A QUESTION OF DEMOCRACY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 649, 28 October 1909, Page 6

A QUESTION OF DEMOCRACY.

Although it was eo summarily rejected by tho Chairman of Committees, ../Mel" Herdman's proposal to place the authorisation of- public; works expenditure in the hands, pf an impartial Advisory Board' must sooner, or later come into operation in this country. The amendment followed pretty closely the lines,of Lord Robert Cecil's proposal in connection with the Development Fund Bill in Groat Britain. There, as wo showed yesterday, the 'Government recognised ■'■ the evils of a system .'which makes- public works expenditure a system, of , buying and keeping political support. Mr. Lloyd-Geoege readily accepted the principle of control by an independent Board of Commissioners. If bo had chosen, he could have insisted on tho establishment of political control, for the Government majority could have been relied uponto sweep away the opposition led by. Lohd ,Robert Cecil. ;■. But' the Liberal statesmen of Grca.t Britain, arc more concerned to carry' out their political .'ideas—which may - be wise or unwise ideas, btit which they , honestly believe to be wise, ones— than to keep themselves in office. -The only argument that was brought', against Me. Heedjian's proposal was that it was "undemocratic." Mr. Lloyd-Geoege will probably be accepted as at least as profound a thinker, and at least as good a judge of whati is democratic, as Mr.' TayLOE.or.any .of the others who chose this very singular excuse for 'opposing a scheme which means death. to the "roads and bridges memberi".-And Mr. LloydGeoege saw nothing .undemocratic at,all in; tho proposal that public works should be carried out with an eye to tho public interest .rather than with an eye to,tho needs ofi political parties-and individual members': of Parliament.;; The statement that'it is not.democratic.to get rid of a thoroughly ibad system' of public works expenditure, is to say something almost to warrant serious discussion.) It is a contention that can be maintained only,by-asserting a.principle which would condemn as undemocratic the judiciary; tho Advances to Settlers, Board, the Land Boards, the Arbitration Court, and every; othor body that has any 'authority independent of; the Executive," Under.- Mr', Hbrdman's schemeV Parliament would have-just as much control of tho public purse as it hasnow; and jt would cxer- ; ciseits control more frequently and more effectively. ;As /.Mr, -Baumb' 'pointed,- out yesterday, there .was, nothing democratic in the'action of ''tho people's representatives'' in blindly giving :,the 'Executive permission ■ to spend £400,000 on public works without anybody'knowing what those .works, arc to be. . The real- : truth is that' tho: democratic idea, requires .real Parliamentary. • government, and 'this would bo obtained' .'u'nder : the Advisory Board 'system. The present system—we are not referring merely to the ,Ward Government, but to the system—to alter which'-is alleged to be "undemocratic," is, admittedly,' a Ministerial autocracy, a particularly bad sort of oligarchy.' There is,no little humour in,the sight of Autocracy, claiming that the people who attack it are not democrats. "■' ;| ..■ .';