrote, had come so to dominate the minds of large sections of certain peoples as to make them willing to sacrifice liberty itself, or at least the institutions which had hitherto safeguarded liberty, for the sake of that fundamental reconstruction of society which they desired. The revolution that is to effect this purpose is represented as a transient flood, needed to sweep away the barriers Capitalism has set up. But is the stream likely to return to its ancient channel? Will the forcible methods revolution uses be renounced? The uneasy peace of Europe, perilously near to war, confirms the fears Lord Bryce expressed. The sacrifice of liberty, assented to so that the efficiency of dictatorship might hasten economic reconstruction, has raised a new menace to die international co-operation which is essential for national economic progress. Seventeen years ago we thought we had a world made safe for democracy. Now we need, the assurance of democracy for the safety of the world.