NOTES AND COMMENTS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23048, 27 May 1938, Page 10

NOTES AND COMMENTS

FEAR'S SALUTARY INFLUENCE Fear is a powerful motive to right conduct and behaviour, which are demanded by the State under penalty, writes Sir Robert Armstrong in the Times. The mind of the child (as shown by evident manifestations and gestures) is highly susceptible to fear. A burnt child dreads tho fire and adults practise prudence and forethought—which are among the highest virtues —through fear, the claims of tho future being felt in the present. Is it not the fear of epidemics—for instance, of typhoid and diphtheria—that the State employs as a cultured apprehension to preserve the publio health? Fear is a necessary element in rewards and punishment and even the withdrawal of approbation is punishment based on fear.

DECADENT ART Someone has sent me a copy, writes "Janus" in the Spectator, of a guide to the exhibition of decadent art which is now touring the principal cities of Germany under the auspices of one of the departments of Dr. Goebbels' Ministry of Enlightenment and Propaganda. Tho purpose of tho exhibition is to show what Germany has been saved from by Horr Hitler and his henchman. The works collected are by Jewish and Communist artists, or, as Goebbels would say, "artists," and the reproductions in the guide are uniformly entertaining if not uniformly edifying. Some ingenious juxtapositions of masterpieces of modern art with tho productions of incurable lunatics in madhouses put a heavy premium on madness as against modernity. There is a Jot to be said for such an exhibition in London. TRAINING FOR PEACE "Wo British sometimes look down on Continental countries because they conscript all their young men to do a year or two's service with the colours," said Mr. Harold Gorton, in a recent broadcast talk. "Having talked with a few young men who have done their military service, I know that the picture is not entirely black. But if these countries can do this for military reasons, can it not be done for other purposes? It seems to me that the real problem of the present time is not how to fight a war, but to learn how to live at peace, and by peace I mean something more than an absence of hostilities. What better way of training the people of Britain for peace can tliero he than by conscripting tho youth of the nation, men and women, at the age of about 21 or 22, and enlisting them for a compulsory year's service in a State university? There can be no doubt that the future citizens of this country would be a greatly-im-proved product." DEMOCRACY V. AUTOCRACY

Twenty years ago the world was declared to have been made safe for democracy. To-day democracy is everywhere on the defensive, writes Mr. L. S. Amery in a recent article. We have seen it scrapped, in one country after another, for some form of autocratic or totalitarian government. Of the great pations that live exposed to the stress and urgency of international economic and political pressures only two, Fiance and Britain, still cling to their democratic Parliamentary constitutions. The question that is being asked, with increasing insistence, by many serious and patriotic citizens in both countries is: how long can we afford to do so? Day by day the man in the street is confronted with some new evidence of the power, the consistent forethought and the swift execution of the autocratic States, and contrasts it with the irresolution, hesitation and obvious afterthought of democratic policy. Nor is it only in the field of military preparation and foreign policy that the autocracies seem to assert their superiority. In the field of economic and social organisation, of providing employment, of dealing with problems of health and of family life, of the provision of recreation for the working masses, the boldness and success of their measures made a deep impression even on those who most heartily detest the means by which their results are obtained and tho purposes which their policy subserves. If we are to hold our own with them, in peace or war, must we, in tho end, bo driven to follow their example? I would unhesitatingly answer: No!

POLICY CABINET FAVOURED , Democracy and Parliamentary Government have not failed, Mr. Amery continues. They have sources of innato vitality and elasticity that, given time, should enable them to win through both in peace and in war. If they fail it is not because they arc, in principle, unsuited to the conditions of the modern world, but because of defects in their machinery which need correction and bringing up to date. There is room, no doubt, for some improvement in our representative and Parliamentary system and in the procedure of the House of Commons. But the real weakness is not there. The weakness lies in the central, instrument of Government —the Cabinet. It is not a weakness duo to lack of individual ability on the part of Ministers. But I do not believe that it is possible in tlio stress, and complexity of tlio present-day situation, and i.n competition with men of the ability and boldness of the leaders of the Continental autocracies, to carry on the affairs of a great nation by weekly meetings between a scoro and more of overworked departmental chiefs. The whole system is ono which affords no opportunity for the coherent planning of policy as a whole or for its bold and determined execution. It is a commonplace of scientific organisation, long since recognised in all the fighting services, that the planning of policy for the future Can only be effectively carried out if those responsible for it aro, free from the day-by-day tasks of administration. The failure to recognise this principle —tho general staff principle—is the real weakness of our present Cabinet system, and makes it incapable of dealing effectively with any serious situation. I believe there is no measure that Mr. Chamberlain, with his courage and power of decision, could undertake that would more facilitate his own almost superhuman task, and make the nation feel that its problems were being faced in a really bold and big spirit, than the application, in some form or other, of that principle of Cabinet reform (the small policy Cabinet) which Mr. Lloyd George introduced with such marked success in tho war.