A STUDY OF GOVERNMENTS.
One who travels in foreign lands is likely to learn but little
of the governments of the lands through which he passes, unless
he makes a special effort to inform himself, for the lines of
travel are laid through the communities where law and order are
maintained and where the government is so stable that the casual
observer has no occasion to investigate its inner workings. The
mountains tower above him, and he sees them; the chasms yawn before
him and he beholds them; and the various forms of agriculture
leave a panoramic effect upon his memory. He frequently meets the
merchant in his store, sees the laborer at his work quite often,
and occasionally beholds a grandee in his carriage; but not being
able to speak the language of the country he learns little about
the forms of government and less about the political aspirations of
the people; and yet the science of government is one of the most
important sciences, and the "royal art," as it has been called,
stands first among the arts. Tolstoy has declared that the science
which teaches us how to live is the most important of sciences,
and surely the science of government comes next. While it is true
that an individual can by misbehavior forfeit the blessings of
good government, or by good behavior minimize the evils of bad
government--while it is true that no government, however good, can
save a man from himself if he is determined to throw himself away,
and that no government, however bad, can entirely deprive him of the
rewards of virtue, yet governments may do much to encourage or to
hinder the development of the people.
Governments may retard or advance the material growth of a country.
For instance, our government is in part, at least, responsible
for the unparalleled development of the United States, because
it has given the largest encouragement to the individual. The
Japanese government has in like manner stimulated education by the
establishment of a public school system and has developed a large
number of public men by the organization of a parliamentary system.
Turkey, on the other hand, has blighted some of the fairest portions
of the earth by suppressing political independence, by ignoring
education, and by leaving the industrious citizen at the mercy
of the marauder. There has been little political life in Turkey
because few of the people have had the education necessary to take
a broad survey of the country and its needs, while great stretches
of fertile country lie uncultivated because the government is so
indifferent to the rights of the people that the tiller of the soil
has no assurance that he will be allowed to harvest the crop which
he plants. Those who have investigated the subject contend that the
valley of the Jordan would be a fruitful region if protection were
given to those who would cultivate it, but because the Bedouin has
been allowed to come down from the hillside and reap where he has
not sown, the land is neglected.
In a trip around the globe one sees in actual working every form
of government known to man. In Russia, an unlimited monarchy until
recently laid its oppressive hand upon more than a hundred millions
of human beings. They held their lives, their liberty and their
property at the will of the ruler. Any citizen in the czar's vast
domains could be taken from his home and exiled for life without his
or his family knowing the cause of his punishment. The royal family
and the officeholders held the people in contempt and denied even
the natural rights of men. The people were taught to be thankful
for any favors, however small, that the "Little Father" saw fit
to bestow, and they were likewise taught that it was dangerous to
complain even when the most fundamental right was ignored. Now there
is a duma, and the duma as an institution still lives. No one can
predict through what trials and tribulations the country may yet
pass, but constitutional government will yet be hers. As in the
winter time we cannot foresee or foretell what days will be pleasant
and what days stormy, but do know that in a few months we shall have
summer, so without being able to determine through what tumults or
riots or revolutions Russia must pass, we know that in a few years
she will have a stable government in which her people will have a
voice.
In Japan the government is somewhat mixed in its form. She has a
parliament, but the executive branch of the government is not yet
in the hands of the people. The tendency in Japan, as everywhere,
is toward further limitation of the power of the sovereign and
further enlargement of the power of the people. The vital political
question there now is whether the emperor shall select his advisers
from among his personal friends or from the members of the party
which dominates the parliament. There is, of course, no doubt
of the ultimate triumph of the parliamentary party. Denmark
witnessed a similar struggle which lasted for nearly a generation
and terminated, as such struggles always do, in the triumph of the
parliament.
In China they have a mixture of monarchy and aristocracy. The
monarch is unlimited in his power, but he is so hedged about by the
aristocracy that he really has very little independence. Like some
of the native princes who rule under Dutch regents, the Chinese
ruler is the servant rather than the master of his officials. Living
in the forbidden city and meeting personally but few of his people,
he is quite dependent upon the mandarins. The aristocracy of China
is not an aristocracy of birth or of wealth, but a civil service
aristocracy. While positions are often bought--sometimes even sold
at auction when the emperor needs money--yet, as a rule, the civil
servants of China are selected by examination. These systems, while
so antiquated that they have been recently very materially modified,
were intended to be fair as between applicants. The course of study
was not comprehensive, and the tests applied gave but little idea of
one's fitness for office. These men, once in power, were the rulers
in all local affairs, and the higher officials were influential in
all matters of state, and yet, in spite of this system--or because
of it, whichever the reader will have it--China slumbered while the
nations around awakened. The fact that the appointees to the civil
service had to go through certain routine examinations prescribed
by those who had already passed through the same routine, kept the
service in a rut, and as it was not necessary that the appointees
should be interested in anyone but themselves, they showed no
concern about the people from whom they drew their salaries. It
was a system calculated to develop the selfishness which seemed
an inherent part of Chinese life and philosophy. Now that the
school examinations have been substituted for the civil service
examinations an improvement may be expected in the service, but even
the modified system will not keep the servant in touch with those
whom he serves.
In Europe the constitutional monarchy has undergone a constant
development until in many countries the king is but a figurehead. In
England the sovereign would not think of vetoing a bill passed by
the legislative body, and the House of Lords seldom vetoes a bill
passed by the House of Commons. The prime minister is a much more
potent factor in government than the king himself. In Norway the
government is brought even nearer to the people by the substitution
of one legislative body for two, that body being elected by the
people under universal suffrage. The king of Norway is even less
likely to attempt to obstruct the will of parliament than the king
of England. Norway has reduced monarchy to a minimum and placed the
government in the hands of the voters to do with it as they please.
In Switzerland the republican form of government has stood the
test of experiment. In the absence of pomp, ceremony and official
extravagance the government of Switzerland is not surpassed,
if equaled, by the government of any similar population in the
world. Three languages are spoken within her borders and used in
parliamentary proceedings. Part of her people are Protestant,
part Catholic and part Jew, and yet, with the initiative and the
referendum in both the federal government and the cantons, the
government rests so securely upon popular will that the people live
together in entire harmony and could resist a much larger population
attacking from without.
The colonial system also comes under one's observation in a trip
around the world. The Netherlands have large colonial possessions
in the Malay archipelago, but they have been compelled to abandon
the culture system--a form of slavery--and there are signs of a
political development which will some day make it necessary for
Holland to consult the wishes of the people more than she has in the
past.
I have already spoken of both India and Egypt in other articles, and
I only refer to the subject here in order to draw a contrast between
colonialism as applied to Canada and colonialism as it is seen in
India. In Canada the people have as complete self-government as they
have in England, the governor-general being as little likely to use
the veto power as the king himself. In India, on the other hand,
the natives are not consulted in regard to the general government.
Taxes are levied and collected, armies are raised, fed and directed
without regard to the wishes of the native population. They have
experienced all of the evils that can come from a colonial system
administered by a trading company, and they have had a chance to
learn that a colonial system, even when administered in such a way
as to command the admiration of those who believe in colonialism,
still falls far short of self-government. I have already said that
we have treated the Filipinos better than England has treated the
people of India, but that we have done so at an enormous expense to
our country. It would be better for the Filipinos and better for us
to recognize their right to self-government and independence.
After one has had a chance to see monarchies, limited and unlimited,
aristocracies based upon birth and aristocracies based upon a merit
system; and after one has had a chance to compare these systems
with the republican form of government, he is ready to declare that
from every standpoint that government is best which rests upon
the consent of the governed. Some have insisted that a monarchy
is stronger because all of the power of the government can be
concentrated quickly and made effective at once, but this advantage
is small when compared with the advantages to be derived from a
government which the people support with enthusiasm. The historian,
Bancroft, rightly declares that a republic ought to be the strongest
of all governments because, "discarding the implements of terror, it
dares to build its citadel in the hearts of men."
A republic which is, not merely in theory but in fact, "a government
of the people, by the people and for the people," is the most
enduring of governments. It is strong because it is loved and loved
because it is good.
Aristocracies are defended by their advocates on the ground that
a few are wiser than the many, but this is not true, whether it
is an aristocracy of birth or of learning, for as the whole is
greater than any of its parts, so a democracy must be wiser than
an aristocracy because it can draw upon the wisdom of all. The old
saying, that "everybody knows more than anybody," is founded upon
reason and experience, but there is another reason why a democracy
is better than an aristocracy, namely, that the interests of the
whole people are safer in the hands of the people themselves than in
the hands of any element which assumes to speak for the people. The
faults of free government have been found to be, not in the people
themselves, but in those who, selected to represent them, betray
their trust. If the representatives of the people whom the people
themselves select are sometimes unfaithful to their trust, what must
be expected of those who assume to act without being selected by the
people?
In aristocracies resting upon birth the very fact that the rulers
regard themselves as superior to the masses makes it difficult
for them to view questions from the standpoint of the people at
large. Whatever the form of the government, there will always be,
as Jefferson declared, two parties, one tending toward democracy
and the other tending toward aristocracy. Those who have faith in
the people are constantly trying to make the government more and
more responsive to the will of the people; those who distrust the
people are constantly endeavoring to increase the distance between
the citizen and his representative. In a republic there are some who
emphasize the virtues of the people and others who emphasize the
virtues of the representative. Some insist that the people should
think for themselves and elect representatives to give expression to
the public will; others insist that the representatives should be
so superior to the masses as to be able to do the thinking for the
people.
In the early history of this country Thomas Jefferson and Alexander
Hamilton represented these two ideas. Jefferson not only believed
that the people should think for themselves and should elect their
representatives, but he believed in short terms and frequent
elections in order that the citizens might more effectively control
their public servants. Hamilton, on the other hand, believed in
a strong centralized government in which the officials should be
removed as far as possible from the voter. His plan of government,
carefully prepared and presented at the time of the formation of
the constitution, provided for a president and senators elected
for life or during good behavior, and for governors of the several
states appointed by the general government for life or during good
behavior. No one would propose such a plan at this time, so great
has been the advance toward democracy. This growth is indicated by
the fact that the national house of representatives has four times
declared in favor of the election of the United States senators by
direct vote of the people and by the further fact that more than
two-thirds of the states of the union have by legislative action
declared in favor of this change. The unpopularity of the latter
part of Hamilton's plan, namely, the appointment of governors by the
general government, is shown by the fact that territorial government
under which the governors are appointed by the president, not for
life, but for a few years, is deemed unsatisfactory. The people of a
territory are always wanting statehood, and the main reason is that
they desire to elect their own officials.
The democratic idea is growing--the term is not used in a partisan
sense, but in that broader sense in which it describes government
by the people. There is not a civilized nation in which the idea of
popular government is not growing, and in all the semi-civilized
nations there are reformers who are urging an extension of the
influence of the people in government. So universal is this
growth of democratic ideas that there can be no doubt of their
final triumph. Monarchies, at first unlimited, are now limited,
and limited monarchies are recognizing more and more the right
of the people to a voice in their own government. Monarchies and
aristocracies tend toward democracy, and republics tend to become
more and more democratic in their forms and methods.
When the seed, planted in the earth, sends forth the tender leaf
and then the stalk; when the grain appears upon the stalk and
supplies the bread necessary for the support of our bodies, we know
that there is back of the seed a force irresistible and constantly
working. As irresistible and as ceaseless in its activity is the
force behind political and moral truth. The advocates of the
American theory of government can, therefore, labor with the
confident assurance that the principles planted upon American soil a
century and a quarter ago are destined to grow here and everywhere
until arbitrary power will nowhere be known, and, until the voice
of the people shall be recognized, if not as the voice of God, at
least, as Bancroft defines it, as the best expression of the divine
will to be found upon the earth.
In republics, as in other forms of government, there will at times
be disturbances, but these come from a failure to recognize and
respect the current of public opinion. If we stand by the side of a
stream and watch it glide past us, we can in safety listen to the
song of the waters, but if we attempt to dam the stream we find the
water rising above the dam. If we make the dam higher still, the
water rises still more, and at last the force in the obstructed
water is so great that no dam made by human hands can longer stay
it. Sometimes, when the dam is washed away, damage is done to those
who live in the valley below, but the fault is not in the stream,
but in those who attempt to obstruct it. So in human society there
is a current of public opinion which flows ever onward. If left
to have its way it does not harm anyone, but if obstructed, this
current may become a menace. At last the obstruction must yield
to the force of the current. In monarchies and aristocracies the
dam is sometimes built so high that it is removed by force, but in
republics the ballot can be relied upon to keep the channel of the
stream open, or if obstruction is attempted, to remove it while yet
it can be removed with safety. The advantage of a republic is that
the people, through their representatives, are able to give public
opinion free play, and the more democratic a republic is, the more
nearly does it conform to the wishes of the people.
No one can study the governments of the old world without a feeling
of gratitude that in the new world the science of government has
been carried to its highest point, and we of the United States can
rejoice that our nation leads the world in recognizing the right of
the people to devise and to direct the government under which they
are to work out their destiny.