A NOVEMBER ELECTION?

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 87, 9 October 1935, Page 10

A NOVEMBER ELECTION?

The Western world has five great rulers, or six if Russia be included in the Western world. Three are dic-tators—-Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin-5 — and three are elective. The price paid by the three democracies— Britain, France, America—for maintaining the elective principle is that their rulers are not, like the dictators, certain of their position; consequently a democratic ruler cannot be as bold and ruthless in policy (internal and external) as a dictator can be, | and is. Two of Europe's dictators are Fascist or Nationalist in type, and their careers have had the effect of impressing Labour parties with the fact that democracy is a tremendous privilege, and that democracy's elected rulers, even if they" cannot be always Labour men, are riot so bad after all. The reaction of Labour against dictatorship has carried so far that almost everywhere (except, perhaps, among the leading cliques in Australia) Labour is standing behind the League of Nations, even to the possibility of military sanctions. And as the war threat has spread itself rapidly over the whole political canvas in Europe, Labour now finds itself in the position that, at any rale in the United Kingdom, the > attitude of its majority is remarkably close to the attitude of the National Government on the predominant question of the hour. With such a fortuitous conjunction of favourable elective circumstances, it is hot astonishing that the directors of the Government machine are considering a November election./ It might be astonishing if they were not Strong democratic leadership in the three great Western democracies is now a necessity not only of those countries themselves, but of democratic civilisation. In the United States, President Roosevelt has a charter (subject to such limitations as the Constitution and the new Neutrality Act) until November, 1936. In France, special temporary measures have been taken to prevent group politics from destroying leadership. In Britain—perhaps the pivot of the whole structure—the currency of the Government's charter is nearing its close,.and if the opportunity were seized to seek a new mandate on this favourable occasion, and if the people of the United Kingdom gave that mandate in November,, the front offered by democratic leadership against dictatorial violence would be immensely strengthened. Who would attempt to say that Europe, as democrats see Europe, does not need a continuance in office of the Government responsible for Sir Samuel Hoare's great speech before the League of Nations? So strong does the Government's hand appear to be, that today's cablegrams suggesting an impending election, though unofficial, must be read with attention, and must be regarded as among the most significant news of..the.hour. The advantage that is being sought is national and international in scope; it includes, also, party advantage. It may be called opportunism. It may be compared with Mr: Joseph Chamberlain's "khaki" election in the Boer War— with the important reservations that the war-maker now is not Britain, and that the centre of sanctions is not a Government but a League of Nations.

But though it may be Irue that to seek a mandate in a war crisis is an act of party advantage—an act quite within the rules of the democratic game—yet the predominant consideration is that the parties behind'the National Government in Britain have put up a Cabinet ttiiil lias shown itself lit to be the slandord-bcarer of democracy, led by men whose strength and moderation have compelled the support of political op-

ponents as well as the admiration of all friends of. freedom. If the key to a British election at this critical moment is the key forged in Geneva, who has a better right to use it, for national and international welfare, than the British National Government?