THE PARTY SYSTEM
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] ST11,—The elusive instinct for self-government so peculiarly a gift of the English, neither definable nor subject to logical analysis, has piloted us on our course through storm and tempest for some 1,100 years, and hitherto successfully.
Nor do I doubt that it is by the same wise instinct that, as
temporary makeshift, we have imported from Europe (America will have none of it at any price !) the Group (of parties) system, giving us, in result, a Minority Government, in place of the true Party System, which demands two, and only two, Parties (cf. Bagehot), and alone can give real strength to Government by Representation. Thus, as read it, has the national instinct prompted us wisely to withhold, for a time, from the Lower House the supreme parliamentary power that a majority can now give it, which it was gradually usurping for itself alone, to the dire subversion of the Consti- tution, since single Chamber Government is altogether abhor- rent to the spirit of the British- Constitution.
Indeed, I boldly assert that, just now, the majority of electors are more truly represented in Parliament's Upper House than in its professedly Representative Chamber— especially since the up-to-date, because most effective, instru- ment for representation is the. newspaper press, and not the mediaeval ear-and-tongue method of Parliament—not only unassisted by, but professedly disdainful of modern develop- ments in communication—and all the major prophets of the press, and some of the minor bubble press also, have seats in the Upper Chamber, nor, I believe, is there a single one in the Lower.
'Kiss Williamson seemed to forget that Parliament's Upper Chamber is- not regulated by the Party System, necessary for the effective maintenance of the Representative Principle, only. Self-government, of course, is totally distinct from the popular " boojum," just now, democracy is Anglais.
The ancient Greeks of the small city-state of Athens, being the most superbly gifted race known in history, did achieve that ideal form of government, no doubt. But there certainly is not now in existence, nor, since Athens, to the best of my knowledge, has there ever been a nation taking democracy as its form-of government or attempting to rule upon that one simple principle.
The complex nature of English self-government, of which the nearest possible definition is the official one, " A Limited Monarchy," absolutely forbids, in practice, the undue domi- nation of any single element in its nicely balanced composition, even though Democracy is, as that blessed word Mesopotamia " (now, alas, only Irak !) in the sermon, in all speeches of the machine-made statesmanship of the day.
" Limited " explains its secret of durability and success, not the "archy " part of the term, or " cracyness" of any kind —useful, no doubt, as the democratic element, when not unlimited, is for ensuring that government is not without consent of the majority of the governed, while the Party System secures that the minority, while not represented in council, shall not weaken the selected administration.
Loyalty to party I believe to be part of loyalty to country and that the Party System is to Parliament what Discipline is to the Navy and Army—indispensable !
"What is a regiment without discipline ? " occurs in the catechism every recruit in the Guards learns, and the answer " A disorderly mob ! " applies, I think, with not one whit less truth to the House of Commons and its premier regiment of representatives of Great Britain.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
