representative government-第20章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


ews。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Chapter　7　　　　　　Of　True　and　False　Democracy；　Representation　of　All；　and　Representation　of　the　Majority　only。

　　IT　HAS　been　seen　that　the　dangers　incident　to　a　representative　democracy　are　of　two　kinds：　danger　of　a　low　grade　of　intelligence　in　the　representative　body；　and　in　the　popular　opinion　which　controls　it；　and　danger　of　class　legislation　on　the　part　of　the　numerical　majority；　these　being　all　composed　of　the　same　class。　We　have　next　to　consider　how　far　it　is　possible　so　to　organise　the　democracy　as；　without　interfering　materially　with　the　characteristic　benefits　of　democratic　government；　to　do　away　with　these　two　great　evils；　or　at　least　to　abate　them；　in　the　utmost　degree　attainable　by　human　contrivance。　　　The　common　mode　of　attempting　this　is　by　limiting　the　democratic　character　of　the　representation；　through　a　more　or　less　restricted　suffrage。　But　there　is　a　previous　consideration　which；　duly　kept　in　view；　considerably　modifies　the　circumstances　which　are　supposed　to　render　such　a　restriction　necessary。　A　completely　equal　democracy；　in　a　nation　in　which　a　single　class　composes　the　numerical　majority；　cannot　be　divested　of　certain　evils；　but　those　evils　are　greatly　aggravated　by　the　fact　that　the　democracies　which　at　present　exist　are　not　equal；　but　systematically　unequal　in　favour　of　the　predominant　class。　Two　very　different　ideas　are　usually　confounded　under　the　name　democracy。　The　pure　idea　of　democracy；　according　to　its　definition；　is　the　government　of　the　whole　people　by　the　whole　people；　equally　represented。　Democracy　as　commonly　conceived　and　hitherto　practised　is　the　government　of　the　whole　people　by　a　mere　majority　of　the　people；　exclusively　represented。　The　former　is　synonymous　with　the　equality　of　all　citizens；　the　latter；　strangely　confounded　with　it；　is　a　government　of　privilege；　in　favour　of　the　numerical　majority；　who　alone　possess　practically　any　voice　in　the　State。　This　is　the　inevitable　consequence　of　the　manner　in　which　the　votes　are　now　taken；　to　the　complete　disfranchisement　of　minorities。　　　The　confusion　of　ideas　here　is　great；　but　it　is　so　easily　cleared　up　that　one　would　suppose　the　slightest　indication　would　be　sufficient　to　place　the　matter　in　its　true　light　before　any　mind　of　average　intelligence。　It　would　be　so；　but　for　the　power　of　habit；　owing　to　which　the　simplest　idea；　if　unfamiliar；　has　as　great　difficulty　in　making　its　way　to　the　mind　as　a　far　more　complicated　one。　That　the　minority　must　yield　to　the　majority；　the　smaller　number　to　the　greater；　is　a　familiar　idea；　and　accordingly　men　think　there　is　no　necessity　for　using　their　minds　any　further；　and　it　does　not　occur　to　them　that　there　is　any　medium　between　allowing　the　smaller　number　to　be　equally　powerful　with　the　greater；　and　blotting　out　the　smaller　number　altogether。　In　a　representative　body　actually　deliberating；　the　minority　must　of　course　be　overruled；　and　in　an　equal　democracy　（since　the　opinions　of　the　constituents；　when　they　insist　on　them；　determine　those　of　the　representative　body）　the　majority　of　the　people；　through　their　representatives；　will　outvote　and　prevail　over　the　minority　and　their　representatives。　But　does　it　follow　that　the　minority　should　have　no　representatives　at　all？　Because　the　majority　ought　to　prevail　over　the　minority；　must　the　majority　have　all　the　votes；　the　minority　none？　Is　it　necessary　that　the　minority　should　not　even　be　heard？　Nothing　but　habit　and　old　association　can　reconcile　any　reasonable　being　to　the　needless　injustice。　In　a　really　equal　democracy；　every　or　any　section　would　be　represented；　not　disproportionately；　but　proportionately。　A　majority　of　the　electors　would　always　have　a　majority　of　the　representatives；　but　a　minority　of　the　electors　would　always　have　a　minority　of　the　representatives。　Man　for　man　they　would　be　as　fully　represented　as　the　majority。　Unless　they　are；　there　is　not　equal　government；　but　a　government　of　inequality　and　privilege：　one　part　of　the　people　rule　over　the　rest：　there　is　a　part　whose　fair　and　equal　share　of　influence　in　the　representation　is　withheld　from　them；　contrary　to　all　just　government；　but；　above　all；　contrary　to　the　principle　of　democracy；　which　professes　equality　as　its　very　root　and　foundation。　　　The　injustice　and　violation　of　principle　are　not　less　flagrant　because　those　who　suffer　by　them　are　a　minority；　for　there　is　not　equal　suffrage　where　every　single　individual　does　not　count　for　as　much　as　any　other　single　individual　in　the　community。　But　it　is　not　only　a　minority　who　suffer。　Democracy；　thus　constituted；　does　not　even　attain　its　ostensible　object；　that　of　giving　the　powers　of　government　in　all　cases　to　the　numerical　majority。　It　does　something　very　different：　it　gives　them　to　a　majority　of　the　majority；　who　may　be；　and　often　are；　but　a　minority　of　the　whole。　All　principles　are　most　effectually　tested　by　extreme　cases。　Suppose　then；　that；　in　a　country　governed　by　equal　and　universal　suffrage；　there　is　a　contested　election　in　every　constituency；　and　every　election　is　carried　by　a　small　majority。　The　Parliament　thus　brought　together　represents　little　more　than　a　bare　majority　of　the　people。　This　Parliament　proceeds　to　legislate；　and　adopts　important　measures　by　a　bare　majority　of　itself。　What　guarantee　is　there　that　these　measures　accord　with　the　wishes　of　a　majority　of　the　people？　Nearly　half　the　electors；　having　been　outvoted　at　the　hustings；　have　had　no　influence　at　all　in　the　decision；　and　the　whole　of　these　may　be；　a　majority　of　them　probably　are；　hostile　to　the　measures；　having　voted　against　those　by　whom　they　have　been　carried。　Of　the　remaining　electors；　nearly　half　have　chosen　representatives　who；　by　supposition；　have　voted　against　the　measures。　It　is　possible；　therefore；　and　not　at　all　improbable；　that　the　opinion　which　has　prevailed　was　agreeable　only　to　a　minority　of　the　nation；　though　a　majority　of　that　portion　of　it　whom　the　institutions　of　the　country　have　erected　into　a　ruling　class。　If　democracy　means　the　certain　ascendancy　of　the　majority；　there　are　no　means　of　insuring　that　but　by　allowing　every　individual　figure　to　tell　equally　in　the　summing　up。　Any　minority　left　out；　either　purposely　or　by　the　play　of　the　machinery；　gives　the　power　not　to　the　majority；　but　to　a　minority　in　some　other　part　of　the　scale。　　　The　only　answer　which　can　possibly　be　made　to　this　reasoning　is；　that　as　different　opinions　predominate　in　different　localities；　the　opinion　which　is　in　a　minority　in　some　places　has　a　majority　in　others；　and　on　the　whole　every　opinion　which　exists　in　the　constituencies　obtains　its　fair　share　of　voices　in　the　representation。　And　this　is　roughly　true　in　the　present　state　of　the　constituency；　if　it　were　not；　the　discordance　of　the　House　with　the　general　sentiment　of　the　country　would　soon　become　evident。　But　it　would　be　no　longer　true　if　the　present　constituency　were　much　enlarged；　still　less；　if　made　co…extensive　with　the　whole　population；　for　in　that　case　the　majority　in　every　locality　would　consist　of　manual　labourers；　and　when　there　was　any　question　pending；　on　which　these　classes　were　at　issue　with　the　rest　of　the　community；　no　other　class　could　succeed　in　getting　represented　anywhere。　Even　now；　is　it　not　a　great　grievance　that　in　every　Parliament　a　very　numerous　portion　of　the　electors；　willing　and　anxious　to　be　represented；　have　no　member　in　the　House　for　whom　they　have　voted？　Is　it　just　that　every　elector　of　Marylebone　is　obliged　to　be　represented　by　two　nominees　of　the　vestries；　every　elector　of　Finsbury　or　Lambeth　by　those　（as　is　generally　believed）　of　the　publicans？　The　constituencies　to　which　most　of　the　highly　educated　and　public　spirited　persons　in　the　country　belong；　those　of　the　large　towns；　are　now；　in　great　part；　either　unrepresented　or　misrepresented。　The　electors　who　are　on　a　different　side　in　party　politics　from　the　local　majority　are　unrepresented。　Of　those　who　are　on　the　same　side；　a　large　proportion　are　misrepresented；　having　been　obliged　to　accept　the　man　who　had　the　greatest　number　of　supporters　in　their　political　party；　though　his　opinions　may　differ　from　theirs　on　every　other　point。　The　state　of　things　is；　in　some　respects；　even　worse　than　if　the　minority　were　not　allowed　to　vote　at　all；　for　then；　at　least；　the　majority　might　have　a　member　who　would　represent　their　own　best　mind：　while　now；　the　necessity　of　not　dividing　the　party；　for　fear　of　letting　in　its　opponents；　induces　all　to　vote　either　for　the　first　person　who　presents　himself　wearing　their　colours；　or　for　the　one　brought　forward　by　their　local　leaders；　and　these；　if　we　pay　them　the　compliment；　which　they　very　seldom　deserve；　of　supposing　their　choice　to　be　unbiassed　by　their　personal　interests；　are　compelled；　that　they　may　be　sure　of　mustering　their　whole　strength；　to　bring　forward　a　candidate　whom　none　of　the　party　will　strongly　object　to…　that　is；　a　man　without　any　distinctive　peculiarity；　any　known　opinions　except　the　shibboleth　of　the　party。　　　This　is　strikingly　exemplified　in　the　United　States；　where；　at　the　election　of　President；　the　strongest　party　never　dares　put　forward　any　of　its　strongest　men；　because　every　one　of　these；　from　the　mere　fact　that　he　has　been　long　in　the　public　eye；　has　made　himself　objectionable　to　some　portion　or　other　of　the　party；　and　is　therefore　not　so　sure　a　card　for　rallying　all　their　votes　as　a　person　who　has　never　been　heard　of　by　the　public　at　all　until　he　is　produced　as　the　candidate。　Thus；　the　man　who　is　chosen；　even　by　the　strongest　party；　represents　perhaps　the　real　wishes　only　of　the　narrow　margin　by　which　that　party　outnumbers　the　other。　Any　section　whose　support　is　necessary　to　success　possesses　a　veto　on　the　candidate。　Any　section　which　holds　out　more　obstinately　than　the　rest　can　compel　all　the　others　to　adopt　its　nominee；　and　this　superior　pertinacity　is　unhappily　more　likely　to　be　found　among　those　who　are　holding　out　for　their　own　interest　than　for　that　of　the　public。　The　choice　of　the　majority　is　therefore　very　likely　to　be　determined　by　that　portion　of　the　body　who　are　the　most　timid；　the　most　narrow…minded　and　prejudiced；　or　who　cling　most　tenaciously　to　the　exclusive　class…interest；　in　which　case　the　electoral　rights　of　the　minority；　while　useless　for　the　purposes　for　which　votes　are　given；　serve　only　for　compelling　the　majority　to　accept　the　candidate　of　the　weakest　or　worst　portion　of　themselves。　　　That；　while　recognising　these　evils；　many　should　consider　them　as　the　necessary　price　paid　for　a　free　government　is　in　no　way　surprising：　it　was　the　opinion　of　all　the　friends　of　freedom　up　to　a　recent　period。　But　the　habit　of　passing　them　over　as　irremediable　has　become　so　inveterate　that　many　persons　seem　to　have　lost　the　capacity　of　looking　at　them　as　things　which　they　would　be　glad　to　remedy　if　they　could。　From　despairing　of　a　cure；　there　is　too　often　but　one　step　to　denying　the　disease；　and　from　this　follows　dislike　to　having　a　remedy　proposed；　as　if　the　proposer　were　creating　a　mischief　instead　of　offering　relief　from　one。　People　are　so　inured　to　the　evils　that　they　feel　as　if　it　were　unreasonable；　if　not　wrong；　to　complain　of　them。　Yet；　avoidable　or　not；　he　must　be　a　purblind　lover　of　liberty　on　whose　mind　they　do　not　weigh；　who　would　not　rejoice　at　the　discovery　that　the