Doubts Future Survival Of Party System

Northern Advocate, 13 January 1941, Page 7

Doubts Future Survival Of Party System

Fresuming that the dictators are defeated, what changes in the political system of government in Europe can be , expected in post-war reconstruction? writes ePter Lynne in the Christian Science Monitor. Can the party system survive the discredit brought upon it by the collapse of democratic continental nations before the dynamic one-party dictatorship methods and by the narrow escape of Britain from a similar fate?

Evidence continues to seep out of battened-down Europe that faith in democracy smoulders in the subjugated countries. How much greater will be their yearning for the return of freedom before the Nazi yoke is finally removed?

While Britain gallantly keeps the democratic flag flying, the British people themselves are fully aware of their immense responsibilty as trustees of democracy in Europe, judging from debates lately in the House of Commons and discussions in the press.

In particular, the recent debate on prolongation of the present British Parliament, which is due to end this fall, provided the most heartening evidence of Britain’s determination to start at once to improve its own system of government and to prepare the way for British political leadership in post-war European reconstruction. Political Systems at Stake

The plea voiced by several members that, the present British Parliament should justify extension of its normal five-year life by undertaking an immediate inquiry into the whole machinery and organisation of government made a considerable impression on the Commons.

It was emphasised that the present war is not fundamentally between countries and peoples, but between parliamentary government and democracy on the one hand, and dictatorship on the other. And apart from winning the war it is seen that democracy has to demonstrate its efficiency more convincingly than hitherto.

Describing as revolutionary the Government’s decision to prolong the life of the present British Parliament without sanction of a general election, the former War Minister (Mr Leslie Hore-Belisha) claimed that the existing truce between the three major political parties was causing a decline in parliamentary vitality. He stated that there was now in reality no opposition. He called for more enlightenment for back-benchers on what is expected from them in debate. More Than Endorsement Prolongation of the Parliament, however, offers a real opportunity ro the Commons in Mr Hore-Belisha’s view. He appealed to members of Parliament not to confine themselves any longer on old party lines and merely endorsing acts of the Executive. “Recognising,; ’ Mr Hore-Belisha said, “that we are not elected by parties or constituencies or majorties, but by ourselves, we can all ‘the more frankly and fully express our views and feeling of the nation generally. There is sensitiveness to criticism in certain quarters—l think that is most deplorable—but we should not be silenced. That indeed would be the ultimate frustration of Parliament.” Thus Mr Hore-Belisha, as well as other British politicians and writers in the press, have stirred up the question whether party politics is to remain the basis of the democratic governmental system. The popular cry has been heal’d: “We must have no more party politics after the war.” A searchlight on events leading up to the French collapse has greatly encouraged this cry, as have the revelations of British political manoeuvring which led to Britain being tragically unprepared for the present war. The tremendous popularity of a little booklet. “Guilty Mefi,” the anonymous author of which mercilessly, but skilfully, lampoons British political leaders, former Premiers Stanley Ealdwin, Ramsay MacDonald and Neville Chamberlain, is but one indication of the present anxiety of the British public to be informed on the running of their affairs and to eradicate past mistakes and Shortcomings, An Alternative Needed But closer questioning of those who cry “no more party politics” often discloses that they have no practical alternative to the party systefn. In fact, what they are usually protecting is the conditions of party politics, or. as Canon Roger Lloyd sums it up in an article in the “Spectator”: “Party politics are necessary to a true democracy provided they are healthy when they express a true cleavage of principle which really exists in the nation.” This view has been endorsed by political observers, who point out that the fundamental views of different politicians are often only vaguely represented by the programmes of the

parties to which they belong—in fact there is often much more similarity between the views of certain small groups within one party and those of politicians in other parties than with these members of their own party. This was illustrated in the case of many “young Conservatives’’ in years immediately preceding the outbreak of this war.

Their real place appeared to be rather in some “Liberal’ or Centre party, but no such existed. Such a situation should not be deplored, but rather welcomed, since it shows that British politicians themselves realise that far-reachinff changes are going on today, extending far beyond party limits. Room for Improvement

Political circles in Britain generally tend to endorse the view that democracy must be based on the party system. What alternative is there to party politics other than dictatorship? they ask. But they are mostly ready to admit that there is ample opportunity for improvement in the existing system.

“Within a nation there are always dozens of cleavages,” says Canon Lloyd. “The problem is to find that cleavage which reaches right down to something very deep, and divides the people into two approximately equal groups. Then you have a party which espouses each side and then the parliamentary system has a chance to work creatively.”

Clearly the old party cleavage of greater social equality will cease to be a sufficiently effective spur to parliamentary virility, since virtually all those elements now constituting Britain’s war-time national government are agreed on the absolute necessity of greater social equality. Collective Security

Therefore perhaps the cleavage will become international instead of domestic.

And this surely will be appropriate in the task of building a new European or even world order, when it is hoped lessons of the past will be aption of economic frontier limitations, and for some system of collective security which will supersede the old conception of State sovereignty which has proved so ineffective against aggression.

There already is a suggestion of a new two-party system based on cleavage between those ranging themselves behind a new League of Nations or Federal Union. o r some such international organisation, to be brought into action immediately after the war, suffer more disappointments and who therefore favour extreme caution in any new experiment.