The Caucus — and after [by Hector Lamond, 1 June 1914]

[Editor: This article, by Hector Lamond, regarding the Labor Party’s Caucus system, was published in The Lone Hand (Sydney, NSW), 1 June 1914.]

The Caucus — and after

By
Hector Lamond.
Editor of The Worker, Sydney.

Most electoral contests are determined by that large body of more or less intelligent voters who do not attach themselves permanently to any political party. For the most part they are patriotic citizens, striving earnestly to approve what is best in the programmes of rival candidates for their electoral favors. A large body of these electors has naturally been attracted by the progressive and national character of the Labor platform, and in increasing numbers have given the Labor Party a qualified support. But in the minds of many such there is misgiving that the Caucus system of that party may become a ready instrument of tyranny in the hands of able and ambitious men.

The Labor Party exists primarily to resist tyranny and to secure for every individual the fullest measure of personal freedom, political and otherwise, that is compatible with the effective existence of a well-ordered social state. But it would be useless to deny that inside the Party, as well as within the ranks of supporters outside its ranks, there are grave questionings of the Caucus system, especially as it is applied in the State of New South Wales. Discussing these facts with the Editor of The Lone Hand, and emphasizing my belief that when everything that can truly be said against the sacrifice of personal liberty involved in the Caucus system has been admitted, the most ardent disciple of Mill may safely give his adherence to this system as practised by the Australian Labor Party, I found myself Up Against It. The Editor, with great suavity, suggested that I should put my case in writing.

In the remarks that follow I shall look beyond the Caucus system to some of the results it is designed to produce, and seek to show the way to a Democracy that shall have no fear of the tyrannous use of any of the powers of government for the excellent reason that all such powers will be under the easy and direct control of the people themselves.

* * * * * *

It is impossible for any number of men to work together for the attainment of a common object without all of them conceding something to the others.

The Caucus system is not an end, but a means to an end.

The end is to secure to the people themselves the fullest measure of control over their own political destinies.

* * * * * *

Criticisms of the Caucus system are hurled from three principal standpoints. Some critics fear the system means the control of a few Great Minds by numbers of inferior intellects. They live in perpetual dread that some mysterious and impalpable body, which the Liberal Press calls the Trades Hall, will rule the aforesaid Great Minds with a rod of steel. Other critics see in the Caucus itself a body controlled by a few Great Minds, whose secret machinations they fear may fasten the shackles of tyranny upon the fair body of Freedom. The arguments of these two classes, which include by far the greater number of our critics in the Liberal Press, are mutually destructive, and these critics may be left to reply to each other.

More reasonable and, therefore, more worthy of attention are the arguments of those who urge that a system which calls upon its adherents to sacrifice their personal opinions in deference to those of the majority of their associates, is subversive of intellectual freedom and a barrier to mental development. The world has not so many Thinkers that it can afford to place intellectual hobbles upon even the meanest of them.

Let us examine this argument. The world owes all that is good in civilisation to its Thinkers and its Doers. To place shackles upon Thought is to establish a tyranny over the mind far worse in its effects upon human progress than any tyranny over the body. If the Caucus system comes under that ban it must be condemned by every lover of liberty. But does it? The Caucus system has been the subject of gross misrepresentation at the hands of the political opponents of Labor. What is this system? It varies in different States, from the mere signing of the State Labor Platform in Queensland to the system in New South Wales, which pledges members of the Party to vote together upon all questions affecting the fate of the Government as well as upon the planks of the Labor Platform. I am prepared to that there are features of the New South Wales system which raise grave doubts as to whether it is suitable to a Party whose members are in office. It is conceivable that the power to stifle criticism and overcome opposition by making any question a vital one (resting as it does entirely with the Ministry of the day) might readily be made the instrument of bureaucratic tyranny.

The Caucus system of the Australian Labor Party, however, is open to no such objection, the members being only pledged to act in concert upon matters affecting the Labor Platform. Upon all other matters they are free to act as they think best. Anyone who has had the privilege of attending a Labor Conference will have had ocular and aural demonstration that the Caucus system does not kill individual thought. There is no debating club in the world where original thought flourishes as it does at these gatherings. Indeed, I do not know what our Liberal friends would do at certain seasons if it were not for the great originality of some of the proposals which find their way on to the Conference business papers. Freedom of thought is not involved in the signing of the Pledge of the Australian Labor Party. We do not ask those who do not believe in our Platform to sign it; more than that, we do not wish to have within the ranks of our representatives in Parliament any who give only a mere lip service to the Labor Movement. The Caucus means that persons who believe in the same things pledge themselves to work in concert to secure those things. The Caucus does not operate to compel its members to accept the Platform; they had accepted that long before they became candidates. It operates merely to secure united action upon the methods by which that Platform shall be realised. In short, the Caucus system is designed to make all the members of the Party keep the promises they made to the electors when, as Labor candidates, they sought their votes.

The Caucus system is a means to an end. It will last only as long as is necessary for the accomplishment of that end. Its chief end is the clothing of the people with power to make their own laws at their own time and in their own way. Every Labor Platform in Australia contains proposals for the Initiative and the Referendum. Some writers of constitutional history tell us that on a far off day the people of England made their own laws in public meeting assembled. It is, I think, very doubtful whether all the people ever had such power. It is more than doubtful whether in any Democracy, ancient or modern, all the people ever had that power. But it is not arguable that without the whole of the people having that power there can never be a true Democracy. In England, our present system of Government tends more and more to become a powerful bureaucracy. The modern Cabinet is more powerful than any King that sits upon a modern throne. In Australia the Labor Party has checked that tendency to some extent. The Caucus system extends the number of those who may exert influence upon the Government. But the Caucus exists only that that number may be extended until it includes every sane man and woman in the States.

The right of the people to initiate the legislations they need; the right of the people to veto the legislation they do not need; these are the ends towards which the Caucus system is merely the means. When those powers are secured to the people, the corruption of Parliaments will be at an end. The Thinkers will be multiplied and the Doers will not be hampered in the work of making the Nation.

Source:
The Lone Hand (Sydney, NSW), 1 June 1914, p. 21

Editor’s notes:
Cabinet = (in the context of various British Commonwealth countries, including Australia) the government Cabinet (the ruling body of the government of the country), comprised of the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Crown; the chief decision-making body of the executive branch of a parliamentary government, comprising a group of ministers responsible for overseeing government departments, formulating government policy, and making decisions on issues affecting the country

Hector Lamond = Hector Lamond (1865-1947), a printer, editor, newspaper manager, and politician (for the Australian Labor Party, and then the Nationalist Party); he was born in Broughton Creek (Shoalhaven, NSW) in 1865, and died in Bowral (NSW) in 1947
See: 1) Coral Lansbury, “Hector Lamond (1865–1947)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
2) “Hector Lamond”, Wikipedia

Initiative and the Referendum = the ability for voters to bring about, or initiate, a referendum (usually based upon a petition signed by a number of verified voters, with the details set out in law)

Mill = John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), an economist, philosopher, colonial administrator (in India), and Member of Parliament (UK); he was born in Pentonville (Middlesex, England) in 1806, and died in Avignon (Vaucluse, France) in 1873
See: “John Stuart Mill”, Wikipedia

Ministry = (in the context of various British Commonwealth countries, including Australia) the Ministers of the Crown (including the Prime Minister); government ministers who are responsible for overseeing government departments, formulating government policy, and making decisions on issues affecting the country