MUSINGS WITHOUT METHOD. DEMOCRACY-A HISTORY OF FAILURE—THE AVERAGE MAN-FRAUD THERE was a time, not far distant, when Democracy was the subject of pious ejaculations and dithyrambic odes. They who sang its praises stood with bowed heads and cast their eyes upon the earth. The place of its honouring, wherever it was, seemed holy ground. The demagogue, who praised the system under which he throve, was endued with piety as with a garment. Devoutly he offered up prayers to his Majesty the People. Hear what Mr Bancroft said about Democ"The change which Divine wisdom ordained, and which no human policy or force could hold back, proceeded as uniformly and majestically as the laws of being, and was as certain as the decrees of eternity." These are loud words to use of a human institution, which has no solid foundation in sense or experience, and which has never yet been known to survive the shocks of time and change. It was Sir Henry Maine who first administered a cold douche to the ardour of thoughtless enthusiasts. For him Democracy was, as it should be for everybody, a form of government, no more and no lessa form whose value must be tested by results. Unfortunately the wisdom of Sir Henry Maine has not exercised the influence which it deserved to exercise, at least upon poli- 66 More ances of Lord Bryce which follow, and you can hardly believe that he is talking about the same subject. Here is one side of the medal: "It is this conception of a happier life for all, coupled with a mystic faith in the People, that great multitude through whom speaks the Voice of the Almighty Power that makes for righteousness grounded, consciously or unconsciously, on an assumption that the People cannot go wrong. Wisdom must dwell in it because it includes all the wisdom there is in a nation, and justice must dwell in it because it includes all there is of justice; and justice must be present even more certainly than wisdom, because the injustice and selfishness of in--it is this that constitutes the dividuals and groups, each of which has its own conflicting interests, will be swallowed up in the justice which is the common interest of all. over, man is naturally prone to worship Power. That is an impulse which underlies all religion. To-day the people are the ultimate source of Power. Their will, be it wise or unwise, must prevail." Had such words as these been written sixty years ago in a simple age of faith, they might have passed unnoticed. That Lord Bryce should be awed to-day by "something mystical in the conception of the People's Will and the People's power," that he should substitute for the Divine Right of the King the overriding majesty of the People, makes us rub our eyes in wonderment. Here is a profound political philosopher reiterating the old creed of Democracy at the very moment when the old creed is worn out, when, in a world of rebellion and reaction, the ballot-box is flouted as a mere obstacle to direct action. When we turn from rhetoric to plain facts, the change of purpose and atmosphere is evident. Contrast the two utter vital impulse of democracy." Here is the other side: "The word democracy has been used ever since the time of Herodotus to denote that form of government in which the ruling power of a State is legally vested, not in any particular class or classes, but in the members of a community as a whole. This means, in communities which act by voting, that rule belongs to the majority." There is, indeed, a wide difference between "that great multitude through whom speaks the Voice of the Almighty Power," &c., &c., and the odd man who triumphs at the polling-booth. With the mystic multitude, a mere creation of rhetoric, we cannot argue. We may make some attempt to understand the meaning and the purpose of the ballot-box. Now Democracy rests on many wide and reckless assumptions. The champions of the system assume, to begin with, that there is something sacred in a majority. As the People is never unanimous, the voice of the majority is gladly welcomed as the voice of God. It would be more wisely logical if we accepted the voice of the minority as divinely inspired. pity nor justice at the hands There is no sanctity in numbers, of their conquerors; they must and in every other branch of recognise that a bare majority energy than politics popularity of those who profess "a mystic is of itself no sign of excellence. faith in the People " is far less We do not hail as a man of considerate of the wishes of genius the novelist whose work others than the most ruthless has the widest circulation tyrant recorded in history. among the reading public. The picture of the year attracts thousands of enthusiasts for the very quality which would persuade the artist to condemn it. It is only the manager who would judge a play merely by the amount of the money received at the box-office. Soldiers and sailors are promoted and decorated for services rendered to their country. Politicians are sent to the House of Commons by a system of counting heads, and they alone are content with a success which has little or nothing to do with merit, and for this very reason, perhaps, they insist that the rabble which returns them is the direct and mystical intermediary of an all-wise Providence. A second assumption is that the People wishes for the welfare, not of a class, but of the whole community. That, indeed, appears to be Lord Bryce's opinion-an opinion which is not supported by experience. What "the People means precisely is uncertain; but there has rarely been a majority which cared for anything else than the advantage of itself and its friends. The spoils go to the victors in politics as in warfare, and it is the doctrine of the good democrat that minorities must suffer. They must expect neither And when manifest injustice is done, when, for instance, one class pays the taxes and another spends the money, it is commonly said that the will of the People is prevailing. Here is another large assumption. In the first place it is but the will of a majority which can be said, even metaphorically, to prevail. The real thing that prevails is the party machine and the leaders who handle it. The voters cannot and do not make up their minds concerning questions of policy. They are given a few election cries, which have to serve them instead of wisdom and knowledge. They listen to what leaders and candidates tell them with an uncritical wonder, and they seem to care very little if what they are told turns out to be false. In 1918, what is called the will of the People accepted Mr George's assurances that he would turn the pockets of the Germans inside out, and would try the Kaise for his high crimes and mis demeanours. Of course he has done neither of these things, and when he next calls an election the failure of his ancient promises will be wholly forgotten. As the voters do not choose their own election cries, as they are dominated by a few leaders with a gift of rhetoric, so they words, universal suffrage was forced upon a nation which made no demand for it by a Coalition, led by an autocratic Minister. There was no question of a mandate, for the Reform Bill was not asked for. It was not the will of the People which prevailed, for the People was not consulted. The Franchise Bill was imposed upon a preoccupied and docile nation by an act of pure tyranny, and it created that mystical force, having the sacredness of an oracle, of which we have heard far too much. Is it all mere hypocrisy ? are not permitted to choose made so quietly." In other their own candidates. Two or three gentlemen, sent down from the central offices, are presented to them, and they are invited to pick and choose their man. Maybe none is acceptable to them. If that be so, so much the worse for them. They are in the hands of the caucuses, and only by courtesy may they be called free and independent electors. And when once the leaders have duly folded their sheep, they think their work is done. The sheep are safe from the wolves of reaction for five years at least, and the shepherds may say and do in the House of Commons whatever seems good to them. And this is "the irresistible and unpredictable force" which has the sacredness of an oracle ! When the House of Commons meets, the People is very soon forgotten. If it have given its representatives a mandate-which is unlikely, as opinions are generally forced upon it from outside-its representatives are speedily forgetful, or they turn gladly to measures on which the voters have never been consulted at all. For instance, the People, whose voice we are told is the voice of God, was made completely vocal in England only three years ago. "The Act of 1918," says Lord Bryce, was passed during the Great War by a Coalition Ministry with scarcely any opposition, and little noticed by the people, whose thoughts were concentrated on the battle front. Never was a momentous change The truth is that Democracy in one sense is a confession of failure. Governments shift the whole responsibility upon the ballot-box. They risk the polling-booth, as the Athenians risked the drawing of lots, and between the two systems there is little to choose. And thus, having put off the burden of responsibility, they pretend that there is a divine element in numbers, and speak of the People, blasphemously, as devout men might speak of the object of their worship. And as we read Lord Bryce's book, which extols theoretic Democracy in terms which outstrip Mr Bancroft's rhetorical enthusiasm, and which at the same time is forced to confess that Democracy has fallen far short of its pretensions, we feel that we are assisting at the obsequies of a bad, pretentious system. The worst is that, in order to prop up the tottering figure of Democracy, it is necessary to invent qualities which do not exist, and to frame false definitions. If we live under a Democracy, we must rejoice, so we are told, in liberty and equality. But no sooner do philosophers speak of Democracy than they twist the word "liberty" into a false and narrow meaning. They confuse it with the franchise. But liberty has nothing to do with a ballot-box, since if the ballotbox is amenable to the radical caucus, it may condemn many harmless men and women to a vast deal of discomfort. No: liberty, if it be worth having, is a gift of character, a gift which helps us to live, to think, to act as we deem right. It has no touch with politics; it is not in any sense concerned with majorities; and it will be found only by those who, in forgetfulness of machines and caucuses, are true to their own talent and their own temper. And then, if you are a true democrat, you are asked to put a pious faith in the doctrine of equality, for no better reason than because you are equal to your neighbour in the pollingbooth, if only you know how to mark your voting paper. But outside the polling-booth there is no such thing as equality. Even if we were all equal at birth-a monstrous assumption-our inequalities assert themselves before we are out of swaddling clothes, and every day of our lives increases the differences of strength and talent which exist between us. Again, if you are a democrat, you are invited to believe in the "Average Man," a ridiculous abstraction, which is supposed in the last resort to save us all. Lord Bryce defines him in flattering terms. "The Average Man," he writes, "to whom we recur when we talk of the People is in most countries neither captivated by theories nor swept off his feet by passion. If he does not, as some have fancied, become by the grant of citizenship fit for the functions of citizenship, he is usually raised to a higher level by the sense of a duty thrown on him, and has a sense of justice and fairness sometimes wanting in members of a privileged class. He may have limited knowledge and no initiative, yet be able to form, especially if he has a chance of seeing them at close quarters, a shrewd judgment of His instincts are generally sound, nor is he insensible to high ideals, when presented to him in a form which makes them plain to him." The Average Man, thus defined, seems the mere figment of a democrat's brain. His qualities are negative, and disastrous would be the fate of a country which he governed. Nor can we accept Lord Bryce's ingenious corollary that "there is a sense in which the People are wiser than the wisest person or group." This is merely a variant of "the mystic faith in the People, through whom speaks the voice of the Almighty Power," and it finds no warrant in history or experience. A simple unquestioning faith in the wisdom of the untaught, |