Evening Post. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1938. DEMOCRACY'S LEADERS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 122, 19 November 1938, Page 8

Evening Post. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1938. DEMOCRACY'S LEADERS

-People are naturally apt to prefer the form of government under which they live, and to the nations of the' British Commonwealth democracy—government of the people by the people for the people—has come to mean representative government by an

elected Parliament, which in turn chooses its own Ministers to* carry out its decisions. But the AngloAmerican trade agreement, significant for its closer association of two great democracies by means of commerce, reminds us of the existence of nations adopting the same principles of government in a different form. Democracy does not mean exactly the same thing to; the citizen of the United States, who elects his Government in a different way. ' The President of the United States, for instance, as an American visitor recently pointed out in "The Post," is by no means in the same position as the Prime Minister of Britain or of any of the British Dominions. He is responsible constitutionally not to a party having a majority in what corresponds to our Parliaments—the U.S. Congress—hut to the people themselves directly. He is not at the mercy of any chance defeat in Congress, but is President for four years, the term for which he is elected, and cannot be removed, except by resignation, impeachment, or death. The advantages and disadvantages of such a form of government, compared with the British Parliamentary and Cabinet system, have frequently been discussed without any unanimity in judgment on the issue. What is more important today is that all forms- of democracy are more or less in the melting-pot, of criticism, because up to the present they seem to have come off second best in their conflict withj the latest expression of totalitarian absolutism—the dictatorship. Thus a Minister of the Crown in a Dominion of the British Empire, Mr. O. Pirow, Minister of Defence in the South African Union, can say on the eve of his departure from London on a mission to Germany, that "nothing is more pathetic than the belief that political happiness is impossible except on the basis of democracy known in the British Dominions." Then he added that the British system, possibly subject to slight reforms, might be the only one to suit the British temperament, but it was a question of tradition and temperament. When both were absent the system failed. The principle of the British system, as stated by Leonard Courtney in his manual, "The Working Constitution of the United Kingdom," is that a House of Commons issuing from a General Election is the most authoritative expression of the will of the nation . . . and the administration of public affairs and the guidance of legislation should be entrusted to persons approved by a majority of the House. . . . Their tenure of office as Ministers of the Crown must depend upon their command of the confidence of the House of Commons. This system of government, adds this authority, presents a marked contrast to that adopted in the United States, which rests to an equal extent on constant appeals to the national will. The chief officers of the American Government are elected independently by the people, and, having a fixed tenure of office, do not require to be in harmony with either branch of •the Legislature. This maintenance of "harmony," together with a competence in the handling of affairs of all shades of importance, obviously calls for qualities of a high order. How does one become Prime Minister, asks Dr. Thomas Jones, former Deputy Secretary to the British Cabinet, in a recent broadcast, published in the "Listener." There is no one-way traffic to the summit, he replies. No precise path can be laid down for the aspiring statesman. From Walpole to Mr. Chamberlain there have been forty Prime Ministers in 200 years. They were all promoted ooliticians. but their preparation for the highest office shows wide diversity. Some may have gone straight to Parliament from a university: others have had to leap the bar of birth and circumstance, like Canning, the son of an actress, or Disraeli, a Jew. Even Gladstone was for many years regarded as an outsider by the ruling families. "He was not bred in our kennel," sneered a Whig peer. Humble birth is now no bar, high birth no passport to success. Lord Brvce is cited by Dr. Jones as mentioning four different kinds of rapacity which an English politician needs in order to attain the highest place. He must be a debater. He must be a Parliamentary tactician.

He must understand the country. He must understand Europe. This last, he adds, is not always necessary, but he would hardly make that concession today. Dr. Jones notes that long apprenticeship in politics is not always a qualification. The late Ramsay Mac Donald had no previous experience as a Minister. On the other hand, Joseph Chamberlain, in the last generation, with brilliant gifts, never attained the top, and Mr. Winston Churchill is still waiting.

It is not necessary for a Prime Minister, in order to succeed, to be an adept at what the Americans call "glad-handing." Pitt, it is said, was shy and proud. Peel, according to Wellington, had no manners, and hi? smile was compared to a silver plate on a coffin lid. Palmerston was full of the politician's bonhomie, so that Cobden complained: "Whatever I do the old rascal will always insist on calling me his honourable friend." Lloyd George had the great gift of being, in the words of Dr. Jones, "a natural and sincere democrat with all sorts and conditions of men and women." Though he need not be a genius, a Prime Minister must

possess ability in one or more of the directions indicated by Lord Bryce. Peel, Gladstone, and Lloyd George were great debaters and administrators. Disraeli shone most in debate. Character, as in the cases of Campbell-Bannerman and Lord Baldwin, is vital. So the choice of leadership, says Dr. Jones, will tend to fall on the man who will have demonstrated the possession not necessarily of superior intellectual ability, but of judgment, patience, foresight, persuasive powers, and courage in a degree superior to any of his colleagues, and fused in an art of leadership which leaves them looking to him rather than him to them. It is clear, therefore, in the British system of government that "the personality and character of the Prime Minister are of supreme importance to the Crown, to the Cabinet, to the Party, and to the People," as Dr. Jones puts it. In forming his j Cabinet he must secure to himself | "the cement of personal loyalty, pub- | lie debating power, and departmental j administrative capacity." The greatest of these is loyalty. So, in the nursery of Parliamentary Governments, says Dr. Jones,

what persists through all changes of persons and machinery is a tradition of famous statesmen who confronted the recurrent problems of the world in an English way, never entirely forgetful of the highest interests of mankind. "Not that the interest of England," said Canning a hundred and fifteen years ago, "is an interest which stands isolated and alone. ... It is upon a just balance of conflicting duties and of rival, but sometimes incompatible, advantages that a Government must judge when to put forth its strength and when to husband it for occasions yet to come. Our ultimate object must be the peace of the world."