A Social Credit Gambit

By Charles Troughton

When the Social Credit leader Mr Cracknell, M.P., was interviewed after a recent Dominion Executive meeting he was reported to have said apropos his Parliamentary service to date that he had been free to evaluate any matter purely on its own merits because "he was not tied to the party wheel."

In saying this Mr Cracknell was reiterating a favourite Social Credit gambit which his movement apparently thinks has appeal to some voters — possibly not entirely mistakenly. But it is, after all, like a lot of other platitudes, not without disturbing overtones.

Taken at its face value, this statement means that Mr Crackncll considers that he is not bound to vote in accordance with declared Social Credit policy if he finds on personal examination of the merits of an issue in Parliament that these run contrary to what Social Credit pre-election decisions and policies were.

He also forecast the capture of three more parliamentary scats at the coming election. If he should be proved correct in this, it will be interesting to see how Mr Crackncll continues to implement his independence. Would four Social Credit M.P.s each be able to act with similar independence of each other?

We might then witness the odd spectacle of two of them voting in favour of a measure, while the other two voted against it. In this case their electors might well ask to what purpose they contested the election if they proceed to cancel each other out in Parliament!

The Social Credit movement has always attempted to present an apolitical appearance to the public. Not for nothing did they choose to call their movement a League rather than a Party, even though the structure, rules, and membership are not significantly different to those of the National and Labour parlies.

Nevertheless, an oft-repeated campaigning tactic of Social Credit Candidates is to refer to Parliament and parliamentarians in the nature of a commercial organisation and its board of directors. True, there are some similarities, but they cannot be carried beyond a certain limit. Whereas the objectives and health of a company can be measured by commonly-agreed yardsticks, no such measuring rod can be applied to a nation. What is "progress" to one shareholder or director may be a retrogressive step to another.

The arguments in favour of political parties have been stated too often to need repeating here. Suffice to say that those most concerned with the preservation of individual freedoms have also been the champions of parliamentary government and of a strong party system within it.

There is nothing sancrosant about democracy, of course, If anyone can come up with an alternative system of regulating society which gives greater benefits without greater contra-disadvantages, and does not at the same time contain the seeds of its own destruction then such an alternative demands study and eventual adoption.

Sure enough, plenty of people think they do in fact have such a system. Parliamentary government has never —so far—been accepted fully by the majority of countries in the world.

What is disturbing about Social Credit's attitudes and actions is that while they pay lip-service to parliamentary government, and apparently intend to take on the reins of government if they ever get the chance, they miss no opportunity to decry the party system which time and experience have shown to be a vital element in its maintenance. They refuse to acknowledge that their own movement is just as much a political party, operating in much the same way, as the Labour and National parties.

Either Mr Cracknell and the Social Credit movement have no true notion of what Parliament is and how it really works, or else they do know and have rejected it in private, but not in public. The voters of this country are entitled to know which.