The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, JULY 12, 1912. THE VISION OF PEACE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8171, 12 July 1912, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, JULY 12, 1912. THE VISION OF PEACE

During the last week or two the suggestion that we should keep various matters “above party” has been frequently made by members of Parliament.

One of the speakers in the House the other day seemed to be under the delusion that it is necessary "for men ‘to “work together”—to drop party differences—in order that they ‘‘ may do something for the country.” Now, we have got no very great respect for the differences created by party, nor, indeed, much admiration for party government in some of its aspects, but we are inclined to think that the idea of “ working together” suggests a beatific vision which members of Parliament are never likely to see realised. It is from the clash of opinion and by conflicts of principle that government derives its motive power. The community would be taking an altogether erroneous view of political controversy if it supposed that this was an obstacle to reasonable' progress. There is, .indeed, a great unity in difference since much more is “done for the country" by men who disagree than could be hoped for from men unable to find points of antagonism. When we see our representatives in Parliament fiercely quarrelling over proposals submitted to their consideration there is no justification whatever for supposing that the State derives no benefit from this enmity or that members are not “working together” just as much as it is advisable they should. There are among the electors wide differences of political opinion, and it is by the free ventilation of these the community has its greatest safeguard against oppression and its. soundest protection against injustice. * • • • • The rational view for the public to take of rival sections in Parliament is to regard them as the flint and the steel and look for the spark of truth following contact. The trouble, of

course, is that our Parliamentary system leads to factious disputation, to controversies that are unreal, to sham-fighting, and a pretence c* difference. But even this is better than nothing. It is, we know, disconcerting, and perhaps demoralising, for members of Parliament to live in an atmosphere of perpetual opposition, but not even the abolition of party government would put an end to strife and discord. Members are representative of the opinions of the people, or, at any rate, are supposed to be, and so long as the electors are torn into groups by varying convictions will the Legislature be filled with warring elements and be no place for those who look for heavenly calm. The tyranny of party is, of course, hard to bear, and to our mind indefensible. But politicians are a turbulent tribe, and will continue to wrangle and quarrel on public policy and to disturb the peace long after we shall have shaken ourselves free from the trammels of the party system and placed government on a sounder basis than it occupies today. . • • • •

It is well that this'should be so, for if it were possible to imagine our party leaders deciding' to “do something for the country” by burying their differences and the public consenting in order that Ministers might be • spared the annoyances of the existing guerilla warfare we should pass quickly under a bureaucracy that would govern us as it chose. Politics are only in healthy condition when the people’s representatives are making a respectable fight, and anything that abates the struggle is undesirable, that is, provided the issues are real and the fight is honest. We are a long way from the millennium yet. One feature, a little amusing, perhaps, is the manner in which men who go into office pine for a truce and men who find themselves in Opposition suddenly develop tremendous anxiety for a scrimmage. __