Self Interest—not Democracy

2. I said that democracy makes great demands on us. Two of the greatest arc probably these—that we must take the responsibility of government seriously; and that we must be able to trust each other and work out this trust in a deliberate attempt to seek the greatest good of all. I want to sec now whether these demands are being accepted here in democratic New Zealand.

Very briefly, about the first—we do not accept our responsibilities. Within the last six months there have been two very important elections in Wellington—the City Council election and the Brooklyn by-election. In both, only about fifty per cent of the electors voted. That speaks for itself, and one can only add that it is of such apathy that dictatorships are born.

Now for the question of trust and seeking the highest good of all. The Librarian of this College has written a very good and fresh history of New Zealand. One of the interesting points he makes bears on our subject. It is that every government in New Zealand has governed in the interests of one class. For the first 40 years, the government used the whole economy of the country on behalf of the squatters. The Maori Wars were just one of the results! Under Massey and Ward, government was in the interests of the small farmers. From 1935-49 the Labour government used the economy of the country on behalf of the working people. And perhaps we can add to Mr. Miller's findings and say that now it is used for the benefit of those uneasy bedmates—big business and the farm.

There is here an example of selfish class interests by all groups: and certainly it is difficult to find many seeking the highest good of all.

We have an even more striking example in the industrial disputes of to-day. On the one side we see a union, which by the very nature of the work, encourages into its ranks not always the best of working men: a union which seems to have quite a good claim for better wages and conditions, and yet which, in the quality of work done in the past, has little to justify them: a union which has always seemed to fly to direct action. On the other side, the ship-owners, notorious the world over for being ultra conservative and for being difficult to get on with. All this is complicated by a government which has introduced the most iniquitous code of regulations yet seen in Western [unclear: democracy] regulations which limit any attempt to put the union's case and result in any public criticism being stifled.

On the one hand we see a democratically elected government seeking to gain its own ends by undemocratic action: on the other, a democratically elected union executive seeking to gain its own ends at the expense of the rest of the community. Here is a vivid example of democracy going wrong. In fact, it is not too much to say that it seems obvious that such an impasse is the natural outcome of democracy in an unconverted world. We have moved a long way from Tom Paine and Rousseau.

Does this mean that democracy has failed and must fail?