PARLIAMENT’S DECLINE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 6 August 1945, Page 6

PARLIAMENT’S DECLINE

(To the Editor i Sir—l was rather pleased with "Real Democracy’s” metaphor of the horse and jockey. He realises that our present governments are being carried along on a horse that has rather got the better of them and that the people are being deluded because their attention is riveted on the changing jockeys. I do not think he recognises the identity of the horse, though. I also like his reference to the "desperation” with which people continually change the jockey. This endorses my belief that people take a healthy interest in their Parliament and do not realise that under its present decadent form they are being robbed of most of the power and responsibility that rightly be-* longs to them. During the past few years I have been privileged to come into inti- J mate contact with many groups ofj society—factory workers, tradesmen, farmers, students, and a profession — under natural working conditions. Everywhere I have found a lively interest in the government of thei country. And I have frequently noted! a feeling of frustration, which I believe is due,-not to the •money system, but to a feeling that there is something lacking in democracy—that the abilities and opinions of the individual play no real part in government. The inefficient money system is only one symptom of the deficiencies of our government system. Might I suggest that if money interests were represented in Parliament as such there would be a rapid improvement. They would no longer have to scheme for their rights behind the scenes and they would have to answer to the representatives of other sections of the community for any actions betraying the common interests. “Real Democracy” places the responsibility for the present position on the people as a whole. I disagree. To restore “power and responsibility in the individual” requires a constitutional, even a social revolution. The average man honestly wishes to do his full share in seeing that the country is run properly, but he cannot be expected to analyse fundamental constitutional faults and prescribe cares for them. We must remember that the intellectual ability of the “average man” is no longer able to visualise j the complex problems and require- 1 ments of a modern government, and | that all his thinking is shackled byj useless tradition. Even when he has! been goaded into rebellion against a decadent government (as in the French Revolution) he has no clear idea of how he means to replace it. No, the responsibility for change rests either with the old governing class, or with the intellectual class. That is where the parable of the talents comes in. That revolutionary change can be successfully made by the governing class is shown by the history of Prussia in the 19th century. Even if the governing class ultimately abused its power we must not discredit its remarkable achievements. That revolutionary changes can be influenced by the intellectual classes is shown by both the French and Russian revolutions. A revolutionary change originating with the average man is unknown to history. He is rather the source of all the horrors which frequently, though not necessarily, associate with major changes. To conclude. I would like to make a few suggestions, which I hope will be constructively criticised 1. Election by geographical units does not give a representative crosssection of the community and is therefore false. A fair representation of the community should be the first step in a constitutional reform. 2. Three-yearly elections give too limited a control over representatives. Using modern methods it should not be difficult to arrange a system whereby an individual could change his allegiance from one representative to another between elections while still maintaining the secret ballot. This change would be of great value to the government itself. The difficulties are purely technical and not really great. 3. A defeated candidate represents a section of the community. He should not be excluded from Parliament. Of course, some sensible restriction would need to be made to keep Parliament from becoming *un-I weidly. Voting in Parliament should be by number of supporters. (Here the adding machine comes in.) 4. A general survey of Parliamentary procedure, selection of Ministers etc., should be made, and changes for greater efficiency and utilisation of talent undertaken. These proposals may be Utopian. Until someone can oonvince me that they rest on false principles or are unworkable, I shall consider them practicable and desirable. I am, etc “REAL REPRESENTATION” Motupiko, 31st July.