Theory and Practice.

Opunake Times, Volume IX, Issue 439, 25 November 1898, Page 2

Theory and Practice.

M. Pobyedonosteff, ecclesiastical head of the Greek Church in Russia, has witten a book entitled “ Refactions of a Russian Statesman,” in which he has much that is interesting to say about government by democracy. Russian-like, he cannot, see any good—not the tiniest scrap—in government by Parliaments, and his arguments are certainly fairly weighty. This is how he sums up the question (many even in New Zealand, will coincide in his opinions) : “ Such is the complicated mechanism of the Parliamentary farce ; such is the great political lie which dominates our age. By the theory of Parliament the rational majority must rule ; in practise the Party is ruled by five or six of its leaders who exercise all power. In theory decisions are controlled by clear argument in the course of Parliamentary debates; in practise they in no wise depend on debates, but are determined by the wills of the leaders and the promptings of personal interest. In theory the _ representatives of the people consider only the public welfare ; in practise their first consideration is their own advancement, and the interests of their friends. In theory they must be the citizens ; in practice they are the ambitious and impudent. In In theory the elector gives his vote for his candidate because he knows him and trusts him ; in practice the elector gives his vote for a man whom he seldom knows, but who has been forced on him by the speeches of an interested party. In theory Parliamentary business is directed by experience, good sense, and unselfishness ; in practice the cheif motive powers are a firm will, egoism, and eloquence.” A southern contemporary is rude enough to endeavour to, by insinuation, apply the. Russian ecclesiastic’s words to New Zealand politics. “It seems,” says contemporary, “ very improbable that this Russian statesman should know anything about New Zealand politics, but if he does not, and had not our Parliament in view how could he have written the foregoing? ”