CENTRALISATION

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLVII, Issue 21508, 22 November 1939, Page 13

CENTRALISATION

AGAINST DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES In a recent issue of “The Aecountant’’(Lcndon) Professor J. H. Jones, a distinguished British economist, had a very thoughtful article on the centralising tendencies of Government in Great Britain. “We see, on all sides, a strong tendency towards centralisation of control and administration,” he wrote. “Centralisation is defended on the ground that it increases efficiency, narrowly Interpreted. And since, in these days of danger and anxiety, the need for efficiency becomes more urgent, we are likely to witness an increasing tendency in this direction, The increment is largely the product of the last war and was fostered by the Ministry of Munitions more, perhaps, than by any other institution or influence. “It may be my Welsh origin; it may be my provincial training and experience and outlook; it may be my deeprooted faith in the somewhat untidy and apparently unbusineslike methods of democracy—but I don’t like it. I have yet to be convinced of its efficiency, narrowly interpreted. Even Government Departments find devolution to be a pressing need, and respond to it—to the extent that they must, not to the extent that they dare. And in the Post Office, which is akin to a business concern, there is greater devolution than elsewhere. But there is more in life than mechanical efficiency, which may be served at too great a cost. I have no desire to see a heptarchy established in this country, but equally I have no desire to see the centre draining the surrounding spheres and areas of Initiative and responsibility. “Centralisation, carried to extremes, is the greatest danger to that kind of liberty which is inseparable from true democracy. It is no accident that Hitler began his career, as Leader, by destroying the German States, which was done by converting them into mere administrative regions. Centralisation is of the essence of dictatorship. It may not destroy democracy, but it is an ever-present danger to democracy in its spiritual sense, if not to the forms or externals of democracy. In a real democracy process is important, no less than result, but both process and result mean nothing if the spirit of democracy is lacking. Both process and spirit are endangered by centralisation, carried to excess; and the danger is the greater because the pressure is silent and persistent. “In a large country, like the United States, centralisation breaks down through sheer inefficiency; in a very small country, such as Denmark, it is too close to the people to be dangerous —hence, partly, the value of small nations, But in a country of intermediate size, such as Germany or Great Britain, where centralisation produces the maximum efficiency, It also creates the greatest danger. .Hence, partly, the value of monarchy, for in a democratic monarchy the monarch Is the ultimate protector of democracy. Let us beware lest, in making democracy safe for the rest of the world, we destroy it for ourselves.”