The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED "THE TIMES." SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1939. DEMOCRACY AT WORK

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20098, 18 November 1939, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED "THE TIMES." SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1939. DEMOCRACY AT WORK

An English lecturer some years ago aptly defined democracy as a process of counting heads in order to save the trouble of breaking them. This definition is supported by current events in other parts of the world. To-day i it is reported that in various parts of i the German Reich purges are being | carried out against those who dare to i criticise or oppose the policy of the ; Fuehrer—heads are being broken. In j Britain, Parliament is kept continuj ously in session. Since the war the ! Labour Opposition has moved several ! amendments to proposals brought down by the Government, heads have j been counted and democracy has preI vailed. Nor is the opposition and j criticism left to Parliament. Quite ! recently the press directed an attack I against the new Ministry of Informai tion. revealing its weaknesses and j cumbersomeness, and as a result I the department was completely overI hauled. To the' German mind, of j course, this procedure would be regarded as a sign of weakness, but apart from the fact that it avoids the necessity of breaking heads it is also | recognition of the fact that all the I wisdom of a nation is not confined to j the small coterie of men which, more ior less by accident, finds itself in j power. Britain and Germany possibly represent the two extremes, but there I are other countries, professedly demo- | cratic. whose systems have become dangerously close to dictatorships.

The trend in this direction is best exemplified by men who have attained power under the democratic procedure, utilising their right of criticism to the maximum extent to attain .their objective, and then turn round and condemn in the strongest terms those who dnre to criticise them. Criticism. and the counting of heads to which it leads, is the essence of democracy, and those who are intolerant of criticism are not truly democratic: rather are they potential dictators. It has been said, with a good deal of truth, perhaps, that democracy is not always the most efficient instrument of government, but it can also be said, and with much greater truth, that it is the only instrument of freedom. More than that, criticism, which is such an essential part of democracy and of freedom, is a potent weapon for creating efficiency. When the people of Britain, or any other country, criticise what they believe to be the mistakes of their Government, they are not merely exercising the freedom to which their democracy entitles them, but they are also fulfilling an important function of a democracy by directing attention to mistakes and causing them to bo rectified. More than that, they are ensuring that the will of the people cannot be rode over roughshod by a Government that might forget its democratic origin and its responsibilities lo democracy. Thought along these lines naturally I directs attention to the somewhat cryptic statement made by Mr. Savage I during the week. He is unquestion- ' ably right in reminding the public that talk of revolt and insurrection is sedition and will not be tolerated. If there is open talk of that sort, however, Mr. Savage should not be content witli warnings but should take immediate action to deal with it. That he has not done so, and the fact that his statement was made exclusively to the official organ of his own parly, suggests that he has probably used I exaggerated terms and that what he is

most anxious to suppress is political revolt in his own ranks. He is right again in insisting that no one should be allowed to hold up New Zealand's war effort, but, again, if ho makes such a charge the onus is on him to substantiate it. In New Zealand, as in Britain, what criticism there may have been of war measures, or of what is considered the lack of them, has not been motivated by a desire to handicap the Dominion's contribution to the war but, rather, to make it more efficient. That, after all, is the process of democracy, which denies to the Government the right to assume that mere election to ofiice endows it with a monopoly of brains and the right to dominate the country free from criticism and without regard to public opinion. It; is possible that in this country there is a good deal of unnecessary grumbling, but grumbling, as Lord Halifax remained listeners the other day, is a characteristic of the British race, and to the extent that it is evidence of a desire for an improvement on existing conditions it is a virtue rather than a vice. At the same time, there is no question that there is wide scope for criticism of some of the Government's measures, and the more that criticism is resented and intoler-

ated the more will the public be entitled to assume that it is justified. If the Government's policy will not stand reasoned criticism then there is something wrong with the policy and the sooner heed is taken of the critics the better for the country. It is a mistake to assume, as Mr. Savage does, that criticism is being used to discredit, everything the Government is doing. The critics may be mistaken, but at least it should be taken for granted that—like Mr. Savage himself during the many years he filled the role—they arc actuated by high motives and a sincere belief in the justness of their cause. Whether they are right or wrong they are still entitled to criticise, to exercise that freedom of speech which is the basis of democracy and the intolerance or suppression of which would inevitably lead towards that despotism o r which Mr. Savage speaks.