THE FALLACY OF "DIRECT ACTION."

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17712, 25 August 1919, Page 10

THE FALLACY OF "DIRECT ACTION."

WHAT LABOUR STANDS TO LOSE.

MINORITIES AND THKIU RIGHTS.

By J. It. Clynes. Labour M.P.. in tho Observer (London).

Ihoro aw eomo men within the Labour I any who fool quite freo to advocate tho iiso of the industrial weapon for political «.'i;ds, and who need havo little sense of P-spojwibihty in suggesting that Parliament should .b.; ignored or attacked with tho ..c-i-oii of tho .strike. Rn?ponsibx>. trada union loaders, however, should be different. J hey should lx> careful nos to set an example for which, be/oro long, they would lw sorry. They havo had < : yuso irtquem.lv to appeal to their following to take tho constitutional and regular course according to the laws and rules of their union. Revolt against executive authority and unauthorised action on the part of bodies of members has often been tiie theme of prot»'st and of repudiation, by the responsible officials.

Officials who now suggest to their members tlia-t they may ;gnoro tho executive action of Parliament for any of tho several reasons which can bo easily formulated are showing the way to a course which tho rank arid file of a trade union would bo justified in following whenever they wero dissatisiuxi with tho pace of a Trade Union i-°i" n or a Fallot vote with which they did not agree. The government of a trade union is upon lines similar to tho government of tho country. Tho majority rules through its executive or appointed leaders. Tire executive and tho leaders, just liko the Cabinet of often unci themselves assailed by masses of men who question their decision and repudiate their advice. The minority in a trade union revolting against majority rule corrcsooiifis to that minority of working class voterawho aro in revolut against the Government, iho fidvioa which tho trade union leader would give in tho one case should not be ilouted in the other. However serious the provocation may be, • unauthorised trade union action has been denounced by responsible trade uniou leaders. They cannot app.y one doctrmo to the trade union and another to the ari'airs oi Kational Government. J.he constitutional method, if essential tor the maintenance of one, is not less cst-.Tiual for tho ;.Tcseivaticu of the other, ifiere is iittlo iorce in the piea that this I uvuurr.cn; is breaking pledges or is devoid oi mancaie ior some of the things which \t u do:i;ji, or appealing to others to do. -vo oiic section ot electors can claim the soio nsiit of judgment 6n questions which ■ire io to moved lroni the realm of opinion io tiie rea-iin of fact. A'or can unconstitutional methods be defended on the ground ii-iiit pecp't! were deceived during the election contests, and that certain candidates were not returned because of being grossly misrepresented. Labour men in many cases won. great victories, and in other cases came very near success. We cannot say tnat the resuit was splendid where we succeeded, but must be" repudiated where we tailed. The influences operating were the same. The difference in resuit was due to uio different point of view of the electorate, aiid perhaps in some cases to the war-time conduct of the candidate. Nor can Labour men claim that they did not want an election; for many responsible spokesmen demanded an appeal at the polls, and made extensive and very effective preparation in many constituencies far beyond the readiness shown during the autumn of last Year by candidates of other parties. \\ o are raising the issue of whether we are to be governed by representative institutions deriving their authority from the people of all classes or whether government is to operate through organised sections of one class able by its unity and its special no.nu.al service to wield enormous power. The working class fought for many years in defence of representative institutions. l They appealed for a strong and enfranchised democracy able to vote on terms equal to the richest in the land. Their campaign lor political freedom has met with success; tweniy million men and women who may ba as wage-earners form the vast majority of those who now have votes in this country. Are we to say, as soon as this new-found power has been given, that it is useless for its purpose and that iho great majority of the peoplo can bu deceived by designing leaders, just as small minorities might have been deceived i-i the past? ' Tho democracy for which the great reformers looked was not to consist of any one section of volers; it was to consis: of all who would support a body of doctrine which :n application would secure gradually tho industrial and' economic freedom of the people. Instead of settling down to effective use of this democratic powor'we suddenly < - nd ourselves faced by men "-ho th:nk they are entitled to "rvt*h. [ the position"' and use in tho field of politics the weapon that was forged for use in tho Held of industrial effort. This line of conduct would inflict the greatest disaster upon the permanent interests of Labour. Labour interests cannot be separated from tho success and maintenance of representative institutions, and orderly nnd effective government in any country depends upon the acceptance by tho majority of the people of the decisions of these bodies. It will be a bad day for the Labour Party if it drifts into a bodv which is to detach itself from the general trend of nationa.l action and opinion. The more it descends into a sect of society the loss influence it will have as a national factor in the affairs of government. It could rule by terrorism, but only at the cost of never securing the consent of those whom it ruled; it could win by force, but never by conversion; it could turn us from what may now be regarded as bad government to a state where there -would be no government, but only anarchy and disorder, in which each class would "be recognised as having the right "to terrorise the other where it had the means to dq so, and where any class, if powerful enough to do it, would always be entitled to eet itself m judgment on the Government of the country and devise a means for making government impossible except upon lines which any class with power preferred to dictate.

Nothing could bo worse for Labour than to develop tho idea of people having a right because they have the power to resort for political ends to means which were net political at all. Labour in power may vet hare to face the very conditions which, out of power, some Labour men are helping to develop. It would be possible for tnose whfo were not of the, manual working class to organiso themselves in various ways and threaten to make government impossible, for tho reason that a Labour Ministry would be doing things against the will of large sections of prople -who were not disposed to give support to a Labour Government. A Labour Government cannot hone to command obedience if now it incites others to refuse to obey.