AELSON EVENING MAIL SATURDAY, APRIL 21, 1934 DEMOCRACY UNDER TEST

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 21 April 1934, Page 6

AELSON EVENING MAIL SATURDAY, APRIL 21, 1934 DEMOCRACY UNDER TEST

WHEN, nearly twenty years ago, ilie Kaisers Wilhelm II and Francis Joseph determined to make war, they certainly had no idea of precipitating the catastrophe which overwhelmed the world and themselves. Their idea doubtless was that, after a short and sudden onslaught, in which they would overcome their intended victims, they would enforce peace, ou the nations which they had despoiled, on terms which would leave them masters of more than half of Europe. That is not how events took shape, for the imperial robbers had failed to take into consideration an important factor. They realised clearly their own greatness and the tremendous power of the forces which they could unleash, but they did not know the defensive power of modern arms in the hands of men determined to fight for the preservation of their native land, their homes, their families, and everything most dear to them. The two arch-tyrants

understood the strength of the autocratic powers which they wielded, but they had no conception of tile strength ol those nations, which, welded together by the principles of democracy, ami rich will) the fruits of forty yeara of industry, they proposed to conquer. For it was the democratic nations —France, Great Britain, Italy, and finally the United States—which in reality broke the power of the Kaisers, which, however, the forces of a contemporary autocrat, the Czar, had previously weakened. The war having been won, it was I bought that the victorious nations, which, ns lias been mentioned, were democratic in character, would have infected the world with those political principles which had so largely contributed to victory. The immediate developments, after peace was assured, seemed to favour that view. In Germany the ruling houses were dethroned and republican principles were adopted. The Austro-Hungarian Empire fell to pieces like a house of cards, and became a number of small independent republics.

Russia, having dethroned and imprisoned the Czar when the wav was at its height, was in a state approaching anarchy. Everywhere in Europe the autocrats had disappeared, and it seemed that from the Ural Mountains to the Atlantic, and from the Arctic to the Mediterranean, the principle of government of the people, by the people, for the people, was paramount. But if that was so, it was only for a time: it had no permanence. First of all in Russia a dictatorship was set up by Lenin, supported by his fierce and implacable Bolshevists. In Italy the democratic Government was destroyed by the Fascists, whose leader, Mussolini, became a dictator with powers as autocratic as those of any Czar. In Hungary an admiral, who had been inconspicuous during r,he war, made himself the absolute ruler of his country'. There were other attempts elesewhere to establish similar dictatorships, and some of them failed, while some of them were successful temporarily. Then, finally, in Germany, where there had been a genuine attempt to establish representative government. Herr Hitler, backed by his Nazis, forced himself to I.he front of the political stage, and established himself ns a dictator with powers more absolute than those of the Emperor Wilhelm had ever been. Indeed, to-day democratic political principles do not seem to flourish in Europe, except in the Scandinavian countries, in Great Britain, Holland, Belgium, and in France; and when the Atlantic is crossed, it is found that in the United States the President with the consent of Congress had assumed something very like autocratic powers. Naturally it will be asked, How is it that, when the three Emperors had been dethroned in Europe, and everywhere, except in parts of Asia, it seemed as if the j democratic principle had been accepted, there subsequently occurred a revulsion which has restored autocracy in so many countries, and has weakened democracy so seriously? The effects of the war have been manifold : they did not cease with the defeat of the Germans and the imposition of the penalties of the Versailles Treaty. There were the financial and economic complications. The war not only strained the material resources of the combatant nations, some of which it ruined ; it completely upset the economic life of all the nations of Europe. Where there had been reciprocity in matters of trade there was commercial stagnation. Where there had been a spirit of commercial enterprise, there was a fear to engage in any venture which might seem to offer considerable risk with the possibility of small profits. Every nation, suspicious of every other nation, was prepared to erect fiscal barriers which should produce a high revenue and at the same time retain in the country the reduced amount of money which remained in the hands- of the nation. The effect of such a policy was not immediate, but it was inevitable. International trade languished. The vessels of the commercial fleets were laid up in their ports. Manufacturers in various countries found it impossible to work t.lieir mills full time. There was a glut of commodities, but a scarcity of buyers. The “slump” of which so much has been heard, had arrived. It did not affect all countries simultaneously, or in the same degree. But in the end it reduced the civilised world’s prosperity to a level as low as that which was reached in the years following the Napoleonic wars. Recent history seems to prove that the democratic form of government is best suited to times of prosperity, and tends tr. be superseded •in times of crisis. During the Great War it ceased to exist in come of the combatant nations, but on the declaration of peace it took a new lease of life everywhere. Then, as a re-, suit of the war the present economic depression began to develop, democratic governments began to give way to autocracies in country after country, until to-day democracy stands, as it were, in the last ditch, striving for existence in those countries which are resisting the economic depression most successfully. Indeed, it may be said that, but for the British countries’ strong adherence to the democratic principle, the parliamentary form of government would be in jeopardy everywhere. The character of the British peoples, the richness of their countries, their geographical positions, and the fact that the democratic form of government suits the temperament of the British race, these are the factors which are enabling it to weather the economic storm which has all but wrecked civilisation: and thus it is that in matters of trade and of government the British nations are leading the world, and are setting it an example which may help it to restore its prosperity and happiness.