The Dawn of a New Patriotism: A Training Course in Citizenship

Front matter

e*

THE DAWN

OF

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

I. THE MEANING OF DEMOCRACY - - - - 1

II. DEMOCRACY AND CITIZENSHIP .... 15

Chapter I

Everywhere in human society two principles have been and are at work, principles antagonistic to each other, yet equally essential to the well-being of civil society. These are the principle of obedience and the principle of independence — the submission of the individual will to other wills and the assertion of that will against other wills. The former principle carried to excess gives despotism; the latter carried to excess ends in anarchy. The reasonable mean between, or an adjustment to one another of these two principles, creates what we call free or popular government, or democracy, in which a relatively large number of individual wills agree to form a collective will of the community and to obey that will cheerfully, because each individual has consented to come in and has had a part in forming it.

Locke says, 4 ‘Men being by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the power of another without his (i)

own consent. The only way whereby anyone divests himself of his natural liberty and puts on the bonds of civil society is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community”. The essence of this association is delegation and not surrender. The citizen confers power without abandoning his right to control the use of it. The principles of democracy are forcibly and clearly stated by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: 1 ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” These principles are still more developed in the following: 4 ‘All men are born equally

free and independent, therefore all government of right originates from the people. All power residing originally in and being derived from the people, all the officers of government are their agents and at all times accountable to them. ’ ’

Democracy, then, is a government in which every man, by virtue of his manhood alone, has an equal voice in the common affairs of the common country. It is a form of government in which the people are supreme — according to Lincoln’s definition, a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The basis of democracy is the recognition of the rights of men as men, of the equality of all men before the law, without regard to birth, property, or rank, of the right of all citizens to security of life, sustenance, property, happiness, liberty to develop, and an equal voice or vote in public affairs or in the selection of representatives to conduct such affairs.

Democracy does not mean that all men are equal in every respect. Much confusion may be caused in men’s minds by not distinguishing between political democracy and social democracy of sentiment and manners. The principle of the legal and political equality of men is not inconsistent with the utmost variety of natural and social distinctions. The example of England goes to show that democratic political institutions are compatible with great inequalities in natural ability, manners, education, style of living, social consideration, and distribution of property. But political democracy stands for the abolition of those institutions which give constitutional permanence to classes and is unalterably opposed to the creation by law of artificial barriers or distinctions among the people in either the social, political, or industrial world.

True democracy also stands for economic freedom — the duty of the state to preserve an economic condition that will afford opportunity to every honest and willing worker to gain a fair and equitable living. The distinctive features of modern democracy are the greatest personal freedom, by which each man has the liberty and responsibility of shaping his own career, the widest powers of self-government in purely local affairs, equality before the law, and the fullest political power in the form of universal suffrage exercised through the representative system. "With these is associated universal education, which is recognized as the most powerful agent in the perfectibility of society.

The fatet that democracy has attained much higher growth in Britain than in the nations on the continent is largely owing to her innate love of freedom, fostered by the unconquered spirit of the Anglo- Saxon, and her favourable insular position. Britain was developing her nationality while the European nations were fighting for boundaries. British institutions were drifting towards democracy and the freedom of the individual, while on the continent personal rights and liberty were being sacrificed on the altar of national existence, and the necessity for standing armies was producing a military and automatic discipline, which engendered a spirit that bowed readily to authority and submerged the individual will in that of the state.

Perhaps nowhere has Britain shown her high ideals of democracy more than in her colonial policy and in her defence of Belgium’s guaranteed rights. Aside from her fatal mistake in dealing with the Thirteen Colonies, she has granted self-government to the colonies, and in doing this has given them their vast resources, often purchased at the cost of much blood and treasure. She has long since abandoned the European theory that a colony exists for the exclusive benefit of the motherland, and has given her colonies freedom to trade, not only in her own ports, but also wherever commerce can be found; and in addition to granting such freedom to her colonies she has protected them in that freedom by her powerful navy. In defending the cause of Belgium, Britain is proving to the world that she is just, and that public right must be held as the common and precious inheritance of all nations, whether they be strong or weak.

The growth of democracy goes hand-in-hand with the general growth of the nation. For example, the rise of democracy could be paralleled by the improvements in the art of printing. The development of democracy has created the demand for cheap literature and newspapers. At the same time cheap literature and newspapers have done much to advance democracy. Further, the production of cheap literature depends to a great extent on industrial development — on man’s mastery over nature. To produce a great modern newspaper at a low price requires the application of a thousand modern, technical appliances. Steam and electricity are the great forces that move the vast mechanism on which society is based. In fact, the growth of democracy is closely associated with the industrial development which has brought about the railway, the penny post, the telegraph, the telephone, the wireless, and the power printing-press, and its success in the future depends largely upon its solution of industrial and economic problems.

1. Name two principles that are always at work on human society, and define each. 2. Distinguish between duties and rights. 3. Why do so many people neglect their duties, but nevertheless insist upon their rights? 4. Mention some of the reciprocal duties and rights of children and parents, scholars and teachers, minorities and majorities, electors and representatives, citizens and government.

5. Define despotism and anarchy, and show how these may exist in the home, the school, or the neighbourhood, as well as in the nation. 6. Explain how a proper adjustment of duties and rights — of obedience and independence — will produce a happy home, a progressive school, and a prosperous community. 7. When there is a proper adjustment of the rights and duties of society with the rights and duties of individuals, what do we call the resultant government? 8. Discuss every man’s equal claim to the following rights: (1) Equality before the law; (2) security of life; (3) a chance to earn a livelihood; (4) protection for his property; (5) the pursuit of happiness; (6) the greatest personal freedom consistent with the freedom of others. 9. Are men in Canada always equal before the lav/ ? 10. Why should the state provide every honest and willing man with an opportunity to earn a living for himself and family? 11. What limits a man in his use of personal freedom? 12. On what principle can prohibition of liquor be defended? 13. If all the people met and transacted public business, as was done in the town-meetings of New England, what name would be given to the government? 14. Why do we not practise direct democracy in Canada? 15. Define representative democracy. 16. From whence does a democracy derive its power? 17. Show how the people, by electing a school trustee, a councillor, or a Member of the Legislature, do not give1 up their power, but simply delegate it to their agent. 18. What is meant by natural liberty, civil liberty? 19. When, how, and why does a man put on the bonds of civil society?

20. Explain the doctrine of “the consent of the governed”.

21. Why is government necessary to the existence of society? 22. Mention some of the duties of all citizens in a democracy. 23. Discuss the sayings, “This is a free country and everyone can do as he likes”, “In a free country one person is as good as another”. 24. Why should local affairs be dealt with by the local people ? 25. What causes led to the high development of democracy in England?

26. Give examples of the high ideals of British democracy.

27. Compare the rise of democracy with the improvement in the art of printing. 28. Have we greater men in Canada now than England had one hundred years ago? 29. Why is universal education always associated with democracy? 30. "What are some of the dangers of universal suffrage without education ? 31. How has the growth of democracy been influenced by physical boundaries? 32. Discuss, “Under a despotic government the people have no rights — only duties”. 33. Show how the development of society and industry present new problems for democracy to solve.

(1). “In the scientific control of industry, in the general business of life, it is the exceptional man that makes the world move onward. Is it the object of democracy to render the influence of such a man inoperative in the sphere of political government? The doctrine that the right of each citizen to ‘an equal voice’, or to one vote, and only one, ‘in the government of the common country’ is a right which belongs to him ‘in virtue of his manhood alone’ appears to imply this, and also that the qualifications of voters are determined by equal residual characteristics of the lowest common denominator, such as — twenty-one years of age, British subject, residence of one year in the country, and three months in the constituency, etc. While there are great differences among men in their units of influence in the various walks of life, the ordinary man represents common honesty, common sense, common, neighbourly good-will, and the common family affections. Even the most towering genius, in respect of his household conduct, must reason, feel, and comport himself like nine men out of every ten, or else there would be no dealing with him. Democracy, then, is a government determined by the general will of what "Whitman calls ‘the divine average’ of the people. The general will is the snm of the judgment of the nnits of the average mass. The judgment of each unit should he represented by a single vote, and such judgment as so represented should be freely formed by the individual, and not for governmental purposes be warped into conformity with the judgment of any other person or group of persons, either by bribery, intimidation, or other device of any kind.

“This last point deserves special attention, for if large numbers of men, though their votes are recorded by themselves, are really expressing by them the dictated judgments of others, these others will have not only their own votes, but also will have, to all intents and purposes, an indefinite number added to them, and the basic principle of pure democracy will be destroyed. That such is the case, when judgments which votes express are changed from what they otherwise would be by brutal and direct bribery, is a fact on which Democrats themselves are the first persons to insist. But results essentially similar are producible by other methods. An lago might revenge himself on a faithful Desdemona, who had repulsed him, by the simple process of bribing an assassin to murder her. But he might compass the same end by persuading an Othello that she was faithless, and thus inciting the husband to do the deed on his own account. "What money would do in the first case, statement would do in the latter. It would enable one man to determine the conduct of a second, or, to put the matter in terms of political life, to transfer the control of the second man ’s vote to himself, and in political life, under a system of universal suffrage, the promulgation of false statements, which are made with the deliberate object of swaying the judgment in some special direction, is one of the most powerful means by which one man may master the votes of many, and virtually multiply his own. This is not true, it must be noted, of the publication of bare facts, but is true whenever, with a view to the effect of it on the public mind, news is coloured by men to suit themselves. Inconvenient electors in the days of Pickwick were kept from the polling booth, and so deprived of their votes by ‘hocussing’ their whiskey and leaving them drunk in a barn. Ilocussing the facts is a method of the same character, and, in proportion to its success, is no less compatible with the principles of true democracy. ”

1. Does the fact that an exceptional man has only one vote prevent him from using his influence to secure the votes of others? 2. What is meant by “the divine average” ? 3. Define “general will”. 4. Why should each unit of judgment be formed freely? 5. Show how undue influence of any kind upon a voter destroys the basic principle of democracy. 6. Mention one legitimate way of getting men to turn their votes. 7. Mention a dozen corrupt methods of getting men to turn their votes. 8. What use is made of “false statements” in election campaigns? 9. Define “hocussing the facts”.

(2). “Democracy has won emancipation. Has it not emancipated slaves, artisans, peasants, women? But emancipation is not freedom. lias but a step towards it ; for, whereas emancipation may come at a stroke, freedom has to be earned by all. Only those can win it who can prove that they deserve it. Nor will it ever come, because in truth it cannot come, in reality and substance, till the mere escape from thraldom, much as it is, has been followed up by the positive and satisfying fruition of what the life of liberty has to give. As with emancipation, so with rights. The possession of rights is not freedom, for actual freedom is found only in that satisfying fulfilment of civic duties to which rights, however precious, are but the vestibule.”

1. Does the granting of the franchise to woman make her free? 2. Distinguish between emancipation and freedom. 3. Now that woman has the franchise, what must she do to win freedom? 4. Women have been given the franchise in some of the Provinces of Canada on the assumption that they can enter into the common life and contribute to the common will by a genuine interest in public affairs. If women, by their conduct, do not justify the assumption, what will be the result in Provinces where the franchise has been granted? Where not granted? 5. Explain how rights are but the vestibule of freedom.

(3). “Two different views may be taken of the relation between rulers and their subjects. If the ruler is regarded as the superior of the subject, as being, by nature of his position, presumably wise and good, the rightful ruler and guide of the whole population, it must necessarily follow that it is wrong to censure him openly, and even if he is mistaken, his mistakes should be pointed out with the utmost respect, and, whether mistaken or not, no censure should be cast on him likely or designed to diminish his authority.

“If, on the other hand, the ruler is regarded as the agent and servant, and the subject as the wise and good master who is obliged to delegate his power to the so-called ruler, because, being a multitude, he cannot use it himself, it must be evident that this sentiment must be reversed. Every member of the public who censures the ruler for the time being exercises in his own person the right which belongs to the whole, of which he forms a part. He is finding fault with his own servant. Democracy is inverted monarchy.”

1. Give two different views of the relations between rulers and subjects. 2. Explain how “democracy is inverted monarchy”.

Resolved, that modern civilization is a failure.

1. It has produced and fostered a cruel, calculating selfishness.

2. Civilization encourages artificiality of life, hypocrisy, inequality, tyranny, and misery.

3. It saps the basis of morality and manliness by giving rise to effeminacy, luxury, and artificial vice.

4. Nothing can save society except a return to a simpler life.

5. The apparent improvement in society brought about by civilization is merely in external matters, while the spirit of society is degenerating.

6. Civilization has produced the greatest war the world has ever known, with atrocities and cruelties of a most refined nature.

1. Civilization has an irresistible tendency to refine men, beginning with the upper classes and spreading to the lower.

2. It increases the severity of the struggle for existence, and so calls forth the full faculties of an increasing number of men, to the benefit of the whole race.

3. W7e have only to compare the state of society to-day with what it used to be, and we cannot fail to see progress. The state of medicine proves this in regard to the body, of education in relation to the mind, and the state of public opinion in relation to morals.

4. As civilization increases, fewer and fewer people live in idleness, with the result that the whole character of life is raised.

5. As long as men have faith and hope, progress is possible.

6. True freedom is found only in the voluntary submission of one’s own interest for the general good — a freedom for which civilization brings the opportunity.

7. Practically all the great humanitarian movements were born in the last century ; scarce one is over one hundred and twenty-five years old. Organized charity, social settlements, temperance reform, anti-slavery reform, prison reform, Young Men’s Christian Associations, foreign missions, home missions, city missions — all of them are part of the nineteenth century.

Outline for an Address Conversation

1. No form of social intercourse furnishes so much enjoyment as pleasing and entertaining conversation.

2. Few people are capable of entertaining a company by continuous and intelligent discourse.

3. Unconnected remarks and repetition of expletives do not constitute elevating conversation.

4. Conversation is an art and is capable of cultivation by study, practice, and work.

5. Conversational skill leads to success in the higher forms of speech.

6. A natural, honest manner, distinct articulation, a full, pure tone of voice, not pitched too high, and simple, expressive language, when employed in conveying to others one’s best thoughts, cannot fail to command attention.

7. The habit of listening to others should be cultivated. Attention to what others say is the relay from which one is enabled to continue the conversation.

8. An opinion is no better than the information upon which it is based. Therefore, one should always learn the facts before expressing an opinion.

9. Information may be acquired by experience and observation, from hearing lectures, addresses, and conversations, and from reading books, magazines, and papers.

10. The telling of an experience or of what one has observed or heard or read tends to clearer thought on the subject, to the retention of the facts, and, what is equally important, to facility of expression.

11. Test the result of conversation on live, important subjects by selecting a topic for general conversation at the next meeting, giving each member an opportunity to look up the subject.

(a) Consolidated rural schools.

(c) Facts concerning the district.

(d) A shelf of good books.

(e) A social organization committee to arrange social events for the season.

(f) What has this district worth advertising!

(g) Better farmhouse conveniences.

(h) The early history of the district by the old settlers.

(i) Making use of local resources.

(j) Must a man leave the farm to become a leader?

CHAPTER II Democracy and Citizenship

The fundamental requirements of democracy are satisfied, if the people as a whole exercise supreme control over the government. But it is clear that the people at large cannot intelligently exercise control over affairs, unless they are thoroughly familiar with the principles upon which democracy rests, and unless they are kept informed of what the government is doing, and this can be done only through publicity and full freedom of discussion.

There was in the latter part of the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth century a faith widespread among educated men that the government of the people by the people, was the chief and a sufficient remedy for the ills that had afflicted society. They assumed, and the modern apostles of popular government have generally assumed, that the mass of mankind, in at any rate what are called civilized countries, will be capable citizens, that is, that they will have sense enough to judge of public affairs, discernment enough to choose the\ight men for office, self-control enough to accept the decision of the majority, honesty enough to seek the general interest rather than try to secure their own at the expense of the community, public spirit enough to take trouble, or even face danger, for the good of the community. When, in the course of events, it became painfully evident that the bulk of the people, at any given time, in any given country, might not, and, in fact, did not, possess these qualities, the idealist was not dismayed. His faith in the vivifying force of freedom made him hope all things and believe all things.

4 ‘The people”, so he used to argue, “may be more ignorant and apathetic than we foresaw. That is because they have not been heretofore trusted. Now that their destinies are being entrusted to their own hands their capacity will grow. Opportunity will soon evoke intelligence; power will bring responsibility and kindle zeal. Trust the people and they will quickly justify your trust.”

Under the light of liberty all the evils which misgovernment had produced in the past were to vanish. A reign of brotherhood and peace, an age of tranquility, prosperity, and assured order was to dawn upon the long-afflicted peoples. From 1830 to 1870, the general attitude of most of the powerful intellects and nearly all the finest characters among the thinkers and writers of Europe was a hopeful one, one expecting immense gains to human progress and human happiness from the establishment of free institutions. These expectations have been in so far realized that the condition of all the countries where such institutions now exist shows a marked improvement, not merely in the advance of science and the diffusion of comfort, but also in a juster and more humane legislation. Nobody denies that our world of to-day is a better world for the common man.

Few deny that this is largely due to better political institutions. Striking evidences of this general conviction are to be found in the revolution of March, 1917, in Russia, in the efforts which Japan has made, and which Persia and the Turks are beginning to make for the establishment of parliamentary institutions. Even in China these have been talked of.

Nevertheless, there has been disappointment. Freedom has done much for the European and American continents, yet far less than was expected. This is because the citizens have failed to respond to the demand for active virtue and intelligent public spirit, which free government makes and must make. Everywhere there is the same contrast between that which the theory of democracy requires and that which the practice of democracy reveals. Remember, for this is the kernel of the matter, that the theory of democracy assumes a far higher level of good sense, judgment, honest purpose, and devotion to the public welfare in the citizen of a free country than is either looked for or needed in the subject of a despotic monarchy or of an oligarchy. Thus the deficiencies which free governments show reduce themselves to the failure of the citizens to reach the needed standard of civic excellence.

Human nature, which may appear to have improved, and to be still improving, has not yet come anywhere near to reaching the Christian standard set forth in the New Testament. Neither has it yet shown itself quite good enough for the responsibilities which self-government imposes. In no European country is the average citizen what the citizen in a democracy ought to be ; and in Switzerland, the country where he seems to have attained the highest level, his superiority may be largely due to the comparative absence of the temptations which wealth brings.

Multitudes in every nation contribute nothing to its public opinion, never give a thought to public affairs, and have no wish to take any part in them. At election time they will vote as they are influenced by others. Some will be directly bribed or directly intimidated, and some will vote for a drink, or to win an office or a favour, or to avert the displeasure of someone more powerful than they. A poor, struggling man, called on to vote on a question of which he knows nothing and cares nothing, is likely to be influenced by low considerations.

Still more dangerous are those whose votes can be won by appeals to class cupidities. The demagogue will try to persuade them that by following his advice they will reap some monetary advantage. He will hold out hopes that, by voting as he suggests, some of the property of another class may be transferred to them. He will stir up class jealousies and antipathies, make the most of envy, covetousness, and prejudice. He will magnify every real grievance, revive every redressed grievance, encourage every imaginary grievance, and will turn the very freedom won by democracy against itself.

Even greater enemies to democracy are the extreme party voters. The prejudiced party man learns what he should think on political subjects from:

(1) The party press — that may be paid to deceive him;

(2) The rival candidates — who are interested and naturally biased;

(3) Election pamphlets issued during the heat of a campaign, which are generally misleading and often false.

He must accept political instruction and adopt the opinions made for him, or he becomes an outcast from his organized party. Narrow party spirit is hostile to moral independence, and moral independence is the backbone of democracy. In proportion as a man absorbs party spirit, he sees, hears, and judges by the senses and understandings of his party, and surrenders the freedom of a man — the right of speaking and using his own mind — and he echoes the applause and the maledictions with which the leaders or interested, passionate partisans see fit that the country should ring. We have democracy in theory, but have we democracy in practice? It is an old saying that “they who pay the piper call the tune”. Do not those who finance elections dictate policies? It is not possible that the generous subscribers to the party funds are the actual rulers, and that in many so-called self-governing countries the Parliament is little more than the appendix to the organized commercial stomach ?

Another class of real enemies to democracy is the hypocrites — political workers who loudly proclaim their faith in democracy, and who appear to give the people forms of self-government, while they cunningly contrive to take away the reality. These hypocrites are called “bosses”, and they are generally allied with the big interests, who subscribe the funds to elect a government that is the very opposite to democratic, in as much as it is bound to build up and perpetuate artificial barriers or distinctions, and make the classes rich at the expense of the masses who produce the country’s wealth.

But if the influence of the “bosses” weakens the supreme power of the people, that of the men who employ them — the plutocrats, the big corporations and combinations that represent dishonesty on a gigantic scale — destroys that power entirely. The result is the more disastrous because, after donning the livery of democracy, these unscrupulous monopolists of a whole nation’s rights do not hesitate to use the form, and very often the representatives of the people, to exploit the natural resources of the country, to control the great fields of industrial enterprise, finance, and speculation, and to build up for themselves immense fortunes by methods essentially fraudulent, while not interfering with the outward semblance of the government of the people, by the people, for the people. Democracy may thus be turned into quackocracy. The few on the inside run off with the nation’s wealth and leave the masses to pay the cost of the highwaymen’s democratic disguise.

How necessary it is, then, that even in old wellsettled lands the people who love freedom should read and study and watch over their sacred institutions of democracy, that they may not be undermined by the subtle influence of the plutocrat or the blatant arrogance of the demagogue, or the indifference of the ease-loving average citizen. If such be necessary in nations where the people are similar in nationality, education, sentiment, and language, how much more necessary it is in a new country, where settlers are scattered and lead isolated lives in which there are scanty opportunities for learning what passes, where there is the greatest diversity in customs and languages, and where the unaccustomed freedom of British institutions is liable to produce unfortunate results through the misuse of liberty as license. It is, then, not only advisable, but essential, that the settlers of the Western Provinces, and especially those from countries where democracy is unknown, should be taught the English language, the principles of British institutions, the rights and duties of citizenship, and the sacredness of the franchise. The liberty of the Canadian lies in his use of the ballot. Dynamite mishandled causes loss of life and property ; democracy mishandled causes loss of individual and national liberty. The future of Canada rests on the development of citizenship. Full liberty demands right voting. The man who thinks little of his franchise is already a slave. The man who deals lightly with his ballot forges still heavier the chains of his own serfdom.