DOMINION’S TASK

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLVIII, Issue 21576, 12 February 1940, Page 6

DOMINION’S TASK

Prime Minister’s Broadcast

Basis Of Democracy

“Can Democracy Take It?” was th? subject of the weekly broadcast by the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage) last night in the series of weekly talks on “New Zealand’s Problems as I see Them.” Mr Savage emphasised that the strength of a democracy rested on the initiative and vitality of the people themselves, and contended that only by the people willingly accepting the burdens entailed could the Dominion hope to play a worthypart in the present struggle. He again expressed a hope that every New Zealand soldier would be a volunteer. “We are all too prone to think of Democracy as having a sure and certain existence apart from ourselves and forget that it is nothing but the way in which we—unlike many others—manage our public affairs,” said Mr Savage. We practice democracy and believe in it. In times of peace Democracy was under no great strain, but with the coming of war came the test of stability, and if there was a falling off in stamina or a decaying sense of responsibility democracy would, if the test were severe enough, meet the test in one way only—it dissolved.

What was the position of New Zealand as it commenced its second century of history? Mr Savage asked. In a previous talk he had emphasised the need for soldiers to carry out the Dominion’s part in the war on land and in the air. That demand could be met only by young men pressing forward in their hundreds or thousands without let up and without need of being called up. Some might decline to be separated from high wages, safety or pleasure, but they would not be New Zealanders. He had previously expressed a hope that every New’ Zealand soldier would be a volunteer, and he would repeat that statement confidently. New Zealanders would not let New Zealanders down! General Sacrifices

Mr Savage went on to say that the sacrifices of war would not be restricted to service in the field, but would extend to the w r hole of civil life, touching recreation, leisure, luxuries and even necessities. The country would need to draw on moral and spiritual resources. He w T as confident that the people would be able to stand the strain, but only by the exercise of selfdiscipline. In the opinion of the dictators democracies W’ere not able to impose the degree of discipline which a life and death struggle demanded. They believed that the people, if left to themselves, were incapable of such sacrifices and without the heavy hand of a master, national action on any great scale was impossible. We knew, however, from history, Mr Savage contended, that such a view was not correct. In some countries democracy had collapsed because the people had lost faith in democratic government, because of aimlessness and weakness in carrying out public duties, a slackness which their democracies did little to correct. While he had no sympathy wdth coercion in government, on the other hand he had no respect for anarchy and no self-respecting government would tolerate it. The onlv course open to it was to enforce the law. Mr Savage went on to enumerate underhand methods which amounted to stabbing democracy in the back and bringing the law into disrepute. Such were the go-slow policy of workmen, the faking of invoices to defeat the ehd of stabilised prices and the sentiment expressed in the hour of the country’s peril that “War is a fool’s business and I wash my hands of it.” Such people, said Mr Savage, were living in a fool’s paradise. How could a democracy work successfully with such attitudes current? He emphasised that democracy did not work automatically and was not foolproof. It functioned only in an atmosphere of responsibility. Apathy and indifference of mind was fatal. Under such conditions the people became not a democracy but a mob ripe for the retribution which would inevitably follow. Parliament, freely chosen by the people, was the keystone of the democratic arch and the laws passed by Parliament the expression of the w’ill of the people. If the laws were undermined the sovereignty of the people was threatened and the stage was set for the dictator. Dictatorship, Mr Savage contended, was the product of a society and not the fruit of a time or race.

Government Determined Because it was tolerant and abhorred the use of force, the government of a democracy was not condemned to impotence in the face of resisance, Mr Savage continued. There was nothing in its nature to cause it to be weak in the pursuit of the common good. “The Government of this country is in the act of using all the means at its disposal to carry out the will of the people to make war with all its heart and strength until a just victory has been won.” The Government was now using that power, but the government of a democracy could not do everything. The people must be prepared to help themselves. People who looked to the Government to do everything were those wjio could live happily under a dictator.

In New Zealand the people had an economic system capable of providing for all willing to work the highest standard of living in the world. That system had been created by democracy and without democracy would fade over night. Surely when the economy was threatened by an enemy whose triumph would mean its destruction, the people should take a hand in endeavouring to destroy pernicious doctrines propagated by cranks, perverts, ingrates, oddities and ne’er-do-wells. Let them not take false doctrines too lightly. The task of sense was to counter nonsense and good resolute citizens in factory, workshop and other associations would do much to refute error and help to keep up the morale of the people. Mr Savage concluded by expressing confidence in the ability of the people of New Zealand to shoulder the burdens which only the peonle of a free country could bear and chow that democracy could indeed tak? it.