The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1918. BOLSHEVIK RULE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 10086, 27 September 1918, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1918. BOLSHEVIK RULE

Tho principal thing about the Bolshevik rule now established—it is a faraway word but the nearest to be had to the meaning—in Russia, is that it is a negation of the first principle of Democracy. After -the Revolution the honourable men who had given the tottering Czardom tho last push that toppled it over, made it their first care to get a representative expression of the popular will. They trusted, as their Ambassador at Washington very clearly explained at the time, to the democratic instinct which they had reasoa to believe was strong in the Russian people. In 7 the course of his explanation he detailed the measures taken for the exercise of the voting power of all the peoples inhabiting the territories . of what had 1 been tho Russian Empire. He showed the enormity of the task undertaken bv the Provisional Government of Russia, and he made it dear that the task was done with great fairness and painstaking care. Ho showed, moreover, the determination of that Government to attempt no constitutional settlement of the great problem of the free government of Russia until the election of the Constituent Assembly should give authority for such settlement. It is a matter of historic fact that in consequence of the measures taken in the very spirit of Democracy—recognised at the time by the democracies of the world and applauded —a Constituent Assembly was elected by the suffrages of the peoples of Russia. , It is also, unfortunately, a matter of historic fact that tho Bolshevik faction which had usurped the governing authority by the time the election of the Constituent Assembly was complete, suppressed that Assembly by force. That was a glaring and complete negation of democratic principle. No further proof is required of the fact that Bolshevism is not democratic. Moreover, the Government established by this autocratic usurpation was ineffective. It failed in every function of government. Wo say nothing about its attitude to the war, because that does not affect the question of the success of the task undertaken. The usurpers undertook to govern, and they did not govern. They were supreme, but the mere fact of supremacy is not government. In the matter of food, for example, their control of the national transport should have ensured the timely distribution of food in a

country teeming with food. But , the Bolshevik supremacy was followed by scarcity everywhere. It was followed by industrial chaos, and it branded the country with anarchy from end to end. A feature of this anarchy was the maladministration of justice. Of this the execution of the ex-Czar was typical. Many people may hold that the ex-Czar was a criminal who deserved punishment. But when justice is properly administered, no one accused of crime can bo punished without a trial before a competent tribunal. Now, the ex-Czar was put to death by the order of an individual, who simply mad© his will the deciding factor. Whether guilty or not guilty, the exCzar was simply murdered. His execution is a proof that irresponsible individuals have the power of life and death under the Bolshevik regime. Numerous reports have been published showing that this is by no means a solitary instance, but that murder is rampant all over the land. These reports are denied. But the denials are staggered by the proved murder of the ex-Czar. Who can doubt that a murderous power exercised against the head of the old regime was also exercised against the supporters of that regime? In the face of evidence showing the exercise of that power, the denials fail. The main fact proved is the substitution of irresponsible individual condemnation for the legal process demanded by decent government. That is anarchy, not government. It is, moreover, anarchy of the most malevolent type. Thi= Bolshevik Government, which is not democratic, and is in addition malevolently anarchic, is dishonest as well as futile. The dishonesty was first manifested by the repudiation of all the national obligations. It was extended to the distribution of the lands among the peasantry. The nationalisation of those lands might have been defended from certain points of view. But into that question it is not necessary to go, because the offer to distribute the lands wa s palpably an inducement to get the peasantry on the side of the usurpers, who had flouted Democracy, established anarchy, and repudiated the national obligations. This dishonesty extended, of course, to the dealings of this Bolshevik Government with Germany. The briberies are pretty well established by evidence in American hands, and the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, with all the recorded consequences of that most infamous betrayal, makes irrefragable confirmation. Such, then, is the Bolshevik Government, undemocratic, futile, malevolently anarchic, dishonest, and corrupt. It is the Government which has betrayed its own . country find tried to impose its principles on all the proletariats of the world. If there is one thing more certain than another to-day, it is that if the Allies do not win a victory which beats down both the Prussianism of Germany and the Bolshevism of Russia, that infamous Bolshevik aspiration will be realised.