PARLIAMENT AND PEOPLE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 1640, 21 November 1916, Page 4

PARLIAMENT AND PEOPLE.

PROPOSED NEW SYSTEM TO replace party governi MENT. : EVERY ELECTOR IN THE i HOUSE. (By Thos. R. Roydhouse). Coalition is not permanent cessation of hostilities. It is a temporary armistice. The armies are still in existence; the leaders are planning future fights. To abolish the lights the parties must first cease to exist. That is the essential prelude to the New Era when the business of • the country will be carried on for the full benefit of the People. f dJIt would be difficult to find any close student of polities, in any country in the world, who is entirely satisfied with Party Government. It may even he said, with buf little possibility of successful contradiction, that it would he difficult to find many who arc not actually disgusted with it. And yet most of the disgusted would tell an inquirer that, strong ns their feelings against Party Government might be, they felt that the world had to put up with it.

There are thousands —millions probably, could they be counted—•who declare that if is impossible to find a workable substitute, and leave the subject at (hat. Others will engage in academic discussion of possible innovations until they find themselves in a cul-de-sac, and then declare, that, no matter what is attempted, there must always be Party Government in some form or another. A PERMANENT BLOCK. Let us see. In the first place, is it necessary to touch upon the iniquities of Party Government? Most people are aware of them. They exist in this country, but even more pronouncedly and disastrously in others. Without going into the all too numerous details, let it suffice to mention the absurdity of assembling a large number of gentlemen to perform the country’s business, and then finding almost half of them at* once arrayed in opposition to those constitutionally entrusted by the majortiy of the people to control, and using every means to block the carrying on of that business. And just a word as to the utter folly of dividing the capable men sent into the House, so that half of them will he lost to the country so far as their abilities are concerned, seeing that they will he Oppositionpart because they carry that brand.

Now what business company or society, or association, would “stand for” this sort of thing? It would be laughed out if attempted. Yet it is tolerated in the most serious concerns of the nation. A man of considerable merit is sent into Parliament to serve his •country, ami lie does not do it. He serves his party. If Ids party is in Opposition he devotes his talent to hampering “the other side.” Therefore the country is not only deprived of his services (for which he is paid), Imt actually has its business retarded because of his presence. It may ho said that such a man renders great service in debate, and in suggesting amendments in Committee. That is one of the halftruths. If his efforts in debate and committee were divested of party bias they would be of service; hut they are not, and there is the evil. THE LOAVES AND FISHES.

Then there is the loaves and fishes element. “The spoils to the victors" appeal’s to be part of the Australian and New Zealand creed, Not to the same extent as in the United States, certainly; but if we continue on the path now being trodden it is only a matter of time until we reach that scandalous level.

There have been periods in various Australasian Parliaments when only those districts (hat supported ment grants; new post offices, and clocks for the lowers there-

of, not to mention more important works. So it is only u matter of degree. At any grants; new post offices, and clocks for the lowers thereof, not to mention more important works. So it is only a matter of degree. At any time there might conic into power a parly which would go the whole way, and make every public office .subject to party patronage. Shall we continue the drift towards the political condition where “all are for the Party and none are for the '.State?”

PUT IS THERE A SUBSTITUTE? That is the question lhai is always thrust at the eritie of Party Government; and very properly, too. There is a substitute, and that substitute is the object of this article. The first essential is that the public should take a grip of itself, and put to themselves certain questions,

struggle to a new mental poise. It is necessary that electors should and answer them to . the best, of their ability. These will, of course, ■have to do with existing political conditions, and realisation of their farcical character.

Having progressed thus far, electors may be prepared to give due consideration to the proposed substitute. This I will outline as clearly as possible, and with elimination of minor detils —which must not be considered as overlooked because not mentioned.

TAKING THE ELECTORS INTO THE HOUSE. Part of my plan is to take the elector right into the House. I propose to make his vote thoroughly effective, not merely at the ballot-box, but right through the life of Parliament. I propose to give - each vote its due weight ( which it has never yet had), and to make effective the principle of “one vote one value." In the firs) place, I require the passing of a Jaw making it an offence. punishable by a heavy fine, for any person or paper to declare himself or itself, as belonging to any parly, or mentioning any other person or paper as belonging to a party, or mentioning a party or parties associated with Parliament. That is to say, I would completely abolish party lilies. There would he no Wadeifes and Holmanites, no Wardites and Masseyiles; no Cookites and Fisher - ites. There would ho no Reform Party, and there would he no Liberal or Labour Party, or Red Feds. Anyone publicly using such terms, applying these or any other title to a party, or coterie, or assumed party or coterie, of electors, politicians, or papers, would he liable to bi“ proceeded against on summons and heavily fined . Could this he done ? Certainly. About three years ago the Commonweauth Parliament gagged the whole of the Australian

Press —the Press of a. continent—• by passing a law which imposed a fine of £IOO on any paper publishing a comment —favourable or otherwise—upon any party, or part of the policy of any parly, unless that comment were signed with the name of the writer. As the British Press everywhere is run on lines of anonymity in respect of its comment it meant that no comment could be printed in reference to any party between the issuing and return of the writs for an election; about six weeks. That law is in existence now, and is enforced. If it; is possible to do that it is possible to do what I suggest, for which, it need hardly be contended, there is more justification.

WHY THIS ABOLITION? There is more than one good reason for the abolition of party titles. In the first place, men standing for Parliament would have to make some show of fitness before the electors. It would not be sufficient for a man (<» be a ‘‘selected Reform” candidate, or a “selected Liberal” candidate, or a “selected Labour” candidate to secure his return. Now adays, as everyone knows, anything in the image of a man can be returned in most districts if it lias the right party brand- on it, (pule irrespective of personal illness. When the Party System has reached that stage is it not time it was wiped out? Well, I have set out the first stage of the wiping out. Here is the second. THE NEW HOUSE. The new House having met for the first time, the Speaker would be selected. Having filled the Chair, the whole House would proceed to elect the Ministry—one by one. The Prime Minister would be elected; then the other Ministers in their order; all by the Members assembled.

Is it not probable that in such an election there would be found in tho Ministry most of the ablest men of the leading shades of political thought, sonic of whom would be on opposing sides under the Party svstem !

Why should the country lose the services of any of the specially qualified men sent into the House? There are not too many of them. Let the reader name the Ministry that would probably be elected in such a House —stilling, so far as Inis able, his party predilections, and considering only special fitness for the positions. I have no doubt that the Ministry would appeal to him as a better administrative body than any single parly could produce l . “Yes, quite so,” no doubt concedes the reader; “but (he asks) what next? The House must split up into parties. Just as you turn tho kaleidoscope, and the fragments of coloured glass are all moved about yet they at once come into combinations again.” Very true. And lam sure I have no objection whatever, for it in no way affects the success of the proposed new system.

Nor does it recreate the party system.

The combinations are only combinations of that moment. HOW IT OPERATES.

The Mhdstry is elected, and the business of the House commences.

Say a Bill is brought ip providing that the only land tenure ip respect of land disposed of by the Crown shall be leasehold. The Ministry is not unanimous on the subject, but a majority favour the proposal, and the Bill accordingly comes before the House. It is debated, and rejected. Well, the Ministry does not vm

sign. The country, having decided by its properly selected representatives —selected by the people, do not forget, not by two political phrties, or the two men heading those parties —that it does not want to he restricted to leasehold tenure, the Ministry gels on with its other work.

Bills are amended, passed, or thrown out as the House thinks lit.

The House legislates. Not a party. Could anything he more democratic ? This is Government, by the people for the people; what we have is not. There is no opposition for the sake of opposition; no holding up of the business of the country because a certain crowd of men want office; just the ordinary discussion and voting that you would llnd at the meeting of a. business house, a Chamber of Commerce, a County or Shire Council, a Town Board, a football union or association; or, in fact, any body where the desire is to do business, and not to continually wrestle for office and the profit of office.

CURIOUS MENTAL TWISTS. in this connect ion some curious mental twists may be noted, as evidencing how all reforms are necessarily' of slow growth. Minds become grooved. More than that, the cant ions conservatism that is inherent; in most people constantly asserts itself, consciously or unconsciously.

People who have grown up under a certain system, and have heard their grandfather and father discuss it; as a matter of course, as though it were (he one and only possible thing in that connection, are not easily levered out of their rut by taels and argument. Recently this new proposal was placed before a few friends, and most of them asserted that not only was the change not possible, or likely to be productive of good, but/ that it would mean a departure from all ordinary methods. “We have our Farmers’ Association, our Charalier of Commerce, our Spurts Unions, and so on, (they said) in which men hand themselves together for mutual benefit. Why make Parliament different to these?” Parliament is now different; that is the whole trouble.

So far from departing from the system guiding those bodies, I want to introduce it into Parliament. In what body of those mentioned is there a party permanently opposing? Xot one, of course. There is no opposition party in such bodies, yet there is no lack of opposition to most new proposals; no lack of strenuous debate. The men who at one lime find themselves on the ono side opposing something may a little later find themselves split into opposing sides on another proposal. Thus works the kaleidoscope previouslv alluded to.

Each representative on the body debates end votes in accordance with his experience and intelligence, not in accordance with the dictates of a Party leader, and perhaps occasionally in opposition to his own conscience.

LONG YEARS OF ATTACK. Party Government has been attacked in several countries over a long period of years; but even at (lie present time we do not appear to be very near to its abolition, unless one of the younger countries, like Australia or New Zealand, will make the experiment. It would probably puzzle the most crusted of real conservatives to successfully demonstrate that there would he any loss in so doing.

Some of as remember when the comic opera of “Patience” was first produced, over thirty years ago. Gilbert, the librettist, know his period well, consequently his satires directed at current follies were always effective. One of the characters in “Patience” was a high politician, no other than the First Lord of the Admiralty. The First Lord’s political success was attributed to the fact that

He always voted at his Party’s call,

And never thought of thinking for himself at all!

That is the exact result of the. existing system. Tin* mars of laughter with which these lines were received showed that the public endorsed the satire.

That was JO years ago. Yet. here we arc, still treading tho path that suits politicians hut not l lie people. Still filling our Parliaments with men who are not required to think, who allow others 1 “ do their thinking for them, and who are merely careful to walk to the right side of the House when the division hell rings for their vote to lie taken at their Party’s call, (Continued in Thursday's issue.)