The Growth of Democracy

Rev. Canon Cody was received with applause and said:

Mr. President and Gentlemen,--The success and efficiency of democratic government depend upon the interest, intelligence and honesty of the citizen body. How can we secure a greater interest in public affairs, expressed by the casting of the vote? Before making this concluding application, I wish to say something about the principles of democracy, and the growth and expression of those principles in history.

The term "Democracy" is popularly used in three distinct senses. We speak, first, of democracy as

------------------------------------------------------------

Few need an introduction to such an outstanding man as Canon Cody. A power in the church, a living force behind all that stands for the improvement of social, civic and public life, it is but fitting that he should address the Club on such a subject.

------------------------------------------------------------

applied to society. Underlying is the idea of equality, based upon the inestimable value of the individual soul; everybody in virtue of his common humanity has a value; before the law he is equal. Society of a democratic character is based upon this underlying truth. It is aptly expressed in Burns' pungent epigram, "A man's a man for a' that." In its application to a state, democracy means that the ultimate sovereignty rests in the whole body of the people, not in any one class or group. In its relation to government, democracy implies that the people administer their public affairs either directly or by chosen delegates. This particular form of democracy is a mere matter of machinery, and in practice it is rarely possible, even if desirable. The kind of democracy to which I refer throughout these remarks is the democracy of the state, where the ultimate sovereignty resides in the whole body of the citizens.

Now, I believe that democracy in this sense is the only form of government that is tolerable among a mature, politically-minded, sturdily independent population such as the British stock. No doubt there are peoples for whom democracy is not yet suitable, and indeed there have been stages in the history of our own people when democracy was not practicable. In days of lawlessness, before the barbaric man can restrain his elemental passions; in days of insecurity, when the public safety is threatened by foreign foes, it is desirable to have a strong, autocratic, militant monarchy. But as soon as habits of obedience have been implanted, as soon as the dread of foreign invasion is removed, the people have grown out of tutelage, and the despot, even the benevolent despot, is no longer necessary. Even then the adolescent community may not be entirely fit for democracy. The community may not be sufficiently intelligent; it may be too inexperienced; it may lack in both character and control, so that the task of self-government is beyond its powers. The great affairs of politics in a period like that are of necessity left to a select body, whose prime function, whether they recognize it or not, is educative. Just as soon as the moral and intellectual development of the people is sufficiently advanced aristocracy gives way to democracy.

In the history of our own British people that time came at the end of the Tudor Period. Towards the close of Queen Elizabeth's reign British democracy practically had its birth. The habit of obedience to law had been thoroughly learned under a succession of strong mediaeval sovereigns. Security against foreign invasion had been gained by the building of a fleet and the defeat of the Spanish Armada. The work of the schools and the universities, even then, had produced a considerable number of educated laymen; and the labours of the church had created a general sense of responsibility and devotion to the common weal. The day of tutelage was past. It was not easy for the Stuart Kings to recognize that despotism was no longer possible. It was not easy for the nobles or the clergy to realize that the pupil-nation had come to man's estate. But this was gradually and effectively, and sometimes violently learned during the 17th and 18th centuries; and early in the 19th century the sovereign people became conscious of itself, and made itself master of its own fate. The subsequent period is a fascinating and inspiring record of the way in which the sovereign democracy has taken control and organized itself for its great task; so that we may venture to say that today democracy has come to its triumph. I am bound to add that democracy has come equally to its trial.

Of democracy as applied to a state certain propositions may be laid down.

1. Democracy is the only form of state ultimately acceptable in our generation. In democracy properly understood, and honestly applied, lies the chief hope of the peaceful and prosperous development of the race. It is equally true that not every people is yet fully capable of the democratic form of government.

2. The only type of democracy possible in a modern state is representative democracy. In the little city states of Greece all the people took part in the making of laws, in the administration of justice and in the executive duties of government. This way possible in a city state where the total number of citizens would be not more than 4,000 or 5,000. These city states were all built up upon a substratum of slavery, and do not present any real parallel to the conditions of modern state life. I repeat that the only type of democracy possible in a modern state is representative democracy. The people choose their representatives; they must have leaders, but they are free to choose their leaders. Democracy cannot dispense with leadership any more than any other kind of government, but a member of a democratic state has the privilege of choosing his leader. Representative democracy logically excludes, or is incompatible with, such devices as the initiative, the referendum and the recall. (Hear, hear, and applause) I would ask you to note particularly that the function of the sovereign democracy is not directly to govern, but to appoint a government. The main tasks that confront the modern electorate are, first, to determine the general policy of the government, and secondly, to choose the best men to pursue that policy and to translate it into definite and precise enactments. I cannot better express the ideal of democracy than by quoting the words of one of the greatest philosophic democrats of modern times, Mazzini, the colleague and precursor of Garibaldi in the founding of modern Italy. Mazzini says, "Democracy means the progress of all through all, under the leadership of the best and wisest." That, to my mind, is as fine a definition as that which Abraham Lincoln gave in his Gettysburg speech--"government of the people by the people and for the people." As a form of government, democracy will only be able to justify itself by searching out the best brains of the nation and setting them to the work for which they are most fit.

3. The essence of representative democracy is the rule of the majority. I believe that rule is hindered rather than helped by attempts to secure the representation of diverse minorities. (Applause) I have no time to develop the point here, but I am more than doubtful of the value of "proportional representation." (Hear, hear) I believe that it is not really conducive to true democracy, and that it will weaken the stability of any government that is confronted by its presence. (Hear, hear) But the rule of the majority is correlated to freedom of discussion, freedom of the press, freedom of the platform, freedom of the pulpit, freedom of the minority to persuade and convert the majority, if it pleases, to its own way of thinking. (Applause) You cannot have one without the other. If the majority not only enforces its will but refuses freedom of discussion to the minority it is an unmitigated tyranny and not a democracy. (Hear, hear, and applause) I may add that it would be quite in harmony with democratic principles that the extent of the majority be defined in the application of general laws to particular cases.

4. For the effective expression of representative democracy, and for the satisfactory execution of the will of the majority, the two-party system, under our constitution, is almost essential. (Applause) Tile more the group system is tried the more it will be found to weaken the general stability of government. (Hear, hear) But there is here a certain limitation. The parties need to be controlled and checked, and practically they are controlled and checked, by a strong, intelligent and reasonably independent electorate. That is usually the case in a democratic country. All the citizens are not so bound to their party by ties of party allegiance that on occasion, when serious issues arise, they will not transfer their allegiance. This happens, for the good of the country, in successive elections.

There will always be in a democracy a sufficiently large body of intelligent and independent electors to keep any party in due control.

5. If democracy is to fulfill its high ideal of responsible self-determination, there is need of "a diligent education of public opinion, a thorough purification of the common conscience, and a vigorous strengthening of the general will."

However, democracy has " arrived." The ultimate ruling power does lie with the people. Democracy stands at the cross-roads today, and there are various other paths along which the citizen is invited to travel. I venture to say that those other paths, whatever they may be, or wherever they may lead, are not democratic paths. There is the path of socialism, which is a recrudescence of what will prove ultimately to be a tyrannical bureaucracy. (Hear, hear) There is syndicalism, which is anti-political and believes in substituting the direct action of the strike for the constitutional method of parliament. There is Bolshevism, which is the tyranny of one class or group in the community. There is anarchism, which overturns all the foundations of existing order, and has really nothing to substitute in their place. There is sectionalism, or class rule, which seeks to base a national government upon a representation primarily of one class in the nation. No one of these alternatives is consistent with sound democracy.

Now, if democracy is to run smoothly and effectively, there must be four prerequisites among the people. There must be, first, a high standard of honesty and honor; the people must be morally sound; in the last analysis character does count. A noble democracy is the ideal form of polity, but a corrupt democracy is the vilest and most hopeless. When political power is used for material profit, then a democracy is on the highway to perdition. Secondly, there must be a high level of intelligence, and a sound system o f education. I wonder whether knaves or fools do more harm to the state? I am inclined to think that fools do more harm than knaves. Intellectual incompetence in handling great affairs is fraught with deadly peril. A man may be as well-meaning as you please, but if he is incompetent he will probably land you in as serious a situation as will a clever knave. Happily we are not shut up to the alternative; we need have neither knaves nor fools in charge of public affairs. (Hear, hear) In face of the complex problems of modern politics, surely the sovereign people must have that mental capacity, that balance of judgment, that training and substantial knowledge which a good system of national education is well fitted to give. Thirdly, there must be throughout the whole community an underlying sense of its unity and solidarity. All racial feuds, all religious schisms, all class conflicts, all social cleavages, tend to weaken democracy, and if they go too far they render it impossible. Fourthly, there must exist an explicit public opinion. (Hear, hear). This public opinion is formed slowly by reading, by conversation, by debate, by meditation. Its formation implies freedom of thought and of speech. It may not be well informed in matters of detail, but that does not matter, because, as I have said, the function of the sovereign democracy is not to govern in detail but to choose the government that will govern in detail. This sovereign public opinion is more than an intellectual decision upon the issues; it is rather a moral judgment based upon them.

Now may I draw your attention to the method whereby democracy expresses itself, and governs the country? The British democracy, with "its splendid ancestry of Saxon self-government, of mediaeval autonomy, of Puritan independence, and of modern emancipation," will in the long run be bullied and coerced neither by a turbulent minority nor by a temporary tyrannical majority. (Hear, hear) In British countries government is at bottom the coordination of a multitude of wills into a unity, and not the suppression of those wills. Democracy has its defects, and it will not yield the best results when public opinion is corrupt or ignorant, but that is a defect of the material rather than of the system.

The motto of democracy is, "The best government possible in the circumstances, but in any case self-government." Mr. Bernard Shaw once caustically put it, "The ideal of democracy is to prevent yourself from being governed better than you want." (Laughter)

The method of democracy is designed to attain this end of self-government. You have, first, the propaganda of the minority; then you have discussion by the minority as it seeks to convert the majority to its views by constitutional methods; then you have the vote whereby the individual citizen expresses his determination. Gentlemen, this is the crux of our present problem. Probably the vote has been too much regarded from the merely individualistic point of view, as though it were a personal right--something that the citizen can justly demand on his own account in virtue of his mere humanity. Of course there is an element of truth in that; personality is the highest thing, the only thing of absolute value, and a man cannot realize his personality in the highest degree if he has not a share in the great task of governing himself. But a man can only come to his best in a good community, and a community will soon cease to be a good community if the franchise is exercised by ignorant or corrupt citizens. Therefore you come back to the consideration that "the right to vote is not an individual right so much as a civic obligation to be exercised for the good of the community and the welfare of the state." This is the heart of the matter. After propaganda and discussion and vote, comes the decision of the majority; and finally follows the obedience of all citizens, in the meantime, to the expressed and enacted will of the majority.

Gentlemen, democracy has not only come to its triumph, but it has also today come to its trial. There are certain inherent defects in it that have been revealed in the course of years. There are reactions against democracy in various parts of the world today. You have read in this morning's paper of another phase of that extraordinary reaction in Italy, where Signor Mussolini has become a virtual dictator. That is not democracy. But we must not forget that democracy is going to be tested not by any alleged inherent virtue or divinity in it, but by its power to govern and to govern effectively.

Now, on what does democracy's effective government really depend? There are grounds for anxiety here. The old prophets of democracy from 1830 to 1870 seemed to believe that, of itself, it would bring in an era of order and brotherhood and prosperity. But as a matter of fact, all too often citizens have failed to respond to the demand for active virtue and intelligent public spirit which free government must make upon them. Everywhere there is the same contrast between what the theory of democracy requires and what the practice of democracy reveals. One might almost say that "the theory of universal suffrage assumes that the average citizen is an active, instructed and intelligent ruler of his country;" but the facts all too frequently contradict that assumption.

Democracy, therefore, is not an idol to be worshipped but an ideal to be realized. It demands the exacting service of widespread intelligence and public spirit to prevent it from going wrong. Our greatest task today is the one upon Which you have embarked--to create afresh the sense of personal civic responsibility. No form of government depends so much on the individual citizen as does democracy. Here the responsibility is direct, personal, and 'nalienable. The individual is the ruler, and he will rule his country for good or for ill. But the pity of it is that a duty shared with many others comes so often to seem less of a personal duty. The average man judges by the average standard, and does not see why he should take more trouble than his neighbour. So we arrive at the result summed up in the dictum which reveals the basic weakness of democracy-"What is everybody's business is nobody's business." What does the average citizen really care? Indifference is our chief enemy (hear, hear) and it becomes a formidable national peril when the indifferent hold in their hands the reins of government. Our task is to banish indifference, to increase the number of people who really care, and to maintain and extend the sense of personal responsibility in the state. The apathy of the intellectuals is as great a peril to the well-being of the state as the anarchy of the ignorant. (Hear, hear) Therefore it is the duty of all good citizens in any community first to be willing, if necessary, to serve, in spite of "the slings and arrows of outrageous" critics; (laughter) to watch carefully the course of public events; and to cast their ballots as the occasion arises. Abstention from voting as a protest against the type or character of the candidates will not, of itself, remedy the wrong in the situation.

Do you know, gentlemen, what are the facts revealed by the Toronto Bureau of Municipal Research in regard to the exercise of the municipal franchise in Toronto? On national affairs we vote in much larger numbers, and yet in our municipality we are handling problems almost as great financially as those handled by our Province. For example, the city of Toronto will have spent this year, out of its current account, over $28,000,000. Is it not worth while for the citizens and taxpayers of this city to choose good candidates and to cast their votes and determine the municipal policy of the city? What were the facts of last year's voting? I quote from a recent bulletin of the Bureau of Municipal Research. In 1925 the percent of voting efficiency was--for mayor, 37 percent; for controller, 25 percent; for alderman, 17.2 percent; for Board of Education, 17.7 percent. The survey reveals that the so-called residential districts appear to rank highest in voting efficiency, and the so-called foreign districts appear to vote comparatively low. But the point is that no district has a record of which its citizens may be proud; therefore, as the Bureau puts it, "If you have votes, prepare to use them now."

Did you ever stop to ask yourselves what is the original meaning of the word "idiot?" Would not anybody of normal intelligence be insulted if he were called "idiot"? What is an "idiot"? In the old Greek City States a man who looked after his own affairs exclusively, and did not bear any share of the burdens of public responsibility was called an idiotes--a narrow man, a limited man, a man who cared only for himself. So our modern word "idiot" is a descendant of that Greek word. (Laughter) You can draw the inference. (Laughter) I would put over against it a phrase used by a famous Bishop of Lichfield in the Motherland--John Hacket, a sturdy old Royalist of the time of Charles 11. He said, "We want public souls . . . all men are seeking their own." "Public souls"--that is the need of the hour. Over against the "idiot"--shall I say "the original idiot"--should be placed the practical public soul. (Loud applause)

MR. R. A. STAPELLS voiced the thanks of the Club to the speaker for his inspiring address.