SINCERITY IN POLITICS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CI, Issue 11884, 6 May 1899, Page 3

SINCERITY IN POLITICS.

TO THE EDITOE. Sir,—As your journal is giving its large circle of readers columns of Mr Collins’s estimate of the sincerity of politicians and politics, you might allow an elector to<say it is at least presumption on that gentleman’s part to try and throw dust in the electors’eyes hy inferring that only those who go in the lead of the W^omen s I?olitical Association, under the presidency of Mrs Soddon, and keep in the present cliquish Cabinet, are sincere politicians. Surely Mr Collins is hardly the man to guide people’s intelligence in such matters. He may suit the fancies of a few in certain entertainments, but it makes people suspicious to see him coming out under this new role.—l am, &0., QUI VIYE. ; TO THE EDITOH. Sir, Mr Collins’s address to the ■Women’s Political Association, recorded in to-day’s issue of your paper, calls for some notice from those* who desire to see politics purified from evils that have integrated them solves into the system of party government. Mr Collins states that “ sincerity of purpose” is “of paramount importance in the politician.” How, under the present method; wo question if, for the ardent party supporter, sincerity in politics is possible. Necessarily, for such a one expediency rather than loyalty to his highest convictions must rule his political actions, and it is a truism that a man untrue to himself cannot bo true to other men. Emerson, in his Essay, on Politics, proves that “ parties have nothing perverse in their origin.” “ Our quarrel with them,” he points out, begins when they quit the natural ground of "honest instincts “ at the bidding of some leader and, obeying personal considerations, thi’ow themselves into tho maintenance and defence of points nowise belonging' to their system. A party is perpetually corrupted by personality.” “ Ordinarily our parties are parties of circumstance, and notof principle.” “ From neither party,” he further affirms, “ when in power, has the. world any benefit to expect in science, art or humanity at all commensurate with the resources pf the nation.” Mr Collins says the people “ had a right to expect a broad, just and magnanimous line of action in their representatives,” etc., etc. We agree with the homily embodied, but we need right methods to help forward this ideal. Driven into lobbies by the party whippers-in on each and every question the Government may choose to bi and as forming part of _ its policy, is it feasible “todemand sincerity” of pur lawmakers? We grant that party government has in the past justified its methods, but new times 'demand new measures. “ One good custom,” says Tennyson truly, “may corrupt the world.” Forms of government, as all other forms, must change, because the spirit of progress needs rehabiliment. "A -review of political history would reveal the fact that that class of legislation which was associated with great reforms, and with progressive measures, had originated in party government.” We deny this statement; in toto. Social legislation has been carried, despite party government, at tho insistence of our groat reformers, whose work for humanity has educated the people to the understanding of their needs and' made , them strong to demand now legislation. The party in opposition has invariably seized upon measures thus popularised and gained power therefrom. What has been inevitable in legislation has been used by party to serve its own ends rather than to further tho good of the people. With regard to Mr Collins’s deprecation of the use our politicians make of what he terms Billingsgate, we would point out to him that this is one of the necessary tricks of the party government business. It is part of present parliamentary etiquette for one side to vilify the other. have had frequent glaring instances of it even in our own city. We have heard the leaders of each side spend whole evenings in justifying thein own conduct on the one band, and on the other traducing the motives and actions of the Opposition. Thus, we maintain, the attention of the people is deliberately drawn from main issues. Mr Collins further says it was “time that the public scrutinised the conduct of politics more closely than they were in the habit of doing.” We agree with Mr Collins, bub we believe that the methods he advocates are altogether inadequate for the carrying out of his wishes. Switzerland has led the way to this end by its adoption of the Elective Executive, iniative and referendum. On this head, we quote the following pregnant paragraph from a most able student of political reform. “There is a radical difference between a democracy and a representative government. In a democracy the citizens themselves make the law and superintend its administration ; in a representative government the citizens empower legislators and executive officers' to make the law and carry it out.” “ Democracy is direct rule by the majority, while representative government is rule by a succession of quasi-oligarchies indirectly and remotely responsible to the majority.” In spite of Mr Collins’s assertions regarding “ spoils to the victors,” we maintain that the power of assigning appointments is a most vicious one in the hands of any one man, and that it has led to the most degrading results both id encouraging place-seekers and in giving to the country an inefficient Cabinet and Civil Service. “Ministerial extravagance was another accusation of which much had been made lately,” says Mr Collins. Now, if as in Switzerland, the Ministers are the servants and not the masters of the people, it would be impossible for tbe defined salary to be exceeded. To recount what the Swiss have done by direct legislation.-—“ They have made it easy to ehange. even radically, the organisation of society, the social contract, and thus to permit a, peaceful revolution at the will of the majority. They have as well, cleared from the way of majority rule every obstacle, privilege of ruler, fetter of ancient law, power of legislator. They have simplified the structure of government, held their officials as servants, rendered bureaucracy impossible, converted their representatives to simple committeemen and shown the parliamentary system not, essential to lawmaking. They have written their laws in language so plain that a layman may be judge in she highest court. They have forestalled monopolies, improved and reduced taxation, avoided incurring heavy public debts, and made a better distribution of their land than any other European country. They have practically given home rule in local affairs to every community. They have calmed disturbing political elements, the Press is purified, the politician disarmed, tho Civil Service well regulated. Hurtful partisanship is passing away. Social ideals may be realised in act and institution. Even now the liberty-loving Swiss citizen can discern in the future a freedom in which every individual may, at his will, on the sole condition that he respects the like aim of other ’men, pursue his happiness.” On such testimony we may well advocate Swiss leading in politics, and urge upon the enlightened Ne w Zealand citizens tue claims of tho Elective Executive, the initiative and the referendum.—We are, etc., TWO HEADS IN COUNCIL. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—As one who is desirous of gathering knowledge of t ie platforms of the two political parties in blow Zealand, and thus arriving at a conclusion whether the house of Codlin or that of Short is the more trustworthy, or whether both deserve the ojacution, “ A plague on both your houses,” will you permit me to ask a question or two ? Beading Mr Collins’s speech as reported in to-day’s issue, I find him complaining of accusations raised against the Government of Tammanyism on the one hand and of bribery and corruption on the other. One of my questions is:—Has tho Sodden Ministry ever been known to bestow patronage outside the Liberal ranks ? If so, where ? If the charge of Tammanyism be not true, why did the Premier evade the examination by the Eoyal Commission on July 11 -upon points that required light?

We know that the very convenient plea “ State reasons ” was urged; but as that plea was too transparent to pass muster with even the lowest intellect, why did Mr Seddon abstain from throwing light upon those subjects that would not have involved the revelation of “ State secrets?” j; Of course, the phrase “State secrets may bo made very elastic; but when a question of morality is at issue, “State secrets ” ought to bo confined to their legitimate limits, and these would bo narrowed down to tho position of whether it was for the benefit of tho colony as a whole any action was taken or order issued. Again, why did Mr Collins omit to give a scheme to prevent repetition of tho accusations ? Was he “ sincere ”in wishing the time hero when no accusation of such a character could be levelled against tho Government ? If so, he did not require to produce an original scheme, as he would find one to his hand-by reforoaco to the method of appointing Civil Servants in the Old Country. Ho knows, or should know, that nearly every Government office is obtained by the candidate’s ability, competitive examinations being tho test. No Ministerial influence is allowed to intervene, and thus the cry of “ the spoils to the victors” cannot bo raised. Without trespassing further.. at the present time upon your space, but respectfully asking that these questions may bo answered, —I am, etc., COLIN WINTER.