The Dominion SATURDAY, APRIL 16, 1910. "THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE,"

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 793, 16 April 1910, Page 4

The Dominion SATURDAY, APRIL 16, 1910. "THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE,"

The most interesting feature of the Australian general election is the taking of a national poll on the two most important political issues that the Commonwealth has to face. Although, no doubt the referendum supplies the best, and indeed the only true means of obtaining the opinion of a people for the time being on a political question reducible to a single point, it does, not thereby follow that the' referendum is the best means of securing that political controversies shall be wisely settled. Nobody will be likely to say that the correct answer to a political problem over which thoughtful statesmen, accustomed to the study of public questions, honestly disagree can be found by submitting the rival solutions to., the. vote; of a multitude ignorant of the true. nature of the question presented for their judgment. That a' referendum is a certain road to truth and national wisdom is a theory that cannot b≤ sustained unless the hypothesis is granted that in a multitude the majority must, for some cause hidden from .us, be invariably in the right. But if .that hypothesis is sound, the wisdom of the majority must be admitted on every point ; it will appear in the decision of small (as well as of large things, of. private as well as of public questions. But who is there who, having to deal with a difficult matter of business or finance, would put it to the vote among a mixed multitude and regard the decision of the majority as final? This question, which inevitably presents it self in any consideration of .the referendum, is asked by tho Bishop of Ossory in the March Nineteenth Uentury, in an article indicting the 1 fundamental principle of modern democracy. As matters stand, one is rnuoh more certain to discover

"the will of the people" through a referendum than through a Parliamentary election. But in either case one is a? likely as not, in finding what.the people want, to find what it is 'not good that they should have. . ,

Great courage—more courage than any politician, can possess, and remain in politics —is required to ask, as the Bishop of Ossory asks, Why, on any complicated and difficult question, should the opinion of a majority of the nation bo of any yaluo? The nation is made up of individuals who for the most part vote as thoy think their individual interests lie, and in its ignorance the nation may demand that which will destroy it. It would be bad enough if tho mass of the voters settled tho question, but the fact is really much worse than that: it is the odd man who decides. As AechBisnop Maqee put it, majority rule is basod on the. infallibility of the odd man. This truth must be admitted by everybody who docs not believo that Providcnco has arranged that tbo verdict of the majority shall always coincide with the verdict that would be given by a supremely wise being. But, it will be asked, 'if the majority- is_ not to decide, what shall decide , ! The Bishop of. Ossory ltaa considered that question, and he declares that the

just conclusion is "that the first great need of Democracy is some machinery by which the best expert opinion may be brought to bear on the public mind." it is the halfconscious understanding of this great need which lies at the back of the Second Chamber vote, and which inspired the multiplication of the stages through which a Bill must pass before it becomes law. To the .Radical, of course—who is a Radical because he rejects authority and despises the teachings of experience —any sort of machinory that makes for legislative deliberation is anathema, and no Eadical can be expected to agree with the Bishop of Ossory's contention that the destinies of the nation should be guided by the collective wisdom of "some strong and independent body of opinion, critical and yet sympathetic, sufficiently democratic to escape suspicion of being the organ of classes of the community which appear to be privileged, and conspicuously well-informed in all branches of social and economic knowledge and experience." Unhappily the means of securing such a national assembly as this is not so clear as the need for it. For the Democracy which it would curb and guide along a safe path has the decision in its hands.

Against the Bishop's alarm for the future of the nation it will be urged that Britain has clone very well so far by trusting to the "will of the people." The average man, while he _ may sympathise with the general drift of the Bishop's argument, will yet take comfort in the belief that as Britain has "muddled through" in the. past so she will stumble along securely enough in the future. There is a powerful reply to this slipshod method of reasoning: ■.

It takes a great deal to kill a healthy nation. It is a common thing to point to what ie called the success of a measure as a. proof that it was the right solution of the problem for which it was passed. But the so-called success ie; in many cases, simply the adaptation of tho community to the new conditions. As ooon as the new arrangement has taken its place and people'have become accustomed to it, it is called successful; but it may, all the while, bo a very imperfect or oven purely mischievous addition to our political or social organisation. There may bo nothing whatever to show that It was the best thing that could have been done.

The strongest obstacle, however, to such a reform as is suggested is the very widespread belief, felt if not expressed, that what Democracy has done, Democracy can do. Even the most acute of ltadicals would have to make confession of failure if he wero asked to, give a logical proof of that quite arbitrary contention. It cannot; be proved. A veny strong case, on the other hand, can be made out.against it. That Democracy has had successes by no means implies that it will continue to have successes. "While the main task of progressive politics consisted in the creaking down of exclusive privilege, in the redressing of grievances, in the achievement of liberty and equality of opportunity, Democracy was in it« element, doing the work for which it alone was fully competent. No one but the man.wno feels it can tell where the shoe pinches. Democracy is the principle which allows the man who is hurt to cry out and demand relief.' Thus it was that liberty was won." Now, however, the position is altered. The legislation , of the 'future must ,be very largely constructive. The walls of privilege have been broken by the battering-ram: can the batteringram rebuild the new structure?' It is hero that .tho real source, of danger becomes apparent, and the' importance of entrusting the fortunes of the nation, not to. the ignorance of the odd man, but to a body of incorruptible statesmanship.