Evening Post. TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1911. IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 90, 18 April 1911, Page 6

Evening Post. TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1911. IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY.

He who has political good's to lease or sell in New Zealand is disposed to lease .'or sell them in the name of • democracy. The Liberal Government, fortified by the tenets of opportunism, a good season,' and the five million loan, is working on a programme of "sound democracy." The Hon. R. M'Keime— we"Tnay presume — has looked up all the authorities and can vouch for every letter of the phrase. The thricereorganised political Labour Party, bolder than ever in its new coat, opposed to the Liberal Government, is offering a dish of the "real democracy." Mr. Massey, with his Reform Party, iasks New Zealand to accept a «ample of the latest thing in democracy. His article must be superfine, sines it purports to be the old democracy reformed. Of course the various cohorts of ultraSocialists have their own crimson formulae of democracy, and thus the jargon and the clash of creeds resound in the political market-places — all in the name of democracy. No word was ever more ill-u&ed ; it is sadly in need of a rest for repairs in the political hospital. Daily the air is troubled with a claque of " will of the people " and " voice of democracy," and one may -note now and then that the loudest talk abont the sacred "will of the people" comes from the* e who are masking a •partisan view. Some politicians and quasi-politicians glibly proclaim the "will of the people" in support of a particular theory, and their talk leaves a discerning hearer to picture a political -tree fruited with " will of the people," to be plucked at random and flourished while the crowd applauds. A notable episode in the game of " will of the people" occurred in tho framing of the famous "compact" by representatives of the License and No-License Parties. The mass of the people was merely a pawn in a. quiet game of chess between "the trade" and the sworn foes of liquor. Thie alleged " will of the people" ie often a will-o'-the-wisp ,' an ignis fatuus flickering over a political morass. Among the "reforms" demanded in the name ,of democracy ie ihe^larendum to

enable the general macs of electors to directly initiate or recall legislation. Various catch-cries are used to give a glamour to the new doctrine, which is really very old, 6ince it implies a large' measure of reversion to an ancient eyetern from which representative government was evolved." Would the introduction of the referendum be a mechanical or organic change?" askfi Sir John Macdonnel in an article in the Contemporary Review, discussing "the referendum versus representative government," and his conclusion, after very caxeful analysis, is that the change would be merely mechanical. "Probably," he cays, "tho warmest admirer of popular government would not attribute to electors greater power of discriminating as to the merite of measures than their representatives. There are large classes of legislation of which the electors are notoriously bad or imperfect judges. Probably no recent statutes have done more good, physically and morally, to the people than the Public Health Acts. Yet it may well be doubted whether such measures would have met with the approval of the great body of tho electors. They would have been repelled by multiplied provisions interfering with personal liberty." The critic submits that whatever element of truth may be in the claims for the referendum in Britain, most of them would be met by short Parliaments, by reforms in electoral distribution, and by some measure securing the- representation of minorities. Of course with the referendum it ie a case of "the .devil take the hindmost." The minority is balloted into subjection to the majority, but a minority, unless overwhelmingly defeated, is generally confident that it can become a majority at the next referendum. Hence preparations are made for another f'appeal to the people.'' A case in point is the issue of the referendum in Queensland on the Bible-in-Schools. The Bible party won last year, but the friends of the national secular system are hopeful of reversing the vote at the next ballot. A long tiresome period of turmoil is threatened by this warfare at 1 the ballot-box, and the children's welfare must suffer from the voters' ceaseless strife. The "will of the people" 16 truly elusive. Sir John Macdonnel quotes Guizot, the historian of representative government, to demonstrate that tlm essence of the representative system ie trust by the many in the worthiest available. "It is this trust." he adds, "which gives to representative government what is best in aristocracy without its drawbacks." ta New Zealand the Government is an indirect advocate of the referendum. The Government incidentally helps tho agitation for tho referendum in two ways which strangely contrast. The Government is notable for two traits: — (1)' A disposition to be terrified by a noisy minority. (2) A disposition to craftily arrogate the functions of representative government by means of autocratic regulations (under the hand of a Minister or the Governor-in-Council). Some reformers, detecting this tyranny in the guise of democracy, may think that a referendum would be a useful check on Ministerial "despotism, but a less revolutionary method is available. It lies in a rousing of public opinion to the danger of Ministerial encroachment on the powers of the people's representatives: The people should be stimulated to have a desire for a better Parliament. Unhappily the reformers have a very heavy handicap. The continuous Ministry has secured a mighty grip of the people's purse, and has much loan money to help to fight the soundest logic. A bridge here, a section of railway there, a promise of Water-power, a road, a new post office, are Well-proved artifices to make the people think parochially for the Government's comfort, instead of nationally for New Zealand's benefit.