The Waipukurau Press. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 1933. NON-PARTY POLITICS

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXVIII, Issue 65, 10 March 1933, Page 4

The Waipukurau Press. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 1933. NON-PARTY POLITICS

As the “Christchurch Sun” has aptly observed “it is natural that at a time when the deficiencies of the personnel of Parliament are more apparent than in days when all was going well, there should be reaction in certain sections of the community against a political system which does not demand particular talent m those who are sent to Parliament by the electors. Too often persons pitifully ill-equipped for politics and the task of government get into Parliament; but that is mainly because of inaction on the part of some ol those who will do doubt be charmed now by the ideals of this latest organisation. Men have often beefi elected

simply because a strong party has stood behind them, while others possessing unquestioned ability have been rejected because they lacked party support.” The party system as the “Press” has long since averred, certainly tends to undermine the initiative of any man who elects to be subservient to its dictates and become in effect a political hack —possibly a mere voting automaton, only requiring to be on hand at the call of the party whip if content to play the party game, to its logical conclusion. In the case of the independent-mind-ed member there inevitably arises from time to time situations in which he finds himself at variance with the viewpoint of the party leader (even perchance the caucus). Sometimes it means a choice between loyalty to the electors or his principles and loyalty to the party, but he is expected (in some cases required) to subordinate the former choice to the latter. Surely a Parliamentarian should enjoy the same measure of freedom as the average local body member?

Let us have men and principles before party and measures. The old Roman ideal was a soundly democratic one—“ Then none was for a party; Then all were for the State; Then the great man helped the poor man, And the poor man loved the g rea t.“—(Macaulay.) Independence to be truly effective must of course be reasoned and purposeful. It should not savour of mere cantankerousness or be dictatorial in chai acter. Commonsense suggests that all national questions should be dealt with along lines conducive to gaining from members of Parliament the cream of such wisdom as they may possess, but the party system only takes into account the opinions of a very limited circle —in some circumstances, with autocratic leadership, amounting to one man's thinking powers! As we have from time to time' observed it would be little if any worse to have all our legislation by Order-in-Council, as there is a tendency to limit the duties of M’sP. to a local sphere. Independence is frequently confused with rail-sitting a cheap but rather effective party jibe—but, genuinely expressed, it means striving for a square deal and being prepared to face opposition from all quarters if need be. It is essential that an independent political candidate should declare his principles and platform, revealing his natural leanings—toward liberalism, conservatism, or labourism. Of late, we have had the spectacle of some Parliamentary representatives facing both ways—expressing opinions diametrically opposed to the Government yet voting for the measure they had just condemned —some others equally culpable perhaps, maintained silence, not being prepared to compromise themselves toward the, issue or party. From a patriotic point of view there may be some excuse for the maxim: “My country right or wrong!” but there is no like excuse for the doctrine, “My party, right or wrong!” Such an attitude betokens either supineness or selfishness. The whole tendency of ultra-party politics is to beget Undue dependence upon the leading lights of a side.,