DEMOCRACY AND CENTRALISM.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume I, Issue 41, 14 October 1867, Page 3

DEMOCRACY AND CENTRALISM.

(from the n.z. TIMES, OCT. 9.)

Our contemporary the Wairarapa Mercury, a constant and frequently able supporter of Provincialism, endeavours to prove, in an article headed “Democracy,” that the Colonial party is essentially aristocratic in its tendencies—anxious to deprive the people of this Colony of any real voice in its Government, and desirous of promoting the “ class interests ” of a “ spurious aristocracy.” A more extraordinary misunderstanding of the nature and intentions of a political party we have seldom seen, and as the article in question raises one of those false issues so common in party politics, we think It worth a reply, especially 1 as a reference to “ Hansard ” will show that more than one leading Provincialist has adopted a similar argument. The essentially democratic nature of our Constitution, and what is more important, of our social condition, renders it difficult to draw the line between those who correspond to the Liberals and Conservatives of European countries. We have not even distinctly representative men of the two classes, who may be roughly called “ aristocrats ” and “ democrats.” Lord Derby, before he lost faith in Tory principles, thought that England could best be governed by his own order, or at least by a comparatively small minority of the population. Mr Bright holds precisely the contrary opinion. On every question of foreign or domestic policy it was easy to predict waat course would he taken by these two men and their followers. We might always he sure

that a Conservative would defend existing institutions, would jealously guard the privilege s belonging to rank and wealth, and would look with extreme suspicion upon any proposed change which might tend to -increase the power of the people either at home or abroad. On the other hand without knowing more of any particular person than that he called himself a liberal, we might fairly conclude that he would be willing to support any changes which very likely to be impro vements, and that though he might respect everything in the nature of vested interests, it would be for some better reason than because they were part of the established order of things. But in a newcountry in which class privileges are invisible to any ejns but those accustomed to see by the light of some private jealously, or personal disappointment, we can only judge of men and measures by carefully considering both on their own merits. We ask, then, what are the marks by which we can identify the Provincialists as peculiarly democratic, that is, especially anxious to give the people that “ freedom and power guaranteed to them by the Constitution Act. 1 ’ It is a significant fact that at this very moment the leading Provincialists are following the course so often adopted by Tory politicans of appealing from the verdict of an overwehning majority of the popular branch of the legislature, to the Upper House over • which the people have little or no control. It is even more significant that throughout the session the constant endeavour of the Colonial Party has been to make such changes in the administration of the Government as should lessen the amount of taxation, and make it fall less heavily upon labor and more upon capital, whilst the Provincralists were comparatively indifferent to everything but the preservation of their own power. Certainly, this dread of change is not generally characteristic of liberalism, and democratic leanings. The simple fact is that the Provincialists are making the mistake of regarding institutions as good or bad in themselves, without reference to the requirements of the country. Provincialism was good because it enabled the people to manage their own affairs, and to educate themselves by taking an active part in public life. It has become an evil because it prevents this, and enables a clique to manage, or too osten mismanage the affairs of the people, instead of allowing them to act for themselves. De Tocqueville, from whom our contemporary quotes, particularly insists upon the necessity of carrying out the principle of local SelfGovernment to its utmost limit in a democratic community, with the express object of “ opposing the notions of right to the feeling “of envy ” the “ experience cf the people, “to its theoretical ignorance, and its practical “knowledge of business to the impatience of its “desires.” Now, this is precisely one of the objects whico the so-called “ centralists” have in view, not because |they have the slightest notion of inaugurating anything approaching to an aristocratic system of Government, but because they think the power which the people have “ and ought to have,” will be best exercised for their own benefit when it is directed by real knowledge and controlled by a just perception of their own interests.