POLITICAL CAPACITY.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 January 1935, Page 4

POLITICAL CAPACITY.

Such remarks as those made at the Science Congress at Melbourne by Mr. Leicester Webb, Christchurch, are always to be welcomed. If they irritate they also amuse, and, best of all, they may prevent undue complacency, a condition that is always harmful to progress. Mr. Webb’s jibes at the mental capacity of Ministers and Parliamentarians need not be treated too seriously. Before any great weight can attach to such opinions they must come from one who can justify his claim to express what is public opinion, and to a full knowledge of the conditions or persons he criticises. Ministers and members of the Legislature will doubtless soothe their self-respect with the recollection that such charges have been frequent ever since New Zealand received representative government, and are likely to continue, whatever the calibre of Parliamentarians may be. Two of the observations by Mr. Webb deserve more serious consideration. He complained that the party machine was weakening the influence of Parliament and making it less representative of public opinion. It is a tendency noted by

many students, and there is no question but that it is becoming increasingly difficult for a candidate to win a seat in Parliament without party organisations and funds to help him. The trouble is that some of these organisations insist upon obedience to their ruling even when a candidate has won a seat. This tends to affect judgment and to weaken the authority of Parliament. Allegiance to an outside organisation, which has the means of discipling the disobedient, is not a progressive influence in politics, and a tendency in that direction must be checked if Parliamentary rule is to continue virile. Mr. Webb also referred to the loss of control of a Ministry by Parliament. This also has been the occasion of much discussion, but criticism is easier than constructive suggestion to overcome the evil. It is one of the outcomes of the party system based upon the principle that office must carry responsibility as well as privilege. The French system of small Parliamentary groups, with no appeal to the country if a Ministry is defeated, is said to have maintained Parliament’s control over the Cabinet. It has certainly made insecurity of office a by-word in regard to French Ministries, and if that is the manner in which control by Parliament is to be maintained it is arguable that the cure of non-control would be worse than conditions as they are.