Election Rights For Communists

The New Zealand Communist Party has become as conventional as any other NZ political party. Some recent developments make this obvious.

At the annual meeting in Auckland recently, the party, observed by foreign visitors, resolved to seek political power through elections. It has subsequently been announced that the party intends to nominate 35 candidates in this year's general election and we can assume that this is intended not only to obtain radio broadcasting time or to contribute deposits to government funds. The old concept of a small band of activists has been replaced by that of the conventional political party.

Ron Smith, a member of the Wellington Party Executive, was asked, following an address to the VUW Socialist Club, whether the party was still 'revolutionary'. His answer was in the affirmative but its substance was changed by his definition of 'revolution' as no more than 'a rapid process of change.' He further shrugged off any suggestions of violence, conspiracies etc. as misapprehensions. The 'revolution' occurs after the party obtains political power through the usual channels.

There seems no doubt that this is the official policy of the party. It probably has been so for some time—the chances of a coup by the NZ Communist Party have been zero—but the party is contesting elections with a new vigour.

The conclusion to be drawn from this is that the Communist Party is not a collection of members of a violent sub-species of man but one of several political parties seeking power through elections along with the Labour Party the Social Credit League and the National Party. It should be regarded and treated as such.

But, it may be objected, the CP man is an agent of a foreign power—or as some would put it, of the enemy power.

With reference to the Sino-Soviet dispute, it is not possible to distinguish the origin of direction of the NZCP. At present secretary Wilcox is an honoured guest in Peking (Dominion 27/5/63) while a party of six delegates to visit Moscow has been announced. The somewhat independent stand of the party, principled or not, indicates that it is not rigidly controlled by a foreign power.

No doubt, the CP would like to institute in NZ a social and political system similar to that found in the USSR, but the method which it has chosen to adopt is not 'treasonable', 'seditious', unloyal' or any other word which the Constitutional Society might use. It is a policy to be put before the NZ electors in the same way as that used by the Labour and National Parties.

Some members of the party might be involved in espionage, and as the Wynne case has shown all major powers have their espionage systems, but we cannot condemn the Party for the actions of individual members. And the Party executives, striving to attain respectability, can be relied on to keep far away from this somewhat obnoxious but useful practice.

But it may be further objected, Russia does not allow non-Communist parties, why should NZ allow a Communist Party?

The answer to this lies in the difference between the basic philosophies of NZ and the USSR and actions in NZ should be in accordance with the philosophy of NZ and not that of the USSR.

The NZ political system is so constructed as to allow any candidate to contest its elections, parliamentary or otherwise. While there may be justification in prohibiting an organisation pledged to forcibly overthrow an elected government, there can be none in condemning members of one of several parties contesting elections.

Can we conceive a Communist government? It is a most unlikely occurrence, and to my mind fortunately so. But if a Communist government were elected, its actions could be Judged only by the programme it had offered during the campaign. It would be Illogical to condemn a government for doing what it had been elected to do.

This raises the joint problems of so-called "majority dictatorship" and of one generation dictating the environment of future generations. But these are also involved with the parties that currently form NZ governments and it seems reasonable that the CP should receive the same treatment.

And the wider question of a Communist Government is also hypothetical—non - Communists and anti-Communists can trust to the implicit good sense and to the persistent emotional antagonism of the NZ elector.

But the Communist Party should be recognised as another political party. The actions of the mob in Auckland that led to the headline "Violence Flares in Auckland. Melee In Anti-Red Demonstration" (Dominion 15/4/63) must be condemned. The CP policy must be attacked in political campaigns and discussions, not with violence, and should be met with rational arguments and not emotional smears. The use of "Red" in the above headline has more purpose that the mere conservation of space.

For fear of misunderstanding, I restate explicitly the theme of this article. It is that the CP is one of New Zealand's numerous political parties and that it should be regarded and treated as such. A Communist is a person with certain ideas, not a subversive, lower-order animal. But this is in no way to be read as advocating support for the CP or its policy.

G. R. Hawke