Democracy—Fact or Slogan?
Lady Rhondda, daughter of a South Wales coal owner, contributes an article entitled “The People’s Will Must Prevail,” in a recent issue ofThe Star (August 8th, 1941). The article commences with the following grandiloquently worded paragraph : —
“The intention of democracy is as Abraham Lincoln defined it, but the machine for achieving that intention can be fashioned in many different ways. Our model, for example, is quite unlike the American. Both are based on the ground-plan of universal suffrage and the election of representatives, but the superstructures are vastly different. Nor does either country suppose that its particular machine is yet perfect. Each is being gradually shaped to get better results in respect to the two tests by which every democratic machine must be judged : Does it enable the considered will of the people to prevail ? And does it work ?”
The rest of the article is of minor importance. It suggests the necessity of speeding up legislation after the war, criticises the actions of certain “antidemocratic” cliques in influencing Government policy before the war and also criticises the dictatorial attitude of Civil Servants. In fact, a rather poor finish up tp a somewhat flamboyant start.
Let us see if we can develop Lady Rhondda’s introductory paragraph on more rational lines. Abraham Lincoln’s definition of democracy was “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” but we accept the definition of the Harmsworth (1906) Encyclopaedia, which says: “Democracy means, however, in its last analysis, popular control.” This corresponds to Lady Rhondda’s, query as to whether “it enables the. considered will of the people to prevail.”
Most people, if questioned as to what was meant by democracy, would probably reply—”the system of government as we know it in this country and the U.S.A., whereby means of periodical elections the people select those who shall rule over them for a given period.” In association with this idea it is also frequently stated that people with unpopular ideas in these countries are freely allowed to express them. Yet the same people will frequently state that for expressing certain ideas, certain people “ought to be shot.” This shows the weakness of the belief in the right of a minority to express and publish its opinion. Yet, in actual fact, the ability of minorities to express their opinion is at the very basis of the democratic idea, for how can a legislative body be said to be freely elected if the ability of the electors to consider the pros and cons is fettered by an inability to hear the whole of the arguments for and against? How, in such circumstances, is it possible for there to be even such a thing as the “considered” will of the people?
The next point to be considered is whether democratic capitalism does give minorities the ability to give full expression to their views.
The thing democracy cannot be considered in a vacuum. It can only be considered in relation to the system of society in which it functions, and as we are living in a capitalist era, in which the U.S.A. and Great Britain play two of the leading roles, consideration must of necessity be given to the manner in which it functions in either or both of these states. Our readers will be more familiar with conditions in this country, so let us confine ourselves to the United Kingdom. To what extent is the expression of opinion free and untrammelled? We do not think it is necessary to labour the point. What happens to the man in a provincial factory who is suspected by the local magnate or his toady hireling—the foreman—of holding “advanced” views? In the Metropolis conditions are not quite so bad; but how many workers feel that they can openly express unpopular opinions to their workmates without the fear that some seeker after promotion will run and tell the boss ? Here we get at the core of this question of the freedom of expression of opinion. It is the property basis of existing society which gives the boss the power to place the holder of disliked views into a state of semi-starvation; it is the desire to improve those living conditions which it is in the power of the boss to improve, which causes the tale-bearer to hurry to his boss. Again, if those who hold certain ideas are poorly paid workers, their ability to spread those ideas is seriously handicapped by their lack of means. But for the wealthy no such handicap exists. Newspapers can be bought and sold, and even operated at a loss, if the owning clique have certain ideas which they wish to put over. The whole of British industry is gradually getting into the control of fewer and fewer hands, but, within recent memory, the separate interests pursued separate policies, and so we had the spectacle of the News Chronicle continually hammering away at the necessity of “Free Trade” —really, of course, a campaign in favour of the shipping interests—for these were the people to whom unrestricted trade was an obvious advantage. Of course; it was never expressly stated that “Free Trade” was to benefit the shipping interests—instead we were told that it made food cheaper, prices lower, etc., etc. Not so long ago the wealthy Sir Oswald Mosley was able to lavish large sums on furthering his Fascist ideas. The running of a daily newspaper is an expensive business: only big capitalist concerns can operate the present type of newspaper; but the newspaper is regarded as a necessity by most workers. With the news goes the views, and so workers get their opinions, as well as their news, ready made. Not only this—but the news is frequently distorted or suppressed in order to colour the views. And the news and views, of course, must not be detrimental to the big advertisers—again the property influence. Furthermore, newspapers, being capitalist concerns themselves, are naturally interested in the preservation of capitalism, and so wealthy writers of harmless or amusing articles, such as Lady Rhondda or Lord Castlerosse, can get their articles accepted without much difficulty, whereas any article which endeavoured to show up the deficiencies of the existing form of society AND to point to the only logical alternative, would be extremely unlikely to be accepted. A recent example is the statement of the big business chief, who is now Minister of Food, to the effect that a number of small retailers had become such merely in order to get foodstuffs, etc., for supplying their family and friends. This statement was accorded quite a lot of publicity in the Press. One is inclined to think that a statement by a small retailer that he had been forced out of business owing to the reduction in trade, and that numbers of retailers, in order to make ends meet, had taken up air-raid precautions work, leaving their wives to look after the shop, would not be accorded so much publicity. You have to be a lord to get away with a statement like that.
In their attempts to arouse interest in wider circles, minority movements are to a great extent dependent upon advertisements in the national newspapers. Yet the ownership of a newspaper gives the proprietors the right to refuse such advertisements. Thus, the Daily Telegraph, after inspecting a copy of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD, which we had wished to advertise, declined the advertisement and refused to give any reason for their action.
Prior to and during a war newspapers get hints from so-called “official circles” as to what attitude to take up on certain questions. Why are these “official circles” so influential? The answer is that they are a department of the Government—which, under capitalism, is the executive committee of the ruling class, i.e., the employing or propertied class. The Government also controls the schools and the wireless, and is this able to exert an enormous influence in the moulding of people’s minds.
For those who have property, in order to preserve their rights over that property, it is essential that certain ideas should be put over into the heads of the propertyless—the proletariat. And the interesting thing is that it is this very fact of the possession of property winch makes it so much easier for them to get these ideas put over and accepted.
We think we have said sufficient to show that in a social system based on private property relationships, true democracy is an impossibility.
Under war conditions the power of minority expression is further restricted, not only by the aforesaid property qualifications, but also by special regulations issued under authority of Parliament, enabling not only the stoppage of certain publication but also the destruction of the printing press to be carried out by the authorities under certain conditions.
In Canada, our associated paper, The Western Socialist, which is produced in the U.S.A., has, together with five other papers, been banned. The action puts the last nail in the coffin of the assertion of Canadian ministers that they have entered the war in order to safeguard democracy.
A word or an idea can also be used as a slogan in the leading capitalist countries millions of workers are going more or less willingly to war for various mixed and hazy notions. One of these is that the war is one which is being fought to safeguard democracy. Since the inception of the war thousands of headlines and articles which have appeared in the popular Press have sledge-hammered this idea in their heads. In this sense the idea of democracy is being used as a slogan, and a very effective one that.
For reasons connected with “war-time democracy,” many of the points of this article have not been developed to their logical conclusion. We must let the reader do that for himself. But, at a rate, we think we have made it clear, firstly, that the ability of minorities freely lo express themselves is the essence of democracy, and, secondly, that true democracy cannot possibly flourish under the existing social order.
RAMO