Hauraki Plains Gazette With which is incorporated THE OHINEMURI GAZETTE. MONDAY. WEDNESDAY. FRIDAY FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1931. DEMOCRACY IN THE CRISIS.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXXII, Issue 2806, 27 November 1931, Page 4

Hauraki Plains Gazette With which is incorporated THE OHINEMURI GAZETTE. MONDAY. WEDNESDAY. FRIDAY FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1931. DEMOCRACY IN THE CRISIS.

• — THE present election should afford students of modern systems of government an interesting opportunity of testing the proposition now under general discussion that democratic rule has failed to justify itself. The broad issue ; s whether the democracy in this country is capable of adjusting its mental outlook to a financial situation so serious that an error of political judgment might conceivably precipitate economic and social chaos. The avoidance of this consists in the acceptance of the fact that certain, measures of self-discipline may be necessary. Therein lies the leal test of the qualification of any democracy to govern itself. Bruce in his “American Commonwealth,” observes that “the excellence of popular government lies not so much in its wisdom —for it is apt to err, as other kinds of government—as in its strength.” Now this strength is at once a virtue and a weakness. Exercised .with judgment and restraint, it is capable of directing the course of government along safe channels, of maintaining the social equilibrium of the State, and defending itself from itln aggressive pretensions of demagogue?, whose only claim to notice is. their ability to kindle mass emotion by appeals to self-interest, the basest principle of action in any free democracy. But, although this potentiality may be an asset for good, the converse is equally true, for in the exercise of its voting strength the democracy is as capable in a moment of aberration of committing errors of political judgment and imposing their reactions upon society as it is of acting wisely. An ’impressive example of this occurred when the New South Wales electorate, with extraordinary lack of judgment and foresight, gave to a Socialist Government a majority that enabled it to do incalculable harm to the economic fabric of the State, and bankrupt its resources. Hence the power of the popular will in political affafrs and in government is a tremendous responsibility. Its jurisdiction is practically unlimited. As a French writer, M. Hubert Rodier, observes in the “Revue Blcuo,” a democratic State can take from its citizens 80 per cent, of their individual fortunes without giving them any ground for complaint, “since in principle the State is merely giving them what they desire.” Both in Britain and in Australia, Socialist Governments enthroned in power by the inability of the electorates to envision the consequences of their actions, succeeded in almost paralysing industry and enterprise by paralysing heavy taxation to meet the cost of extravagant social services. It has been pointed out that the magnitude and complexity of modern government make for minority control. This result usually arises from the laziness and self-complacency of the majority, or from errors of judgment at the ballot box. A high official of the United States Government, in an unsigned contribution to “Current .History,” agrees that a vigorous minority may be so strong, so sound in its premises under new or changing conditions, and its position so strongly advanced that in actual effect it is more powerful, and may, in fact, be speedily transformed into n majority opinion. “But,” he adds, "it must be a minority based on principle, on organised intelligence, and an interest in the common welfare, and not on organised selfishness and obstruction.”

Popular government implies the rule of the majority, with reasonable safeguards for the rights of minorities. Answering the question, “How is it that Parliament in so many countries in Europe is gradually ceasing to have any claims to sovereignty?” Mr J. H. Harley declares in the “Fortnightly Review” that “the apparent encouragement given to minorities to hold themselves apart and indulge in political agitation has undoubtedly exerted an appreciable influence in preventing the formation of an effective Parliamentary majority. Parliamentary democracy,” he adds, “has never functioned really satisfactorily, except where the parties have connected themselves up into two groups—the Government and the Opposition—and where the Government, when it has the majority, has a majority sufficiently strong to give it a fair chance of realising its political programme.” The moral to be drawn from the foregoing is surely plain. Democracy to be effective in protecting itself from disintegration must recognise, especially in times of great national stress like the present, that there is grave ganger in dissipating its strength in sectional movements.