STATE AS TRUSTEE

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 56, Issue 4046, 11 May 1938, Page 9

STATE AS TRUSTEE

MODERN TREND OF DEMOCRACY. (By Archbishop Ward.) The trend of world events points to the conclusion that as we are likely soon to be in negotiation with a number of Dictators we should stand a poor chance of success unless our own ideals were as clearly envisaged as theirs. It therefore seems incumbent upon me to state as succinctly as I can the political ideals which animate a modern Christian democracy. Let us remind ourselves that the theory against which we are struggling is the view that the State is an end in itself. In this view the State has no duties, but only rights. It has an absolute claim upon every one of its members in every department of his or her life and activity. The State thus becomes a monster, and was actually described by Hobbes, an English philosopher of the 17th century, who held this view as a great “Leviathan.* In sharp antithesis to such a sentiment a modem English democrat, Earl Baldwin, has said that the State is not. worthy of the worship of any good man. We have then to ask what theory can be opposed to the view of the State as an end. Obviously it is possible to regard the State at the other extreme as merely a means. I have myself heard a well known Federal politician describe the difference between the democratic and the totalitarian States as lying in the fact that whereas in the latter the citizen exists for the sake of the State, in the former the State exists for the sake of the citizen. There is a very large measure of truth in this way of stating the case. It implies that the State has not merely rights, but duties, and that its duties lie in the first place towards its members. An excellent exposition of this view can be found in a famous politician of the 19th century. Guiseppe Mazzini was born in 1805, and died in 1872. Like- Machiavelli he was a Republican, also like Machiavelli he desired above all things the unity of Italy. He was therefore prepared to support any form of government which would secure that unity. He is regarded by some as an assassin and the teacher of assassins. Actually he was at one time ready to acclaim Pope Pius IX as a Liberator, and he would even have supported Charles Albert as King if his policy had furthered the cause of Italian unity. Although Mazzini was an anti-cleri-cal, he was a devout believer in God. He held that sound politics were impossible without religion. “I do not know,” he said, “a single great conquest of the human spirit, a single important step for the perfecting of human society which has not had its roots in strong religious faith.” He was indeed the founder of modern Italy. For a short time the Government of Rome itself was in his hands, and he made the Italians recognise that only Rome could be the centre of a new Italy. His "Duties of Man” formed the primer from which young Italy received its education in patriotism. exists for the its purIrving

Thus to the State as a political unit is added the individual. When we come to the New Testament we find a third centre of interest, this time in mankind as a whole. Salvation is not merely for Israel, nor for individual Israelites, but for the whole of humanity. The Kingdom of God is not bound by any racial frontiers, but is intended to become coterminous with the totality of human society. Thus the chosen people, the State, is no longer merely in a position of privilege, but of responsibility. Its function is to spread the good news.to other people; the fact of its dispersion is divinely appointed to enable it to reach the whole world. If he is to follow this example 1 the Christian democrat, however patriotic he may be cannot be content either with furthering the interests of his own country, or with ensuring that every resident in. that country shall receive a full share of its benefits. He must look out upon the whole human race and regard the interests of his own people as contributory to the interests of the whole. This is a point which we are bound to bear in mind at the present juncture. It is absurd to speak as if it were even remotely possible that Britain could abondon the League. It is inconceivable that any responsible British statesman could ever entertain such a thought. We may indeed doubt the adequacy of the League as at present constituted, to perform the full functions assigned to We may even doubt whether its * istitution is well conceived; i any retreat from the / n 'prgiy be in

ployers’ interests to those of the workers. This reduction to absurdity presumably had the desired effect, but there are still too many platform speakers and fervent idealists who forget that the primary duty of a Government is to protect the interests of those whom it governs. Nevertheless, the interests of other nations must also be taken into account. Love is still the guiding principle, and love implies active effort for the highest good of others. It is the glory of democratic government that in this definition the “others” must be taken to include the whole of humanity, but the primary reference will be to the component members of the State.