PARTY GOVERNMENT.

Fair Play, Volume I, Issue 6, 9 December 1893, Page 17

PARTY GOVERNMENT.

The abolition of Party Government is rapidly becoming one of the burning questions of the day. Those good people who think that we are within measureable distance of the “ Perfect State,” will before long experience a rude awakening. The nation has happily got over its periodical fit of aberration of mind. The same old politicians have dished up the same old theories of straw, with a dismal repetition, which has neither beginning nor end. We have dropped our ballot papers into the slot, and now the figure will move its jaws as before. Instead of two parties we shall have three on major questions, and on minor questions we shall have the usual 74 parties. The struggle for the control of the national money-bag will be as fierce as ever. The leaders will rave at each other unceasingly in order to convince a long-suffering nation that the other side is ruining the country, is hopelessly wrong, and utterly dishonest, etc. Put us in and all will be well, and there will be everlasting peace and prosperity. But we can see through the 'whole tiling. It is nothing but a pantomime, intended to divert attention from the ghastly tragedy that is going on behind the scenes. It is merely a game of grab of the ins and outs. The Opposition must object to everything the Government brings forward, not because they object to all reform, but simply because it is the duty of the Opposition to turn the Government out. The Leaders enjoy a perpetual lease of the Premiership. When a politician attains a certain position—now matter how—he becomes practically an irremoveable incubus. The average leader keeps a half or a third share in the Premiership until the day of his death, and neither hiß party nor his country knows how to get rid of him. If a leader has an octopus-like grasp of the national purse, the party must put up with him, though he may be no use for any other purpose whatever. We call ourselves a democracy. Where does the voice of the people"come in, in the selection of a Cabinet? When a political crisis arises, -some imported functionary at Government House sends for the principal placeman, and asks him to form , a

d Ministry. If he does not succeed, the secon placeman on the list is sent for, and so thi 8 goes on until one of them fills the billEach party must stick to its leader, otherwise the leader of the other side will grab the reins of office. The way the Cabinet is then appointed does' not impress ope with the wisdom of the arrangement. First, local jealousies have to be considered; no province is supposed to haVe two Ministers while another one has none; again, the Premier is restricted to one side of the House only. One Minister is appointed because he is a personal friend, another because he is a ready and unscrupulous debater, the next because he has a number of friends in the House whom it would not be wise to offend, and another because, if he does not get a portfolio, he will go over to the Opposition. Ability is absolutely unnecessary. The people have no say whatever in the election of a Cabinet.

It is needless to say anything about midnight and hasty legislation, about stonewalling, about stupid accusations against former government as dead as Queen Anne. It is useless to refer to the stupid attempts made to justify evil done now, by evil done in the past, to the coarse personalties indulged in, to the abuse, envy, hatred. ana all uncharitableness which take place. We are painfully familiar with it all. The scandalous waste of time, the floods of useless talk, the whips which drive members into the “ Aye ” and “ No ” pen, the member who dares not think at all, etc., they are all part and parcel of our glorious system of government by contradiction. Party Government is a system under which “ half the cleverest men in the country prevent the other half from doing any good.” It is the madness of the many for the benefit of the few. An educated people does not want to be “led” so much ; the system is a combination of so many impossibilities,' contradictions, and hopeless, absurdities. ' It means choosing the less of the two evils; it blocks the way to sound, steady, honest, and economical government; it is essentially anti- democratic. If the prosperity of the colony depended on the politicians the country would have gone to the dogs long ago. Now a few words as to the remedy. Ministers must be reduced to their proper positions in a democratic country, that is, they should be the servants of Parliament, instead of being their masters. They have far too much power, hence the indecent struggle for office. Ministers

should be elected by Parliament for three years’ after.a general election.. Elect the best men and leave them in office for three years’ subject to good behaviour. A nation is governed oxaotly as well as it deserves. Do away with theso absurd no-confidence motions and members will settle down to solid work an 1 to earn their salary instead of scheming and plotting for office. Surely it will be better to have the scramble for the sweets of office only once in the three years’, instead of having it all the year round. The House must not be allowed to turn Ministers out at the rate of one per annum, often on a stupid cntch-division. The Ministry must not oe allowed to hold the threat of a dissolution continually over member’s heads, a matter of utmost importance to the labour members. The members, as representatives of the people, will tell the Government what measures are to be passed and the Government stand by, merely as on executive body to carry out the decisions ,of the House, and the House itself will then be the Government in the true meaning of the term. The people have a right to appoint their own managers instead of being bossed and patronised by seven irresponsible nominees. The nation through its representatives would make its own laws and appoint its Government,' instead of the ' Government appointing itself and then dictating to the House which Bills ore to be passed and which should not. Every Bill must be passed or rejected purely on its merits without having to consider if it will turn one set of men out and another set in. It is not proposed to do away with oritioism and opposition, it is proposed to do away with political scavenging and substitute an opposition of honesty and intelligence to an opposition of pocket and knavery. Every member should bo able to act as a thinking human being and vote according to his convictions and principles, and not be driven along by the party whip. It is Party Government, not parties, we intend to abolish. This does not mean a Coalition Government as some people seem to believe. If the country returns a Liberal majority it would not matter a straw, if the Cabinet consisted entirely of red-hot Tories, so long as Ministers are made the servants of the House instead of its masters. This would mean true democracy—Government by the people and for the people. The present system is nothing but a despotism, be it called old or new Liberalism.