The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES" GISBORNE, TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1941. FUTURE, OF DEMOCRACY

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20625, 5 August 1941, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES" GISBORNE, TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1941. FUTURE, OF DEMOCRACY

The warning given to members of the Rotary Club yesterday that democracy is endangered by reason of its abuse strikes a note that should be heeded by all sections of the community. It is true that few people reali.e: exactly, or even vaguely, what democracy means. To many it is merely an empty shibboleth and to some, politicians in particular, it is an excuse for conduct that is the very negation of democracy. There is no inherent fault with democracy itself, for democracy is an ideal rather than a system, but there are grave faults in the methods by which it is sought to attain lire ideal and much abuse of the system through which it is sought to make democracy work. It is true I hat democracy is falling into disrepute, but this is not a condemnation of the democratic ideal but rath,or of those who fail to understand it or to live up to it. The development is not new. It is nearly as old as democracy itself and found expression in the declines of ancient Greece and Rome and more recently in the downfall of democracy in Italy, Germany, Russia. Japan and France. The weaknesses which brought totaliUinianism to these countries are already apparent in our own so-called democracy, and unless the warnings of their fate are heeded our own country may go the same way. The speaker to ihe Rotary Club 'emphasised that the essence of democracy was rule by the majority, aed suggested that this was prevented by some weakness in the electoral system. This may be true, but it is seen to question whether this is the ■ I defect. The gravest danger, perhaps, lies in the widely-accepted be I el that a government, as such, is nnnipotent and can provide for the pie things which they cannot

provide for themselves. In truth, of course, a government is merely representative of the people, or should be, and cannot give to the people more than it takes from them. Even with the most perfect electoral system, if the electors had been deluded by the politicians there would not be a true democracy, but rather would democracy be bound to fail. The politicians, representing a true majority of the people, could use their so-called mandate to establish a dictatorship, as has been done, and then claim that because it was the will of the people it. was democratic. True democracy, however, surely cannot permit people to surrender their right, and their obligation, to govern themselves. This is llie interpretation that is so often given by the politician, and the result is that so-tcalled democracy drifts first into dominance by the executive and then into bureaucracy and finally into dictatorship. The real blame for the failure of democracy rests in the abuse of the Parliamentary system and this, in turn, is the outcome of party politics. Party politics reveals Parliament and democracy at its worst. The Parliamentary system, instead of commanding respect, becomes ridiculed and ridicule is the first step towards its decay and final overthrow. Anyone listening to the debates in our own Parliament, for instance, might be pardoned for believing dial any alternative would be preferable to the present system of government: they can hardly be expected to realise that the fault lies, not with the system, but with those who abuse it. Under the rigid party machine, a member of Parliament does not speak for the people he represents, he cannot speak for himself, but becomes merely a mouthpiece for his party. The policy of the party may be dominated by a mere handful of men who can count on the unquestioning acquiescence of a handful of supporters. if' they can secure 21 votes in the party caucus the executive can dominate a Parliament of 80 members and can enforce its will on the country. How can such a system be called democratic, government by the people or by a majority of the people? The party system is itself a dictatorship and the first step towards a totalitarian State.

Most of the weaknesses in the present system could be overcome if a party organisation were used for no other purpose than to return to Parliament a body of independents pledged only' to work in the interests of tiie people. They would not be bound to vote blindly according to instruction, and regardless of their beliefs and their consciences, but would use their collective wisdom to conceive a policy which would confer the greatest, benefits on the greatest number. No longer would it be the case of Parliament dividing itself into two distinct camps and acceptance of the principle that anything sponsored by one side must be opposed by the other. The sensible method, surely, would be to place a proposal .before the House, have it debated dispassionately from every angle, taking advantage of every point of view, and then abide by the freely-given decision of the majority. In this way every question would be discussed and decided solely on its merits, without any party bias, and the result, undoubtedly, would be for the good of the people. This procedure is not irreconcilable with party organisations, but it does demand that members of a parly should be entirely free and unfettered to act as their consciences dictate and in the interests of the people they are supposed to represent.