BOOKS.
THE RULE OF THE MAJORITY.* CARLYLE, in one of those sweeping and hasty generalizations in which he was wont to indulge, said that before the French Revolution there were "50 many millions of persons, all gyved, and nigh strangled with formulas," and that one of the main objects which the Revolution Fought to attain was "to make away with formulas (de hunter les fin-mules)." If this be so, then it must be admitted that tho Revolution as a complete failure. The general result of that mighty upheaval was that certain formulas were deposed, but that others were solidly enthroned in their place. More than this, it soon became evident that democracy, far from liberating humanity from the bondage of phrases, tended in a very marked degree to stereotype and enhance the potent sway of the phrasemonger. Vandal, who was far better informed and a much more acute political observer than Carlyle, said with great truth: " Nul RO comprerldra la Revolution s'il no tient eompte do rextra- ordinairo empire exerce h cette epoque par les mots at les formules." Politicians have always been well aware that the cowl does not make the monk, and that, paradoxical as it may appear, democratic Monarchies, as well as Republics which are based on the negation of all essentially democratic principles, arc capable of existing. None the less, so mighty is the sovereignty of mere words, and so loth are men to depart from traditions built on the accumulated experience of history, that probably the mass of mankind are still penetrated with a hardy belief that institutions which are dubbed Monarchical must of necessity be less democratic than those which are called Republican. Those, however, who have watched the recent ebb and flow of public opinion, as set forth by its authorized exponents, cannot have failed to observe the prevalence of symptoms which encourage the belief that the old nomenclature is falling into desuetude, and that the far more correct expressions "absolutist." and " democratic " have acquired a greater degree of supremacy in the political vocabulary than at any former period.
Mr. Elott's highly instructive essay on the various phases through which American institutions have passed since their creation is helpful as a, means for estimating both the vicissitudes of what is ostensibly democratic national life, and also the extent to which the words " republican " and " democratic " are synonymous and interchangeable terms. Properly understood, the picture which he presents is almost pathetic in its well-balanced yet ruthless exposure of the vanity of human wishes. The essence of democratic rule is that the voice of the majority should prevail. Yet Mr. Elliott's verdict, after a very careful analysis of the past and present working of the American machine of State, is that "the people do not govern." For nearly a century and a half, blind, blundering, but withal well-intentioned Demos has been endeavouring to find some adequate means for asserting its will. Every- where it has been thwarted. Systems have been changed. Reforms have been introduced. But en each occasion when it was thought, in Miltonic language, that the fair guerdon would at last be found, tho '' abhorred shears," in the shape of caucuses, "bosses," or other subtle devices of party management, have appeared on the scene and "slit the thin-spun lifo" of real and effective power. At the close of each effort, Demos has found itself tightly bound by ligaments, at times so fine as to be scarcely visible, but nevertheless of so tough a texture as practically to cripple and confine its functions within a very limited sphere of action. Unless Mr. Elliott exaggerates, the history of American institutions records tho defeat of democratic principles, and the triumph of a very elaborate and sinister system of democratic stage management.
Two circumstances have mainly contributed to bring about this result.
The first is that the original framers of the American Constitution wore not democrats in the sense in which that term is now generally employed. On the contrary, in Mr. Elliott's words, they "felt a lively distrust for too much democracy." They abhorred tyranny in all its forme, and they were sufficiently philosophical and far-sighted to grasp a truth which but too often fails to obtain adequate recognition—namely, that there is no necessary connexion between democracy and the maintenance
• American Government and Majority Rule. By Edward Elliott, Ph.D. Oxford : St the University Press. l33. Od. net.1
of individual liberty. They had, before they acquired their inde- pendence, experienced from one particular form of government a degree of oppression which led to revolution, and they had somewhat hurriedly rushed to the conclusion that all governments were oppressive. They set themselves to work, therefore, to devise a series of elaborate and complex checks all having for their object the protection of the individual against government action of any kind. Jefferson and others strongly asserted the right of the people to rule, but they scouted the idea that a government by the people could do no wrong. They feared that a demos cracy would be as tyrannical as a Monarchy. "For all that Jefferson had to say about the people as the source of power and authority, there was a strong feeling that the leaders, men of training and education anti , social position, should direct the masses. It was a democracy in which theoretically the majority ruled, but in which in practice the leaders were to direct an acquiescent majority." These men were, in fact, really not democrats, but conventional British Whigs. Henry Laurens, who was typical of his class and whose Life has recently been written by Professor Wallace,* expressed the feelings uppermost in their minds when he said "Cod deliver us from kingly, ministerial, and popular tyranny ! "
The second cause which militated against tho full application of the democratic principle that the voice of the majority should decide was also intimately connected with the unqualified assertion of individual liberty. Was the majority to be the voice of each State taken separately, or that of all the States taken collectively ? In other words, were liberty and patriotism to be local or national ? The " Fathers" of the American Constitution never really faced this thorny question, with the result that on several occasions before the final catastrophe in 1861 civil war seemed imminent. The rival theories were embodied in Jackson's celebrated toast, "The Union ! It must be preserved ! " and that of Calhoun, who was the protagonist of State rights, "Liberty 1 Dearer than Union ! "
This controversy was finally set at rest by the groat Civil War. Federalism triumphed over State rights, and the principle that the American Republic should be governed by the voice of the collective majority of all the States was definitely adopted. But the war did not do more than enforce the acceptance of the principle. The machinery originally adopted remained intact, and inasmuch as that machinery had been specially designed to protect the rights of minorities, it still remained very difficult in practice for the majority to exercise an effective control over all the branches of the government.
Oradually, as society has grown more complex, and as the need for legislation of a general character has become more and more apparent, the theory that government should exercise very limited powers in order that it may do no harm has given way to a desire for the creation of a strong central government, considered as an agent of the popular will for the accomplishment of good. With this end in view, the Referendum has been adopted in almsst all the State Consatu- tions. Originally intended as a means for dealing with emer- gencies, it is beginning to be gradually accepted as "the normal and usual method of government" But Mr. Elliott thinks that neither the Referendum, tier the more extreme measure of conferring the Initiative on the people, which has also been adopted, has succeeded in achieving the desired end. The "average citizen has grown or will grow weary of so much voting," and with this weariness the opportunity of the party manager will again arise. Moreover, "an impossible task has been imposed upon the electorate in that the number of measures to be considered at each election is so great and their character so complex that it is impossible for the voter to have an intelligent opinion regarding them."
Somewhat greater success has attended the adoption of what is known as the "Commission system," which, however, has so far only been generally applied within the domain of municipal government, coupled with the "recall system," which enables an unpopular publio official to be removed at any time during his period of office. The "Commission system" involves "the centralization of power, Loth executive and administrative, in a single small group of elcctsd officials—the Commission."
In dealing with the reforms which he considers should be adopted in order to ensure the effective predominance of the voice of the majority, Mr. Elliott insists strongly on the necessity of sinsplicity. "Democracy in the United States demands an easy and efficient instrument for the expression of its will." Moreover, he recognizes that democracy not only does not resent but clamours for guidance at the hands of its most enlightened members, thus apparently agreeing with the lats. M. Faguets who, in his L' Horreur des Responsabilitte, puts the same idea in the following words : "La vitalite des democraties se =sure e, la force genitrice d'aristocraties qu'elles portent en elks."
The specific measures which Mr. Elliott proposes are, in the first place, the extension of tho "Commission system" to the government of the several States ; in the second place, the adoption of a Singlo Chamber system of government ; and, in the third place, the abolition of the law which requires a representative in the legislative body to reside in the district which he represents. The effect of this law is to encourage the faulty theory that an elected member merely represents local rather than national interests. The change advocated by Mr. Elliottwould bring the American system into greater conformity with British practices and aims of government. We have always held that al • Bee Spectator of I pril L'atd, 1910,
Member of Parliament, when once elected, represents the whole people and not merely the interests of his constituency. Mr. Elliott also appears to contemplate that the "system of recall," which is already in a few instances applied in the States, should be made applicable to Federal representatives and officials generally.
It will be seen that these proposals, more especially that which involves government by a Single Chamber, are of a very drastic nature. If adopted, they would possibly result in a real approach being made to the realization of the democratic ideal to the extent of enabling effect to be given to every passing humour of public opinion. But this Is not altogether certain. It is by no means clear that, under the system advocated by Mr. Elliott, the power of the " boss " and of the party manager would wholly vanish. Demos is now as gullible- /intend-yrs-yes—as it was in the days of Aristophanes. But even if the object can be achieved, it remains a very open question whether it would be wise to sweep away at one stroke all tho elaborate devices conceived by the American "Fathers" in order to check the hasty impulses of democracy. In spite of the wave of democratic feeling which has of Late years passed over the United Kingdom, there are few thinking peop'.e, even although they be staunch democrats, who would wish to see the provisions of tho recent Parliament Act, which at all events gives the democracy time for reflection before definite action is taken, entirely abolished. We are just now witnesses of the most remarkable instance the world of politics has ever seen of want of fore- sight on the part of the many and of wisdom on that of the few. Whatever may be done in America, it is earnestly to be hoped that the lesson will be taken to heart by the Cis-Atlantic branch of the great democratic Anglo-Saxon community, and that the drag-chain will not be wholly removed from the equipment of the democratic coach. The Americans also will possibly do well to pause before they throw away the advantages of a Constitution which has been eulogized by as high an authority as Lord Actcn in the following terms. The American democracy, he said, is "democracy in its highest perfection, armed, vigilant, less against aristocracy and monarchy than against its own
Previous page
