Can Rule by Force Prevail in the World To-day?

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19959, 17 November 1934, Page 9

Can Rule by Force Prevail in the World To-day?

ING ALEXANDER o£ Jugo-

Slavia is said to have been slain because he pursued a

ruthless dictatorship which revealed a disregard for the rights and aspirations of the subjected race of people whence sprang the assassin. Hence those who were associated with the dead King’s steel-like grip on the administration of the affairs of his unhappy country, and his control reaching almost to some of the most intimate personal activities of his people, must have been forced to the conclusion that force is a poor persuader; oppression of a weaker: race, an awkward wooer of loyalty; assassination an unconvincing advocate preparation for war a provocative peacemaker. Slowly the human mind is learning these things—but how slowly! In that despicable crime that sent a Slav monarch to his grave, force answered to force. Alexander suffered from the belief that he could, by main strength, cram Croats and Slovenes and Serbs into one nation overnight. His tragic death reveals again the futility of force. The Feet of Clay For years, King Alexander’s dictatorship had seemed to be growing stronger, to all appearances than when he inaugurated it in January 1929. when he issued his famous proclamation abolishing Parliament, and placing a general at the head of an Absolutist Cabinet, composed of his personal representatives responsible to him alone, many people predicted that the venture would hardly last the year out. But at the moment of his assassination few capable observers would deny that he

had better control over the Jugo-Slavia state machine than j at any time since he began to reign, fifteen years before. I All opposition had been suppressed with a firm and some- ) times ruthless hand: “In January of this year King Alexander dismissed one Prime Minister and appointed another in his stead with no friction or turmoil. “A completely subjugated press obeyed the direction of the King, never printing a sentence of which he did not approve, nor publishing an editorial that had not been sanctioned by his agents. “No political meetings of any sort were held except those of his party, to which the masses were brought by all the transportation facilities at the disposition of the State. “Undesirable foreign books and papers were stopped at every border. Every religious organisation, except the Roman Catholic Church, was controlled by the King’s re- | presentatives. The universities had been deprived of their | autonomy. Sport was directed by a special minister in his Cabinet. He appointed or controlled the election of every member of the Senate. No deputy could enter Parliament without his consent and approval. Every city and village mayor was selected according to the wishes of his agents. “The police, the army, and the state finances were all in j his hands. One man sat at the steering wheel of the vast and intricate Yugoslav state machine controlling every ■ movement. And to all outward appearances the system worked.” But Alexander fell before the bullets of a son of the Croatian people. Did not this aggressive and progressive branch of the Slav detest and oppose the King’s absolute rule'* The Call for Leadership “Give us a King,” the Israelites clamoured about three thousand years ago, and the cry is being taken up by nation after nation to-day, as discouragement spreads with the apparent failure of democracy to solve the complicated problems. mainly economic rather than political, that beset modern governments. There is of course a superficial difference; except in Serbia and possibly now in Bulgaria, i Kingship has latterly b°en shorn of most of its authority ( and a new label has been invented for the old medicine; I men call for a leader, Signor Mussolini, as the Duce, was j the first to give the world the status of an official national j

title, but he left it to the more academically-minded Germans to reduce it to a system in das Fuhrer-prinzip, or | the “leader-principle.” Only the Best to Rule Under the fundamental laws of the Nordic race it is ! provided that only the “best” of the community can be entrusted with the right to rule. Hence there cannot be more than one leader. Unity, under the Nazi regime, can only be preserved by the man, honesty only by the most j honest, struggle only by the strongest fighter and victor over others, loyalty only by the most loyal faith, only by the one nearest God, and justice only by the most just.” Democracy and Dictatorship Leading American commentators point to the practical exemplification of the Nazi ideal in the events occurring in Germany in June of this year, when the opponents of i the regime were ruthlessly slaughtered, and they contrast i the picture of Abraham Lincoln just before the presidential election of 1864. His first term of office, heavy with responsibility of the conflict accepted in the defence of the two principles of unity and liberty, was closing in an atmosphere of despondency. He knew that the strong and courageous leadership, which he had given and would continue to give in politics, was as necessary as that which General Grant was giving in the field. But he was prepared to take the risk, which seemed almost a certainty, : of that leadership passing to another, rather than deprive | his fellow citizens of their freedom to choose their leader. J And gloriously was his confidence in democracy justified | by the event. In Russia Joseph Stalin’s grip on the

direction of Soviet policy is absolute and all pervading. It is an open secret that no important step in foreign policy is taken without his approval. He has been most prominently identified with the drive for rapid industrialisation and for the collectivisation of agriculture; and here again his imprint is to be seen on all the more significant measures in these fields. Stalin, to-day. stands out, along with Mussolini and Hitler, as one of the three national leaders who can speak in the name of solidly regimented masses of his fellow citizens. “When we put the worker on the automobile and the peasant on the tractor we shall see which countries are considered advanced and which are backward,” Stalin boasted on one occasion. And his few public pronouncements are filled with exhortations to “master technique.” to overcome Russia’s traditional technical backwardness. Behind Stalin’s fierce yearning to see Russia industrialized as rapidly as possible are two elements: the belief that Socialism itself depends on a bigframework of modern industry and the conviction that the Soviet Union will only be able to win the war which Communist dogma regards as ultimately inevitable if industralisation has created the sinews of military preparedness. A good deal of psychological light is cast on the character of the Soviet Man of Steel by an interchange that occurred when Stalin received a party | consisting of Bernard Shaw, Lady Astor and Lord Lothian. “When are you going to stop killingpeople?” inquired Lady Astor. “When it is no longer necessary,” replied the outspoken Stalin.

The Futility of Force Half a dozen major world events have taught the same lesson. In Moscow. Joseph Stalin told H. G. Wells that violence was indispensable to the change from one social system to another. While he spoke, the Reds and radic* Is of Spain sought, in a hundred bloody “calles” and “ciudades,” to add one more to history’s apparent proofs of this contention. The Madrid Government with bayonet and bomb, has suppressed the revolt; it has not removed resentment or won loyalty. And as Spain knows in knowledge and in the practice of democracy such i methods will become less and less | effective. The truth is that M. Stalin's recipe I is an ancient one which the world is | slowly outgrowing. It may still apply j to Russia and other countries which I have hardly known anything except | ; the government of force. But revolu- j ! tions always have taken place in ! thought first, even Russian revolutions. In countries where only a few people were thinking politically, change could come when they had been persuaded or prisoned. Control of the army was enough. But does anyone imagine that control of the army would suffice in Britain, or America, or Scandinavia to-day? Actually it does not in Moscow, Rome or Berlin—not unless j supported by propaganda. There are '. survivals of the use of force. Fears I of violence may be hastening social j changes in democratic countries. But surely they can come without violence. Who Chooses? To-day every dictator maintains, as King Alexander maintained, that he bases his ascendancy upon popular

; support. But the vital point lies in the means by which j the people exercise their choice. In Germany, the people are said to follow the leader blindly. But is it a shell that holds them together. It may be urged that the Nazi j concept of leadership, and the autocracy of the Soviet | leaders are purely local products, possibly adapted to the ! native soil, but unsuitable for propagation abroad. The I same sort of thing was said a few years ago by Signor | Mussolini, in his declaration that “Fascism was an Italian ! product not an export.” But the seeds of Fascism, as well i as Nazism and Bolshevism, have apparently floated, pollen- | wise, into receptive or unguarded fields across the Alps. The Acid Test 'ls the leader-principle also trying to find lodgment | abroad? This question becomes easy to answer, if two i things are remembered. One is that the despotic j tendencies of egotism, aggression and emotionalism present | themselves as universal aspects of the human mind. The other is that “a nation gets the government that it : deserves;” in other words, the chief executive and legislative i institutions of a country will reflect the mode of thought I expressed by its citizens in their more intimate groupings, j Decisions are not necessarily sound just because they are j quickly taken, and the effect of depriving the rank and file of exercising initiative of judgment, was well described by | Signor N. O. Corbino, who. speaking in the Italian Senate ! in January, 1934. referred to a tendency of Italians to turn Ito the Duce for the solution of all their difficulties, and I said: “Let me deplore the spread of such a habit which might even give rise to a generation of individuals averse, either by laziness or by fear, from assuming the necessary responsibility. The fact that the Chief becomes every day

bigger should not authorise the Italians to make themselves every day smaller.” The Democratic Way The best informed observers of the march of world events insist that it is not a question of the superiority of the one most honest, or most loyal, or the most just man, but of the general manifestation of those and kindred qualities by himself, and his fellow citizens alike. The leader’s example should be their inspiration, but he should not do their work for them, however great the temptation to “get something done.” “That country advances most rapidly j towards the goal of ultimate perj fection.” says one well-informed writer, | “whose members willingly and intelliI gently undertake their several re- | sponsibilities, and by learning to be j faithful over a few things qualify to be j made ruler over one or many things.” I That is the best way of throwing up the executive and subordinate leaderships which human conditions demand, and it is the democratic way. 1 There will be no jealousy, no rivalry, j no struggle for supremacy where all I are animated by the spirit described j in an utterance of Mr Stanley Baldwin, l whose qualities as a leader are so veiled | in his natural modesty and altruism I that they are overlooked and even j denied by some until a moment of | crisis brings them out. “It makes j very little difference,” says Mr Baldwin, ! "whether a man is driving a tram-car ! or sweeping the streets, or being Prime ! Minister, if he brings to the service of the people of his country everything that is in him, and performs it for the sake of mankind.”

Has Democracy Failed? Twenty years ago the youth of the free and enlightened democracies went into the greatest and most devastating ; armed conflict in history because they believed they were ; taking up arms to save democracy . Subsequent experience I has revealed the arresting truth that after all democracy is : a spiritual ideal which needs neither war nor complex bureaucracy to sustain it. All that is needed is an underj standing citizenship which puts its faith in government of I the people by the people for the people. Moreover, the war j and the hostilities of peace, have demonstrated beyond all | doubt, the fallacy of the idea that the theory of democracy j could be either be overthrown or upheld by forces of massed ! men and roaring guns. The ideal of democracy is that the masses of the people through the ballot-boxes choose their own leaders and therefore govern themselves. Thus then democracy has never failed— it is the counterfeit, and not true democracy, that has been found wanting. “An Old Soldier,” writing in a leading American journal suggests in reply to those who say that democracy has failed that it would be equally fallacious to say that because of national ignorance and lack of application and the attendant mass of errors to cry out “mathematics has failed, therefore let us look for some other method of keeping our accounts.” Men permit themselves to be drawn into error because they fail to realise the fundamental principles of true democracy. “It is not enough,” says our commentator, “that we focus our eyes on the ballot box and conceive of democracy simply as our right to roll into office whom the political parties offer us. It is not enough that we having so voted, should turn our backs with the complacent feelings that we have carried out our duties as citizens of a democratic State. For if such is our understanding of democracy the results will be unavoidable. “Democracy,” says An Old Soldier, “has not failed, never will fail. Whenever there is a dictator ruling by fear or force there is a people who have yet to grasp the true idea of self-government. Let the people awake to the fact and the dictator, no matter how well entrenched, no matter how solidly seated is on the way out, and, without that understanding. no experiment in democracy, no matter how well hedged with wise laws and constitutions, is secure or safe.” How can the world be made safe for democracy? An old soldier who saw service in the World War and listened to the perfervid shouting of that phrase offers this substitute: j “Make democracy safe for the world.”