(Éirigh, April 1969, pp.12-13)
‘For forms of government let fools contest,
Whate’er is best administered, is best.’
These lines, written by the English poet, Alexander Pope, touch on one of the most pressing problems of modern government, namely, that of reconciling the democratic ideal of popular government with modern technical advances. An outstanding feature of present-day political life is its growing complexity of organization and administration. The task of government is steadily growing more and more technical, more highly skilled, more professional. There is a growing danger that the ordinary man in the street will lose his position as the basis of government. In many areas of government, such as finance, foreign policy, law reform, industrial relations and so forth, the average man finds himself very much out of depth. His reaction is generally to out his trust in someone in whom he has confidence and give him a relatively free hand.
This is about the best he can do, but it is not free from danger. If the person of his choice is not reliable, both morally and professionally, then there can be good hope of sound government, but if the person chosen is unfitted for the task, then a serious problem presents itself. It is not enough to be able to remove the official from office at election time. The individual must be able to exercise more immediate control. How this control can be reconciled with long-term planning such as modern economic and social conditions demand is a problem not easily disposed of. Upon the solution to this problem depends the answer to the question whether or not the political future of mankind is to be handed over to a select band of technocratic automatons, or whether the man in the street will remain in control.
Stated in other terms, the problem is whether or not democracy, in the full sense of the word, that is, a government by the people, is able to meet the challenges of man’s changing environment, or whether it must give way to a technocracy. This thought has provided the theme for such works as George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Lest it should be thought that the problem is entirely new, we must note that Aristotle, who lived in the fourth century B. C., wrote, ‘The problem of a democracy is to unite popular power with intelligent administration, and the latter is not possible by a large assembly.’ However, the dimensions of the matter have broadened immensely since Aristotle’s time.
The growing popular awareness of the urgency of this problem is reflected both inside and outside parliamentary circles. In Ireland, legislators have been critical of what they regard, not without foundation, as domination of the government by the civil service. This became apparent in the Dáil debates on the very controversial Succession Bill. Writing of the United States, Douglas Woodruff says, ‘Today the great political parties are enormous business corporations selling administration.’
The solution to the problem, if indeed there is one, involves many factors. A greater measure of decentralization of authority, and recognition of the value of local government should help to some extent. This should go hand in hand with the development of a strong community spirit, and active participation by as many of the citizens as possible in all forms of social activities. This gives the citizen at one and the same time a sense of responsibility to the community and an appreciation of the difficulties involved in leading a large body of people to pursue definite goals. Personal initiative is essential.
The extension of educational facilities to as wide a range as possible is another very necessary feature. It has rightly been said that, ‘An educated people can never be enslaved; an uneducated people can never be free.’ To confine educational facilities to a few would intensify the difficulties involved in this problem, whereas if a people are well educated they are in a position to offer intelligent and constructive criticism over a wide range of subjects. A properly educated public body is indispensable to a democracy.
Another point of great importance in this matter is the need for accurate and widespread coverage of news events, particularly in what relates to matters of political importance. The ordinary citizen must keep himself informed if he is to be capable of exercising an intelligent role in public affairs. This presupposes that the press is really free and not inhibited by party affiliations. On the citizen’s part there is the duty to exercise the right to vote. This is a matter in which many Irish people fail. It must be said in their defence, however, that the political parties had, until recent years, little to offer with regard to the matters which were of vital concern to the electorate. The party system was, and still is, in part, an imposition on the people rather than a representation of them. Nevertheless, this does not excuse a failure to vote.
The factors outlined above, and many others besides, can help to maintain a vigorous democracy in spite of the inroads of bureaucratic institutions in government. All these various elements, however helpful they may be, cannot substitute for a sense of commitment and participation on the part of the general public. Above all else, democracy is an attitude of mind. If this attitude – one of active concern for the community – is really present in the general public, then there need be no fear that control will pass out of the citizens’ hands. If it is absent, then it is inevitable that control will come to be the possession of a few. There is no democracy without democrats. If we are democratic then we need not fear, but rather welcome, the social, economic and political developments which modern civilization offers.