THE FUTURE OF PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT

BOOKS OF THE DAY

By E. L. WOODWARD

AT a time when thousands of voters are unable to give political allegiance to any one political party, and political parties are themselves as much " in solution " as they were between the repeal of the corn laws and the second Reform Act, a book like Professor Laski's Parliamentary Government in England is of great value. It is possible to disagree with Professor Laski's judgement on many points, and yet to admire his book, and to feel grateful to him for writing it. He has something important to say. He does not overstate his case, and is not unfair to opponents (with the possible exception of the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald). His work has no trace of the bully- ing or menacing tone which often makes it hard to distinguish between extreme supporters and extreme opponents of socialism. Professor Laski tries to persuade by argument, and his argu- ments demand careful consideration by politicians and voters of all parties.

The book has two themes : (t) An exposition of the present system of parliamentary government, with a running com- mentary on the lines of Bagehot's classic work, and (2) a statement of the assumptions at the base of this system, and of the dilemma in which we are placed when these assumptions are challenged, as they are challenged today, by a large body of opinion. The first theme is an interesting discussion of the merits and defects of parliamentary government as such, and a reasoned defence of this method of settling the common affairs of a great society. The second theme is different in kind It can be summed up in a few sentences. Our parliamentary institutions, as they stand, represent the control of state power in the interest of the property-owning class. In opposition to this class, there is now a large class, which may at any time obtain a majority at a general election, determined to substitute for the " capitalist system " the full socialist programme of collective ownership. Can this " new class seeking to become possessed of sovereignty use the institutions of the class it proposes to dispossess " to effect the desired changes in the social and economic system ? What will happen to our constitution if the property-owning class uses its entrenched position to delay the measures necessary for change on a large scale, and the new class refuses to accept any compromise ?

Professor Laski does not answer these questions, but he leaves no doubt that, unless the property-owning class sur- renders, a revolutionary dictatorship and even a civil war are not unlikely. These possibilities have been discussed by other socialist writers and speakers ; too often the issue has been raised provocatively, as a move in the old game of shocking the bourgeoisie. It is one of the merits of Professor Laski's book that he never deserts the appeal to reason. He shows that the " new class " has a right to put these questions, and that it is neither " unpatriotic " nor seditious in putting them. There is a further point. Once we begin to speak of dictatorship, we transfer the argument from the field of right to considerations of force. If we may judge by the examples of other times and other nations, the property-owners will not surrender. Professor Laski agrees that their refusal to sur- render will not be based merely upon calculations of self- interest. They will be convinced, at all events a sufficient number will be convinced, that it is their duty, and not simply their advantage to resist. On Professor Laski's reasoning they will be terribly wrong in holding this view. None the Parliamentary Government in England. A Commentary. By Harold J. Laski. (Allen and Unwin. izs. 6d.) less, many of them will hold it. Thus we may be faced with the collapse of our parliamentary institutions and with civil war in which each side is convinced of what may be called its moral case.

Is there any escape from this dilemma ? I do not wish it to appear that I think Professor Laski's opinions are not those

which an able and public-spirited man may hold ; I should rather say that his sharp and logical mind has given to the facts and conflicts of our society a more clear-cut outline than they really possess. He writes, for example, that " the effective choice for the British voter today depends, on any realist view, upon whether he is for or against the Socialist transformation

of the economic basis of our society." On a " realist view " I

do not find this choice so simple, and I do not think that my main difficulty is due to the fact of my belonging, by habit and environment, to the property-owning class. For one thing, the transformation of the economic basis of our society is taking place before our eyes, and the " choice " is not one of " yes " or " no," but of " more " or " less." There is not, and there never has been, a closed capitalist system ; there is unlikely to be a closed socialist system. Furthermore, this economic transformation is not taking place altogether on the lines forecast in socialist programmes, and these programmes are not in agreement among themselves at any one time, or consistent with other socialist programmes of the immediate past. (I do not mock at this inconsistency. I would not have it otherwise ; it is a sign of life. Nevertheless these complica- tions must affect the simplicity of the voter's choice.) And, if on a realist view, I make a calculation of forces, taking the distribution of strength as I find it, I may think that an attempt greatly to speed up the rate of change would produce far more loss than gain if it involved political revolution, and the sacrifice of government by discussion for government by dictatorship.

A study of past revolutions of a major kind confirms my view ; so also does the history of Russia during the last twenty years, and I may ask myself what the history of Spain is likely to be in the next twenty years.

know that it is possible to minimise the risk of revolution, or to say that revolution is inevitable, or that, in this country,

the gains will outweigh the losses. But it is not realism to say that the choice before the British voter is a simple one. It is, incidentally, less simple now than it was even ten years ago ; it is doubtful whether, in the present state of international

relations, we in this country can run the risk of a frontal attack on the structure of our society. If a frontal attack were the only means of getting away from our wasteful, insensitive and

cruel social system, these risks might be worth taking, but even for those who are in most need of immediate relief, there appears

more hope in a turning movement, in what is known (and often derided) as a policy of gradualism. As Professor Laski admits, " a system intended, like ours, to offer uniformity of

treatment and satisfaction of established expectations, can only afford to innovate within a framework the outlines of which are known and accepted ; and vital alterations in the framework can only be made successfully when the public mind is habitu• ated to the idea of their necessity."

The public mind has moved quickly in the last 20 years, but it is surely not facing these facts to assume that the verdict of one general election would imply either complete habituation on the part of the majority of the electors to vital change or the enforcements of this change at the cost of a system, which on balance has not worked against the interests of the working-class iu the last too years.