The Dominion THURSDAY, AUGUST 19, 1920. AN ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 279, 19 August 1920, Page 4

The Dominion THURSDAY, AUGUST 19, 1920. AN ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY

The step taken by British Labour bodies in setting up a "Council of Action" and_threatening to attempt to coerce the Government and Parliament by moans of a general strike raises serious political issues, but these have been in part obscured by the bogus character of. the demonstration. The ostensible aim in setting up the "Council of Action" was to prevent Britain declaring war on Russia, but in actual fact the Government had demonstrated in the clearest fashion that it was anxious above all things to maintain peace. "Every responsible Labour member," Mr. Lloyd George has pointed out, "knew that the Governmentwas striving strenuously and consistently for peace." It is thus manifest that in their "swing of the sledge-hammer at an open door," the British Labour loaders not only trampled on democratic principles, but acted in defiance of reason and common senseThe panic hysteria apparent in their demonstration had no rational foundation, and presumably must be ascribed to that readiness to assume that their own country is in the-, wrong which so often characterises the present-day leaders_ of organised Labour. The principal result, no doubt, has been to encourage the Soviet Government in its aggressive aims, and correspondingly to accentuate the difficulties of promoting European peace. In the circumstances, the_ promoters of the "Council of Action" appear bo < little to advantage that_ the affair, if it stood, alone and isolated, might be passed over with little notice. In actual fact, however, it takes its place in a series of attacks on democratic institutions made by those who profess to be the foremost, champions of democracy. This is very far from being tho first time that attempts have been made in Great Britain and_in other British countries to overawo. Parliament and the Government by the throat of industrial "direct action," and Mr. Lloyd George_ is more than justified in denouncing I such tactics as one of the most formidable challenges i ever given to democracy; The merits of the case are as clear as daylight. In all British countries, Parliament, freely elected by the people, and the Government, placed in office or removed at the will of Parliament, are alone in a position to speak and' act with authority for the people._ Any attempt to set up a competing authority is of necessity an attack on democratic freedom— an attempt to substitute autocratic control for that of tho elected representatives of the people. ■ Whether they are animated by guilty ambition or by mere folly, men who adopt such methods aro enemies of their country's freedom. After many centuries of effort and sacrifice; the British people have evolved tho freest Constitution in tho world, , but their liberties would soon be past praying for if itwere open to any disgruntled faction, beaten at the polls, to dominate Parliament and establish' a dictatorship by paralysing industry or in any other way. ■ : A welcome indication of returning sanity in British Labour circles is afforded in a statement by Mb. W/S. Brace, which is the more noteworthy since ho 'represents the South Wales miners, a somewhat turbulent body. Mh. Brace ' "deprecated" a proposal to keep the ''Council of Action" permanently Bitting, and said chaos and confusion would follow such a course. He might easily have spoken in stronger terms. It is plain enough that if an irresponsible body were allowed to compete with Parliament in the control of national affairs, the organised unity which is the price of all popular welfare would give place to an unending strife of factions which would throw the nation back into the dark ages. Efforts to undermine the Constitution on these lines are a menace to the freedom of the wholo nation and that of every individual in its population. The menace does not arise only from the fact that stable representative government and sound national discipline are vital to all progress and social betterment. There are factors of broader scope also to be taken into account. Mr. Brace, for instance, while he denounces the idea _of making the "Council of Action" permanent, urges that it should how concentrate upon "the Eusso-Polish situation, the cancellation of the Supreme Council, and the establishment of machinery to make _ the League of Nations effective, with a view to securing world peace." These, in themselves, are laudable aims, but it is, or ought to be, clear that the first thing necessary to _ advance them is that each democratic nation should maintain unity and cohorent order in its own body politic—above all, that it should speak as a nation with a single voice. This manifestly is an. elementary condition of effective action, alike in dealing with specific problems like that of Russia and Poland, and in creating the conditions which will make it possible to dispense with the temporary machinery of the Supreme Council, and develop the League of Nations as a substantial guarantee of world peace. Nations must first achieve_ effective unity if the broader unity in the League of Nations which meantime is only an ideal is ever to be realised. The spirit which found vent in the formation of the "Council of Action" is not only in direct opposition to democracy, but tends to destroy the only foundations on which the League of Nations can ever be reared,