WHAT IS A DEMOCRAT ?
Why I Am a Democrat. A Symposium. Edited by Richard Acland, M.P. (Lawrence and Wishart. 25. 6d.) A SUCCESSFUL symposium depends on a happy balance of agreement and disagreement. Those who take part in it will be broadly in sympathy on the main issue but approach it from divergent points of view. Mr. Acland's team is admirably representative of different schools of British thought. A Liberal himself, he has secured the services of one other Liberal, Sir Archibald Sinclair, the leader of the party in the House of Commons. He has included two Unionists, the Duchess of Atholl and Mr. Ronald Cartland. The diverse elements in Labour are represented by Mr. Attlee, the Parliamentary leader, Mr. J. C. Little, a trade union leader, Sir Stafford Cripps, a suspect element in the political camp, and Mr. Alfred Barnes, of the Co-operative Party. For Communism we find Mr. Harry Pollitt ; for the Church the Bishop of Liverpool ; and for the academic pro- fessions, Mr. Benjamin Farrington. For completeness the editor might perhaps have added one big employer of labour, and one representative of the Chamberlain influence in politics. Or did he fear that the cause of democracy might not be safe in such hands ?
Mr. Acland has imposed no hard and fast definition of democracy upon his contributors, but he discovers that they are all people who would find themselves in a concentration camp if the Fascists came to power ; they all proclaim their belief in the value of the individual, and hold that " the State exists to serve the individual, and not the individual to serve the State." (Mr. Pollitt, I think, would like the last clause shaped differently.) For all of them democracy is the anti- thesis of the system established in Germany and Italy. All would agree with Mr. Attlee that it demands acceptance of the principles of equality and liberty ; that in practice majority opinion must prevail, but conditioned by tolerance ; and that the end is the achievement of good conditions of life, definable in various ways.
But if all contrast democracy with dictatorship, and with the totalitarian system of Germany and Italy, this does not mean that they find the democracy of their dreams in Great Britain. Sir Stafford Cripps shows how the political machine of democracy is capable of being manipulated by those who control economic power. The Duchess of Atholl is aware of the temptations to vote-catching in our democracy ; the slowness with which its machine is likely to work ; and the dangers of ignorance. Mr. Cartland complains of the serious growth in power of the political party machines, and the pass- ing of power from Parliament into the hands of the executive. Mr. Farrington goes so far as to say that " the ideal of the deferential community enjoying the best govern- ment on condition of the mass of the governed retaining sunk in apathetic misery ... but slightly caricatures the sort of democracy we now enjoy." Mr. Pollitt considers that a stand against the present Prime Minister is a stand against Fascism and war. If we were`to isolate these observations we might conclude that in the opinion of these democrats there is really not much to choose between Great Britain and the dictatorships.
Yet that is not the position of any of them. Democracy is for all of them an ideal, something in the process of becoming, not yet realised, but so far realised that the embryo is capable of continued growth. As the Duchess of Atholl puts it, "democracy is a system which offers a real message of hope to those who are conscious of imperfections in the law or of the need for improvements in social conditions." In that respect our system is already democratic, and contrasts with the autocratic system which admits of no redress except through revolution and violence. The writers in this book have various conceptions of the goal at which we should aim, but they agree that in this country the conditions exist for aiming at that goal, whatever it may be. Mr. Barnes's economic ideal is through voluntary co-operation, and he observes that the co-operative movement has " succeeded to an extent that should encourage all who are prepared to accept the full implication of democracy." Mr. Little's speciality is trade unionism, and he sees that here there is the opportunity " to strengthen and fortify the organisations of the people." Mr. Pollitt, as an orthodox Communist, is not in the least satisfied with our bourgeois democracy, but does not think it is an " empty abstraction "—it affords, he points out, the right to speak, to vote, to organise, and strike—a democracy which grants the right to agitate is not to be despised even from a Communist point of view ; does it not hold open the way to the Communist ideal as soon as the majority is converted?
Most of these writers favour democracy because it is much more than an efficient method of government ; it is the way towards a better life for all the individuals in a community. Sir Archibald Sinclair speaks of " a just order of society . . . from which poverty and its attendant evils would be abolished." Sir Stafford Cripps's desire is to " save the decencies of our civilisation." The Duchess of Atholl looks forward to " a development of individual intellect, initiative and character." Mr. Farrington requires " adequate feeding, clothing, housing, education, and public health of the com- munity " and " adequate leisure and education." The Bishop of Liverpool's ideal is that of " a Christian democracy." Many will think that it is Mr. Cartland who gets nearest to the gist of the matter when he says: " the battle today is in fact between Totalitarianism and Christianity. . : . What is commonly called ' democracy ' is no more than the first steps to the attainment of Christian principles in the practice of living in society."
Democracy, it is dear, is an ideal which can never be more than partially achieved this side of Utopia. It is difficult enough to get even an approximation to " rule by the people "; and it is an infinitely subtle business, demanding knowledge, sympathy, philosophy and magnanimity, to provide the best government " for the people." Our own system has in it some of the defects which mar the totalitarian systems, but it also contains within itself the means for their rejection and for the building up of a more humane civilisation. It is for this reason that most of the writers in this book are not merely democrats but supporters of the British " democracy." It was worth while to bring together these different points of view, expressed by writers so frank and sincere, and enable us to see them converging on common ground, if not (pace Mr.
Previous page
