THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1895. PARTY GOVERNMENT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2833, 25 June 1895, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1895. PARTY GOVERNMENT.

The Progressive Liberal Association of Christchurch has undertaken the very laudable task of giving the newspaper editors of this colony a " Liberal" education in political subjects. It has reprinted the Elective Executive Bill introduced into Parliament last year by the Hon. Major Steward, tacked on to it a philosophic dissertation of its own, which it spiced with copious quotations from the Review of Reviews, and has forwarded the whole to all the newspapers in the colony with the request that they shall bo commented upon. It would bo interesting to kuow what tho association think newt; paper editors are. Some of them are, no doubt, stupid enough, but dull as they may be, thoro is no newspaper editor in the colony who was not well acquainted with tho principles of tho Electivo Executive Bill long before the Progressive Liberal Association had existent*!. Tho proposal had boon discussed fur yuats before i.t was introduced by Major Steward, and tho newspaper editor who is not well acquainted with it will certainly never exorcise avy great influence on tho public mind. Passing over the egotism, childishness, or whatever may have prompted tho association in taking such an action, wo may say that we have so frequently discussed the subject already that we have IK-sitated to take it up afresh. Our excuse for doing so now is that as tho Progressive Liberal Association has

wasted so much energy in trying to enlighten us upon the aubJ9ct, it would hardly be fair to ignore it. The association asserts that it is not prompted by any feelings of hostility towards the present Government, and cheerfully acknowledges its success in instituting many reforms. So far as we know, there is no law which can compel us to believe more than we like of this statement. We know that the Progressive Liberal Association affects temperance, and that is synonymous with opposition to the present Government, aud furthermore, unless we are greatly mistaken, it was not a supporter of the Hon. \V. P. Reeves last election. But if the Association balieves in the present Government, whence this anxiety to get rid of it 1 Why not let well aloue ? Why not wait until the Opposition is in power before instituting such a reform as that under review 1 We are getting on as well as could be expected under the circumstances, consequently it would be a tactical blunder to disturb that which is yielding good resultß. Apart, however, from any consideration regarding the present Government, our opiuion of the Elective Executive Bill is that if carried it would place a millstoue round the neck of progress in this colony which it could not shake off during the life-time of the present generation. The first delusion under which the advocates of this measure labour iB that it would not destroy Party Government. A little consideration will readily show that it would. Party Government is the effect of unfair and unequal laws, which have created two classes: those who have, and those who have not. A glance at the colony from a political standpoint will prove this. With very few exceptions every man of wealth from Aucklaud to the Bluff is opposed to the present Government. That, at anyrate, is a fact which cannot be disputed. Uu the other hand the supporters of the present Government are nearly all poor, and thus the two parties are formed in complete harmony with the law of "natural selection." Now it is plain that a party requires a leader, both in Parliament and in the country. When Sir Robert Stout waß defeated in 1887, the Opposition were never known to take any concerted action until it placed itself under the leadership of Mr Ballance. The Opposition of the laie Parliament had to select Mr Rolleston, and the present one Captain Russell. On all these occasions the Opposition tried to manage with committees, but always failed, and had to come back to the tiine-hououred system of placing themselves under one man leadership in the end All this shows that a leader is indispensible under Party Government, but if the Elective Executive Bill were passed where would the leaders on either side come from 'I There would bo six or seven men elected as Ministers by Parliament ; tho/e would not be a leader amongst them, they would be at sixes and sevens, and we should have nothing but chaos. In the country it would be exactly the same at election times. We should have no leader, no name to conjure by, aud no raltying cry to unite people together. The Elective Executive Bill would do away with leaders, aud disorganisation and confusion would result from the absence of the general. It is plain, therefore, that Government by party would be completely abolished by the passing of this law, and bad as that system is, that by which it would be replaced would be much worse. Party Government sets a thief to catch a thief. We have one Party always watching the other, aud the result is that they keep each other straight. Then we can have no progress without competition and emulation. The two parties when competing for the prize of office and its ! emoluments must of necessity be more progressive than if they had no incentive to pfompt them. Progress would be destroyed by the abohtioa of Government by Party. Thou let us see what the effect of an elected Ministry would be. Simply this: Everyone of these Ministers would play a lone hand. There would be no cohesion, or coherence, or continuity iu their policy; each of them would put self in the forefront of all their actions, and chaos would be the result. Every Minister would do his best to keep office, and with this object in view would be a very pliable tool in the hands of unscrupulous members. He would find billets for the friends of members, and do everything they would ask him, and the result would be rank corruption. Tho present system is not, we know, perfect, but it is the only one suitable to our social condition. We have, as we have already pointed out, two parties, and must have them until such time as there is a more equal distribution of the world's wealth. Then Party Government can be abolished, but not until then, without norious injury to everyone concerned.