THE CURSE OF PARTY GOVERNMENT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 15860, 24 February 1912, Page 4

THE CURSE OF PARTY GOVERNMENT.

7,0 TUB EDITOR. Sir It is a long journey from Tyranny to Democracy, and the government of the manv by the few has been too long bolstered up by a representative system which has never been representative in tbe full sense of the vord, though every extension of the franchise has broadened its scope, thus giving to our governmental .system a democratic flavour which has imposed on tlio dull palates of a people born, and bred uuder an aristocratic rule. A system which professes to he representative and yet does not permit elected representatives to have a direct vote in tho election of tho Executive of tho Govornmenfc, is like making-believe to drive when somcono else holds tho reins. To say that party government affects injuriously the best interests of tho country is a very mild way of putting it. It leads to the placing of policy before principle. It is a bar to all truo statesmanship; it wastes both time and money; it stimulates love of placo and greed for office; it leads to. a policy of opportunism; it puts expediency before every virtue; in the long run it turns

tlio of Government into a lot of dumb dogs, all sitting on their haunches in expectation of a chance “ portfolio.” . All these charges may be substantiated in the short history of New Zealand politics, and at tho present time all tlio evils of “party” stand out so prominently that it is a matter of amazement that tho people of New Zealand should longer tolerate a system which swings between the tyranny of a one-man show and a deadlock which would be perilous, if not harmful, but for tho fact that wc aro so greatly overgoverned that a barren session would bo akin to a boon.

The last move of tho Prime Minister in packing tho Governor's Speecli with an ultra-Radical programme reminds ono of tho action of the outgoing garrison who poisoned tho wells of tho city. Its cuteness is unquestionable, but its spirit is barbario. For twelve months past and more tho time and speech of the Opposition has been taken up mudslmging on a great scale, in the hope that some would stick; and apparently a good deal has stuck, for Sir Joseph Ward’s replies have furnished a striking exemplification of the old proverb, that “ he who excuses himself accuses himself”; and oven in the debate on tlio Address-in-Itoply, when there was an opportunity for some manifestation of statesmanship, wo are treated to something near akin to a parochial wranglo.

If wo aro to bo guided by the estimate that each political party holds of tho other a change of Government moans tho putting of ono set of rascals in placo of another—and they ought to know. Can tho absurdity of party government bo exceeded when beyond tho predominant fact of one party being “in” and the other “cut,” they

can only distinguish themselves a* “Reformers” on tlio ono hand and Progressives on the other. Between the old English Whig and Tory thero waa a question of principle, which, however, has gradually disappeared, ana “Liberal” and “Conservative” are now party labels, and when any true feeling is aroused other terms have to bo invented to accentuate different views. Here in New Zealand, where tho Government lias no nepd of a “foreign policy,” and “home policy” has to guide the lives of a bare million of people,, including children, “ officeholders” and “office-seekers,” would cover tho whole ground. But there is a better way. There is no need that our elected, legislators should bo divided into different opposing camps, the difference between which is so small that parliamentary debate consists chiefly of personal heckling. There is no room for a party cry. For several years Sir William Steward fought for tho Elective Executive Bill. I should like to ask whether there, is a man in the House of Representatives, now called the House of Parliament, sufficiently imbued with the spirit of democracy to turn up that Bill. Surely the present lesson cannot be pointless. Why all this wa6to of time, this useless friction, when tho opportunity is still with us to mako our country what wo will, without falling into tho old ruts which have in the Old I, an d perpetuated poverty and crime, despite all Imperial aggrandisement? The aim professed, “of the greatest good for the greatest number,” may suffice for an election speech, hut is vague and colourless when placed besido the ono great principle of democracy, “To every man according to his need, from every man according to his ability.”—-I am, etc.. O’BRYEN HO ARE.