CABINET ELECTION

Evening Post, Volume CXXX, Issue 143, 13 December 1940, Page 6

CABINET ELECTION

RIGHT OF CAUCUS

DANGER OF PARTY SPLIT

VIEWS OF MR. DOWNIE STEWART (Special to the "'Evening Post.") DUNEDIN, This Day. Contending that the selection of Cabinet by caucus was a fallacious application of democratic election, j Mr. W. Downie Stewart, a former Minister of Finance, in a letter to the "Otago Daily Times," has some comment to make on the coming j caucus of the Labour Party. "In a few days," writes Mr. Downie Stewart, "there is to take place a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Public interest has been aroused by a statement that one object of this ] meeting is to review the personnel of Cabinet. • "It is generally believed that members of the Labour Party claim the! right to select Cabinet Ministers on: the democratic principle that, just as members of Parliament are elected by vote of the people, so Cabinet should! be elected by the Government Party. If the principle has not actually been carried to this full limit, it has at least become the practice for the party caucus to make recommendations to the Prime Minister which, for all practical purposes, amounts to the same thing as election by caucus. For if the Prime Minister invites their opinion and refuses then to accept as his colleagues those recommended by his followers, he will soon cause grave discontent and possibly a split in his party. *

"I venture to suggest, however," Mr. Stewart says, "that that new practice is not only a fallacious application of the principle of democratic election but, if it is persisted in, will disrupt and destroy the party more quickly than any errors it may make in its legislation or administration.

"In the first place, the practice is a i fallacy. For the selection of Cabinet ] involves quite different considerations; from those which apply to the selec-! tion of members by the popular vote i of electors. Choosing a Cabinet is like ! choosing the officers of a ship, and this { is not done by the crew or passengers, j any more than a football team is i chosen by members of the club. For j in selecting a team—whether it be a Cabinet team or any other—it is i essential that men should be chosen j with the best qualifications for office j J and they must be men able to work ] ,in harmony and loyalty with their j ! chief and with their colleagues. The j only man who really knows what typej of man will fill these requirements is j the Prime Minister, for he has to lead i or drive the team. j CENTRE OF GRAVITY. j 'The importance of his choice arises ■ from the fact that the whole strain of [government is concentrated on Cabi-i net, and Cabinet has been well de-1 scribed as 'the true centre of gravity j for the working system of the State." ' "Now, in the second place," Mr. j Stewart continues, "if a party selects i Ministers, is it not liable to choose; men rather for their personal popularity than for their actual ability or fitness for office? It is true that if the Prime Minister is the sole selector he

cannot foist on the party men who are. really unpopular, but he can keep in mind other considerations such as a man's personal loyalty, tact, and experience. Moreover, election by the party opens, the door to endless bargaining and intrigue. If one group is anxious to secure the election of its own nominee it will bargain with other groups for reciprocal support, and what is called 'log rolling' will be freely indulged in. In short, the Prime Minister may find himself before long surrounded by colleagues who are quite uncongenial to him or quite incompetent as administrators. If the democratic principle is fully applied in the sphere of Cabinet-making it can only succeed by a happy chance. PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION. "In the third place, the real fact is that, according to long-standing constitutional practice, the Prime Minister is the responsible executive and other Ministers are his subordinates. He alone is 'sent for' by the representative of the Soveregn to form a Cabinet, and | other Ministers are merely his ] nominees. This was the view asserted by Pitt more than 100 years ago. He claimed that there could be no. division of authority and that power j must rest with the "person usually j called the First Minister. j "Our late Prime Minister, Mr. j Savage, managed to maintain his right] of personal choice of his colleagues, i Perhaps it was because he led his party to victory that in the first flush of victory it; conceded to him power to select his own Cabinet. It is true that at a later date he said he would consider suggestions from caucus, and if he could not approve of them he would j consult the executive of the Labour Party. But, so far as I remember, he maintained that, as his was the final responsibility, the final choice must rest with him. "I am well aware that the Labour j Party will say that this is a matter j exclusively affecting internal policy," Mr. Stewart adds, "and that no onlooker has any standing to offer advice, but every citizen has a right to point out that during a world war threatening our very existence we I want the most united and efficient Government that the party in power can provide. If Mr. Churchill had been compelled to abide by the popular vote of his own party, it is not likely he would have been permitted to select so strong and representative a team as he has selected for his colleagues. It therefore seems to me that if the Labour caucus in New Zealand is wise it will allow the Prime Minister at this crisis in our history full liberty to choose his own Cabinet, for if it cannot trust him to make the best selection, it ought not to trust him to] act as its leader." j