PROGRESS OF POLITICAL LIBERTY
_Political Liberty in the Eighteenth Century_.--Looking backward from
the standpoint of the close of the eighteenth century and following the
chain of events in the previous century, the real achievement in social
order is highly disappointing. The French Revolution, which had
levelled the monarchy, the church, and the nobility, and brought the
proletariat in power for a brief season and lifted the hopes of the
people toward a government of equality, was hurrying on from the
directorate to the consulate to the empire, and finally returning to
the old monarchy somewhat worn and dilapidated, indeed, but sufficient
in power to smother the hopes of the people for the time being.
Numerous French writers, advocating anarchy, communism, and socialism,
set up ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity which were not to be
realized as the immediate result of the revolution. Babeuf,
Saint-Simon, Cabet, and Louis Blanc set forth new ideals of government,
which were diametrically opposed to the practices of the French
government in preceding centuries. Though some of their ideals were
lofty, the writers were critical and destructive rather than
constructive.
England, after the coming of William and Mary and the passing of the
Bill of Rights in 1689, witnessed very little progress in political
rights and liberty until the reform measures of the nineteenth century.
On the continent, Prussia had risen to a tremendous power as a military
state and developed an autocratic government with some pretenses to
political liberty. But the dominant force of Prussia working on the
basis of the ancient feudalism was finally to crush out the liberties
of the German people and establish autocratic government. {414} The
Holy Roman Empire, which had continued so long under the union of
Austria and Italy, backed by the papacy, had reached its height of
arbitrary power, and was destroyed by the Napoleonic wars. In the
whole period there were political struggles and intrigues within the
various states, and political struggles and intrigues and wars between
the nations. It was a period of the expression of national selfishness
which sought enlarged territory and the control of commerce and trade.
Taken as a whole, there is little that is inspiring in the movement of
nations in this period. Indeed, it is highly disappointing when we
consider the materials at their hand for political advancement.
The political game at home played by cliques and factions and
politicians struggling for power frequently led to disgraces abroad,
such as the war against the American colonies and the extension of
power and domination in India. There is scarcely a war, if any, in
this whole period that should not have been settled without difficulty,
provided nations were honest with each other and could exercise, if not
reason, common sense. The early great movements, such as the revival
of learning and progress centring in Italy and extending to other
nations, the religious revolution which brought freedom of belief, the
revolution of England and the Commonwealth, the French Revolution with
its projections of new ideals of liberty on the horizon of political
life, promised better things. Also, during this period the development
of literature and the arts and sciences should have been an enlightened
aid to political liberty.
Nevertheless, the higher ideals of life and liberty which were set
forth during these lucid intervals of the warring nations of the world
were never lost. The seeds of liberty, once having been sown, were to
spring up in future years and develop through a normal growth.
_The Progress of Popular Government Found Outside of the Great
Nations_.--The rise of democracy in Switzerland and the Netherlands and
its development in America, although {415} moving indirectly and by
reaction, had a lasting influence on the powerful nations like Germany,
England, France, and Austria. In these smaller countries the warfare
against tyranny, despotism, and ignorance was waged with success.
Great gain was made in the overthrow of the accumulated power of
traditional usage and the political monopoly of groups of people who
had seized and held the power. Through trial and error, success and
failure, these people, not noted for their brilliant warfare but for
their love of peace, succeeded in establishing within their boundaries
a clear definition of human rights and recognizing the right of the
people to have a better government.
_Reform Measures in England_.--The famous Bill of Rights of 1689 in
England has always been intact in theory. It laid the foundation for
popular government in which privileges and rights of the people were
guaranteed. It may have been a good expedient to have declared that no
papist should sit upon the throne of England, thus declaring for
Protestantism, but it was far from an expression of religious
toleration. The prestige of the House of Lords, an old and
well-established aristocratic body, built upon ancient privilege and
the power of the monarchy which too frequently acknowledged
constitutional rights and then proceeded to trample upon them, made the
progress in popular government very slow.
One great gain had been made when the nation agreed to fight its
political battles in Parliament and at elections. The freedom of the
press and the freedom of speech gradually became established facts.
Among the more noted acts for the benefit of popular government was the
Reform Bill of 1832, which enlarged the elective franchise. This was
bitterly opposed by the Lords, but the persistency of the Commons won
the day and the king signed the bill. Again in 1867 the second Reform
Bill enlarged the franchise, and more modern acts of Parliament have
given greater liberties to the English people.
England opposed independent local government of Scotland and Ireland
and of her colonies. Ireland had been oppressed {416} by the malady of
English landlordism, which had always been a bone of contention in the
way of any amicable adjustment of the relations between England and
Ireland. Throughout the whole century had waged this struggle.
England at times had sought through a series of acts to relieve the
country, but the conservative element in Parliament had usually
thwarted any rational system like that proposed by Mr. Gladstone. On
the other hand, the Irish people themselves desired absolute freedom
and independence and were restive under any form of restraint.
Nothing short of entire independence from the English nation or the
establishment of home rule on some practical basis could insure peace
and contentment in Ireland. Nor in the past could one be assured at
any time that Ireland would have been contented for any length of time
had she been given or acquired what she asked for. Being forced to
support a large population on an infertile soil where landlordism
dominated was a cause of a continual source of discontent, and the lack
of practice of the Irish people in the art of local government always
gave rise to doubts in the minds of her friends as to whether she could
succeed as an independent nation or not. But the final triumph of
Ireland in establishing a free state with the nominal control of the
British Empire shows that Ireland has power to govern herself under
fair treatment.
What a great gain it would have been if many years ago England had
yielded to the desire of Ireland for an independent constitutional
government similar to that of Canada! Tremendous changes have taken
place in recent years in the liberalizing movement in England. The
state church still exists, but religious toleration is complete. Women
have been allowed the right to vote and are taking deep interest in
political affairs, three women already having seats in Parliament. The
labor movement, which has always been strong and independent in
England, by the exercise of its right at the polls finally gained
control of the government and, for the first time {417} in the history
of England, a leading labor-union man and a socialist became premier of
England.
_The Final Triumph of the French Republic_.--On account of ignorance of
the true theories of government, as well as on account of lack of
practical exercise in administration, for several decades the
government which the French people established after the destruction of
the monarchy of Louis XVI failed. The democracy of the French
Revolution was iconoclastic, not creative. It could tear down, but
could not rebuild. There were required an increased intelligence and
the slow process of thought, a meditation upon the principles for which
the people had fought and bled, and an enlarged view of the principles
of government, before a republic could be established in France.
Napoleon, catching the spirit of the times, gratified his ambition by
obtaining the mastery of national affairs and leading the French people
against foreign nations under the pretext of overthrowing despotism in
Europe. In so doing he established absolutism once more in France. He
became the imperial monarch of the old type, with the exceptions that
intelligence took the place of bigotry and the welfare of the people
took the place of the laudation of kings. But in attempting to become
the dictator of all Europe, he caused other nations to combine against
him, and finally he closed his great career with a Waterloo.
The monarchy, on its restoration, became constitutional; the government
was composed of two chambers--the peers, nominated by the king, and the
lower house, elected by the people. A system of responsible ministers
was established, and of judges, who were not removable. Much had been
gained in religious and civil liberty and the freedom of the press.
But monarchy began to grow again, urged by the middle class of France,
until in July, 1830, another revolution broke out on account of
election troubles. The charter was violated in the prohibition of the
publication of newspapers and pamphlets, and the elective system
arbitrarily changed so as to restrict the suffrage to the landowners.
The reaction {418} from this was to gain something more for democratic
government. In the meantime there had been a growth of socialism, the
direct product of the revolution.
The king finally abdicated in favor of his grandson, and then a
provisional government was established, and finally a republic, the
second republic of France. Louis Napoleon, who became president of the
republic under the constitution, gradually absorbed all powers to
himself and proclaimed himself emperor. After the close of the
Franco-German War, in 1871, France became a republic for the third
time. A constitution was formed, under which the legislative power was
exercised by two chambers--the Chamber of Deputies, elected by direct
vote and manhood suffrage for four years, and the Senate, consisting of
300 senators, 75 of whom were elected for life by the national
assembly, the rest for nine years, by electoral colleges. These latter
were composed of deputies, councils of the departments, and delegates
of communes. The executive power was vested in a president, who was
assisted by a responsible ministry. Republicanism was at last secured
to France. Many changes have taken place in the application of the
constitution to popular government since then, and much progress has
been made in the practice of free government. The whole composition of
the government reminds one of constitutional monarchy, with the
exception that the monarch is chosen by the people for a short period
of time.
_Democracy in America_.--The progress of democracy in America has been
rapid. The first colonists were oppressed by the authority of European
nations and bound by unyielding precedent. While the principle of
local self-government obtained to a large extent in many of them, they
partook more of aristocracies, or of governments based on class
legislation, than of pure democracies. When independence from foreign
countries was won by the united efforts of all the colonies, the real
struggle for universal liberty began. A government was founded, so far
as it was possible, on the principles of the Declaration of
Independence, which asserted "that all men {419} are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights"; and that "for securing these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed." The creation of a federal constitution and the
formation of a perfect union guaranteed these rights to every citizen.
Yet in the various states forming a part of the Union, and, indeed, in
the national government itself, it took a long time to approximate, in
practice, the liberty and justice which were set forth in the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Still, in the past
century, the people have become more and more closely connected with
the state, and a "government of the people, for the people, and by the
people" is a certainty. The laws which have been made under the
Constitution increase in specific declarations of the rights of the
people. Justice is more nearly meted out to all classes at present
than in any decade for a century. The political powers of citizens
have constantly enlarged. The elective franchise has been extended to
all citizens of both sexes. The requirements as to naturalization of
foreigners are exceedingly lenient, and thus free government is offered
to all people.
Of necessity the central government has been strengthened on account of
the enlargement of territory and the great extension of national
governmental powers. It has been necessary that the central forces
which bind the separate parts of the nation together in a common union
should be strengthened. The result has been a decline in the
importance and power of the state governments. On the other hand, the
large increase of population in the great cities has tended to enhance
the power and importance of local government. The government of a
single large city now becomes more difficult and of greater vital
importance to the people than that of a state.
The enlarged territory and increased population, and the enormous
amount of legislative machinery, have tended to extend to its utmost
limit the principle of representative government. Congress represents
the people of the whole nation, {420} but committees represent Congress
and subcommittees represent committees. There is a constant tendency
to delegate powers to others. Pure democracy has no place in the great
American republic, except as it is seen in the local government unit.
Here the people always have a part in the caucus, in the primary or the
town meeting, in the election of local officers and representatives for
higher offices, in the opportunity to exercise their will and raise
their voice in the affairs of the nation. To some extent the supposed
greater importance of the national government has led the people to
underestimate the opportunities granted them for exercising their
influence as citizens within the precinct in which they live. But
there is to-day a tendency to estimate justly the importance of local
government as the source of all reforms and the means of the
preservation of civil liberty.
It has been pointed out frequently by the enemies of democracy that the
practice of the people in self-government has not always been of the
highest type. In many instances this criticism is true, for experience
is always a dear teacher. The principles of democracy have come to
people through conviction and determination, but the practices of
self-government come through rough experiences, sometimes marked by a
long series of blunders. The cost of a republican form of government
to the people has frequently been very expensive on account of their
ignorance, their apathy, and their unwillingness to take upon
themselves the responsibilities of government. Consider, for instance,
the thousands of laws that are made and placed upon the statute-books
which have been of no value, possibly of detriment, to the
community--laws made through the impulse of half-informed, ill-prepared
legislators. Consider also the constitutions, constitutional
amendments, and other important acts upon which the people express
their opinion.
The smallness of the vote of a people who are jealous of their own
rights and privileges is frequently surprising. Notice, too, how
frequently popular power has voted against its {421} own rights and
interests. See the clumsy manner by which people have voted away their
birthrights or, failing to vote at all, have enslaved themselves to
political or financial monopoly. Observe, too, the expenses of the
management of democratic governments, the waste on account of imperfect
administration, and the failure of the laws to operate.
Consideration of these points brings us to the conclusion that the
perfection of democracy or republican government has not been reached,
and that while liberty may be an expensive affair, it is so on account
of the negligence of the people in qualifying for self-government. If
a democratic form of government is to prevail, if popular government is
to succeed, if the freedom of the people is to be guaranteed, there
must be persistent effort on the part of the people to prepare
themselves for their own government; a willingness to sacrifice for
liberty, for liberty will endure only so long as people are willing to
pay the price it costs. They must govern themselves, or government
will pass from them to others. Eternal vigilance is the price of good
government.
_Modern Political Reforms_.--Political reform has been proceeding
recently in many particular ways. Perhaps the most noticeable in
America is that of civil service reform. Strong partisanship has been
a ruling factor in American politics, often to the detriment of the
financial and political interests of the country. Jealous of their
prerogative, the people have insisted that changes in government shall
occur often, and that the ruling party shall have the privilege of
appointing the officers of the government. This has made it the almost
universal practice for the incoming party to remove the officers of the
old administration and replace them with its own appointments. To such
an extent has this prevailed that it has come to be known as the
"spoils system."
But there is now a general tendency for the principles of civil service
to prevail in all parts of the national government, and a growing
feeling that they should be instituted in the various states and
municipalities of the Union. The {422} federal government has made
rapid progress in this line in recent years, and it is to be hoped that
before long the large proportion of appointive offices will be put upon
a merit basis and the persons who are best qualified to fill these
places retained from administration to administration. Attempts are
being made in nearly all of our cities for business efficiency in
government, though there is much room for improvement.
The government of the United States is especially weak in
administration, and is far behind many of the governments of the Old
World in this respect. With a thoroughly established civil service
system, the effectiveness of the administration would be increased
fully fifty per cent. Under the present party system the waste is
enormous, and as the people must ultimately pay for this waste, the
burden thrown upon them is great. In the first place, the partisan
system necessarily introduces large numbers of inexperienced,
inefficient officers who must spend some years in actual practice
before they are really fitted for the positions which they occupy. In
the second place, the time spent by congressmen and other high
officials in attention to applicants for office and in urging of
appointments, prevents them from improving their best opportunity for
real service to the people.
The practice of civil service reform is being rapidly adopted in the
nations of the world which have undertaken the practice of
self-government, and in those nations where monarchy or imperialism
still prevails, persons in high authority feel more and more impelled
to appoint efficient officers to carry out the plans of administrative
government. It is likely that the time will soon come when all offices
requiring peculiar skill or especial training will be filled on the
basis of efficiency, determined by competitive examination or other
tests of ability.
Another important reform, which has already been begun in the United
States, and which, in its latest movement, originated in Australia, is
ballot reform. There has been everywhere in democratic government a
tendency for fraud to increase on election days. The manipulation of
the votes of {423} individuals through improper methods has been the
cause of fraud and a means of thwarting the will of the people. It is
well that the various states and cities have observed this and set
themselves to the task of making laws to guard properly the ballot-box
and give free, untrammelled expression to the will of the people.
Though nearly all the states in the Union have adopted some system of
balloting (based largely upon the Australian system), many of them are
far from perfection in their systems. Yet the progress in this line is
encouraging when the gains in recent years are observed.
Since the decline of the old feudal times, in which our modern tax
system had its origin, there has been a constant improvement in the
system of taxation. Yet this has been very slow and apparently has
been carried on in a bungling way. The tendency has been to tax every
form of property that could be observed or described. And so our own
nation, like many others, has gone on, step by step, adding one tax
after another, without carefully considering the fundamental principles
of taxation or the burdens laid upon particular classes. To-day we
have a complex system, full of irregularities and imperfections. Our
taxes are poorly and unjustly assessed, and the burdens fall heavily
upon some, while others have an opportunity of escaping. We have just
entered an era of careful study of our tax systems, and the various
reports from the different states and the writings of economists are
arousing great interest on these points. When once the imperfections
are clearly understood and defined, there may be some hope of a remedy
of present abuses. To be more specific, it may be said that the
assessments of the property in counties of the same state vary between
seventeen and sixty per cent of the market valuation. Sometimes this
discrepancy is between the assessments of adjacent counties, and so
great is the variation that seldom two counties have the same standard
for assessing valuation.
The personal-property tax shows greater irregularity than this,
especially in our large cities. The tax on imports, though {424}
apparently meeting the approval of a majority of the American people,
makes, upon the whole, a rather expensive system of taxation, and it is
questionable whether sufficient revenue can be raised from this source
properly to support the government without seriously interfering with
our foreign commerce. The internal revenue has many unsatisfactory
phases. The income tax has been added to an imperfect system of
taxation, instead of being substituted for the antiquated
personal-property tax. Taxes on franchises, corporations, and
inheritances are among those more recently introduced in attempts to
reform the tax system.
The various attempts to obtain sufficient revenue to support the
government or to reform an unjust and unequal tax have led to double
taxation, and hence have laid the burden upon persons holding a
specific class of property. There are to-day no less than five methods
in which double taxation occurs in the present system of taxation of
corporations. The taxation of mortgages, because it may be shifted to
the borrower, is virtually a double tax. The great question of the
incidence of taxation, or the determination upon whom the tax
ultimately falls, has not received sufficient care in the consideration
of improved systems of taxation. Until it has, and until statesmen use
more care in tax legislation and the regulation of the system, and
officers are more conscientious in carrying it out, we need not hope
for any rapid movement in tax reform. The tendency here, as in all
other reforms, especially where needed, is for some person to suggest a
certain political nostrum--like the single tax--for the immediate and
complete reform of the system and the entire renovation and
purification of society. But scientific knowledge, clear insight, and
wisdom are especially necessary for any improvement, and even then
improvement will come through a long period of practice, more or less
painful on account of the shifting of methods of procedure.
The most appalling example of the results of modern government is to be
found in the municipal management of our {425} large cities. It has
become proverbial that the American cities are the worst ruled of any
in the world. In European countries the evils of city government were
discovered many years ago, and in most of the nations there have been
begun and carried out wisely considered reforms, until many of the
cities of the Old World present examples of tolerably correct municipal
government.
In America there is now a general awakening in every city, but to such
an extent have people, by their indifference or their wickedness, sold
their birthrights to politicians and demagogues and the power of
wealth, that it seems almost impossible to work any speedy radical
reform. Yet many changes are being instituted in our best cities, and
the persistent effort to manage the city as a business corporation
rather than as a political engine is producing many good results. The
large and growing urban population has thrown the burden of government
upon the city--a burden which it was entirely unprepared for--and there
have sprung up sudden evils which are difficult to eradicate. Only
persistent effort, loyalty, sacrifice, and service, all combined with
wisdom, can finally accomplish the reforms needed in cities. There is
a tendency everywhere for people to get closer to the government, and
to become more and more a part of it.[1] Our representative system has
enabled us to delegate authority to such an extent that people have
felt themselves irresponsible for all government, except one day in the
year, when they vote at the polls; we need, instead, a determination to
govern 365 days in the year, and nothing short of this perpetual
interest of the people will secure to them the rights of
self-government. Even then it is necessary that every citizen shall
vote at every election.
_Republicanism in Other Countries_.--The remarkable spread of forms of
republican government in the different nations of the world within the
present century has been unprecedented. {426} Every independent nation
in South America to-day has a republican form of government. The
Republic of Mexico has made some progress in the government of the
people, and the dependencies of Great Britain all over the world have
made rapid progress in local self-government. In Australia, New
Zealand, and Canada, we find many of the most advanced principles and
practices of free government.
It is true that many of these nations calling themselves republics have
not yet guaranteed the rights and privileges of a people to any greater
extent than they would have done had they been only constitutional
monarchies; for it must be maintained at all times that it depends more
upon the characteristics of the people--upon their intelligence, their
social conditions and classes, their ideas of government, and their
character--what the nature of their government shall be, than upon the
mere form of government, whether that be aristocracy, monarchy, or
democracy.
Many of the evils which have been attributed to monarchy ought more
truly to have been attributed to the vital conditions of society.
Vital social and political conditions are far more important to the
welfare of the people than any mere form of government. Among the
remarkable expressions of liberal government in modern times has been
the development of the Philippine Islands under the protecting care of
the United States, the establishment of republicanism in Porto Rico and
Hawaii, now parts of the territory of the United States, and the
development of an independent and democratic government in Cuba through
the assistance of the United States. These expressions of an extended
democracy have had far-reaching consequences on the democratic idealism
of the world.
_Influence of Democracy on Monarchy_.--But the evidences of the
progress of popular government are not all to be observed in republics.
It would be difficult to estimate the influence of the rise of popular
government in some countries upon the monarchial institutions of
others. This can never be {427} properly determined, because we know
not what would have taken place in these monarchies had republicanism
never prevailed anywhere. When republicanism arose in France and
America, monarchy was alarmed everywhere; and again, when the
revolutionary wave swept over Europe in 1848, monarchy trembled.
Wherever, indeed, the waves of democracy have swept onward they have
found monarchy raising breakwaters against them. Yet with all this
opposition there has been a liberalizing tendency in these same
monarchial governments. Monarchy has been less absolute and less
despotic; the people have had more constitutional rights granted them,
greater privileges to enjoy; and monarchies have been more careful as
to their acts, believing that the people hold in their hands the means
of retribution. The reforming influence of democratic ideas has been
universal and uninterrupted.
The World War has been iconoclastic in breaking up old forms of
government and has given freedom to the democratic spirit and in many
cases has developed practical democracy. Along with this, forces of
radicalism have come to the front as an expression of long-pent
feelings of injustice, now for the first time given opportunity to
assert and express themselves. The ideal of democracy historically
prevalent in Europe has been the rule of the "lower classes" at the
expense of the "upper classes." This theory has been enhanced by the
spread of Marxian socialism, which advocates the dominance and rule of
the wage-earning class. The most serious attempt to put this idea in
practice occurred in Russia with disastrous results.
SUBJECTS FOR FURTHER STUDY
1. Why did the French Revolution fail to establish liberty?
2. What were the lasting effects of the English Commonwealth?
3. What were the causes of liberal government in the Netherlands?
4. The reform acts in 1832 and in 1867 in England.
5. The chief causes of trouble between England and Ireland.
6. The growth of democracy in the United States.
{428}
7. Enumerate the most important modern political reforms. What are
some needed political reforms?
8. England's influence on American law and government.
9. Investigate the population in your community to determine the
extent of human equality.
10. City government under the municipal manager plan; also commission
plan.
[1] Consider the commission form of city government and the municipal
manager plan.
{429}