Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 12, No. 5, June 8th, 1949.

How to Vote — In One Easy Lesson

page 5

How to Vote

In One Easy Lesson

The Prime Minister wants his answer. And, of course, when people as influential as Prime Ministers want anything, they have ways of getting what they want. And so the country faces another referendum.

It has met with a mixed reception, this referendum business. Mr. Holland argues that everyone wants it and the Government should therefore go ahead and do what it wishes without delay. The Government can argue, on the face of things, that it is applying direct democracy by asking the people themselves what they want. And, of course in days when merely to suggest that word 'democracy' is to wrap ones beliefs in an odour of sanctity, the Prime Minister has got a powerful justification for his action. However, referenda were not unknown in countries like pre-war Germany whose beliefs were not quite democratic. I will try to show that this referendun should have all the hall marks which distinguish a democratic referendum from a non-democratic one. So what would we ask of this ideal referendum?

First, that it be fairly taken (in the narrow technical sense, that is). No-one seriously supposes, I think, that Mr. Fraser or any of his opponents are going to indulge in ballot rigging; this question is not therefore of any great import here. Could the referendum be carried out unfairly even if these technicalities were observed? The answer unfortunately is Yes—and still more unfortunately, it looks very much as though it is going to be carried out in this way.

Logic . . .

In a democracy (you'll pardon it if it is trying to teach you something you know) everyone is given a vote to exercise. The exercising of this vote should be carried out with due regard to reason, a nice weighing up of the arguments, and a logical and unbiassed decision. If the referendum were voted on in this matter by each and every voter, if the material were placed before him in this clear logical form, devoid of emotionality—and more, if every possible argument were presented—then we would be in the democratic paradise which our papers would have us believe. But again, we doubt whether anyone seriously believes that the referendum will be carried out in this manner.

. . . Likelihood . . .

From indications already, what is likely to happen? Something like this. First (and remember what we said above about presenting all sides of the argument) it is very doubtful whether anyone who opposes conscription will get a chance to be heard. It is obvious already that if one wishes to support it, space is overflowing in any paper to report opinions. But we believe that the Council which opposes conscription—to which our Stud. Asa, is affiliated—has sent a great deal of material to papers which has never been printed. If this is so, it is unlikely that many people in this country will ever hear any arguments against conscription. Can you visualise Mr. Fraser having an open debate on the merits of the case over a national linkup of all stations? Can you imagine any paper headlining the views of an opponent of conscription? Does this look like 'presenting the whole case to the voters?"

This feature is bad enough. It is the sort of thing which is mentioned sanctimoniously when the papers talk of "stifling free discussion" and of "farcical elections" in other countries. It alone would be enough to make a mockery of the whole idea of a referendum. But there is something which is even more liable to explode the myth of the 'free and democratic franchise.'

. . . But no force

What will inevitably be said—has been said already—of anyone who opposes conscription? That he is a Communist, a fellow traveller, that he supports Communism. Mr. Fraser in his conference speech has given us a taste of what is to come. Now it is true that there is not likely to be any intimidation physically during the campaign. No-one is going to be beaten up for saying what he thinks (unless that reported meeting in Greymouth means something'. And anyway, what need is there to intimidate anyone by physical force when you need only to call him a Communist to discredit him in the eyes of the voters, or threaten to do so to stop him talking at ail? Docs this look like letting both sides of the question be aired?

And what of the voters? We asked in our ideal that they be allowed to make up their minds reasonably, to come to a logical and unbiassed decision. Do you seriously think that they will? Or will every paper in the country carry banner heads on the Communist threat to the Democratic Way of Life, Soviet Brutality, the Need to Defend Our Freedom and so on ad infinitum. Is this a clear, hard logical presentation of the case? His emotions pushed and swayed by every new edition, every statement made and publicised by the R.S.A. the Chambers of Commerce and both political parties—how can the voter possibly fail to come to his decision on these emotional grounds?

And If you still doubt that this mockery is likely to happen in God's own country, just think—would an article saying these things have any chance of being printed by a single one of the daily newspapers in New Zealand?