THE KING OF SPAIN

Waipa Post, Volume 42, Issue 3269, 7 March 1931, Page 6

THE KING OF SPAIN

" The King of Spain has consented to put his throne to the hazard of an election campaign. Spain was not a belligerent in the Great War; her neutrality was due more to the absence of an international policy than to the considered judgment of her rulers. It was indicative of the decadence of an empire once great it had no interests in Europe outside ts own borders to defend and no relationships with its neighbours that had to be maintained or amended. Pac'ficism in a belligerent world revealed none of the virtue which should have been its own reward. The contagion of unrest spread to the Span sh people, and there has been no force within Spain sufficient to weld the national sentiment for any high purpose, international or domestic. Since the war the country has been torn by those most futile of all contests which centre round forms of government but no individual or party has arisen equal to bringing out all the truth there may be in Pope's coupet: For forms of government let fools eeriest. . Whate'er is best administered is best. The success of Mussolini in Italy ies in his ability to read the spirit of the people and to adapt the form of government to that spirit. A real revolution in Italy was attempted after the war, and it had almost succeeded. That movement was exotic, but in a 1 probability the violent theorists would have prevailed to the destruction of the national integrity if Mussolini had not realised the po ; tential force in a latent counter sentiment. Whether Italy's form of government can survive the leader with whom it is particularly associated may be debatab e. but it would be a great mistake to suppose that it has no strength apart from that which one man gives it. The Government, arbitrary though it may be, rests on the eternal principle of the consent of the governed—that is to say, the consent is given by a section as large as that which supports any government, even the most democratic. The force which sustains government in Italy shocks democratic theorists who are blind to the disturbing fact that in all democracies, Australia, among the number, the absence of' any power in government to enforce its everwidening decrees is sapping the foundations of government. It is paradoxical,that all the most recent manifestations of the so-called democratic movement are in the direction of defeating the laws that democracy has made. The leader who declares that he intends to effect his purpose, " law or no law," is almost certain to win the applause of the mob behind him which is shouting most loudly its belief in a democracy. The opprobrious epithets " scab " and " blackleg " are directed not against those who violate the laws of democracy but against those who upho d them.

British democracy has its rallying point around the throne. Storms may lash below and around the throne, but none of them threatens it. The maintenance of the Empire is desired by all but a few fanatics, and without the King the Empire would be impossible. The passion for self-govern-ment and for " independent status " has broken practically all the other inks that bound the different parts of the Empire. The throne, however, remains not merely as an interesting and picturesque survival, and not even merely as a symbol of unity, but as a living and active force in the maintenance of Empire. It is the office of the King that preserves the entity of the Empire in its relations with the outside world. Other nations View the Empire as a whole, and their peoples perceive its ' solidarity often more clearly than some of those who are inside the Empire. The family differences within the Empire are unknown to other nations, and when a crisis such as the Great War arises the indivisibi ity of the Empire becomes apparent even to- those who make the most of family divisions. In great crises governments come and go. but the throne remains the one unchangeable institution that makes possible all other changes deemed necessary to meet each situation as it arises. Throughout the Empire large sections of the people look to the King as the embodiment of their rights. The demand for the independence of Egypt occasions more intimate and deeper concern to many of the people resident In Egypt than it causes to thousands of the people of Britain. The intervention of Britain in Egypt was destined to establish equal rights for al the people of that country. The demand for independence is made to-day by the most powerful faction, which wants not Egypt for the Egyptians but Egypt for itself. There is a large section of the population that '■ears the oppression of a dominant faction, and is content to enjoy the rights which the association with Great Britain guarantees. It is not to the ebb and flow of party politics in Great Britain that the cosmopolitan populations of the Empire look for

the preservation of their liberties. I The throne is the institution to which I they cast their eyes, aware instinc- 1 tively that the deep roots which sus- ! tain the kingly office have prevented the destinies of the Empire from being swayed from day to day by movements in party politics. Unrest in India wou'.d quickly reach a point pleasing to the most subversive elements there if the Imperial tie were not sustained by powerful influences within. The Chamber of Princes looks above ministries to the throne as the enduring element which protects the real and substantial measure of self-government enjoyed against the boisterous minority that is attempting to seize power for itself. Britain would not be in India had there been self-government there in the true sense of the word. The external power was we corned for the internal peace which its presence assured, and an evolutionary policy to establish dominion status for India is now the foundation principle of British statesmanship.

The French-Canadians have long looked to the British connection, for which the King alone stands in their eyes, for the guardianship of their rights under the confederation; and even the most disgruntled of the Boers in South Africa are beginning to realise the advantages which-association with the Empire brings. The native chiefs in the South African protectorates look to the King and the King alone. Nothing is certain of endurance against the shocks of time and events, but in an overwrought word it is a comfort to reflect that there is an institution in the British Empire which contributes to stability while leaving abundant opportunities to fools to contest without doing irreparable mischief.