|
|
Europe a Nation |
The Machine of Government It will be seen from the above suggestions that we have traveled very far beyond our pre-war position, have greatly developed and, where necessary, drastically changed it in the light of experience. It is necessary for us all to make a real new effort to combine the power to act as the people wish with a truly scrupulous preservation of personal liberty. In our hurry to serve the people with the action they desired, in a period where action was clearly necessary, we fell into some errors which could lead to the abuse of power ; even rapid action in such conditions can be too dearly bought. Nothing is more difficult than to devise a system of government which combines the power to act that the modern age requires, with a meticulous regard for individual liberty. It requires the contributions, both critical and constructive, of many minds for its full development. As a basis for discussion, I suggest the following summary.
Parliament : Parliaments should be elected on an occupational and not on a geographical franchise, with the object of securing a practical and not a political assembly. Power in all social questions should rest with parliament, subject to the right of government to initiate legislation, and to check legislation by the refusal to finance. In the event of the necessary funds being refused, the parliament would have no direct redress against the government. On the other hand, parliament could thoroughly publicise the matter ; consequently, any party would be free to take up the point at the next election, and, thereby, to secure the defeat of the government, if the people agreed with it. The Judiciary : The judiciary would be entirely free and independent of government, and would administer laws, which, within their defined spheres, would be passed by government and parliament respectively. Its present position and prestige would not only be preserved but extended and enhanced. I would also suggest that a new branch of the judiciary should be constituted, and invested with powers which do not exist to-day. The first power would be to examine at any time, and anywhere, any possible corruption in government, and to publish findings if such corruption existed ; it would, of course, be possible for the government to reply, and the people could judge between government and judiciary and vote accordingly. The second power would be continually to examine new ideas and to submit findings upon them to the government. In the event of the government refusing to implement an approved idea, the judiciary could publish the facts to the public ; the government would then be free to reply giving its point of view. Such ideas in a technical age of ever-increasing complexity are best discussed by experts in the judicial atmosphere of a law court the proposer, critic, assessor procedure of my book The Alternative might provide some basis for consideration. The Press : The press should be quite free, but anyone attacked - whether individual, institution, government or party, should have equal space to reply. Trade Unions : The trade unions should have the constructive task of co-operating with government in progressively raising wages over the whole field of industry, as, and when, science increased the power to produce. They would have not a lesser, but a greater, position and status than they have to-day. Reference to the trade unions as another "estate of the realm ", would, in our proposals; cease to be only a phrase and become a fact. Science and government : Science and government should become more and more as one. Statesmen and scientists should live and work together in this age as the statesmen of the renaissance lived and worked with artists. As society develops they should become more and more interchangeable. The men of the future should be part statesmen, part scientists. Clear definitions of functions : It will be seen that in this system we attempt, by clear definition of function, both to prevent the paralysis which sometimes arises in America during a conflict between government and legislature, and to prevent the time-wasting abuses of the perpetual party warfare in our present British parliament. The aim is, in our popular slogan, to give everyone a job to do and give him a chance to do it. In the crude terms of my old platform gibe we are not attracted by the concept of paying one man £10,000 a year to do a job, and another man £2,000 a year to stop him doing it - as in government and opposition procedure in our present House of Commons. Equally it seems to us a grave danger to the modern state, in a rapidly changing situation, if a paralysis can occur in government, as the American procedure permits. So we seek clearly to divide functions, while securing every possible check and safeguard to preserve individual liberty and to prevent the abuse of power; if more and better means can be devised to guard these essentials, we should welcome them. Finance, clear and clean : A clear division of function, of course, involves some radical departures from existing practice ; for instance, full power of taxation and expenditure in the hands of the executive means a big change in tradition and outlook. The proposal cannot simply be defeated with the old slogan "no taxation without representation ". For the people would certainly be represented by a government which they had selected by their votes from among several parties at a general election. On the other hand the method has clear merits, which deserve some consideration. The time-wasting wrangle over finance each year, on purely party lines, would be eliminated, and the energies of many good men in government, and outside, would be freed for more constructive tasks. The possibility of financial abuse would be more effectively checked by the power of the judiciary to examine in detail what was going on, and its further power to report, if necessary, to the people. Also, the whole question of finance would be lifted right out of the sphere of interest lobbying and undercover intrigue, which is bound to exist as long as it remains a parliamentary matter. If it is the sole responsibility of the executive, the people will judge by their votes on the final record of the government as a whole, and both the pressure of interests and the delays of irrelevant discussion will be prevented. I nevertheless suggest that all the chief ministers should be subject to parliamentary questions, at least once a week, for one hour, on any subject; any man who knows his job should be ready to face that process and, in fact, men who are expert in the art of answering questions, after long practice, find the procedure so enjoyable and stimulating that it becomes a vice almost as pleasurable as alcohol to its victims. The trouble is usually to get the old boys to shut up, not to open up ; a government of action must beware of the joys of verbosity. Order and the abuse of power : Order in the hands of the executive presents no great departure for all practical purposes it so resides to-day. If government made laws relating to order which abused power and infringed individual liberty, it would rightly anticipate short shrift at the next election ; there is no point on which it is, and would always be, so sensitive to public opinion. An absolute constitutional safeguard should be provided, as already suggested, against law which provided for imprisonment without trial, or was retrospective in effect; the judiciary should have authority to quash any such law. Defence and foreign affairs are also, if we split no hairs, in the hands of the executive to-day ; mistakes in this region could be dealt with by the electorate, as they are now. A serious Parliament : A parliament elected occupationally would be concerned with all the detailed complexity of modern state and industry. Expert subjects could be seriously discussed and decided by experts. Slapstick would yield to the yardstick of scientific thinking. Would it really be so much loss ? For anyone who enjoys the fun, the proposed public questioning of all responsible ministers would provide more than enough of the old-fashioned fare. On the other hand the form and work of parliament would become modern. The geographical franchise dates from the period when agriculture was the only occupation. The occupational franchise simply brings the franchise up to date. We can, consequently, have some hope that parliamentary discussion and decision will, also, come up to date. Extended powers of the judiciary : Some people may be alarmed by such an extension of the powers of the judiciary. This seems necessary if we are to give a government power to act, while carefully maintaining individual liberty and preventing the abuse of power. It may, also, seem fantastic that anything approaching a new idea could emerge from the procedure of a law court. For this purpose we clearly need a new branch of the judiciary acting on a new principle ; it must be imbued more by the urgency of a persisting dynamism in an age of continual change, than by the necessarily static sense of justice which administers existing law. We need the clarity of the legal mind infused with the necessity of action; a combination not? outside the bounds of possibility. The aim is to have new ideas discussed in an atmosphere where reason prevails and truth can emerge. Judges versed in the facts of the new age seem the people best fitted to sum up the discussion between those who propose and those who oppose new ideas. Their report would enable the executive to act on well considered facts. If the executive refuse to act, when the facts indicated the necessity, the judges could again report to the people. Will real power then reside with judges, who will interfere with everything and intimidate weak executives ? The answer is, surely, no. The responsibility for action will clearly rest with the executive judges could report to the people, but not overrule the executive. Further, the executive will have the right to reply to any report by the judges to the people, and, in the executive will be men who are expert in the art of controversy. Judges dislike looking silly, and they are right, because to avoid looking foolish is a part of their métier ; they will not interfere unless they are on very sound ground, and their intervention will then be necessary. Their role will be both negative and positive, their task will be not only to prevent corruption, abuse and scandal, but to stimulate new ideas. The object of the whole business is, of course, to cut out foolish cackle, to get serious matters considered seriously, and, consequently, to get things done on a true judgment of the facts. Press and the truth : It is desirable that the press should serve the people, with news, rather than the interests of the owners ; likewise the trade unions should serve the interests of their members ; rather than the politics of their leaders. It might be necessary to add to the press proposals a provision for prosecution if it could be proved that a newspaper had deliberately published something which it knew to be untrue ; but it is preferable to reduce such restrictions to a minimum, and the right of a maligned individual or institution to reply should be sufficient. The press might be compensated in some degree for this irk by some modification of the present too restrictive law of libel, which tends to prevent free discussion. Free discussion but decisive action : We want discussion to have the utmost freedom, provided it does not waste too much time in an age in which decision and action are vital. Let us provide every facility for discussion of all subjects, and create a diversity of means for this purpose; perhaps after all my old saying “everything should be discussed, but only by those who understand at all the subject” infringed liberty too much ! But let us preserve those responsible for action from ceaseless talk ; they must have some time for their creative tasks. For my part I like controversy, because I think it always advances our cause. I never mind the other man having his say, because, rightly or wrongly, I always feel that I can find a complete answer, that the exchange will leave us not weaker but stronger. Some may think this confidence mistaken, or even arrogant, but I feel it very strongly, and it has some basis in experience. Yet this is all very well when you are in opposition, and your task is to advance a new cause. Those in government must be left some time for the work of government. That is why it is suggested there should be a close time for political controversy except at the election period. In between elections, it would, of course, be necessary for the government to explain directly to the people over radio and television what they were doing. In fact, it would be necessary much more frequently than at present for a government which acted on my principle that “the people should always know what the government is doing, and the government should always know what the people are thinking “. On such occasions it would seem fair that all opposing parties should have the right of criticism over the same medium, and that the government should have the right of reply, if it desired. The true democracy : In this short essay it has been necessary to cover much ground in a very cursory survey. The argument and the proposals are necessarily compressed and baldly stated. But I hope enough has been said to make clear their meaning and purpose. In any case they can form a basis for the discussion we welcome. The object is clearly to combine the system of rapid action which the present age requires, with the full maintenance of individual liberty and every possible check against the abuse of power. It remains true that the only means to a free individual life, and to the full development of the human personality, is the creation of a system which gives leisure and a higher standard of life ; this requires drastic and continuing action by government in modern conditions. It is equally necessary to preserve the right of the individual to use these resources as he wishes, and, by using his vote, to participate in the direction and control of the whole. We believe this system to be the true democracy, because it enables the collective will of the people to be carried out, without the infringement of the individual’s liberty. We believe that the mass of the people, if they are not deceived by artifice or confusion, and if they can learn the facts as they are revealed by a calm and ever developing vision of truth, will always will the good. Oswald Mosley - First Published 1955
|
|
|
The
reconciliation of action and liberty : We suggest a parliament
elected on an occupational and not a geographical franchise; party warfare
would automatically cease to exist in an assembly elected on completely
different lines. As for controversy in the press, I would suggest a completely
free press subject to one new condition; any individual or institution
- including the government - which was attacked in a newspaper, should
be given, by law, the right to equal space in that paper for reply. This
would in most cases reduce time-wasting and destructive controversy
in the press to a minimum, as few newspaper owners would care very often
to open their columns for their victims to say anything they liked in
reply. In the case of an able and open-minded proprietor, who felt capable
of coping with, and enjoying, such a situation, it might lead to much
brighter newspapers; but on the whole it would tend to squeeze the
nonsense, unfairness, and untruth out of the press very quickly.