The Timaru Herald WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1945. Sectional Strife

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVIII, Issue 23375, 5 December 1945, Page 4

The Timaru Herald WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1945. Sectional Strife

in Christchurch on Moncjqy, the Dominion president of Federated Farmers, Mr W. W. Mulholland, said that if sectional strife continued in New Zealand it might “even go to the extent of civil war.” It is regrettable that Mr Mulholland should have made that statement because he cannot advance his cause by exaggeration even in the realm of conditional prophecy. It is fantastic to suggest that in any circumstance, as long as the basic elements of fair-dealing between the Government and all its citizens are preserved, there is the faintest danger of one section of the people being pitted physically against another. New Zealand has faced major crises before, none graver that) those of the depression years, without sustained disturbance of public order, and it is certain that a balanced people will be able to ride out present and future storms in the same sensible fashion.

Although the likelihood of civil commotion leading to conflict in this country can be ignored, this does mil mean that dangerous strife in other forms is impossible, and it may even be that the lime has come for the Government to consider what the long-term effect of its policies will be. The basic problem is that relating to the rights of minorities. This is a world problem; the recent war was fought ip part at least to obtain a just solution of that problem. The point at issue in New Zealand is whether an election majority, however small, confers upon the winning party unqualified right to go its own way regardless of the feelings, wishes and opinions of those who voted against it, as they were entitled |o do. It is the negation of democracy that the minority should be expected t° take a completely passive part in the determination of national policy. In former times political divisions were less pronounced than they are now; it was then possible for opposition forces to influence the direction of legislation; they then had more than formal existence in Parliament. Now the position is different, and although it may be part of the world trend, it is lamentable that in this country the majority partv in politics should claim for itself exclusive proprietorship of the wells of truth, public beneficence and political wisdom, while those opposed to it are thought to be charlatans and numbskulls at best, and at worst hypocrites and self-seeking social brigands without a decent human instinct. It is claimed that the broadcasting of Parliament has advanced the political education of the people. What it has dqne through a long series of mediocre (Jphates >8 t 0 implant in the pphlic niind, or the unthinking section of it, exaggerated and unreal ideas of the differences in political philosophy represented in Parliament. The Labour Party in debate is never generous enough to concede that the Opposition has the welfare of New Zealand as a first concern, and this irascibility and intolerance have now infected the whole of Parliament, and from there it has penetrated far info community life. Menace Of Dictatorship Continued dictatorship by a political party cannot be as menacing to the individual as perspqgl dictatorship on the European pattern, but in the end it may become uncomfortable and exasperating. The present Government is pptitled to claim that it was elected to govern, but it should not construe the right conferred by a relatively small majority as one enabling it to ignore the wishes of those sections of the community opposed to it politically. The situation is not made easier by the fact that the Government ifself is controlled from within by another powerful majority before which competent administrators must bepd the knee. In essentials the powerful inner group rules, leaving only the routine administration of the country’s affairs to the men who were elected nominally Ip control all.

This, then, is the contemporary situation in Npyv Zealand; it is a disturbing one. but for the sake of civil amity it is essential that it should not be exaggerated. Forces opposed to the Government which are suffering under a gerjse of grievance at the trend of Government policy mav bp tempted |o follow the example of militant sections of the Labour movement and take direct action. It is true that this strategy has been successful, but only in things which were of limited national importance, lhe Government has been compelled under industrial pressure to ma|se copcessiqns which could reasonably have been withheld, but it cannot follow logically that because a militant section of organised labour gained a point by direct action that it would be advisable for the farming community to adopt similar methods in the hope of attaining larger ends. Mr Mulholland told his Christchurch audience that a sudden cessation of production is impossible, But he did not rule out the possibility that production could be reduced over a long period. The farmers could not make a more serious mistake than that of reducing production as a protest against the Government’s recent distasteful legislation. The whole country would suffer through such illadvised action, but what is more important, the farmers themselves would suffer most. As an individual makes his own protest no mure effective by chopping off a hand, so the farmers as a body cannot make their protest against the Government more salutary by the maiming process of reducing production. A Voiceless Class Yet it is significant that the farmers’ organisations should he made so resentful by Government policy that they are even talking of such action. It suggests a mood of impatience born of apparent impotence in influencing the Government.

There is another large section of the community, lacking a voice, which knows that it is being hurt by Government policy. The middle-class has endured much during the war; it is being sacrificed in the levelling process which the Government, if given the time, will complete. This forgotten class has no spokesman; it has. oidy its thoughts and its fears. lhe worst mistake the Government coiihj make would be to bring it Io lhe borderland of despair.

There are seeds of conflict which could interrupt lhe happy era of social progress the Government claims to have in mind: moderating influences are necessary and to be effective they must be willingly exercised by the Government. Il alone bps the power of (:o||cilja|ing disaffected elements in tin - iionimunilv. but il it made a lew advances it would find genial and balancing reciprocity coining from people who are now bewildered and hostile.