The Voice of the People.

Fair Play, Volume I, Issue 23, 2 July 1894, Page 4

The Voice of the People.

HOW- MAY IT BEST BE EXPRESSED AND ACTED UPON?

[By G. A. Schoch.]

The Referendum is one of the most powerful political weapons in the hands of the Democracy. It means the reference to all electors, for acceptance or rejection, of all laws or bills framed by Parliament. Under our present system, persons have to be considered before measures. These individuals, before polling day, invariably promise to represent the ■people. The masses, politically still amazingly ignorant, are easily misled by vague and general promises, more particularly when they are embellished by pompous programmes, or if the candidates are men of wealth or title. As a rule, as soon as the elections are over, these “ friends of the people” forget all about programmes and promises. The struggle for office becomes the only consideration. Even in those countries where Universal Suffrage, exists, Parliaments in no way represent the people according to their economic composition. Parliament in New Zealand, in spite of the labour members, still represents the classes. This is partly due to the antiquated, cumbersome, and absurd system of Government by party, i.e., “co-operative office seeking,” and partly to the fact that every stick in the country is mortgaged. Now and again, if the vox populi has been loud enough, a feeble reform sees, the light of day. On the whole, the policy of our politicians is one of shuffle. It is only when the various sections of the possessing classes disagree as to their own particular interests, and are forced to appeal for support to the working classes, that some law is passed to satisfy the urgent demands of the workers. As a rule, Parliaments pay very little attention to the interests of the non-possessing classes, unless threatened with a revolution, or when they believe that, by giving way, they can save themselves. However well-meaning Ministers may.be personally, the present system compels them, in order to keep in office, to resort to discreditable expedients, which as private individuals they would shrink from resorting to. The outcome is that the country thinks that the Ministry is utterly bad, and that.it cannot possibly get a worse one. The other party is put in, and at the earliest opportunity bounced out again, on the ground that it is also so bad that it can be no worse. The choice lies between the devil we know and the devil we have partly forgotten, and they sit on the Nation’s chest turn about. We go to an election with too many issues mixed up. Can any one imagine three trials taking place at the same time before the same jury, say a trial for murder, a trial for forgery, and a divorce case, and that the jury were only allowed to give one verdict, and that the verdict was to affect all three cases? That is'exactly the way by which a verdict is pronounced upon the political institutions of this colony. So long as members go to the country on a “broad” platform, consisting of, say—Protection, single tax, prohibition, Bible in schools, the flogging of burglars, the Te Aro goods shed, socialism, the Chinese question a new gaol or lunatic asylum, etc., etc., the voice of the people will remain too much mixed up for general comprehension. It is a Babel of voices, which no one can interpret. The question is to secure a system which will allow the people themselves to decide upon questions of legislation. In questions of persons, people are easily led astray; in questions of things in matters of fact, they will soon learn to understand their own true interests. ' Direct legislation by the people is the political instrument with which the working classes can achieve their emancipation and abolish class government. Where does the voice of the people come in in New Zealand ? About every thiee years we are allowed to drop a piece of paper with three names on it in a ballot box, and then we must trust to Provid6Qo6* Suroly the majority of the people would better guard their true interests than Parliaments do. Even if the people were to PM&e some blunders at first, they’would sqo» leitrn; their own'

mistakes would enlighten them. A majority in Parliament may be bought and corrupted. This would be impossible with a people. No syndicate is rich enough to buy a nation. Soon people would attain to the proud consciousness that their will alone is law, as it should be. This consciousness is of great import for their emancipation: it will directly lead to their economic and social freedom. The Referendum is the only means by which the voice of the people can be definitely ascertained, and by which the public will can be enforced with anything like reasonable speed. One of. its greatest advantages is also that it compels people to take an intelligent and active interest in all political questions. In a Democracy the people is Csesar, and to Caesar you must go. The Referendum is a kind of veto, like that exercised by monarchs, with this difference, in one case only one person decides while in the other case the people decide. It is the complement of Democracy from which no friend of the people ought to shrink. It is Local Option in excelsis. To a certain extent, it is quite true, it means appeal from quality to quantity. But what if quality is sadly deteriorating or totally absent, while the quantity is fairly respectable and educated ? The Referendum makes it possible to differentiate a Ministry from the measures it proposes and permits a vote to be taken purely on the merits of a bill it proposes, without having bo consider “ will it turn one set of men out and another one in?”

In Switzerland the Referendum is exercised on all questions except foreign affairs. The local questions are referred to and decided locally by the communes or cantons; the national ones by the whole people. At first, fear was expressed that “hasty legislation” (dear old Tory bogey) would follow this reform, but just the reverse has been the case. It is exercised in two ways:—

Compulsory : If the two Houses disagree upon any measure, that measure must be submitted to the popular vote for decision, and that verdict is final. What an enormous amount of time, trouble, and scheming is saved hereby is obvious. Optional : A certain number of electors can sign a requisition that a measure be submitted to the popular vote, although it may have passed both Houses. For this purpose no bill becomes law for at least three months after its passage through Parliament. The optional provision seems to be unnecessary in New Zealand, while we have an Upper House, at any rate. If a Bill is rejected it cannot be re-introduced for three years. The working of the Referendum is very simple. The bills are published and distributed to all electors, and framed in a plain common-sense form; they are discussed by the People, the Press, and Parliament. All an elector has to do is to put “yes" or “ no” on his ballot paper. Only principles are decided; details are left to Parliament to be decided.

The principle of the Referendum is to some extent adopted i 1 England, and also in New Zealand. Here, for instance, in municipal matters, ratepayers decide as to the raising of loans. And only two months ago the whole colony voted for or against a reduction of licenses. That was the first time we had a direct say in the legislation of the colony, but on that occasion the issues were put before us in too complicated and confusing a form.

To put the whole matter in a nutshell: We want a system by which we can enact or refuse to enact each or any impo tant measure, separately and definitely; a system by which we can vote one measuie at a time, and can keep men and measures apart. Before the Referendum could be effectively worked in New Zealand, a vast extension of local Government is absolutely necessary. Professor Freeman, the famous historian, wrote: —“ Now, surely it would be the greatest possible gain if measures could be voted, for and against, purely on their merits, without reference to personal or party questions. The Referendum would bring us nearer such a happy state of things. The appeal to the people is essentially democratic. The first principle of the Democracy is to give the whole people, not any part of them, the freest power of action. One is drawn to anything which offers eves a chance of getting mea*

sures discussed and voted on their real merits, and not as they affect this or that Ministry.” The Referendum makes the whole nation a Parliament. Every elector becomes a member of the national Parliament, by which legislators are elected and his laws are made. Each voter has a share direct and visible in public acts. He hires an agent in his legislator to draft a bill in such and such a sense, but he invests him with no plenary powers. In all affairs of consequence he gives his vote with his own hand. He is tho sovereign prince, and in his sphere he alone reigns and rules. He would be Commoner, Peer, and King in one.