The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1907. A STUDY OF THE REFER= ENDUM.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 66, 11 December 1907, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1907. A STUDY OF THE REFER= ENDUM.

Some years ago there was general discussion in this country of the advisableness of introducing into the public policy of the State the llefereiidum, modelled on the Swiss system, as a means of securing, in certain classes of legislation, a declaration of the popular will as expressed by a majority at the polls. Rightly or wrongly, however, it seemed to be generally agreed that the _ form of representative Government in existence, taken in conjunction with triennal Parliaments, afforded ample opportunity for the popular voice being heard on the question of public policy, and the only form of the Referendum practised in the Dominion to-day is the poll every three years in connection with local option. It is probable that in British communities there will always be .a repugnance to the Referendum in conjunction with the British representative system of Government, but how well, and in some cases how strangely, it operates in Switzerland as ail instrument of democracy is exceedingly well told by a_ writer in the " Contemporary Review " for, October. Mr. J.. A. Hobson, the writer of-the article alluded to, is evidently well up in' his subject, which has secured his undoubted allegiance. He begins by showing the defects of representative Government as illustrated by the growth of the party " boss," and the party machine, and then proceeds to question whether it i really does represent the popular will. For instance, he turns for an example to the present British Government, which claims for its actions the " mandate" of the people at the last elections, while at the same time

the defence of the " legicidal actions of tlie House of Lords" is that the Lords " are the self-constituted defenders of the doctrine of a national mandate." If, lie says, it is desirable, or inevitable, that tlie representative system should be cjualified by popular mandates, it is quite evident that such a . method of conveying mandates as exists in Great Britain is utterly defective; for, to make a popular mandate a real factor in representative government, " some method must be devised ll.ir taking a separate popular vote upon a particular issue, thus giving order and explicitness to a political force which is at present vague and irregular in application." Then follows a careful description of the Swiss Referendum, as applied to the federation and the cantons, together with the form of voting. An argument frequently adduced in this country when the subject was under discussion was that the adoption of the Referendum meant the destruction of representative institutions. Mr. Hobson. says this is not so; they are merely made supplementary to the direct action of the popular will, " their functions being to:'relieve the. people of a burden of public business too heavy for them to bear, to assist the popular wjll to attain adequate expression by providing discussion and advice, and, finally, to form a substitute for the people in matters of emergency and particularity-"' An unexpected result of the working of the Referendum in Switzerland, is shown to be the large proportion vf laws rejected, and this is held by some to indicate that the system is a hindrance to progress. Also, it is said, the people prove to be more " conservative " than their representatives, which certainly will strike New Zealanders as peculiar. As a matter of fact, however, only those laws and decrees are submitted to a Referendum which have evoked the opposition of a sufficiently large number of citizens to demand their relegation to the popular vbte, and who think they can win a majority of the electorate to their view, so that only those laws which are likely to be rejected are put to the vote. _ ■' The Referendum," he adds, " is in. essence a veto." As to the " conservatism " of the people it discloses, Mr. Hobson claims it as a very serviceable conservatism. The people, it shows, will not vote for any large measure of centralised radicalism suddenly thrust before them. They want to feel sure how it will work out, especially as regards taxation, revenue, and local' industry. This Dominion would be better for, at least, some similar popular deliberation over much pi the proposed legislation of a radical mature, The - action .of the Ref eren-

dum, it is urged, is essential to protect ilie people against acts of grave and injurious mis-representation. The experience of Switzerland goes to indicate that by the Referendum revolutionary action is inhibited. " Where each concrete proposal, either of constitutional or legal reform, requires the separate sanction of the people, there cau be no possibility of rushing a large revolutionary poiicy through a legislative assembly which contains a snatch majority of avowed revolutionists, _ elected by a swell of feeling in the electorate, or in which a revolutionist minority, by skilful tactics, compels a majority to execute its will." Presumably, the Socialist will not be found among the champions of the Referendum as carried out in the Swiss Republic. It is evident that the staid commou-sense of the mass of the electors, free from class rabies, and a lust for general spoliation, would have none of him in the concrete. Surely there could be no greater irony of fate than that Socialism should meet its Waterloo in the popular vote of" a Referendum. Finally, it is claimed that the weightiest argument for the Referendum, as attested by Swiss experience, is the training in the art of government it gives the people, and that, of course, is necessary if each citizen is to take a direct part in the making of the laws he is called upon to obey. Altogether, though the system may not fit in with British ideas of methods of government, or with its forms of representative institutions, still there is much that can be said in favour of it, and much that is instructive in a knowledge of its operation.