PLAIN TALKS ABOUT DEMOCRACY.

Shannon News, 26 September 1924, Page 4

PLAIN TALKS ABOUT DEMOCRACY.

(A. Ernest Mander.), i L "'■ It is a good thing, now and then to stop and think about some of the questions which we have been accustomed to take for granted. One of the most important of these ques-, tions at the" present time is that of Democracy. For Democracy has become a fetish with us; the democratic ideal is one that we have come to accept quite .uncritically and quite as a matter of course. To brand any proposal as "Undemocratic" is amply sufficient to condemn it in the eyes, of unthinking people —and most of us are unthinking people so far as this matter of democracy is concerned. On the other hand, to say that some.new scheme is "democratic" ig regarded as a, final and absolutely unanswerable argument in its favour.

In view of this, it would be as well for me to state clearly at the outset that I believe in Democracy; othewise I might not be" given a hearing at all. It i s by no means a perfect system—at least, in its present form, indeed, if we had a purely democratic system, without some of those- important, but undemocratic, safeguards which we have to-day, it would-' be-totally'unworkable.-But, on the whole comparing it with any possible altera native, it is t probably about the best kind of government we can devise *or present-day conditions in New Zealand.

Yet we need to do some clear thinking about it, to look at it critically, to recognise its faults and deficiencies, to consider whether it is not possible to find some w,ay in which its faults and deficiencies may be -ref medied. Even if we are ardent democrats, it is well that we should look facts'in the face. Even if we believe that ''self-government is. better than good government," it is well that we should consider whether there is not some way of making even self-govern-ment reasonably- "good," reasonably efficient. i ■

Majority Rule. In theory, Democracy means, of course, government by the people, th» whole people. In. practice, it meana government by the majority, the majority of voters. Three hundred ana twenty thousand people in New Zealand, say, are in favour of a certain measure; three hundred thousand art opposed to it. Then the will of thb majority \s accepted as the will of the whole. But actually, obviously, it; is nothing of ther sort. Actually the threo hundred thousand who constitute the minority are being governed by others in ways of which they disapprove. Let us face this fact squarely; even under the fairest and most equitable system of democracy that the wit of man can devise, anything up to one-half of the people will be governed by others. Looking at it from, the viewpoint of the three hundreds thousand who arc in the minority, the principle is exactly the same," whether they are governed by one man or hy three hundred and twenty thousand. They are being governed by others in either case-—whether by a single individual, or by a huge mob. It is true that men may be more willing to accept the rule of the majority than they would the rule or a single autocrat; but that does not affect the principle involved. Under majority-rule it may be permissible to describe the community as selfgoverning; but it is certainly not true to say that- the three hundred thousand persons who constitute the minority are governing themselves. 4 They are being governed by. others. Yet we are told that men are : free under, majority-rule, while they would not be free if they were governed by one man. It would be degrading to be governed by an autocrat, but we can retain our self-res-pect if only :the mob that rules us; is sufficiently large; that seems to.be the; current view of the matter; I do not propose to discuss this assumption nowj but T do suggest that it is worth examination. For my part, I v cannot help feeling that to be ruled by one man would be no more degrading to me than being ruled by the crowd that I watch coming away from a race meeting or out of a cinema.

Proportional Representation,

The only rational justification of majority-rule—-apart from the fact that "it works'' (rather badly)—would lie in showing that there was some special virtue in mere numbers. We seem to assume that there is; hence the insistent demand for electoral reform. Certain politicians and certain newspapers are telling us, in Horrified and horrifying tones, that it is possible, under our present electoral system for the Government of the day to represent only a minority of the people., Well, what of it? Somebody counts the votes cast in a general election, and then assures, us that the Government has obtained office with-out-having secured a majority of votes. We are left to infer that this fact alone is enough to make some change in our electoral law imperative. And, unfortunately, those who do not want any such change are too timid to take up the challenge. | The politician in need of a warcry tells us that our electoral system allows a minority to govern. He tells us, in effect, that it is possible for 300,000 people in New Zealand to rule 301,000. Shocking.' Staggering! We listen to him, and we are duly impressed. Let the reader pause to realise the appalling nature of this revelation! It is no wonder that they talk about the "inquitous anomaly" of an electoral system which can produce I such an appalling state of affairs. Minority government! Three hundred thousand people actually governing three hundred ami one thousand! We must rise and shed our breath—even our ink if need be —to wipe out this horrible blot upon out civilisation! That 300,000 people can ever govern 301,000 —it Is preposterous! If only we can ensure that in future the 301,000 shall always govern the 300,000, everything will be all right in the land! . -.». Seriously, does it really- make any

appreciable difference whether the ruling crowd is slightly larger than the cYowd which is ruled, or slightly smaller? For my part, if 1 am to be. ruled by others at all, and if those other s are to be, not experts, but just ordinary unqualified electors like myself, then I cannot feel that dt matters a jot whether my crowd is slightly larger than theirs, or their crowd is slightly, larger than mine.