Social Credit and the war
Does cabinet decide too much?

It is one of the ironies of the New Zealand political scene that the so-called "right-wing" Social Credit League has policies and attitudes closely aproximating in some important respects those of the "Peace, Power and Politics in Asia" Conference.

Certainly, Owen Gager, chairman of the VUW Peace Committee, is wide of the mark when he twice brackets Social Credit with the R.S.A. as a synonym for "right-wing" in his Salient article of April 2.

One can hardly imagine the R.S.A. taking up with enthusiasm clause (L) of the Social Credit defence policy statement: "Compulsory military training will be abolished."

"Or, for that matter, clause (K): "All decisions on active participation in overseas theatres of war will be taken on a free vote in the House of Representatives."

This is the pivot of the Social Credit defence policy, and makes it radically different from those of the National and Labour parties.

Carried to its logical conclusion (and admittedly the League has not done this) it could lead to a de facto policy of nonalignment, should a Socred-dominated House simply vote down every proposal for sending troops overseas. While the League endorses how the principle of collective security, this is subordinate to the principle of the free vote.

Thus the policy slates, on Vietnam: "We believe that decisions such as this (military action in Vietnam) should have been made by Parliament, and not just by cabinet."

Professor Conor Cruise O'Brien told the PPP Conference he believed the world was entering a new era where foreign policy as well as domestic policy would be made by democratic means, instead of being left to the suspect wisdom of the diplomats.

The Social Credit policy would make possible in New Zealand a more direct influence of public opinion on Members of Parliament, guaranteed by their party a genuinely free vote. This attitude of Social Crediters is important now as well as for the future, because there is a real possibility that Social Credit could hold the balance of power after 1969.

Recent statements by Social Credit leaders make interesting reading in the light of the sentiments expressed at the PPP Conference. Take these for instance:

Mr. Cracknell, M.P.: "So we have the very real and human problem of people starving by the millions in a world which is capable of feeding them. From this stems the fears and frustrations which lead to wars, and the wars are readily financed by those who have helped bring them about." (Evening Post, March 20).

Mr. J. B. O'Brien (deputy-Ieader) : "We are told our men are fighting Communism, but this is not true. The Viet Cong movement is largely a nationalist one." (Manawatu Evening Standard, Nov. 10.)

Mr. Cracknell: "I believe that the Members of Parliament are elected to govern this country in matters both great and small. I believe that if the Executive Council can be called together in an emergency, that Parliament can likewise be called together in an emergency . . . . I am more than a little concerned at the repeated emphasis on urgency and expediency to the exclusion of normal democratic processes, which must include debate and decision, or at the very least confirmation by Parliament in the chamber . . . . I am thinking of New Zealand's involvement in Vietnam—an Executive Council decision." (Manawatu Standard, December 7.)

There is surely a degree of concern expressed here at the way New Zealand foreign policy is made which is similar to that expressed at the PPP Conference.

But in another important respect—attitudes to overseas finance—Social Credit finds itself in sympathy with the prevalent view of the conference. Many a public statement by Mr. Cracknell has warned of the dangers of heavy overseas borowing, and of increasing foreign investment in New Zealand.

The writer of this article, Stuart Dickson, is student in Political Science at VUW, and attended the Peace, Power, and Politics in Asia Conference as official observer for the N. Z. Social Credit League. He is President of the VUW Social Credit Club and Research Officer of the N.Z. Social Credit League.

Does all this mean then that Social Crediters are not "right-wingers" leaning towards fascism but are actually "left-wingers" leaning towards Marxism? The answer is that the very concepts of a political "left" or "right", inadequate at best, become meaningless when applied to a party like Social Credit. It is a new political animal, drawing its support in quite a different manner to National/Labour.

It is true that a majority of Social Crediters have until now supported maintaining New Zealand troops in Vietnam—the troops having been sent, and attempts at negotiation having failed. But because the League has no commitment to the positions of either "left" or "right", (unity is achieved by belief in an idea about economics) the issue is always open.

Several remits on the subject are scheduled for debate at the League's annual conference in May. If the Labour Party, as has been suggested, avoids probing deeply into the Vietnam issue at its own conference, then the third party's conference will become the only national forum where both sides are openly debated this year. This did not happen at the PPP Conference.