’Phone 28 – – – P.O. Box 44 Office – – – – Oxford Place THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1928. PAROCHIAL POLITICS.

Putaruru Press, Volume VI, Issue 221, 26 January 1928, Page 4

’Phone 28 - - - P.O. Box 44 Office - - - - Oxford Place THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1928. PAROCHIAL POLITICS.

AN attempt is being made, presumable with an eye to the coming elections, to resurrect the old bogey of the two party system. The Christchurch Press recently devoted much space in endeavouring to prove by many specious arguments that the only sane and stable method of conducting the political game was by splitting all electors into two camps, which it referred to as the Right and the Left—the non-Socialists and the Socialists. It might have added a third title: the Sheep and the Goats, for such writers would deny independent thought to any small section of the community. Such distinctions appear to us to be extremely puerile. It is because they are made so much of that the country is afflicted with parochial politicians. Generations ago the two party system might have been all right, but then conditions were totally different. Popular education at that period was not general. There were few popular newspapers and very few readers. Above all there was not the economic independence there is to-day. Few people owned small holdings, and not many were the proud possessors of their own homes.

It is these changes which have brought about the altered outlook in regard to political life. Thousands of electors refuse to be dragooned into either of these two camps, and, even in the old parties the rank and file is showing independence of thought which is particularly disconcerting to the leaders.

All this is simply a natural coroL lory of the growth of popular education, which despite the pedantic utterances of some, has taught the masses to think for themselves, even though at times they may adopt false premises. In the main they are agreed that there is something radically wrong with our present political system, and in their view they have not been receiving enough political favours. In an attempt to remedy this state of affairs new political groups are formed, and ,as has been stated, individual members of older parties, at great risk to themselves, speak cut in no uncertain tones with the same idea compelling them. Amidst this evolutionary change we have the old Tories—the extreme Right—crying in plaintive tones for a return to the two party system, and in grasping at this straw they, with curious lack of insight into human nature, would cleave the populace into two classes which we have already suggested might be likened unto the sheep and the goats both of which have to be driven. . If such extremists must broadly cleave the populace, then we would point out that a far more exact division would be to divide electors, as was ancient Gaul, into three parts. The extremists on the Eight, the extremists on the Left, and the great middle class of moderate opinion. Such a division, however, is not resorted to by the writers we question, for to them it is anathema. It means independent thought, and to such the ideal is few thinkers but many blind followers. To hope for this latter state of affairs is to hope for yesterday. It is gone beyond recall.

Such divisions are, we hold, mere bogeys raised by a decaying type of politician in the hope of delaying his passing. His lack of insight is such that he cannot see that it his own attitude of mind which creates the thing which he would destroy. It is the Reactionaries who create the Revolutionaries. It is because he has not been doing his job that he finds himself in such a troubled state of mind. There, we think, is the whole solution. Let us examine but one or two sides. The Reform Party has many farmers within its ranks almost enough to be called a Farmers’ Party—yet its most severe critics are farmers. Why ? One instance from scores will do. Farmers want cheap money. A commission after touring the wcrld reports unanimously in favour of a certain banking system. The report leaked out before it was due. The banks stepped in and

wrecked the scheme while the Reform Party (Farmers’ Party!) sat tamely by and took orders from the financial concerns. This instance could be multiplied by a score, but it is sufficient to show to anyone with insight that the two-party system can never he.

The whole trouble, then, simply amounts to thi,s: We are not being governed to the extent of progressive < pinion. Instead of getting on with their job and seeking to truly wrestle with national problems, the Reform Party is forever engaged in tinkering with laws, defending its

actions, and stumping the country castigating the farmers and the Socialists. A party continually on the defensive must be fearful that it is not doing its job properly, and thus it is not in a right state of mind to get things done. Let the Reform Party carry out boldly a progressive policy untrimmed by financial interests, 'and there would be no need or time for condemnation of others, or the creation of chimeras. However much we may dislike it the Socialist Party has come to stay. Its strength will vary according to the degree of reaction in power. It will never be a menace for the great security of New Zealand lies in its immense number of small holdings and the great number of people who own their own homes. What the country wants is a party that will get down to fundamentals and get things done. What it is afflicted with is a party of parochial politicians who tinker and abuse. So long as our politicians are trammelled with such a state of mind so long will their troubles continue.