Party Government.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5271, 30 May 1895, Page 4

Party Government.

(From tha Lyttdton Time*)

Two able articles have recently appeared in English magazineß bearing upon the evils of party government and the proper measures to be adopted for their mitigation. The latest to be published in point ©f time — that by Mr Sidney Low in the Nineteenth Century, on the Houbo of Commons — may be first noticed. The particular evil which Mr Low haß remarked is the almost absolute j domination o£ the Cabinet over Parliament. This is an outcome of a rigid application of party ethics in all important divisions, and, as Mr Low remarks, the practical result is that "at present the minority of i the House can do little more to ; influence the action of Ministers than \ the members of a Parliamentary < Debating. Society." In short, Cabinet ruleis rapidly displacing parliamentary control,.and this fact, we think, goes far to account for the contempt into which ■ parliamentary institutions have fallen, j The result is demoralising in the ex- j treme. Members, to be true to their > own convictions and their platform \ pledges-, make speeches in a certain j direction, and then, to fulfil their " party "' obligations, record their ; votes in an exactly opposite direction, j This sort of thing lends seriousness ■ to the jocular derivation of the word • parliament,. from 1 parley to speak, and ! mentir, to lie. Mr Low's remedy is i to take from- the Cabinet" a large pro 1 - j portion of its functions, and confer \ them upon grand committees to con- ' trol the different departments of j government. This is the French ■ system, and it is> one which, Mr Low i points out has been adopted with j advantage in the great English ' municipalities.. Apparently, these j committees would- concern themselves ; with legislative proposals as well as j with administrative details. "In j the proposed committees," Mr , Low saya, "the Opposition would be ! strongly represented*; its members would be able to criticise, suggest, , and advise,, in these weighty little conclaves,, as well as their colleagues j from the opposite benches; as there would be no division list published, there would be no oaucms to fear, and consequently the strict ties of party obligation would be loosened inside the walls of the committee-room; members would be able to vote and talk on the questions before them without reference to the whips or the local wire-pullers ;; and an influential and well-informed Opposition speaker would often be able to carry the committee with him, even against the opinion of the Minister, who, in the open session of the House, could overwhelm him by the sheer voting strength of his heavier battalions." The other article is by I>r Cockburn, a South Australian politician, and it ib written on broad and general lines! He depicts in bold colours the evils of the existing system, and traces how these evils have gradually grown through the unwarranted assumption of power by the Cabinet in every country possessing parliamentaryinstitutions. "Party government," he remarks,, "is no time-honoured institution* and the Cabinet, in spite of its pretence of authority, has never succeeded in getting itself recognised by the Constitution." According to Dr Cockburn,. the simplest And easiest way to check the growth of Cabinet government and restore the waning power of Parliament is to make the Ministry elective by the House. He Bays :"- <fc To bring about the election of Ministers ' no alteration of our Constitution Acts is required,, but merely a change of custom. The names submitted to the Governor as Ministers would be those of members elected by their fellow-representatives instead of those nominated by the Premier." In concluding his admir-ably-written and well-reasoned article, Br Cbekburn says:— "By the adoption of the practice of election of Ministers we shall surmount the obstacle which checks the evolution of true parliamentary government: And although not at once removed far from our present position, we shall, once free from party trammels and phantom control, have before us an open road. by which Parliament can advance to the attainment 6t its ultimate ideal : a government of the people, for the people, by the people." We are not quite certain that Dr Cockburn is right in holding that only a "change of custom" is required to bring in this great reform ; at all events it would be preferable to have the method of election defined by statute. Of the two suggested remedies, that of Dr Cockburn is the one more in accord with democratic ideals and tendencies. Mr Low'b committees would abolish the party caucus by creating a dozefi or so minor caucuses, and the system would tend to bureaucratic rule. Election of the Ministry by the popularly elected Chamber would, on the other hand, be in the direction of giving more power to the poople. Under proper safeguards, it would effectually limit the power of the Cabinet, and minimise the evils of " party," and at the same time accord with the genius of our Constitution, and with the instincts of a free people.