THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, JANUARY 13, 1927. NATIONALISM AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19996, 13 January 1927, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, JANUARY 13, 1927. NATIONALISM AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

It is sometimes supposed that the formation of the League of Nations as an embodiment of internationalism implies the displacement of nationalism. “The older ideas of nationality,” it has been said, “are breaking down in the West. In the East, on the contrary, in India, in China, in Turkey, a new and fierce nationalism, or more rightly a hatred of foreign influence, is making itself felt.” It is certainly true that the older ideas of nationality are being modified, but the League of Nations is expressly aimed at linking together many separate nations in such a way as to guarantee that their nationalities shall be preserved. Not only that, but the Treaty of Versailles and the Covenant of the League actually restored nationality to oppressed peoples,—to the Poles, the Czecho-Slovaks, the Jugoslavs, the Lithuanians. The principle of self-determination as expressed in the Treaty of Versailles has, therefore, strengthened nationalism. In it is represented an effort to build up internationalism upon the basis of nationalism. The idea of attempting the creation of a super-State which might itself become a means of tyranny has wisely been avoided. All previous attempts of such a nature have ultimately ended in failure. What has broken down and been repudiated is the doctrine that the powerful nation should be allowed to impose its will upon the smaller natioh. The recognition of this principle of nationality, which practically means safeguarding the rights of small nations, really constitutes an important step forward in the progress of the world. The Great War was fought, President Wilson said, to make the world safe for democracy, or, in other words, to make it safe for the smaller nations. The recognition of this principle of self-determination and nationality entailed a great extension of freedom. But its application to races unaccustomed to democratic rule has not been without special difficulties. It seems at present almost hopeless to apply this principle oi nationalism to China, where there is no one government that exercises authority throughout the land and that can speak or act for the whole of China. The recognition of the principle of selfdetermination has encouraged the people of India and of Egypt, as well as of China, to press for the rights of selfgovernment, although it is doubtful if they are sufficiently advanced to he able to make advantageous use of the rights which they claim. But the very fact that the less advanced races are claiming nationality is a hopeful sign. It indicates that they are awakening from a condition of political torpor. The “white man’s burden” will henceforth be to assist the coloured races to fit themselves to exercise wisely the powers of self-government. Some progress has been made along these lines in India. Six years ago the task presented formidable difficulties, but during Lord Reading’s Viceroyship the beginnings of constitutional government, largely directed by the natives themselves, were witnessed. It remains to secure the co-operation of the Hindus and the Moslems. When that is accomplished India will' have at length attained a national unity. To say that the older ideas of nationality are breaking down in the West would be exaggerative. It would be more accurate to say that they are being modified to enable the leading nations to co-operate in the best interests of humanity. There have been many attempts in past times to form World States. Some of these were for a time successful, but ultimately they failed because they were associated with over-centralisation and because they suppressed local patriotism by not allowing powers of self-government to the provinces. This was notably the case with the Roman Empire. As one historian has expressed it: The excellence of the military roads, the frequency of the posts, the freedom of commerce within the Roman Empire, all tended to obliterate national distinctions, The threatened danger from the Barbarians outside only served to throw into greater relief the beneficent order of the Imperial system. Nevertheless this order so splendidly imposing on the material side lacked the essential bond of a true spiritual unity. It was a congeries of exhausted States ruled by an efficient but expensive bureaucracy. The expenses and the resulting taxation increased while the efficiency degenerated, until even the material advantages of the system became more than questionable. Then there was no link of a generous loyalty to hold the provinces together; there was no vigour left in them of independent life on which the State could rely in her hour of need. When the Barbarians arrived they found no national spirit to resist them. What had been a convenience of government during Rome’s prosperity proved a fatal weakness in her decline. It is true that international relationships now require a broader outlook than the old nationalism sometimes gave. But it should be remembered that nationalism itself has been gradually developed from smaller groups. The first stage of organised social life is the family. After it comes the patriarchal family; next, the clan or tribe; then the State or nation. People have gradually organised themselves in widening circles of community life. But the larger circle does not make the smaller unnecessary. Local bodies are in closer touch with the actual life and needs of the people than any State Administration can be. Without a network of strong voluntary associations or groups to perform functions which the State cannot safely be expected to perform, and without local bodies to safeguard the interests of the individual and to stand between him and the overwhelming power of the State, any true democracy or liberty is impossible. In a real democracy local powers of selfgovernment should be safeguarded and highly valued as the necessary complement of an effective central administration.