AND STILL THAT MAJORITY.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XX, Issue 1112, 3 August 1911, Page 20

AND STILL THAT MAJORITY.

THE “UNDEMOCRATIC” THREE

FIFTHS.

AND THE “ DEMOCRATIC ” BARE

MAJORITY.

Candidly speaking there is no such thing as “ majority” rule in this country. We are innocent enough to believe (some of us that is), that, because we have the Second Ballot (made on the German pattern and open to just the same objections as are raised there),, and 'because the Liberals have held office for 21 years that, therefore, we have majority rule. But. let the reader, figure it out for himself. Is there any member of the Parliament of this country who can claim that he is put there by the majority vote of the people of New Zealand. Sir Joseph Ward, for instance, is returned by the electors of Awarua: Mr. Massey by the electors of Franklin. At the best these gentlemen are returned by a majority of the electors of their respective constituencies. Other gentlemen returned by majorities in the electorates they represent, support Sir Joseph and Mr. Massey, and as the majority is with the former he and his party (miscalled as “Liberal”) rule the roost. But everyone knows that there are scores of things done by Sir Joseph Ward’s Government that do not meet with the approval of the majority of the electors, and, in the present temper of the people it is seriously open to question whether Sir Joseph Ward would be returned again to Parliament, were his seat in the House made dependent upon an actual plebiscite of the people. Yet Sir Joseph remains the head of the Government, dictating its policy (such as it has), and deciding with his colleagues (elected in similar fashion to himself), the conditions under which the people of this country must live and move and have their being, so far as mundane affairs are concerned- That this is so, must be admitted. It has also to be recognised that, under existing conditions, it is next to impossible for the democracy to assert itself against the autocracy of Ministers, only two of whom (Mr. Fowlds and Mr. Millar) can claim to represent metropolitan constituencies. All things considered, therefore; it does seem a little absurd that so much fuss should be made over the necessity of enforcing majority rule in a country where the system of government fails to provide for the due expression of the feeling of the people, and for the return to Parliament of men who may c’aim to have the direct support of a majority of the people. » * * THE “BARE” MAJORITY. On the liquor issue, “ our friends the enemy ” are claiming the right to decide the questions of “ No-Li-cense ” and “ Prohibition,” on the bare majority. And their chief argument is that the three-fifths majority is “undemocratic” and that “bare majority” rule is “simple justice.” Conceding for a moment that it is so, and that 999 persons would be right In

submitting to the rule of 1000, and that the latter would be right in demanding the submission of the 999, what happens? With the so-called “liquor evil” out of the way the AntiTobacco League starts its operations. There are more non-smokers in the community than smokers, because for one thing in certain centres there are more women than men, and the women hold the balance of power. In time both the pipe, the cigar and the seductful cigarette are ruled out of existence, and the “ Peeping Tom” fraternity, having of necessity to justify their existence, cast round to find some other “evil” to grapple with. If the racecourse survived the Antitobacco crusade, it would assuredly go next, and the theatre and vaude-

ville shows would as assuredly follow Out they would all go like the remnants at a “clean sweep” rag sale. And when life has been thus rendered drab and colourless for the multitude, by the “bare majority” having its way (and being guided thereto by the noisy ravings, rantings and croakings of the demagogues whose utterances are regarded by them as those of the Gospel itself), the “simple justice” of such rule appears in a very different light. Nor has the rule of the majority, ever been associated with other than an oppressive disregard for the rights of the minority. We may search the pages of history almost in vain to find any great principle that has been asserted, or any great reform achieved by the majority- It has always been 'by the minority striving against the might of

the majority and winning its way against seemingly overwhelming odds. Democracies, moreover, become as tyrannical in then* methods of rule and administration as autocracies. And the one great boast of the English speaking races has been the liberty of thought, speech and action secured to the minority by British law. The Prohibitionist aime directly at restricting that liberty. He wants the bare majority for coercive purposes. The “three-fifths” (coercive though it also is in its avowed purpose) moves too slowly for him. And if he succeeds in achieving his purpose and in enforcing his “rule of thumb” methods, there is no telling where he will stop. If “bare majority” rule on the lines he advocates it

will really be the acme of perfection in democratic government, then democratic government must stand forth self-confessed as a snare and a delusion.