DEMOCRACY AND THE REFERENDUM.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 258, 28 September 1935, Page 10

DEMOCRACY AND THE REFERENDUM.

(To the Editor.) Sir,- —Nobody having questioned my interpretation of the meaning of the word democracy’ as being government by and for the people and impossible as a party or class government, self-selected, it may be interesting to enquire into the rights and privileges enjoyed by the people before we allow one government or another to take them ail from us. During the past seven years we have been governed against the wishes of the majority of the people and against vigorous and sustained opposition because the Government were in the position to enforce their” will. Now there is a method of showing our disapproval already in use when we make ourselves rather ridiculous to the rest of the world by getting quite excited over the vexed question as to the advantages of being able to buy our beer and other alcoholic beverages at liceused places, or just make our own home-brew in the wash-house. In any case it is foolish waste of time trying to make people virtuous by Act of Parliament. The trouble is that if we ask for a referendum to give our opinion on any legislation forced upon u's by the Government, legislation that certainly was not in their programme when asking our support or they would not have been the Government, we are met with the excuse that it would cost too much and would need a special Act of Parliament. This can, of course, go on as long as we, the democracy, care to permit it. Let us take a look at the cost. I don’t know what the liquor referendum costs, but once the power to have one on any vital question is allowed it seems to me that it could be taken at a very small cost. Quite a large number of us are determined that no man or boy should be compelled to leave home and useful productive work to murder entire strangers whom he cannot have any quarrel with because somebody, somewhere, thinks he can stop in a safe place and make money out of munitions or other useless things. Most certainly no people ever elected a Ministry with the intention of giving them power to conscript the life of the pick of the males of the country and thus flout the law of the survival of the fittest. No Government of any country dare take a referendum on conscription. Look at Australia. The Right Honourable William Hughes proposed to conscript the free Australians; there was a strong protest. He put it to a referendum, and lost. He lost the confidence of the people and now they call him “poor old Billy Hughes.” Now the cost. Suppose when a person was put on the roll he was handed a disc with his or her name stamped on it together with his number and the name of his constitu-ency—-cost 6d per dozen. There is no secrecy of the ballot as it is, and no one has any need to be ashamed of voting as he wishes. Well, the procedure is two locked boxes in certain public places, one box marked yes and the other no. Count before carefully 6elected scrutineers, announce the result, let voters call at a notified place and use again when required. The first cost is very small and after quite negligible. The right of referendum and the recall of a member voting against the wishes of the people who sent him to represent them would make a nation of slaves a free people. I wonder if it is possible to secure this. I have a notion that this was once a part of the programme of the Labour Party. Is it still?—l am, etc., C.- S. PIKE.