Local Self‐Government as a Basis for Democracy: A Rejoinder
| Author | Keith Panter‐Brick |
| Published date | 01 December 1954 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1954.tb01217.x |
| Date | 01 December 1954 |
Local
Self-Government
as
a
Basis
for
Democracy
:
A
Rejoinder
By
KEITH
PANTER-BRICK
In
?his
article
Mr.
ranter-Brick replies
to
cerrain crdricisms
of
local
government
made
by
Professor Langrod and
Dr.
Moulin
in
articles
appearing
on
page
25
of
the Spring,
1953,
issue
of
this
Journal, and
on
page
433
of
this
issue.
H~RE
are a number of points on which Professor Langrod, Dr. Moulin
T
and myself are in agreement. In the first place, a citizen needs to consider
the demands and legitimate claims of others, and a local authority needs to
consider those of the wider community and not just those of its own area.
Local interests have their place, but must not be exaggerated. Secondly,
even where there is no system of local self-government
it
is possible for
individuals to acquire and practise democratic habits. These have been
listed by Dr. Moulin, but
I
shall refer to them collectively as the willingness
and ability to distinguish the just and unjust claims of others, In this sense
local self-government is not essential to democracy.
It
has, however, been contended by both Professor Langrod and Dr.
Moulin not merely that local self-government is not essential to democracy,
but that on the contrary it is in practice inimical to a proper appreciation
of the needs and claims of the wider community. It
is
this contention that
I
would still challenge.
It
is their view that, where there are local authorities
concerning themselves with local interests, then the claims of the wider
community will inevitably suffer a local distortion or simply be obscured.
Local politics is a milieu in which the clear over-all vision of the central
authority is refracted, bent to suit special and purely local interests. To
twist a well-known comment on French political life, the local communities
are stagnant pools in which the pure stream of the general will-which is
always right, so
it
ig said-has to meander and lose itself. That
local politics may be parochial in outlook
no
one would deny. But that
participation in local politics is likely to detract from a true appreciation
of
over-riding claims-this is another matter.
It
is not intended to repeat
my previous arguments
;
I
would only add the following comment.
I
do not agree with Dr. Moulin that, because of the difference in scale,
experience in local affairs has little or no relevance to the affairs of the nation.
True, not many local mayors are capable of being great statesmen
:
but
they are both politicians.
As
such, they both have
10
learn the art
of
winning
consent if they are to remain democratic in their ways, the statesman as
much as the mayor. Otherwise they lose office. Now to
win
consent it is
not necessary to give way to every demand: it is sufficient to distinguish
rightful claims from unjust demands and to persuade others, even those
whose demands will not be satisfied, that one’s cause or policy
is
a just one.
This may seem to some an old-fashioned view
Qf
politics, but it remains
for all that a correct one. In other words, there are two things required
of
a
democrat, and this applies not only to the politician, but also to the ordinary
This reading of the facts exaggerates some and ignores others.
438
To continue reading
Request your trial