The English-Speaking World The Historical Study of An g lo-American Democracy. By
Roy F. Nichols. (Cambridge University Press. Is. 6d.) IN world politics today what is the most immediate, the most vital, political issue ? The answer to this question reveals two schools of thought. One group answers unhesitatingly, Russia ; the other, no less promptly, the future of the United Kingdom, its Dominions and Empire. To any member of the latter school, these lectures of Professor Roy F. Nichols, visiting Professor of American History at Cambridge, and of Mr. Harold Nicolson will be read with the respect that their authors' reputation assures them and the interest that their writing deserves. If you hold the view that the U.K. is the pivot or hinge on which the forces of civilisation—stretching from Alaska through Malaya to New Zealand—must swing, then it follows that the power of this movement and its success in action are directly dependent upon our economic and political vitality, and upon the closest co-ordination of the material and political resources of the U.K. and America. That such a marriage of power is a physical necessity, Mr. Nicolson emphasises ; that it is possible is due to the community of tradition and the historical parallelism that Professor Nichols indicates.
A peculiarity of the English-speaking countries, and one which their inhabitants have not been slow to notice, is that they alone of the major Powers have been able to maintain and extend their power externally while developing at home systems of government that are stable, strong and free. A second peculiarity, perhaps not unconnected with the first, which Professor Nichols points out, is that "in the United States and .. . in _Great Britain likewise, popular interest has been focused predominantly on political concepts." Their success in governing themselves, however, and the fact that "the Anglo-American people have thought in terms of rights of liberty and of self-government," have led them to conclusions about the nature of their governments that are both unduly modest and unduly simple. Until relatively recently it was popularly believed by "good democrats" that most of the problems of the world could be solved by free trade and freely elected assemblies. It was also believed that the Anglo-American type of government was in some sense both the natural and the inevitable pattern of government to which in the course of time all nations would conform. The history of the twentieth century has somewhat shaken these optimistic con- victions, and the work of men like Professor Nichols, by drawing our attention to the historical development of our institutions, has shown what a curious and complex collection of factors underlie the structure of our societies.
The fact is that both the United Kingdom and the United Sint's have been blessed with good fortune, for our type of government can hardly be developed unless three very rare conditions are com- bined. The first is security from aggression ; the second, a lar,:e degree of social and economic homogeneity ; the third an agree- ment not to raise fundamental questions in political debate. Until recently our geographical position ensured the first. The rise of capitalism made the fulfilment of the second possible, while itc apparent success combined with a strong Puritan tradition allowed the third condition to be respected. Today, however, neither th: first nor the second condition exists. The stresses put on the sun.- ture of our institutions by constant preparedness for war are severe-- but probably tolerable. Much tnore serious, and much more difficult is the political problem that is created by the existence of a body t'l opinion which refuses to accept the unquestioned assumptions uia were the foundation of our society and of our State.
One of these assumptions was that salvation was not to be attained in this world ; a second that the salvation of its members was not something with which the State should directly concern itself. As Jefferson said, the State has no right to intervene between the con- science and God. The function of the State was to settle differences between groups and individuals by reference to common and statute law, and if no precedent or guidance was to be found there, by the techniques of discussion, compromise and head-counting. If the province of central authority was thus limited, its power within those limits could safely be allowed to be large. In this manner a strong government was combined with a free society. But tnese methods cannot be applied to moral issues about which people feel deeply. Compromise is impossible between what people think is right and wrong or good and evil, nor will any amount of parlia- mentary procedure or voting dissolve the dispute. Thus the belief in the perfectibility of mankind, without which Mr. Nicolson thinks one must be afflicted with a weary soul, cuts right across this con- ccption of the State, for it involves the government in just those issues with which both in theory and practice it is incompetent to deal, and, in Lord Acton's words, "the domain of conscience" is no longer "distinct from the domain of the State."
The American Civil War is an example of the kind of dispute which is being referred to, and Professor Nichols' comment on the political history of the United States in the subsequent years is exceedingly pertinent: "In order to avoid civil disorder, the political leaders ... began to reorganise the two great panics into institutions which would not fight on significant issues, that would be . . . in agreement on basic principles." It is for this reason, among others, that the existence of a strong Communist party makes it almost impossible to work Parliamentary institutions, and it is also for this reason that the less seriously Socialists take their Socialism (to extend Mr. F. A. Voigt's definition of Socialism) the happier we shall be.
But while the modern tendency is for governments to consider that their responsibility extends over the whole of the lives of the citizens to whom they are responsible, a contrary tendency is apparent in their practical authority. The appearance of an extra-constitutional group, the trade unions, with a power so vast that only the govern- ment can rival it, has introduced an issue into politics that has not arisen in so acute a form since the struggle between Church and State. It is a pity that neither Mr. Nicolson nor Professor Nichols touched on this urgent problem.
However we regard the situation, it is difficult to see in what direction the English-speaking world is going to move in developing its political practice to meet the stresses to which the pattern of modern life has given rise. In international relations the way, as Mr. Nicolson argues, is obvious. The co-ordination of English and American power is necessary. The only factor which prevents one adding that it is possible is the economic predicament of this island. Our power was built upon our economic pre-eminence. On our continued economic vitality depends our ability to act as a catalyst round which a stable world can crystallise.
M. R. BONHAM CARTER.
Previous page
